41
   

What Should Happen to General McChrystal?

 
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  2  
Reply Wed 23 Jun, 2010 10:49 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

realjohnboy wrote:

Why do you think that, Cyclo? He, and/or his staff, ridiculed the President, the VP, and others within his chain of command. I can't believe that that can just be overlooked.
The General will fall on his sword, I think.
We will see, tomorrow.


I think that there are a lot of ramifications to getting rid of the guy right before the big offensive, and that he has a lot of support inside the ranks as well.

What does getting rid of him accomplish? Yes, the chain of command was ridiculed and disparaged and this guy was responsible for it even if he didn't say everything himself. Obama just seems like a guy who has tried to turn situations to his advantage when he could, and I have a hard time seeing him get rid of this guy when something more constructive could come from it.

Cycloptichorn


This doesn't happen very often, but...

I completely agree with you.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Wed 23 Jun, 2010 11:04 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
I know what you mean, I agreed with something you wrote the other day, pissed me off

Cycloptichorn
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jun, 2010 11:50 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

I know what you mean, I agreed with something you wrote the other day, pissed me off

Cycloptichorn


Turns out that while we were in agreement, we were both wrong.

Obama fired him.

Petraeus is taking over for him.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jun, 2010 11:51 am
The president is on TV explaining his decision right now.
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jun, 2010 11:58 am
Obama did right by me.General P is a soldier's soldier.
I bet the Afghans are scratching their heads.
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Wed 23 Jun, 2010 12:05 pm
I favored losing McChrystal right away and still do.

Another thing is, the people who want to call Obama weak would have used this as an example if he had kept him on.
ossobuco
 
  2  
Reply Wed 23 Jun, 2010 12:09 pm
@edgarblythe,
I agree he had to go. Of course, I agree with Dys re our being there in the manner we are in the first place, so I have that underlying bias. But I also agree with the folks with the military pasts here who are adamant he had to go for their military rules reasoning.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Wed 23 Jun, 2010 12:12 pm
I was in the Navy. I may be against fighting most of our overseas adventures, but I believe in keeping a disciplined and strong military.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jun, 2010 12:15 pm
I'm watching the President's remarks now. Good words from the President to put a good face on a difficult situation. It is evident that Gen. McCrystal behaved stupidly in front of the press. However, it will be up to historians to unravel all the factors involved in the matter, including just what might be the central focus of our strategy in Afghanistan.

It appears that there is some discord among the senior U.S. government figures influencing our operations in Afghanistan, including McCrystal, Richard Holbrooke & Ambassador Eichenberry. The cause for this may involve personal misbehavior among those involved, or it may arise from disagreements over our strategy, still unresolved after the Presidents rather prolongued and somewhat ambiguous review - or both. There were pointed disagreements between McCrystal and VP Biden regarding our strategy that emerged during that review, and it may be that McCrystal'quoted remarks about Biden were what did him in.

President Obama campaigned on the premise that the struggle in Afghanistan was "the right war" and that in Iraq was "the wrong one". He has now sacked two successive theater commanders and done so in a relatively short time. This is highly unusual from an historical perspective (Lincoln endured far worse mistreatment from Gen McClellan before acting against him), and it makes Obama's personal ownership of the evolving strategy even greater. And this, in turn, makes his heretofore ambiguous statements and behavior regarding that strategy all the more critical.

We all saw the often tawdry confusion, deception, and deal-making that attended Obama's rather hands off management of the health care legislative campaign. Are we seeing something analogous in our management of the Afghanistan operation, or is this merely the result of a foolish and insubordinate act by a frustrated General? Hard to know with the information available.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jun, 2010 12:18 pm
Hard to know with the information available.

But we'll insinuate it anyway.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jun, 2010 12:40 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:
(Lincoln endured far worse mistreatment from Gen McClellan before acting against him)


This is not quite true, and is a good example of why the oversimplification of history (or any other complex subject) can be so misleading. Winfield Scott was the ranking officer in the United States Army until he was replaced by Henry Halleck. McClellan was the field commander of the largest Federal army in the East, until the debacle of the Seven Days. Given that even to this day, most historians don't understand what a useless slaughter of Confederate forces that "battle" was, it is not surprising that Lincoln misjudged it as well. Scott was responsible for selecting Halleck for the western theater, and his date of rank as Major General put him fourth on the list--Scott, McClellan, Frémont and Halleck. After the disaster of Frémont in Missouri, Halleck was sent west to sort out the mess, which he did admirably well (he was also a lawyer, and one of the army's greatest administrators). As a result of the Seven Days, Halleck was brought back east, and made General in Chief. Since McClellan ranked him, he was automatically relieved. John Pope had also been brought from the West and the Army of the Potomac was slowly being shipped north to Washington and then south to the line of the Rappahannock to form Pope's new Army of Virginia.

The campaign from Cedar Mountain to Chantilly, the centerpiece of which was the second battle of Manassas, put paid to Pope's career. Congress was not going to appoint any Lieutenant Generals, so McClellan had to agree, in writing, to serve under Halleck before again taking command of the army to go after Lee, who was by then in Maryland. Leaving aside the controversy, somebody lost Lee's general order for the movements of his army, a Yankee found it wrapped around some cigars (he was interested in the cigars, but he had the sense to pass the paper on to his NCO), and McClellan had the opportunity of his lifetime--the greatest opportunity any military man could ask for. He blew it. Anyone even vaguely familiar with the South Mountain--Harper's Ferry--Sharpsburg/Anteitam campaign will understand this with no need of further explanation.

So, essentially, Halleck was in, and the only two officers who ranked him--Frémont and McClellan--were out. He briefly returned to the West to take command of the main army assembled after the near disaster of Shiloh. He kept Grant chafing on a short leash, and marched the army to Corinth, Mississippi before finally turning the army over to Grant and returning to Washington. Finally, in the wake of the twin victories of Gettysburg and Vicksburg, the Congress developed the expansive mood necessary to authorize the appointment of a Lieutenant General (only the second time in U.S. history--Washington had been the first to hold that rank). Lincoln made it clear to Halleck that he would not appoint him, and to Halleck's credit, he recommended Grant. Halleck then became the Chief of Staff.

It is has often been said that Lincoln interfered too much with the army command. That is an unjust criticism. Halleck was a Democrat, but Lincoln quickly realized that he could count on him. McClellan was a Democrat, and it was clear that he could not be relied upon--either militarily or politically. Of course, McClellan ran against Lincoln in 1864. The Congress set up a committee on the conduct of the war, which functioned like a star chamber, and did far more damage interfering, along lines of political allegiance, with the officers of the army. The Navy was lucky to have escaped their attention.

The only other war in which political considerations loomed so large was the war with Mexico. Scott was kept kicking his heels in Washington because Polk didn't want to burnish his reputation and enhance his political prospects. When Zachary Taylor became a national hero, Polk suddenly decided it was time for Scott to take the field--but politically speaking, it was too late. Taylor's political career was assured by that point. In all of our other wars, Presidents have usually not interfered. MacArthur **** in his own nest, and grossly underestimated Truman's courage and pugnacity--but otherwise, Truman did not interfere. FDR gave Admiral King and General Marshall what they wanted, and didn't interfere as long as they recognized that he was the political master.

I suspect that there is much going on here about which we know nothing. I'd rather not second guess Mr. Obama--but for whatever may eventually emerge, Mr. Obama is the political master, and the stability of the American government has always been more or less assured because the military has recognized and accepted this.

McChrystal stepped on his own dick. He has no sympathy from me.
0 Replies
 
xris
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jun, 2010 12:44 pm
He has been sacked....
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jun, 2010 12:45 pm
I am getting the sense that McChrystal in effect fell on his sword....that he came to the conclusion that the situation was hopeless as it stood, so he needed to shake things up even if it ends his career a bit early. McChrystal is not very politically smart, but he is a military genus....he handled the situation as best he could because the problem with afghanistan is not just that it is Afghanistan with it long history of swallowing armies, but that he was leading a mission that has been poorly designed, poorly supported politically both at home and in the region, and a mission that is not supported by the American people. This problem could not be solved with the tools that McChrystal had in his toolbox, so it was in America's best interests that he change the landscape.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jun, 2010 12:46 pm
By the way, O'George, it was the people around McClellan who were taking pot-shots at Lincoln, so perhaps the situations are analogous, although i don't see the overall situation of the war as being analogous to the management of the war in Afghanistan.
realjohnboy
 
  2  
Reply Wed 23 Jun, 2010 01:08 pm
@panzade,
panzade wrote:


I bet the Afghans are scratching their heads.


Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai was supportive of McChrystal as late as yesterday. Karzai and Obama talked last night and it seems clear that Obama had made up his mind; within an hour of the general getting sacked, Afghanistan expressed regret about the incident but hailed the selection of Petraeus.
Interestingly, Petraeus is taking a bit of a demotion. He was head of Central Command (Iraq and Afghanistan) and was McChrystal's boss. He will move down from that job and General Allen (I think that is his name) will tale over Central Command.
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jun, 2010 01:14 pm
@realjohnboy,
fortunately McNamara is dead or we might have him in charge of Afghanistan. (please note I'm not being grumpy, I am being sarcastic)
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jun, 2010 01:18 pm
@Setanta,
I think you have (above) reported some events of the Civil war accurately, but you have also ignored the truth of my comment that Lincoln endured a lot more insubordination and backbiting from McClellan before sacking him than Obama did of McCrystal. Consider the Peninsula campaign in Virginia and the well known episodes of off-line opposing political activity in which that strange civil war general indulged himself, as well as the direct snubs that have been widely reported, including the famous episode in which McClellan on returning home to find the president waiting to see him, simply went to bet and ignored him.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jun, 2010 01:19 pm
@dyslexia,
Gen David H. Petraeus is probably the only person in America who has the right combination of political smarts, military smarts, relationships, and experience to save the American Afghanistan policy. Pretty much everyone thinks it is now a lost cause, only Petraeus might be able to change that.
dyslexia
 
  2  
Reply Wed 23 Jun, 2010 01:58 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
American Afghanistan policy
that's a really interesting phrase hawkeye, any idea what it means? I can remember, oh so many years ago when the american afghanistan policy was to catch Bin Laden but he's been gone for years there was a concrete objective but currently I have no idea what the american afghanistan policy is. perhaps developing mineral mining or poppy harvesting, tourism?
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jun, 2010 02:02 pm
@dyslexia,
Apparently, they don't know how to say, "Mission accomplished" and mean it.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/19/2024 at 02:08:47