41
   

What Should Happen to General McChrystal?

 
 
DrewDad
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 23 Jun, 2010 02:03 pm
@dyslexia,
dyslexia wrote:
I have no idea what the american afghanistan policy is. perhaps developing mineral mining or poppy harvesting, tourism?

Getting the hell out of there without seeming like complete assholes.





























































D'oh! Too late!
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jun, 2010 02:14 pm
@dyslexia,
Quote:
I have no idea what the american Afghanistan policy is. perhaps developing mineral mining or poppy harvesting, tourism?
My take is that the policy is to weaken the Taliban enough that they don't take Pakistan, and to not allow either the Taliban nor Bin laden to operate in Afganistan, which requires standing up a government there.
panzade
 
  4  
Reply Wed 23 Jun, 2010 02:30 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
that he came to the conclusion that the situation was hopeless as it stood,


That wasn't his call

Quote:
so he needed to shake things up even if it ends his career a bit early.


That wasn't his call.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jun, 2010 03:03 pm
@panzade,
Quote:
That wasn't his call
I think that the officer corps has been jacked around and ignored by the civilian leadership to the detriment of America so often since Bush 1 that McCrystal's behaviour makes some sense.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jun, 2010 03:56 pm
So, did he resign from the military altogether or just from some particular function?
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jun, 2010 04:00 pm
@Brandon9000,
The article I read left that in the air.
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  2  
Reply Wed 23 Jun, 2010 04:05 pm
He resigned his position but, I suspect, will not be reassigned to another job. His career, along with those of some of his aides, is over.
Petraeus, by the way, will need to be confirmed by the Senate. John McCain is quoted as saying it will be done after the shortest confirmation hearing ever.
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Reply Wed 23 Jun, 2010 04:07 pm
@realjohnboy,
He presumably will now request to be retired. Because he has not served enough time he will not retire at his current star count. There is a slight chance that Gates will allow him to cool his heels for a bit and be an advisor so that he can collect the higher retirement rank.
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jun, 2010 04:08 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
the officer corps has been jacked around


I'm listening. What are some examples?
Butrflynet
 
  2  
Reply Wed 23 Jun, 2010 04:11 pm
@Brandon9000,
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/24/us/politics/24mcchrystal.html

Quote:
In a brief statement, General McChrystal said he supported the strategy in Afghanistan and had resigned out of a “desire to see the mission succeed.” His dismissal did not alter his rank, but it was unknown what role he would next play in the Pentagon, if any.


hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jun, 2010 04:19 pm
@panzade,
the entire process of downsizing the military under Clinton by starving the force, the entire process of the second Iraq war. Pulling forces out if Afghanistan at the wrong time to send them to Iraq. Currently eating up the force by conducting two wars on underfunded accounts so that there will be no way to keep the forces strong over the long haul. With current funding the officers insist less must be spent on troops so that more can be spent on procurement and research.

Until recently the top level of officers were a weak bunch, they have been either unwilling or unable to convince civilian leadership to pursue sound military strategy. A lot of guys at this point have seen this go on for nearly 20 years, they are increasingly refusing to "go with the flow".
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jun, 2010 04:21 pm
@panzade,
Of course it was his call, he just needs to be prepared for the consequences of his actions...which he apparently was.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jun, 2010 04:25 pm
He will probably get a TV show or political career out of it. Wink
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jun, 2010 04:29 pm
@edgarblythe,
I'm figuring he'll run for president. One of my first thoughts on all this.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jun, 2010 04:41 pm

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128008712
Stanley McChrystal is not the first general to get into trouble for questioning the authority of the president.

"You hate to think it's sort of an American tradition," says Andrew Krepinevich, president of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a Washington think tank. "Certainly we have had, going back at least to the Civil War, situations where commanders in the field have challenged the policy and authority of civilian leadership."

McChrystal joined this fraternity after a Rolling Stone magazine profile in which he and members of his staff were quoted disparaging President Obama, Vice President Biden and other administration officials. McChrystal apologized for the comments but on Wednesday was relieved of his duties as the chief U.S. commander in Afghanistan.

It has not been common for generals to publicly challenge policies set by the president, but it has happened. In such cases, they've usually been fired.

The bedrock American concept of civilian control over the military essentially demands it, says Richard H. Kohn, a military historian at the University of North Carolina. "A culture developed on [McChrystal's] staff of contempt for the political leadership," Kohn says

Commander: Gen. George McClellan
Year: 1862


The dispute: Two weeks after becoming chief of all the Union armies in 1861, McClellan refused to meet with Abraham Lincoln when the president came to his house — the first of many snubs and refusals to follow orders. After some months of conflict, Lincoln finally had enough after McClellan refused his entreaties to attack the forces of Robert E. Lee. McLellan sought revenge as the Democratic nominee for president in 1864. Lincoln won the election.


Maj. Gen. George McClellan didn't fight hard enough, President Lincoln decided.

Engraved by George E. Perine/Hulton Archive/Getty Images
Maj. Gen. George McClellan didn't fight hard enough, President Lincoln decided.
Generals Can't Set Policy

Military commanders must carefully negotiate the discrepancy between the enormous power they wield in the field and the deference they must show to their civilian superiors — the president and the secretary of defense. Sometimes, they slip.

During the Revolutionary War, the "Conway Cabal," named for Brig. Gen. Thomas Conway, was a conspiracy that attempted to oust George Washington as commander-in-chief of the Continental Army. After Conway's letters were forwarded to Congress and the cabal became public, he resigned.

During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln grew frustrated by Gen. George McClellan's refusal to engage the Confederate Army. McClellan referred to Lincoln in letters as a "well-meaning baboon" and an "idiot."

His disdain was made evident by his public actions as well. Lincoln's war council came up with various plans of attack that McClellan refused to carry out. "My dear McClellan, if you don't want to use the Army, I should like to borrow it for awhile," Lincoln wrote in a note to the general. Eventually, Lincoln relieved McClellan of command and ended up running against him in the election of 1864.

If Lincoln was angry that his general would not fight, President Harry S. Truman had the opposite problem with Gen. Douglas MacArthur during the Korean War. MacArthur wanted to escalate the war well beyond Truman's limited designs, talking up use of the atomic bomb.

Commander: Gen. Douglas MacArthur
Year: 1951


The dispute: MacArthur wanted to expand the scope and aim of the Korean War. As with McClellan, he enjoyed considerable public stature. But within a couple of weeks of MacArthur’s demand that China admit defeat, Truman fired him. MacArthur came home to an enormous outpouring of support, but other military brass, led by Gen. Omar Bradley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, backed the president in what American Heritage once called "the severest test" of civilian control over the military.


Enlarge AP
President Truman (right) pinned the Distinguished Service Medal on Gen. Douglas MacArthur in October 1950. Six months later, the general was fired as commander in Korea because he was openly opposing the president's policies for the war there.

AP
President Truman (right) pinned the Distinguished Service Medal on Gen. Douglas MacArthur in October 1950. Six months later, the general was fired as commander in Korea because he was openly opposing the president's policies for the war there.
Truman fired him, saying he had acted because “General of the Army Douglas MacArthur is unable to give his wholehearted support to the policies of the United States and the United Nations.”

"When Lyndon Johnson appointed William Westmoreland as commander in Vietnam, he told him to his face, 'I don't want you pulling any MacArthurs on me,' " Krepinevich says. He was making sure Westmoreland knew his job was "to execute policy, not to make it or challenge it," Krepinevich adds.

0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jun, 2010 04:50 pm
@georgeob1,
You seem to be ignoring the point of what i posted--which is that McClellan was fired for military incompetence. MacArthur, for whatever anyone may allege against him, was not militarily incompetent. McChrystal, while not self-evidently a military genius (nor a military genus, as Rapist Boy would have it), is not incompetent either. My point about McClellan and Lincoln was that those who did not challenge Lincoln politically, and who were militarily competent, kept their jobs. McClellan lost his job because he couldn't defeat Lee, even when he had it handed to him on a platter.
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jun, 2010 04:52 pm
@snood,
Hi Snood,
Thank you for your courtesy, sir.
Kind regards.
Mark...
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jun, 2010 04:55 pm
@Butrflynet,
Thanks.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jun, 2010 05:33 pm
@ossobuco,
Quote:

I'm figuring he'll run for president. One of my first thoughts on all this.
If Petraeus pulls Obama's bacon out of the fire in Afghanistan as he did Bush's in Iraq it will be him who runs for POTUS. He is already considered by many the be the best military officer produced in 20 years, and he is politically gifted.
realjohnboy
 
  2  
Reply Wed 23 Jun, 2010 05:49 pm
@hawkeye10,
I saw mention of Petraeus being mentioned as a presidential candidate. He disclaims interest. I can't see anyone coming out of the military who could ever pull that off anymore particularly in the midst of a long running war and with the dynamics of Dem and Repub politics.
Colin Powell might have been able to make a run a few years ago.
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 05/07/2024 at 05:57:13