Not even General's can speak their mind

[kickerofelves]

I work with many soldiers of two branches. .

Only one branch has 'soldiers', the other one has jarheads.

 

[markw]

I wonder if Obama thought about Harry Truman when he fired McChrystal?

 

[highfigh]

I wonder if Obama thought about Harry Truman when he fired McChrystal?

What makes you think Obama knows who Truman or MacArthur were?

 

[Nemo128]

I think the first, and really so important that all others don't matter, question is "which choice will best protect American lives, innocent Afghani lives, and gives the best chance of attaining our goals in Afghanistan.

Anything else is ego.

It looks like he's been releived of his command. I don't know if that was or was not the right choice.

Since you seem to think like a level-headed person who understands what the UCMJ stands for, I'll point you to two people who obviously don't!

I wonder if Obama thought about Harry Truman when he fired McChrystal?

What makes you think Obama knows who Truman or MacArthur were?

America. Land of the "free to talk about things they have no understanding of"...

McCrystal knew the right course of action for the soldiers in the theater and for America. He tendered his resignation. He was not "fired". He did the right thing. I can't wait for the amusement I will be subjected to as a result of this, here and at work...

 

[GO-NAD!]

What makes you think Obama knows who Truman or MacArthur were?

Why wouldn't he know who they were? He's an educated man. I know who they were and I live in a different country!

 

[markw]

Actually I was in the service during the Viet Nam era.

And I do know he "reality" of not speaking out against poor leadershup from above.

But, as you yourself say:

McCrystal knew the right course of action for the soldiers in the theater and for America.

Perhaps Obama should have taken his report on Afghanistan to heart when he gave it earlier, but it didn't jive with what he wanted to hear what it would take to accomplish what he wanted.

McChrystal has many years experience in miliraty matters. How many does Obama have?

I still remember the LBJ years wehre he saw troops as little toy soldiers that existed for his personal pleasure.

 

[GO-NAD!]

And I do know he "reality" of not speaking out against poor leadershup from above.

But, as you yourself say:

Perhaps Obama should have taken his report on Afghanistan to heart when he gave it earlier, but it didn't jive with what he wanted to hear.

McChrystal has many years experience in miliraty matters. How many does Obama have?

I still remember the LBJ years wehre he saw troops as little toy soldiers.

I fully understand where you're coming from. However, where the military sees issues from its own perspective and generally in shades of black and white, politicians have to look at the same issues from a political (obviously) perspective, i.e. many shades of grey. That's where the goals and the strategies to acheive those goals, as envisioned by each of those entities often diverge.

Those of us who have served in uniform often disparage our political leadership as complete imbeciles when it come to military matters, but we see such things from our own narrow perspectives, whereas they have a bigger picture to look at.

McChrystal may have been the best man for the job, but with his experience he should've known better than to flap his gums about his political masters. I question his judgement in this matter, not Obama's.

 

[highfigh]

Since you seem to think like a level-headed person who understands what the UCMJ stands for, I'll point you to two people who obviously don't!





America. Land of the "free to talk about things they have no understanding of"...

McCrystal knew the right course of action for the soldiers in the theater and for America. He tendered his resignation. He was not "fired". He did the right thing. I can't wait for the amusement I will be subjected to as a result of this, here and at work...

Tendered vs fired- what's the difference if he was ordered to resign?

What does my comment have with knowing the UCMJ?

 

[Rickster71]

The media is portraying General McChrystal as a rogue / runaway general.
I can't justify the General or his people's remarks in front of the RS reporter, though I can understand and sympathize.

I have a friend who's son came back home from Afghanistan, and he mentioned a few things.
One big military complaint; the Obama administration has set up, ridiculous rules of engagement that favor the enemy. There are many, but one off the top of my head: He mentioned that homeowners had to be warned their house was going to be searched weeks in advance.
Below, more examples in this -
Rules of Engagement Story> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/18/AR2010061803760.html

 

[krzywica]

Why wouldn't he know who they were? He's an educated man. I know who they were and I live in a different country!

Because he didn't read it off a teleprompter.

I fully understand where you're coming from. However, where the military sees issues from its own perspective and generally in shades of black and white, politicians have to look at the same issues from a political (obviously) perspective, i.e. many shades of grey. That's where the goals and the strategies to acheive those goals, as envisioned by each of those entities often diverge.

Those of us who have served in uniform often disparage our political leadership as complete imbeciles when it come to military matters, but we see such things from our own narrow perspectives, whereas they have a bigger picture to look at.

McChrystal may have been the best man for the job, but with his experience he should've known better than to flap his gums about his political masters. I question his judgement in this matter, not Obama's.

I think the empathy for the General stems from Obama's ambiguously arrogant attitude when it comes to matters which he has no experience and expertise. Furthermore the lack of action and lack of communication on the part of Obama would have infuriated the most patient of people. How long did it take Obama to answer the question of what the course of action would be in Afghanistan? Wasn't it like 6 months? I don't think people understand the negative impact on morale this has for the troops. I know if it were me I would go into "why bother we are just leaving soon anyway" mode.

I can say whatever I want about our political and military leadership now having just gotten my final discharge paperwork in the mail a few days ago.

When I want tips on how to max out my credit cards I will give Obama a call.

 

[James NM]

Oh the Irony

Funny how things work out sometimes.

General McChrystal, one of the few military brass that admits to voting for Obama is fired by Obama. And if you think McChrystal voluntarily resigned, it's time for a reality check.

So, that brings us to Obama's hand picked successor to McChrystal, General Petraeus. The same General Petraeus that Senators Obama and Biden, and many left wingers, bashed for his "failed" strategy in Iraq, called The Surge.

Oh the irony.

 

[Patrukas777]

The media is portraying General McChrystal as a rogue / runaway general.
I can't justify the General or his people's remarks in front of the RS reporter, though I can understand and sympathize.

I have a friend who's son came back home from Afghanistan, and he mentioned a few things.
One big military complaint; the Obama administration has set up, ridiculous rules of engagement that favor the enemy. There are many, but one off the top of my head: He mentioned that homeowners had to be warned their house was going to be searched weeks in advance.
Below, more examples in this -
Rules of Engagement Story> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/18/AR2010061803760.html

Looks like the terrorists (Non-Americans) also have the USA 4th amendment rights LOL...retarded!

 

[JerryLove]

Since you seem to think like a level-headed person who understands what the UCMJ stands for, I'll point you to two people who obviously don't!

I play a level-headed person on TV

So, that brings us to Obama's hand picked successor to McChrystal, General Petraeus. The same General Petraeus that Senators Obama and Biden, and many left wingers, bashed for his "failed" strategy in Iraq, called The Surge

So then you a pleased that Obama and Biden are able to adjust their views to meet the facts rather than dogmatically stick to a rhetorical refrain?

And that's actually a virtue he showed while still a candidate (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26550764/). It's good to have someone who can admit when they were wrong.

McChrystal has many years experience in miliraty matters. How many does Obama have?

You seem to (falsely) imply that the two opinions are solely McCrystal's and Obama's. How many do the many general officers who agree with Obama's position have?

Looks like the terrorists (Non-Americans) also have the USA 4th amendment rights LOL...retarded!

Of course there are silly rules of engagement both too liberal and too conservative; but I still wonder what you are inferring.

Are you asserting that non-Americans should have no rights at all? If so: what realistic scenerio would constitute a "win"? The complete genocide of all non-Americans?

 

[markw]

You seem to (falsely) imply that the two opinions are solely McCrystal's and Obama's. How many do the many general officers who agree with Obama's position have?

And how many of his trusted advisors had the cojones to tell the emperor that he was naked?

 

[JerryLove]

And how many of his trusted advisors had the cojones to tell the emperor that he was naked?

Are you then asserting that the entire collective of general officers of the five branches of the millitary are universally opposed to Obama's strategy for Afghanistan? That seems to be what you are implying in this statement.

Anything less than that and "Obama vs McCrystal" is an irrellevent comparison. We'd have to look at who is on either side and check for relative parity... even assuming we accept an appeal to authority as relevent.

Perhaps the two are at odds in regards to strategy. Perhaps one is right, perhaps the other, perhaps neither. I'm not even sure that the two had differing strategies in the first place.

 

[markw]

What the president wants, the president generally gets.

Are you then asserting that the entire collective of general officers of the five branches of the millitary are universally opposed to Obama's strategy for Afghanistan? That seems to be what you are implying in this statement.

Anything less than that and "Obama vs McCrystal" is an irrellevent comparison. We'd have to look at who is on either side and check for relative parity... even assuming we accept an appeal to authority as relevent.

You'll fogive me if I don't assume that the US millitary command structure acts in complete accordance to a children's story.

Remember, the military is subservient to "civilian oversight". Who appoints that?

 

[JerryLove]

Remember, the military is subservient to "civilian oversight". Who appoints that?

The electoral college of the United States.

But you didn't answer my question. Do you believe that the entire (non-civillian) command structure of the US millitary is in opposition to the strategy currently in place in Afghanistan?

 

[markw]

You do like your straw men, don't you?

The electoral college of the United States.

But you didn't answer my question. Do you believe that the entire (non-civillian) command structure of the US millitary is in opposition to the strategy currently in place in Afghanistan?

"Entire", no. "A sizable amount", most likely. They are the ones with training and experience in these matters, not most elected officials.

 

[krzywica]

Perhaps the two are at odds in regards to strategy. Perhaps one is right, perhaps the other, perhaps neither. I'm not even sure that the two had differing strategies in the first place.

Only one can be right because the other doesn't have a say. Its not the political arena where you can "run again next term". Millions of lives are at stake and the president has no right imposing his opinion upon a battle hardened general. All that is needed is his support, and he has failed to give it.

 

[Patrukas777]

Of course there are silly rules of engagement both too liberal and too conservative; but I still wonder what you are inferring.

Are you asserting that non-Americans should have no rights at all? If so: what realistic scenerio would constitute a "win"? The complete genocide of all non-Americans?

Absolutely not!!! What I'm saying is if we are fighting a war, and this war is overseas, the people we are in war with (Al Qaeda/Terrorists) are not subject to the 4th Amendment (Lawful search and seizure)....this is war my friend, not Police conducting searches on its people. Thats what I'm saying.