I’m thankful I live in a country where the elected leadership has no problem shitcanning any uppity general(issimo)s.
Has anyone else gotten the impression that McChrystal is an obstinate butthead? The kind of guy who would flex in front of the mirror after his morning shower with a KA-BAR in his mouth? I can’t believe we’ve spent the last year in Afghanistan trying to utilize a counterinsurgency strategy, a strategy that requires a high degree of cooperation with civilian leaders, being led by a guy who considers dinner with a French cabinet minister to be “fucking gay” and would openly disparage our Vice President.
Having posted several opinions on this subject, I’ve now decided to gather some information. I picked up a copy of the new Rolling Stone today so I can read the article in question.
My first impression is that Lady Gaga has a cute ass for a crazy woman.
George Patton was a good general. He led his forces well and he got results. But his staunchest admirers will concede he was abrasive and argued with other generals.
Dwight Eisenhower was also a good general. He was the guy in charge of getting all the other generals to work together and he did that job well.
But suppose you had put Patton in Eisenhower’s job. He’d have failed.
And that’s what happened to McChrystal. He was a talented soldier but he took a job that was outside of his abilities. And he failed at it.
He’s somebody that instinctively rebelled against authority. But now he was the authority. He could not turn himself into somebody who respected authority and he was unable to convince those around him to respect authority. Which blew up in his face because for most of the soldiers in Afghanistan the authority they were questioning was McChrystal himself. The article makes it clear that the line soldiers in Afghanistan have serious doubts about McChrystal’s leadership.
But the other end of this problem is the one that got the publicity. McChrystal may have been able to get away with complaining about political and diplomatic concerns when he was at a lower level. But he was now up at a level where he was a part of the political and diplomatic system. He was working with governments - he was a defacto statesman and he needed to act like a statesman. But he didn’t.
McChrystal was not thrown into this situation. He planned out his COIN strategy and asked for the chance to implement it. He was given the job and given the resources he said he needed. But he could not produce the results he promised. Maybe his strategy was fundamentally wrong or maybe he was personally unable to make it work - but either way he failed in the field.
Let us know when you become an American citizen, Clothahump. In this country, as apparently opposed to the Republic of Texas, the generals answer to civilian authority, specifically, their Commander in Chief.
Oh, and while we’re on the subject: - 1. If you’re representing your country, you don’t refer to a meeting with a foreign dignitary as “absolutely gay.” In fact, most people over the emotional age of 14 don’t use the term derogatorily at all. - 2. McChrystal was not fired; he resigned. Granted he had little choice, but it was his own decision to publicly show lack of respect for the person he answers to. That’s not acceptable in any military person. - 3. When you have a general whose troops have lost confidence in him and whose strategies are failing, and who in addition publicly bad-mouths the President and Vice-President to the press, it’s a good decision to shitcan him.
You might not be aware of this, but McChrysal was fired by a president who, two years ago was The Most Liberal Senator EVAR!!! Therefore, said action was fundamentally wrong. Cuz a liberal did it.
This visit to Fevered Insanity was brought to you by the mean liberal who used to steal Humper’s lunch money.
Michael Hastings, Rolling Stone's McChrystal Profiler, Says Troops Are Happy That General Was Ousted | HuffPost Latest News Hastings who wrote the article suggests that the soldiers were unhappy with McChrstal. Many felt he was endangering the troops. McChrystal also said the war was at a standstill, which may be a rosy view. All of Hastings info has not come out in the one ,now famous, article. He may write more.
He is still in Afghanistan collecting stories. The soldiers have not turned on him.
What some of the knee jerk reactionaries seem to miss is that the article is actually critical of McChrystal. The article is entitled “the Runaway General.” It mentions his “usurpation” of power from State Department civilians in Afghanistan. It says that McChrystal is considered a great general but has managed to piss off everyone involved in the war. From the tensions and conflicts mentioned in the article between McChrystal/his staff and other major players or even the troops under his command, the only positive comments about McChrystal in the article are from his staff and Karzai. The whole story opens with him giving his chief of staff the middle finger (jokingly), whining about having to go to a dinner with a French minister, and having a staff member describe it as “fucking gay.”
People seeing this situation as McChrystal nobly and courageously speaking truth to power are seeing what they want to see.
