Yep, thank goodness the political system weeds out those people.
Sure. What nation has not been better off with the Military seizing control? :rolleyes:
Someone like McChrystal stood for election in 2008. His name was John McCain. They’re both impulsive guys with a military background and a tendency to say the wrong thing at the wrong time. Of course McCain also had a long legislative record, but anyway…
Yeah, I was thinking about that last night. The smart thing to do would be to keep him in the service where he has to keep his mouth shut. I wonder if that was part of the deal.
And did it in such a way that he keeps his job while Mac loses his. Remarkable.
And that is?
Just so you know: The President’s bosses are the voters. Not the generals. We are not yet a banana republic.
Very generously defined, perhaps.
What’s the validity of this statement in the Atlantic, “Even more about McChrystal: now it can be told. The story about him voting for Obama is not contrived. He is a political liberal. He is a social liberal. He banned Fox News from the television sets in his headquarters. Yes, really. This puts to rest another false rumor: that McChrystal deliberately precipitated his firing because he wants to run for President.”
It doesn’t do anything to my feelings on him being relieved but I just find it very fascinating and suspect … anyone?
What I was thinking of was that in two threads at the time concerning Fallon I was one of the only posters to note his insubordination in the press and state that this was an offense that he could be fired over. Most other posters were obsessing as usual over Bush.
Fallon was mentioned again recently in the other McChrystal thread - and surprise, he has been transformed into some kind of precedent in support of McChrystal’s firing. Earlier suspicion of Bush’s motives for firing him have been conveniently forgotten by some here, it seems. Wouldn’t want that to get in the way of rediscovering civilian control of the military.
Now, since I favored the individual actions of both Bush and Obama here on the grounds that insubordination is a breakdown in military discipline and in some circumstances a criminal offense - the differing treatment of McChrystal and Fallon on these boards looks mighty partisan. And while I am a hardcore partisan myself on many subjects, on these I am not - my posting history should reflect that.
The board as a whole wanted McChrystal fired because he insulted Obama. They were suspicious of Fallon’s firing because they were suspicious of anything the Bush administration did. Not that hard to figure out. I just wonder why we can’t support the firing or other punishment of military personnel for insubordination because it’s the Right Thing To Do.
Why is it suspect?
“This board as a whole” doesn’t equal “Gonzomax”. If you’re going to accuse “the board” of hypocrisy, you don’t need to dig up year-old threads. In this thread alone, I’ve said Obama made the right choice here, while aquvan apparenlty thinks he didn’t. Obviously, “the board” is full of hypocrites.
Umm…I think we’ve seen that’s a pretty poor way to get him to keep his mouth shut.
STRICTLY my opinion and person observations having spent 20 years in the military … the vast majority of the officer’s I’ve spoken to about politics tended to lean right …
Suspect in that I can only find one source for it and there’s no attribution in the article. Need you brainy types to help me understand if it’s true or not.
I think everybody knows the military has a reputation for leaning to the right. That doesn’t mean every single general is a Republican. I know Colin Powell is retired but he did endorse Obama in 2008, and I think both candidates touted a bunch of endorsements from high ranking military guys. I don’t know anything about McChrystal’s politics other than what he said in the interview, but I would not have expected him to make other public statements about his politics. He could be lying but I don’t see why he would bother.
Thanks Marley I was half afraid I was missing something with that statement. Interesting then … wow. I wish the Atlantic reporter Marc Ambinder would have included his source for that … I’d LOVE to read more.
Why is there a concern about him keeping his mouth shut in the first place? What can he possibly say at this point and how does it help him?
Let’s look at some options:
-
Afghanistan is a shithole. Well, no kidding. In other news water is wet and I hear the Pope also took a shit in the woods today. If McChrystal wants to join the long list of people who have already noted that Afghanistan tends to break the backs of empires… so what?
-
Obama and co. are a bunch of… This one is a dangerous line of thought because it can be turned around so easily. They don’t know what they’re doing? But they put you in charge of the war effort so what does that make you? He can accuse them of anything he likes to say how they hampered him from doing his job but at the end of the day he just looks like a self-serving whiner.
-
Hi Opal.
-
The civilian side of the war is totally screwed. Of course a Special Forces commander is going to think that. But since the civilian side of things is not his specialty it’s only so long before he starts talking out of his ass.
-
Obviously the one subject on which he can speak at length and in some detail is the military side of the effort. But I hardly think he’s going to write a thick book about how his troops screwed up and made things worse. Go ahead, criticize the military you were in charge of. Criticize the troops you were supposed to be leading. Write a sensational expose about what bad shape the US military is in. Blame the people under you for your incompetence. See how that goes.
In short, I don’t think there’s ANYTHING he can say right now that doesn’t just turn right around and reflect back on him. So let him speak. Let him criticize. Let him campaign. It does him more harm than good.
I hope General McChrystal gets the help he needs. Seriously. You think this was on purpose?
I think he stressed out and exited his position through the only way he could think of. He couldn’t resign, but he could get fired. I’ve seen it before.
Rolling Stone LOL
I haven’t read the entire thread, and the answer likely lies within. but, Wimbledon and all.
Is the consensus as to why McChrystal was fired because an article was published about what he and his staff said, or was it solely the fact that it was said? Ie, if a secretary overheard these remarks and emailed them to the President, would he still be fired?
Interesting that john Simpson, from the BBC, has written an editorial slamming Obama for this decision. He interprets the move as weakness, stating that a stronger President would have reamed McChrystal publicly, and then sent him back to the job with a sword hanging over his head.
I strongly disagree. I don’t think a civilian leader can countenance a subordinate military leader to pull this kind of crap.
Don’t know, but it can be illegal either way.
http://www.army.mil/references/ucmj/ucmj2.html#888.%20ART.%2088.%20CONTEMPT%20TOWARD%20OFFICIALS
No matter what Obama (or, to be honest, any President) does, there will be someone waiting to call it weak.
Treat the incident as though it never happened: He’s letting McChrystal walk all over him without repercussions. Clearly a general has clout over a president. Weak.
Chew McChrystal out privately, but keep him in his job: Again, Obama isn’t strong enough to correctly discipline a dissenter, and Obama clearly needs McChrystal more than McChrystal needs him. Weak.
Chew McChrystal out publicly, with or without relieving McChrystal: Obama isn’t behaving in a dignified manner befitting the Presidency. Praise in public, chastise in private, every good manager knows that. It shows that he doesn’t have the control over his administration and his officers that he should and he’s flailing. Weak.
Relieve McChrystal: Obama’s so thinskinned that he can’t handle a few little insults, and he’s throwing away a military asset in defense of his own pride. Weak.
No matter what he does, someone will call him on it. Relieving him of command at least has sound military justification, if not necessarily political: open dissension of subordinates cannot be tolerated.
Gotcha. Thanks for the link.