McChrystal replaced as Head of US Command in Afghanistan

How to Join	Member's Area	Private Library	Search	Sanctuary		Login
Main Forums	Discussion	Tech Talk	Mature Content	Archives	A home without a wall, Our haven without ends, A circle we all call Our Family of Friends!

Mysteria

Member Laureate

since 2001-03-07

Posts 18328
British Columbia, Canada

0 posted 2010-06-23 01:48 PM

General David Petraeus is replacing McChrystal. It was done with due respect to General McChrystal, as he has been an admirable general in his service. Those bars on their jackets - each little square represents 6 months of service, so McChrystal served his country well. Who knows why he did what he did?

Here is the Rolling Stone article that lead to his dismissal.

The Runaway General

New Head of US Command in Afghanistan General David Petraeus

However, it is a good move on the part of Obama, and the only move that could have been done in my own opinion.

JenniferMaxwell

Member Elite

since 2006-09-14

Posts 2423

1 posted 2010-06-23 03:52 PM

Petraus faints and McChrystal goes rogue, maybe they’ve both been in the hot seat a little too long. The pressure must be incredible.

Mysteria

Member Laureate

since 2001-03-07

Posts 18328
British Columbia, Canada

2 posted 2010-06-23 04:29 PM

No kidding Jennifer. Obama's hair has sure gone from black to the usual color of stress and worry. I sure wouldn't want to be in his shoes, with all the crap he takes.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

3 posted 2010-06-23 06:43 PM

Yes, the stress of battle-tested generals taking orders from a community organizer who doesn't know what he's doing must be stressful, indeed.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant

since 2004-10-12

Posts 6688
Waukegan

4 posted 2010-06-23 06:55 PM

.

McChrystal was already in trouble with his
own men on the ground.

.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

5 posted 2010-06-23 07:02 PM

I don't disagree with the firing...what is disconcerting is why he (the general) did it.

Sunshine

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-25

Posts 63354
Listening to every heart

6 posted 2010-06-23 09:12 PM

I read the full report in Rolling Stone as shown on line:

quote:
McChrystal is a snake-eating rebel, a "Jedi" commander, as Newsweek called him. He didn't care when his teenage son came home with blue hair and a mohawk. He speaks his mind with a candor rare for a high-ranking official. He asks for opinions, and seems genuinely interested in the response. He gets briefings on his iPod and listens to books on tape. He carries a custom-made set of nunchucks in his convoy engraved with his name and four stars, and his itinerary often bears a fresh quote from Bruce Lee. ("There are no limits. There are only plateaus, and you must not stay there, you must go beyond them.")

~*~

quote:
In March, McChrystal traveled to Combat Outpost JFM – a small encampment on the outskirts of Kandahar – to confront such accusations from the troops directly. It was a typically bold move by the general. Only two days earlier, he had received an e-mail from Israel Arroyo, a 25-year-old staff sergeant who asked McChrystal to go on a mission with his unit. "I am writing because it was said you don't care about the troops and have made it harder to defend ourselves," Arroyo wrote.

Within hours, McChrystal responded personally: "I'm saddened by the accusation that I don't care about soldiers, as it is something I suspect any soldier takes both personally and professionally – at least I do. But I know perceptions depend upon your perspective at the time, and I respect that every soldier's view is his own." Then he showed up at Arroyo's outpost and went on a foot patrol with the troops – not some bullshit photo-op stroll through a market, but a real live operation in a dangerous war zone.

~*~

quote:
The rules handed out here are not what McChrystal intended – they've been distorted as they passed through the chain of command – but knowing that does nothing to lessen the anger of troops on the ground. "[Expletive], when I came over here and heard that McChrystal was in charge, I thought we would get our "(Expletive) gun on," says Hicks, who has served three tours of combat. "I get COIN. I get all that. McChrystal comes here, explains it, it makes sense. But then he goes away on his bird, and by the time his directives get passed down to us through Big Army, they're all "(Expletive) up – either because somebody is trying to cover their ass, or because they just don't understand it themselves. But we're "(Expletive) losing this thing."

~*~

Even a patriot in uniform is dismissed by the current President, who was doing what was touted at the beginning of his reign:

quote:
When Barack Obama entered the Oval Office, he immediately set out to deliver on his most important campaign promise on foreign policy: to refocus the war in Afghanistan on what led us to invade in the first place. "I want the American people to understand," he announced in March 2009. "We have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat Al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan." He ordered another 21,000 troops to Kabul, the largest increase since the war began in 2001.

[Accentuations/bold face/italics added]

Sorry, folks…this was a blunder by directive on the coattails of President Obama’s own dictatorial of what he wanted to have done, and a good man was put in there to do it. One that even voted for him. Snake eating rebel? By George, I hope so!

Bob K
Member Elite

since 2007-11-03

Posts 4208

7 posted 2010-06-24 03:35 AM

Keith Obermann suggested that McChrystal be retained as general in command in Afghanistan on his show on Tuesday, 6/22/10. He made a decent case for it, I thought. I hadn't known at the time about McChrystal's previous encounters about similar issues with the President.

quote:
Mike suggests:
Yes, the stress of battle-tested generals taking orders from a community organizer who doesn't know what he's doing must be stressful, indeed.

     In this country, generals are supposed to take orders from elected officials.  My understanding is that there was no disagreement on policy between President Obama and General McChrystal, nor between President Obama and General Petraeus, for that matter.  They are all supportive of counterinsurgency as the appropriate method for dealing with the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

     The problem was that while General McChrystal gave lip-service to the cooperation necessary for counterinsurgency, he was — if the reports in the Rolling Stone article are true — undercutting that cooperation by bad-mouthing the people whom he needed to help put those policies into effect.  Those people included the Vice-President and Mr. Holbrook.

     The uniform Code of Military Justice encourages military personnel to be respectful and to show proper subordination.  General McChrystal might well have been court-martialed for his comments about the Vice-President alone, and he is fortunate that he was allowed to tender his resignation rather than go through that humiliation.

     More importantly, the General's remarks undercut the strategy itself.  If you believe in what the country is doing in Afghanistan and the middle east in general, then you might take a more serious view of the general's actions than the somewhat flip and dismissive one that Mike suggests in the quotation I offer above.  Especially since that strategy is essentially the same as the one set out by the Republicans during the previous two administrations, though perhaps taken more seriously.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant

since 2004-10-12

Posts 6688
Waukegan

8 posted 2010-06-24 11:03 AM

.

I don't see how General McChrystal could
not have known there would be consequences.
He wasn't talking to Reader's Digest.

.

Bob K
Member Elite

since 2007-11-03

Posts 4208

9 posted 2010-06-24 07:38 PM

     He'd spoken out of turn before and hadn't been fired.

     Do you think that might have had something to do with it?

     as in the " Anything not forbidden is encouraged" principle?  A guy can start to feel more important than he is sometimes, that way.

     What do you think, though, John?

Essorant
Member Elite

since 2002-08-10

Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada

10 posted 2010-06-25 11:30 AM

I don't see how a magazine article outweighs the good things he has done for the country. He has done those good things, only to end up being judged by a magazine article instead? To me it seems a sorry overreaction. It would be different if he hadn't proved himself and was just beginning, for which one didn't know anything else about him, but people do know much more, therefore how should a magazine article get to have more determination than much more important things we know about him?

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant

since 2004-10-12

Posts 6688
Waukegan

11 posted 2010-06-25 03:44 PM

.

“Gen David Petraeus, the new US commander in Afghanistan, is to review the controversial doctrine of “courageous restraint”, according to Pentagon sources.
He is to re-examine the rules which some soldiers believe have prevented them from defending themselves.
“There will be no change in overall policy but all aspects of tactics and implementation will be looked at afresh,” a Pentagon official told The Daily Telegraph. “The issue of ‘courageous restraint’ is a controversial one on the ground and there may be ways it can be modified.””

http://www.nationalreview.com/the-feed/230283/great-news-petraeus-rev iew-courageous-restraint-afghanistan

A step in the right direction. . .

.

Grinch
Member Elite

since 2005-12-31

Posts 2929
Whoville

12 posted 2010-06-25 04:58 PM

quote:
A step in the right direction. . .

It’ll certainly be interesting.

If he instigates a more aggressive stance from USFOR-A, which is diametrically opposed to the ISAF hearts and minds tactic, then I’ve a sneaky suspicion that the US will be all on their lonesome in pretty short order. Most of the countries are looking for a good reason to pull out – this may just be the excuse they were looking for.

It can’t happen too quickly in my view.

.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant

since 2004-10-12

Posts 6688
Waukegan

13 posted 2010-06-25 06:44 PM

.

"then I’ve a sneaky suspicion that the US will be all on their lonesome in pretty short order."

Obama pretty much assured that with his
July 2011 schedule. Enemy attacks are going to ramp
up to make it look like a retreat.

.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

14 posted 2010-06-25 11:59 PM

It's interesting that, when Bush put Petraeus in charge of Iraq, he was called General Betrayus by our left-wingers. When Obama puts him in charge of Afghanistan, it's a "brilliant" move.

Mysteria

Member Laureate

since 2001-03-07

Posts 18328
British Columbia, Canada

15 posted 2010-06-26 12:05 PM

I am thinking there is a motive for putting him there actually. Not only did Obama have to act fast on this one because he has appeared not to react too fast for some, but politically, whomever orchestrated this choice had an agenda, and a good one.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

16 posted 2010-06-26 12:11 PM

They always have an agenda, Mysteria.

Bob K
Member Elite

since 2007-11-03

Posts 4208

17 posted 2010-06-26 04:13 AM

     Most everybody has an agenda most all the time, and sometimes more than one at the same time, conflicting.  Like brains, for example; brains have multiple agendas.  They want to have enough information to make decisions, and they want to be able to make decisions without being overwhelmed with more information than they can handle.  These are agendas in conflict.

     I want to have a discussion about Afghanistan, Counterinsurgency, McChrystal, Petraeus and Obama, but that means that I need to go beyond trying to make quick points off of anybody else.  Can I do that here without getting bogged down in a score-keeping attempt at making points?  Or will the discussion be limited to just that sort of thing?

     Again, conflicting agendas.

     I don't think McChrystal was doing a terrible job running the war, so far as I know.  He did seem to have trouble with subordination and cooperation with non-military resources, not simply his Commander and Chief, but the folks who were trying to work out the diplomatic side of things and the (whatever nation-building may be) Nation Building side of things and the Cultural side of things.  Would he have been able to stretch to deal with that stuff well?  Honest, I don't know; he seemed busy cutting his own throat much of the time, so he's made it difficult for us to be able to find out.

     Is the President Obama's fault?

     Possibly, though he seems to be doing at least as well with the military as President Bush did.  It's still possible that President Obama didn't work it correctly.  My thinking is that President Obama left him in about as long as he possibly could have, but perhaps others have a rational disagreement with me about that.

     Heck, I'd rather not be over there at all, and I'd need some understanding to be clear about why we're there right now anyway.

     But given that we have no goals in the area that I can tick off on my fingers, counterinsurgency seems a good way to go, and Petraeus is apparently the guy who wrote the book on it, 21st century version.

     What do other folks think our goals are over there now in foreign policy and military terms?

	⇧ top of page ⇧
All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format.