Obama fires McChrystal; Petraeus picked for Afghanistan

Having read the article yesterday, I got the impression that after decades of passive, embedded reporting on the military by the US media, McChrystal and his team just got sloppy, and were shooting their mouths off. He didn't clue in that the Rolling Stone guy wasn't there to just write a puff piece, and amazingly he still didn't clue in after RS ran the article by him for fact checking.

He should have been thrown out of the military after the Pat Tillman case anyways.

I am happy for McChrystal finally breaking his chains of slavery and becoming a civilian. There is no honor among criminals (Libs).

This had to happen, unfortunately you cannot have senior officers biting the hand that feeds them (or at least orders them).

By the way, why is Petraeus set to get this gig? Is the talent pool show shallow in the US Army these days that senior appointments have to be shifted around like deck chairs?

Considering McChrystal voted for Obama, any man of honor who made a mistake like that must feel a large amount of guilt and shame. This probably also pushed him to make this move in hopes of bringing out the truth of how bad Obama and his regime are and hopefully correcting a serious wrong.

Like Harry Truman firing Dogulas MacArthur in Korean war,the afghanistan war shall not having a good ending!

This isn't the first time that McChrystal has screwed up. He allowed military strategy and numbers to become public record before Obama finished with plans for Afghanistan. Nobody much wanted to mention the Pat Tillman death, but he allowed that to slide. Then this.

We've got posters here who demonized Obama for dumping McChrystal. But if they had someone in their command who was bad mouthing their company or military unit, they'd get rid of them, but they would protect McChrystal.

If I was Obama and I was dumping McChrystal, I'd pull in Petraeus also. There is no way that they can bad mouth the selection of Petraeus. < :-)

I find this move ridiculous. Has McCrystal made some serious slip-ups as a general?

And he gets fired for making some flippant remarks to a magazine editor?

Hello?

I think there is more to this than meets the eye.

Obama knew that if he did nothing, others may feel freer to criticize him.

So - as a male who has pride - Obama sacks his top general. Not for a major strategic blunder in the war, not for irresponsibly putting troops in harms way, but for some misplaced words.....

What a ridiculous move.

That said, McCrystal effectively sacked himself.

It's almost like selling your Prius because you don't like the color of the coffee cup holders.

Some of you should get off the turps and stop trying to spin this story to match your own political views.

This chap (McChrystal) went way over board in his comments regarding certain senior figures in the current administration and got canned as a result. It has to be remembered that the army protects others' rights to freedom of speech, it does not practice such freedoms itself.

And yes, he should have probably not been given command in the first place considering his involvement in the Tillman Affair.

Petraeus may cause some problems for the administration down the road like the plans to begin removing troops from Afghanistan. Petraeus wouldn't accept a timed withdrawal in Iraq and chances are that he'll be resistant to another one...behind closed doors of course. He may even ask for the troop increase hinted at by Sen McCain or at the very least request that the timetable be scrapped in favor of an achievement based roadmap for force reduction.

That said I still believe that it’s unfortunate that the U.S military is losing one of its finest military minds. It would have been better to send him back to his old job as head of black ops where he really shined...in the dark and far from the public eye.

This is the military folks. It's not some company down on Main Street or some friendly social group. It is built on obedience and discipline. Running your mouth against your C-i-C does not fall within the confines of military obedience and discipline.

If Gen. McChrystal had a major bad mouthing him, he'd have to get rid of him. No different then what happened. Except McChrystal resigned before he was fired.

Obama's choice of Petraeus is the safest there was. < :-)

Obama chose McChrystal to lead ISAF and U.S. forces in Afghanistan.

Now that that didn't work out he went back to the guy Mr. Bush chose to lead the U.S. forces in Iraq: The guy the left absolutely crucified and villified ("Gen. Betray-us") just a few short years ago.

More Hope and Change?

SS3: We agree on your point: I, too, think there is more than meets the eye on this issue.

RomeoRamenII

Now that that didn't work out he went back to the guy Mr. Bush chose to lead the U.S. forces in Iraq: The guy the left absolutely crucified and villified ("Gen. Betray-us") just a few short years ago.

So you'd keep a person in charge of a military operation after they belittled and openly questioned your ability, right or wrong? You'd have them leading the troops into battle after they read your and your underlings comments? You'd keep an undisciplined and vocal critic of your policies in charge? < :-)

Then RomeoRamenII, who would you put in charge of Afghanistan? You know of a general you'd select instead of Petraeus? You disagree that Petraeus isn't a good choice? < :-)

@-timorborder

Kudos to you, Kudos bro. Right people are missing the point and spinning the story to match their political views. That would happen anywhere. Look what happened to that lose lipped mascott , he got canned for telling what he thought wa sthe truth!!!

You dont go up against the people who are feeding you!!!!!!!!!!

This is the military folks. It's not some company down on Main Street or some friendly social group. It is built on obedience and discipline. Running your mouth against your C-i-C does not fall within the confines of military obedience and discipline.

If Gen. McChrystal had a major bad mouthing him, he'd have to get rid of him. No different then what happened. Except McChrystal resigned before he was fired.

Obama's choice of Petraeus is the safest there was. < :-)

"Like Harry Truman firing Dogulas MacArthur in Korean war,the afghanistan war shall not having a good ending!"

Harry Truman fired Doug to avoid a worse ending. Don't forget that MacArthur wanted to nuke China.

Yeah. I kind of think that a civilian CIC has done well to keep things in perspective. It has also kept the US from a military dictatorship and has prevented at least one nuclear war.

Why has (almost) everyone forgotten Pat Tillman in all of this? Pat deserved better. If you are going to use "Honor" and "McChrystal" you better know who Pat Tillman was. I see Timorborder has brought it up. Good on you.

Afghanistan recently became America's longest running war ever.

adaydream - "So you'd keep a person in charge of a military operation after they belittled and openly questioned your ability, right or wrong? You'd have them leading the troops into battle after they read your and your underlings comments? You'd keep an undisciplined and vocal critic of your policies in charge?"

If they were doing their job effectively, yes, I (personally) would.

You seem to think effectiveness, experience and ability should be quickly tossed aside for the sake of a bit of a disagreement?

That's where you and I disagree.

This is called healthy disagreement (adults do it) and should be encouraged, not criticized.

I have no problem with disagreement. My problem is McChrystal took it to the media.

If McChrystal had gone to Washington and had an eye to eye with Obama, I have positively would have no disagreement.

If I was running a military operation, I couldn't allow my staff to run their mouth any way they like. They work for me. They represent me.

This isn't a civilian operation. You have the right to say all you want. When you enlist into the military, you give up that right.

When did you serve and with who (USA, USN, ets.)? Do you think that if you ridiculed the military you'd have been tolerated by them? < :-)

Wait a minute...

Let's compare this to a civilian company. Let's say that a big IBM boss was making disparaging remarks about IBM computers. How long would he be the big boss?

Let's say he was a big GM big wig and he spoke to Rolling Stone Mag and he was telling the world that GM products are crap. How long would he be with GM?

But we're talking about the military here. Where discipline, order and lives are on the line. Where morale can mean the life or death of a soldier or several soldiers. This isn't a time when a private should be reading in RS that his general has a dislike for the C-i-C. Or where his staff ridicules the White House. But maybe SushiSake3 can explain where this becomes a good thing versus being a deterrent to good orderly military behavior. < :-)

aday, you seem to be saying that McCrystal taking his comments to the media should have more bearing on whether or not he remains in his post than his actual effectiveness as a commander??

Sorry, that's bizarre to the extreme.

A far more justifiable reason for his sacking would have been had he refused to follow orders, had he made a gross error of judgement that resulted in the deaths of his men, etc.....not simply because he sat down with an editor and spoke his mind.

If nothing else, this case has highlighted a major failing of the U.S. military.

In this case is does make a big difference.

This isn't a monopoly game. This is war. This is whether fighting men keep their mind on what they are doing or whether they are paying attention to their general saying disparaging things about their C-i-C.

McChrystal got a problem, talk to Obama, face to face. Not through Rolling Stone Mag.

You think that if BP had one of their CEOs out saying disparaging things or doing some questionable things during a catastrophe that he'd stay in charge? Oh yeah, Tony Heyward just got relieved of command.

Again I ask, you served when? Your Commanding Officer would put up with you making disparaging remarks? Talking from experience or guessing? < :-)

aday - "Let's say he was a big GM big wig and he spoke to Rolling Stone Mag and he was telling the world that GM products are crap. How long would he be with GM?"

Aday, McCrystal didn't say the troops or the C-in-C are 'crap.'

He specifically said he felt uncomfortable with the length of time it took for Obama's team to make a decision on whether or not to increase troop levels.

That's not disparaging the president - that's criticizing a decision process - it's quite different.

Aday - "But maybe SushiSake3 can explain where this becomes a good thing versus being a deterrent to good orderly military behavior. < :-)"

Ejecting a top general at a critical time in a difficult war over a trivial magazine story is a bad - no - a ridiculous - decision IMO, and should be recognized as such.

Ditto for this extreme call for discipline.

If nothing else, this case has highlighted a major failing of the U.S. military.

And what failing would that be? I cannot see any failings in the current instance. Like an idiot, McChrystal unwisely stuck his head above the parapet, showing extremely bad judgment in venting his spleen. He was canned accordingly. End of story.

Timoborder, are you also saying that McCrystal taking his comments to the media should have more bearing on whether or not he remains in his post than his actual effectiveness as a commander?

Why?

Sometimes you military folks are amusing. Such sticklers for protocol in the face of common sense. :-)

made an error of judgment that resulted in the deaths of his men

In my experience getting your own people killed has never been a reason for getting sacked in the military. Indeed, in the infantry at least, having a couple of stiffs on your resume is seen as a good thing, as long as you show an ability to get the job done.

Timoborder, are you also saying that McCrystal taking his comments to the media should have more bearing on whether or not he remains in his post than his actual effectiveness as a commander?

First of all, I don't think McCrystal took his comments to the media as such. Rather, he let down his guard and vented some personal opinions while in the company of a journalist. The journalist in question, whatever his motives, then turned around and used these comments to do a bit of a hatchet job on the General. That being said, however, responsibility in the military is a serious thing, and the General has resigned as a result.

In this instance what worries me deeply is the issue of the General showing extremely poor judgment and a lack of basic command presence. I believe this poor judgment occurred on a number of levels. Specifically, I don't know about the situation in the US, but where I did my military training (The Royal Military College, Duntroon), we were taught that you could "command your troops or be friends with them, you could not do both." Obviously, by allowing his subordinates to be openly disdainful of their ultimate superiors (specifically Vice President "Bite Me"), it seems that the General forgot this rule. As such, I believe the President is well within his rights to remove the General on grounds of conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline.

Timorborder, thanks for your comments.

What worries me deeply is the memo this sends to the troops.

Something like:

To all Active Duty Personnel:

Feel free to make a range of strategic and tactical mistakes, errors and misjudgements in theater, even if said errors result in the deaths of other military personnel.

However, be absolutely certain you do not do a 'McChrystal' and speak to the 'Gotcha' press as you will very likely be relieved of your command.

Sushi: If you're interested, there was an article in the NY Times entitled "General Faces Unease Among His Own Troops, Too" which is a rather interesting read on how field officers are straining under some rather stiff rules of engagement.

Loose lips don't just sink ships any more, they become magazine cover stories.

We should not look at this merely as the case of a politician dismissing a commander in the field. Just as the Vietnam War had its turning point with the 'Walter Cronkite moment', it appears that the war in Afghanistan has now arrived at its 'Rolling Stone moment'. By this time a year from now, President Kharzai will be settled into his villa in exile (perhaps in the south of France or Switzerland), and the Taliban will once again be executing disobedient women with their AK47s in Kabul Stadium. Well, it was jolly good fun while it lasted.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., an Air Force Reserve colonel and a military lawyer who's the only member of Congress to have served active duty in Afghanistan and Iraq:

"When it comes to why the president had to act, the statements of the general not only were outside the norm, they really did put in question military subordination to civilian control."

"I've been a military officer most of my adult life, and there's lines you can't cross," Graham said. "Those lines were crossed. It was poor judgment, but it was beyond poor judgment. It made it virtually impossible for the general to stay in his job."

McChrystal's politics is unavoidable but Mr Obama is in the right to fire his General.

And McChrystal joins a long tradition of generals fired for forgetting not to disrespect their civilian bosses...

SushiSake:

Maybe Timorborder got things sorted out for you. I have to emphasize that it is not simply a military issue. A lot of it is common sense and some has to do with the way US government works.

There are so many problems with what he did that he really should have resigned. Lower ranking people can pretty well say what they want, but McC's value is not his personal combat effectiveness. It is his value as a leader and coordinator. The question for everyone he deals with is: does he have the faith and trust of the highest elected official in the US? He knows that. Kharzai knows that. The Taliban know that and US troops know that. Therefore, what he SAYS makes a huge difference no matter what his other skills might be.

I numbered the three points below.

It is all about teamwork and hierarchy. You have to toe the line or you cannot function in the military. It makes a difference how good a commander is, but name any team sport where one guy can do it all, and I will show you a team that can be picked apart.

Whatever criticisms McC might have had of the policy, telling them to RollingStone in vague, derisive tones is not even an adult thing to do. There are more mature people under his command and McC should be respectable TO them and FOR them.

McC took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the US, and that means honoring that most important link in the chain of command, which puts a civilian at the top of all military forces and gives him the nuclear button. I cannot imagine a military commander who would be important enough to even blur that line. Oh. Yes I can. George Washington himself could do it any day of the week. Short of that guy... no dice. Grant comes close, but Lincoln fired several generals before Grant and would have sacked Grant if he had lost a battle somewhere in there, but he never did. To paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen: McChrystal is no George Washington.

I have come to think that McC mouthed off deliberately. It is such a rookie move and he came in beholden to Obama. Biden is such an easy target for insults. Seriously, who talks to the Rolling Stone? I think McC is a quitter. He couldn't resign in failure; he would rather be fired for stupidity. He will sell a few more books this way. He took the Palin's way out, not the Paladin's. In making it impossible for the US to use his skills, and leaving chaos for his successor, McC has done a disservice to the US. He won't go out as Dan Marino. He will do it as Ryan Leaf.

By this time a year from now, President Kharzai will be settled into his villa in exile (perhaps in the south of France or Switzerland), and the Taliban will once again be executing disobedient women with their AK47s in Kabul Stadium.

Well, let's hope for the best. I would have wanted Mr Karzai to give way for a more stable government. The Afghans deserve stability and peace.

It would have been contentious however to bolster a winning strategy with a bitterly divided team. McChrystal had been plain and vocal of his position since late last year, and I'm not so surprised his career ended this way.

I wish the troops the very best in their fight against Afghan insurgents!

It's even worse judgement to expect an active duty general to resign over flippant comments while he's in charge of a war. This outcome truly underlines the excessive dissent muzzling that appears to be standard practice in the U.S. military. When I first read this news this morning, the first thought that came to mind was that this sacking is disturbingly similar to Soviet-era Russia, where dissenters would wake up dead. McChrstal finds himself fired for what is essentially the same thing - dissent, albeit very mild. Those who think it's - somehow - sensible strategy to flick off an active duty general to resign over flippant comments while he's in charge of a war should seriously reconsider their judgement. It just goes to show that military brainwashing - in some cases - totally trumps common sense.

It's even worse judgement to expect an active duty general to resign over flippant comments while he's in charge of a war.

McChrystal is irreplacable? Doubtful.... militaries are meant to function with interchangable parts....

Oh and he's just been relieved of command, not mudered. He'll go off to some other assignment, then retire with pension intact and move on to some well paying job in the M/I complex.

Oh and Dissent is acceptable in the military, but not the way it was done here. The general knows this, too...

Seriously, who talks to the Rolling Stone? I think McC is a quitter. He couldn't resign in failure; he would rather be fired for stupidity.

Again, I'm not so surprise. The General had been noisy since last year of Obama's so-called ineptness over the Afghan strategy. Whilst I don't think his recommendations (or at least what he'd let the public knows) aren't necessarily daft, he was impatient. And it would have been contentious for him to continue with his job as the Afghan military ceasar.

Pres. Obama made the right move and I'm sure the Joint Chiefs thank him for sticking with military regulation. Good order and discipline, especially at the 3-star level, is paramount.

It wasn't with McCrystal.

Taka

SushiSake3: you seem to be saying that McCrystal taking his comments to the media should have more bearing on whether or not he remains in his post than his actual effectiveness as a commander??

You don't seem to get that his recent behavior undercut his ability to be an effective commander. A man in his position should know what's expected of him. The fact that he let it happen is the reason why people are questioning his ability as a leader.

Superlib, no, I'm saying it's stupid to expect a general to resign over comments he makes to the media. It's just too trivial IMO.

McChrystal's role in the Afghan strategy would have been untenable if the Prez didn't sack him. And now that the General had been relieved of his official title-- I'm sure he can be more specific (rather than snappishly timid) when it comes to his disapproval of Obama.

That'll be much helpful for the Americans.

"When I first read this news this morning, the first thought that came to mind was that this sacking is disturbingly similar to Soviet-era Russia, where dissenters would wake up dead. McChrstal finds himself fired for what is essentially the same thing - dissent, albeit very mild."

Well. Gee. I thought exactly the opposite. McChrystal is not dead. And he apologized. And he offered his resignation. He knows he was flat wrong and offers no defense for his actions. If he were really dissenting, if he were really making a political stand, then it would be different. If you have a chance to read the article, do it. It is on newstands today. The guy and his people rant and whine like 12 year olds. Read it and let us all know if this guy is a hero.

"it's stupid to expect a general to resign over comments he makes to the media. It's just too trivial"

Just curious. What do you think this guy's job really is? Do you think he "programs the war computers" and makes strategic and tactical decisions in a dark room somewhere? No. He spends most of his time talking to people and getting them to do what Washington wants them to do. So if he thinks he is bigger than the US electorate, or even if he makes people THINK that, then he is not doing his job.

SushiSake3 at 03:19 PM JST - 24th June

Sometimes you military folks are amusing. Such sticklers for protocol in the face of common sense. :-)

SushiSake3 at 03:19 PM JST - 24th June

Sometimes you military folks are amusing. Such sticklers for protocol in the face of common sense. :-)

Thank you. This says tons. You never served so you're great with opinions, but have no experience at what you're saying. < :-)

SuperLib - it isn't trivial. Poor judgement on that level shows the opponent a glaring weakness in our system, and would have provided them with a wedge to drive between our own forces. He's lucky he didn't have UCMJ thrown at him. As a military officer, he was trained never to let his guard down among reporters, no matter where they come from. While he is in uniform, everything he says and does is seen as representing the official policy of the military. Reporters have one job, according to the military: to create conflict and burn whoever/whatever they are reporting on. He knew that. As a Chaplain, I know that. The military train all officers to first avoid the media, and then if cornered, say nothing important. You don't say anything of "value" to a reporter, or when there is a reporter present for tactical reasons. Even in this post, I have to be aware that my words can and will be taken and misconstrued and used for whatever purpose, and therefore I have to consider the impact of each word. He has a PAO (public affairs officer) for a reason... Gen. McChrystal failed, and he took the consequences.

adaydream - "You never served so you're great with opinions, but have no experience at what you're saying. < :-)"

So, I need to join the 'military club' to be able to voice an opinion on a military matter, now do I?

It's sometimes handy to be outside military circles as I can rest easy that

1/ I haven't been brainwashed to obey commands without exercising reasonable judgement, and 2/

I have enough life experience in the real world to be able to call out very poor judgement for what it is without my thoughts being crushed under military protocol.

Your experience of the opposite is unfortunately very obvious for the rest of us to see.

That's lovely

So a man of honor is given the boot, while the architects of disastrous policies which threaten our country, stay.

O, how the people who have served our country and risked their lives, including Gen. McChrystal, must have felt when this community organizer from Chicago became their CIC...

No SushiSake3, you don't have to join the military to have an opinion. Opinions are like butts, everybody's got one. But that's all it is.

When it comes direct knowledge, when it comes to what really matters here, again all you have is an opinion.

I'll not debate this with you anymore since you know nothing about the reality of the military. < :-)

Sarge - "So a man of honor is given the boot, while the architects of disastrous policies which threaten our country, stay."

No, he's retired and living in Texas.

This article kinda puts into perspective the comparison of the Commander-in-Chief and the opinions in some people's minds. They elevate their opinions above their knowledge.

http://www.newser.com/story/93651/fox-anchor-my-job-same-as-being-prez.html

Are there any active/prior military posters here who believe McChrystal should have kept his command? < :-)

Superlib, you think I need saving? That's funny.

The only ones who need saving (from themselves) are the military types who think sacking a general for yakking was somehow a sensible move.

What a strange thread. I'm trying to think of any organization you would keep your job after publically badmouthing your boss.

adaydream, amazingly, there's actually some people out there who are man enough to take a bit of constructive criticism. And there's others whose apparent insecurities make them flip the kill switch at the slightest - even trivial - sign of dissent.

Hey I read your criticism. It's your opinion. We disagree. I have experience, you don't. Have a good day. <:-)

I'm honestly surprised - a fair few military types are suprisingly soft. Can't take a bit of criticism? That's pretty surprising....

Sushi,

I can understand what you're saying. They were only words, right? The thing is, words matter.

The order to kill or not kill comes from words. They are powerful things and should be treated as such. McChrystal chose to go against his military training which says, words matter and he shot his mouth off. This led his staff to shoot their mouths off. Had he shown the good order and discipline that a 3-star general must show, he would not have said those things and he would not allowed his staff to say those things.

They were just words but they were also an indicator of how well McChrystal led his troops. You just don't buck almost 250 years of successful tradition.

I don't expect you to understand this decision or the military, in general, for that matter. It's kind of like getting laid. Until you've been there, you just don't really know.

Taka

sarge: "So a man of honor is given the boot, while the architects of disastrous policies which threaten our country, stay."

Hahaha... Sushi said it best with his 'back in Texas' comment, and is bang on in pointing out the hypocrisy of your statement.

This guy deserved to be canned. What's more, he knows he was wrong, and even offered up his resignation. Bottom line.

So a man of honor is given the boot, while the architects of disastrous policies which threaten our country, stay.

No idea why this has to be re-posted, but I will.

FACT - The architect of the current Afghanistan policy is one Stanley McChrystal.

FACT - The "man of honor" was involved in a high level cover-up of a sensitive incident and intentionally deceived the American public.

SushiSake: The only ones who need saving (from themselves) are the military types who think sacking a general for yakking was somehow a sensible move.

Actually, you're pretty well outnumbered by the non-military types as well, but since I can see how you've chosen to frame your arguments I can understand why you won't be acknowledging that fact anytime soon.

To put in another way....Sarge, Smith, adaydream, and myself all actually agree with each other. It's a minor miracle. I'm half-expecting Jesus to walk into the room at any moment. You missed the boat on this one and now you're just fighting for the sake of fighting. It's time to give up and move on. Talking about dead Russians and brainwashing is making you sound a bit creepy.