General Knows Best: What is your Opinion?

Just further proof Obama and his administration have no clue how to govern. The democrats screwed the country when they picked this guy over Hillary.

I do not agree.
We have been discussing this issue in a Military Forum that I have been a member of for many years. There are many Vets and other Nationalities that are members. This Administration is largely unpopular there.
However, McChrystal is supposed to be a professional. He knows protocol.
His frustrations with the Politics of this war should have been handled in a private manner...not broadcasted in a rag like The Rolling Stone.
This has only added fuel to the ememy who wants to see failure in Afghanistan (reports one of our British members in Pakistan)
It has also came down like a lead balloon on our allies, many whose populace already slam their government for involvement.
No matter how bad the Administration, Democrats, Republicans, etc have managed to screw this up, the General knew what a sh*tstorm this would cause.

I mostly agree with Cage. This is about respect for the chain of command and the importance of civilian control of the military. In my view, Obama was foolish to listen to McChrystal and throw more soldiers and resources into this hopeless war in the first place, and now he's gone and made insubordinate comments anyway. It's not tolerable; McChrystal has to go.

I totally agree with acer. General McChrystal has been on the front lines of this war and knows everything anyone can know about how to handle situations. Obama isn't listening. He isn't doing what is right for our country or the soldiers that are fighting for our country.

And to say that McChrystal needs to go is ridiculous. He is an outstanding General and leader and one that doesn't ask to be recognized for his outstanding military works. He has been the reason for a lot of the accomplishments this war has seen.

Thank you to all of the men and women that serve for our freedom and our wonderful country.

quote:

General McChrystal has been on the front lines of this war and knows everything anyone can know about how to handle situations. Obama isn't listening.

What is your basis for this? Late last year McChrystal called for about 30,000 more troops for Afghanistan, and that's exactly what he got from Obama despite dissenting views from people like VP Biden and Ambassador Eikenberry (former general). McChrystal's argument persuaded the president, and we've escalated in Afghanistan since Obama took office.

Also, the idea that our civilian leadership should just stand back and give the generals whatever they ask for is ludicrous. Generals always want more troops because they're only responsible for their theater, but presidents are responsible for the big picture and have to make the truly difficult decisions about costs and benefits.

This is all kind of beside the point, because the real issue is that when you're in the military you can't be openly insubordinate and expect to keep your job. McChrystal wouldn't tolerate it from someone under his command, and Obama shouldn't tolerate it from him.

It doesn't really matter what my opinion is. I still think that he is a General to be admired.
I agree though that you should not be openly insubordinate. I think however that he is a great General despite what he did recently.

I just read an update on the Huffington Post (not sure how reliable it is)
General McChrystal has submitted his resignation. (an unnamed source)

Even if you have a bad day or if you think that you are speaking with regular people--a General should never speak ill of his chain of command. Seems to me that frustration had overtaken reason. I am sure that he regrets giving the interview.

From what it appears to me is that some guys were sitting around and talking and then some were interviewed and gave snippets of what may have been said. Doesn't sound like insubordination on the Generals part. He said that he felt "betrayed" by someone other than Obama.

If someone has the full interview I would like the link. If I am totally wrong I will retract my statements.



I am not sure of the big picture that Obama is looking at though, with any of his decisions. But I guess that is another forum page....

quote:

Originally posted by CageTheElephant:
McChrystal is supposed to be a professional. He knows protocol.
His frustrations with the Politics of this war should have been handled in a private manner...not broadcasted in a rag like The Rolling Stone.

So true.

Articles 88 and 89.

Joe Klein from TIME is citing an unnamed source in reporting that McChrystal has offered his resignation. I guess that's it then, though I'm wondering if there's a chance that Obama will turn it down. McChrystal's leadership and experience are still valuable (and the reason Obama gave him the job in the first place), and if this episode leads to him being less contemptuous of the civilian leadership he may still be the best man for the job. I don't really know, though, and I'm pessimistic about the entire situation over there anyway.

Sort of reminds you of statements made by other Generals, in the heat of war, such as Patton and McArthur. I think history has shown and proved that the Generals were most likely correct in their desires and what they expressed.

Vietnam was a war that was run out of the White House and unfortunately a very political war. Lets hope we don't return to that philosophy. While both Bush's may have essentially made political decisions that effected the wars they were nowhere near as openly incompetent as our current President.

If President Bush (41) had of allowed his Generals, on the ground, to negotiate the war and carry it on through Iraq rather than negotiate to where they kept out of Bagdad and allow Saddam to continue to rule then it's possible we would not be in the situations we are in today. No way to know but possible.

quote:

Originally posted by gbrk:
Sort of reminds you of statements made by other Generals, in the heat of war, such as Patton and McArthur. I think history has shown and proved that the Generals were most likely correct in their desires and what they expressed.

MacArthur publicly criticized President Truman's Far East policy, offered Truman a handshake instead of a salute when they met on Wake Island, then went back and criticized Truman's handling of the Korean War even more. Then he spoiled an opportunity for a cease-fire with China by issuing an ultimatum himself demanding China surrender to him and threatening to expand the war into China otherwise, which was something definitely not authorized by Truman, and for good reason (btw, he wanted to use nuclear weapons). When generals stop recognizing the authority of the President, they have to go.

quote:

Vietnam was a war that was run out of the White House and unfortunately a very political war. Lets hope we don't return to that philosophy. While both Bush's may have essentially made political decisions that effected the wars they were nowhere near as openly incompetent as our current President.

Really? Obama has made more incompetent decisions than the decision to invade Iraq or the decision to ignore Afghanistan? Bush was a lot of things, but competent at making decisions about war wasn't one of them.

quote:

If President Bush (41) had of allowed his Generals, on the ground, to negotiate the war and carry it on through Iraq rather than negotiate to where they kept out of Bagdad and allow Saddam to continue to rule then it's possible we would not be in the situations we are in today. No way to know but possible.

It's my understanding that they stopped for mainly the same reason that Bush 43 should have stopped before he started: they didn't have a plan for what to do after Saddam was removed. The Powell Doctrine at work, which unfortunately we later forgot.

Both the US Army War College and the Association of the US Army have sponsored treatises and studies on an officer's duty if he finds himself in a situation he considers morally, ethically, and/or strategically bankrupt. Resigning one's commission and then speaking out was one of two, or three avenues considered honorable. General McChrystal is taking another of the alternate avenues considered honorable. He spoke out, with respect to the office of the President, against what he considers gravely in error. Now, he must suffer the consequences. Obama will probably either demand his retirement, or reassign him to desk duty in the Pentagon in a useless role. General McChrystal and his staff believe the present strategy is untenable and useless to a successful conclusion. He's taking the blame upon himself and sparing his staff -- an honorable position. Now, Obama, like Truman, must consider a new commander. Hopefully, unlike Truman, Obama will not lie about McArthur. And, the American people must consider a new commander in chief.

quote:

Originally posted by TheMeInTeam:
I mostly agree with Cage. This is about respect for the chain of command and the importance of civilian control of the military. In my view, Obama was foolish to listen to McChrystal and throw more soldiers and resources into this hopeless war in the first place, and now he's gone and made insubordinate comments anyway. It's not tolerable; McChrystal has to go.

Obama never assigned the numbers of troops requested and sent those months late. He assigned an end date to hostilities pulled from where the sun doesn't shine. Lord help us if FDR did so in 1944.

As to a useless war, allowing the Talib to return to power in Afghanistan followed by providing a haven for al Qaeda will ensure a war our children's children will fight.

quote:

Originally posted by TheMeInTeam:

quote:

General McChrystal has been on the front lines of this war and knows everything anyone can know about how to handle situations. Obama isn't listening.

What is your basis for this? Late last year McChrystal called for about 30,000 more troops for Afghanistan, and that's exactly what he got from Obama despite dissenting views from people like VP Biden and Ambassador Eikenberry (former general). McChrystal's argument persuaded the president, and we've escalated in Afghanistan since Obama took office.

Also, the idea that our civilian leadership should just stand back and give the generals whatever they ask for is ludicrous. Generals always want more troops because they're only responsible for their theater, but presidents are responsible for the big picture and have to make the truly difficult decisions about costs and benefits.

This is all kind of beside the point, because the real issue is that when you're in the military you can't be openly insubordinate and expect to keep your job. McChrystal wouldn't tolerate it from someone under his command, and Obama shouldn't tolerate it from him.

Not giving the generals what they wanted, contributed to the mess in Iraq!

"MacArthur publicly criticized President Truman's Far East policy, offered Truman a handshake instead of a salute when they met on Wake Island, then went back and criticized Truman's handling of the Korean War even more. Then he spoiled an opportunity for a cease-fire with China by issuing an ultimatum himself demanding China surrender to him and threatening to expand the war into China otherwise, which was something definitely not authorized by Truman, and for good reason (btw, he wanted to use nuclear weapons). When generals stop recognizing the authority of the President, they have to go."

MacArthur stated he did not wish an Asian land war. In an earlier post, I stated Truman lied about MacArthur.

At the USC campus, the newsreels from that era are preserved. I viewed the Wake Island incident. MacArthur's plane arrive a day before Truman, not after Truman's as claimed. MacArthur greeted Truman on the ground, not from a plane. MacArthur saluted Truman, then shook his hand.

Ultimately the general works for the president and not the other way around!

Actually the General works for the united States and its citizens. He is commanded by the POTUS. When the POTUS fails in his leadership, the General, by his oath, must do what is right for the country. I do not necessarily agree with the actions of the General, but this is what happens when you put a nimcimpoop and his cronies in office who have no military leadership skills. The troops have no respect for him. The General was never fully supported by Obama and the administration and I can see his frustration.
This is just as bad for Obama as it is for the General.

quote:

Originally posted by elinterventor01:
"MacArthur publicly criticized President Truman's Far East policy, offered Truman a handshake instead of a salute when they met on Wake Island, then went back and criticized Truman's handling of the Korean War even more. Then he spoiled an opportunity for a cease-fire with China by issuing an ultimatum himself demanding China surrender to him and threatening to expand the war into China otherwise, which was something definitely not authorized by Truman, and for good reason (btw, he wanted to use nuclear weapons). When generals stop recognizing the authority of the President, they have to go."

MacArthur stated he did not wish an Asian land war. In an earlier post, I stated Truman lied about MacArthur.

At the USC campus, the newsreels from that era are preserved. I viewed the Wake Island incident. MacArthur's plane arrive a day before Truman, not after Truman's as claimed. MacArthur greeted Truman on the ground, not from a plane. MacArthur saluted Truman, then shook his hand.

Good post, ultimately though you, and others, will realize that many folks are so blinded either by their hatred for President Bush or blind allegiance to President Obama or the liberal mentality that anything justifies Revising History. The same thing happens when it comes to the Constitutional powers granted to the President and Congress. By that I mean whatever it takes justifies the means if the outcome is what is desired.

As for comparisons of either of the Bush Presidents to Obama there is a HUGE difference. EXPERIENCE both in the Executive arena AND with the Military. Obama has virtually none (no experience) in either of the two and it's quite obvious from observations and based upon the people that he has appointed that where President Bush respected the military and the United States President Obama considers America and our military (past and present) as something that needs apologizing for. Additionally there is no question that Bush (Father & Son) have been far more "Presidential" than our current President. He (President Obama) is an embarrassment.

That's my opinion as a former Independent voter (1979 - Current, in large part due to President Carter) and before that a staunch Democrat who not plans to vote "Anything but Democrat" because of the current Democratic party and it's representatives which represent the most UN-American politicians that we have ever had and pose the greatest danger to our capitalistic system and the freedoms that we have enjoyed.

If only November would hurry and get here.

My son just returned from a year in Afghanistan. I respect and appreciate him and all our soldiers but from his perspective on the situation on the ground I'm not confident of a favorable outcome.