• Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/

Gen. Stanley McChrystal?

joec

New member
GOLD Site Supporter
Ok a little surprised it hasn't been mentioned today but do you think he should be fired?


My opinion is he will be gone tomorrow before it is over.
 

mak2

Active member
If he was disrespectful to his commander in chief, he should be gone in a second.
 

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
If he was disrespectful to his commander in chief, he should be gone in a second.

Agreed.

Based on the radio reports I heard he was not complimentary toward many of the members of the White House Staff (I believe 'naive' and 'idealistic' may have been terms used), and he suggested that the President was not well prepared for the meeting they had, but I did not hear that he was disrespectful of the President. If he was, he needs to be beaten about the head with a wet noodle (or whatever they do to military commanders) and needs to be removed.
 

joec

New member
GOLD Site Supporter
They simply fire them and their military career is over. Perhaps he will run for president next time out, joking off course though that is what Truman went through with Douglas MacArthur after he fired him.
 

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
Here is an article I found: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...896.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsTop

I think the wording needs to be carefully reviewed. It does not appear in this article that the General insulted the President. It does appear that many insults actually came from AIDS to the General, and far less from the General. He does respond, when asked about VP Biden with a snippy/joking comment: "Who's that?"
 

joec

New member
GOLD Site Supporter
Yes I read the article today as well as heard the writers comments. Problem is in the military the commanding officer is responsible for his staff also including his aids. This is actually the 3rd time he has been here for his and his staff's comments. To me that is 2 to many. I also heard today they have 3 as good as him in the wings already based on reports out of Gate's office.
 

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
Problem is in the military the commanding officer is responsible for his staff also including his aids.

Hmmm . . . so you suggest that the leader is responsible for the words uttered by the team.

That seems like a huge double standard considering that you hold Obama blameless for the words uttered by his team, especially those uttered by his team regarding the desire for gun restrictions.
 

joec

New member
GOLD Site Supporter
We are speaking military and insubordination by subordinates that isn't punished at the time is the same as if he said it. Fact is that is what the guy that reported this said as many of the comments where made in front of McChrystal not behind his back. I might add he didn't denigh him agreeing with it or making the same basic statements in private. Now fact is to speak like this in the presents of press is in plan English not the smartest thing to say the least however stupid would be my personal choice of words to describe it. Now Obama is an elected official with appointed people around him. If we could demand the resignation for elected officials for stupid remark Bush would of been gone within a week of taking office. So I recommend we not go there at all. We are talking Military here that has a hard core chain of command. They can argue their view until the commander and chef makes a decision then once made go with it period unless illegal. I don't make up these rules they have been in effect for a long time now and they are schooled on them. I heard several retired generals today say he must go period as did many that don't support Obama from both sides of the isle.
 

joec

New member
GOLD Site Supporter
Hmmm . . . so you suggest that the leader is responsible for the words uttered by the team.

That seems like a huge double standard considering that you hold Obama blameless for the words uttered by his team, especially those uttered by his team regarding the desire for gun restrictions.

Oh and what the hell are you talking about with gun restrictions? Please bring me up to date.
 

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
Joe you have consistently stated that Obama is not pushing gun bans despite the fact that several members of his administration have specifically called for them (Napolitono and Emmanuel both come to mind). You have defended Obama for not calling for gun bans despite the fact that his appointed staff/inner circle have claimed they are on the agenda.

So now you say that McChrystal is to blame for what his staff says because he is the leader.

Well Obama is the leader of his staff but you hold him blameless.

I'm simply saying it seems like a huge double standard to impose on McCrystal to hold him to blame for his staff when you give Obama pass after pass regarding what his staff says.
 

joec

New member
GOLD Site Supporter
Ok I simply ask you has he acted on his inner circles wishes. He stated early on he had no problem with the 2nd amendment and had no plans of pursuing it or anything related to banning citizens from owning guns. Now I could give a damn about what those around him want, as Bush put it he is the decider and so is Obama now. As for his actions to date he has kept his word on that and gun ownership is doing well.

Now like Dargo asked me last night in another post, when he misunderstood my post are you simply wanting to disagree with me to disagree? If so take it to personal messages otherwise forget about it. If so I suggest you don't like my opinions then simply block my posts.
 

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
Ok I simply ask you has he acted on his inner circles wishes. He stated early on he had no problem with the 2nd amendment and had no plans of pursuing it or anything related to banning citizens from owning guns.
Actually Joe he said he wanted to ban the so-called assault weapons, he even had it on the White House website (may still be there).

As for acting on what Rahm Emmanuel and Janet Napolitano have suggested, no he did not but he did not have to because their proposals were shot down by Harry Reid.
 

joec

New member
GOLD Site Supporter
Yes but he also allowed it to expire without acting. So simply square that circle if you can. He lets it expire when all he had to do was issue another presidential ban but didn't. I simply don't understand the logic or what it has to do with a general that made statements not once but 3 times that are insubordination that shouldn't be gone. Perhaps he should keep him on because he is the only general we have that can do this job, well as I said Gates has 3 now in the wings that are as good if not better.

Now back to the guns, he is a pragmatists period. He won't do anything that will cost him his job so gun control is out of the question. Obama is a lot of things however stupid isn't one of them unlike others around him. He needs to bring both sides of the isle together and will never do it with division politics which in all honesty to my dismay really hasn't resorted to as of yet in spite of what you and others might think.
 

tommu56

Bronze Member
GOLD Site Supporter
He cut his teeth on special forces their fore is a little eccentric in my opinion (that isn't bad) and is the type I'd want to get a job done.
Politics shouldn't be his first priority that should be making sure every body comes home!
If you piss of the boss in the process he has his has to live with his decision I'm sure he is man enough to do it.

tom
 

joec

New member
GOLD Site Supporter
As I said and has been reported in the past this isn't the first time for him, it is the third time. He should be gone tomorrow and good riddance. They have others in the wings that could easily replace him and even according to McChrystal himself about the guy he replaced that no one can't be replaced. The fact of the matter is he hasn't done what he said he could do in the time he could do it. Oh and he agreed to do it when asked otherwise he wouldn't of been there.
 

Big Dog

Large Member
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
As I said and has been reported in the past this isn't the first time for him, it is the third time. He should be gone tomorrow and good riddance. They have others in the wings that could easily replace him and even according to McChrystal himself about the guy he replaced that no one can't be replaced. The fact of the matter is he hasn't done what he said he could do in the time he could do it. Oh and he agreed to do it when asked otherwise he wouldn't of been there.


But under what rules of engagement issued by the admin. IMO if given his will, you would get your success but recent articles from men on the line have stated that his hands have been tied by the admin thus his frustration. I'm sure he had no idea he was gonna have to play by the rules set forth before he took the job.
 
Last edited:

XeVfTEUtaAqJHTqq

Master of Distraction
Staff member
SUPER Site Supporter
One of my favorite mil-bloggers predicted McChrystal's downfall awhile ago . . .

http://www.facebook.com/MichaelYonFanPage?ref=ts

http://www.theusreport.com/the-us-r...criticism-of-mcchrystal-deemed-prophetic.html

Michael Yon’s criticism of McChrystal deemed prophetic



Rolling Stone’s advance of an article with controversial remarks by Gen. Stanley McChrystal about President Barack Obama’s prosecution of the war will be on the screen for days to come. Apparently the general opened up to a freelancer and held little back when it came to deriding vice-president Joe Biden and ambassador to Afghanistan Karl W. Eikenberry. Eikenberry retired from the US Army as a Lieutenant General.*

But war correspondent Michael Yon had begun to ask questions about the leadership in Afghanistan weeks ago.

The Washington Post said McChrystal “is quoted in an upcoming profile in Rolling Stone magazine as saying that Karl W. Eikenberry, the U.S. ambassador to Kabul, had ‘betrayed’ him by sending a diplomatic cable to Washington last fall dismissing Karzai as ‘not an adequate strategic partner.’ The cable came as McChrystal was recommending that President Obama increase U.S. forces and ties with the Afghan government.”

Long before Rolling Stone published the story, war correspondent Michael Yon had also levied criticism at McChrystal. Yon came under fire from some milbloggers for his dispatches, and at least one military blog came close to character assassination because of what Yon wrote about McChrystal.

Yon has consistently turned out major stories about the war that others missed, such as the Canadian Brigadier General who not only fired his weapon negligently but also was accused of having an affair with a female staffer. The military and media lagged in that coverage.

Yon also pinpointed a serious blunder that left a vital bridge unsecured in Afghanistan, leading to deaths and injuries for soldiers and civilians.

In a dispatch on Yon's Facebook Fan Page where approximately 35,000 fans read his posts, he wrote: “If a Colonel under General McChrystal's chain of command publicly dismissed General McChrystal in a major magazine, McChrystal would be forced to fire him or appear weak and not in control.”

The military doesn’t take kindly to public criticism that runs bottom to top.

Apart from Yon, however, many conservatives have been troubled by the prosecution of this war in accordance with demands from the left and from media, and complaints about the dilution of the Rules of Engagement have been raised in some quarters. Troop deaths rose sharply this year in Afghanistan, but national media, sympathetic to Obama, rarely make note of that. When President George W. Bush was in office, however, troop deaths were noted daily and above the fold.

A general feeling among national security conservatives is that even before Obama took office, leftwingers and allied media had actually prolonged the war and endangered troops just as they did during the Vietnam era. Another general feeling is that Obama lacked the experience to manage the war, even if his Democrat political base would permit it. The president is already behind the timetable he claimed he’d meet on troop withdrawal during his campaign.

Perhaps as a result of the attention Yon receives from branded media and from fans, it’s fathomable why some bloggers would launch personal attacks.

It appears Yon’s criticism of the general was prophetic. Yon also wrote on Facebook: “Unless McChrystal basically denies the article, he must be fired. If he is not fired, I will start calling him President McChrystal because Obama clearly is not in charge.”

Obviously Yon was ahead of the curve.

Yon’s embed was recently canceled and he has been filing dispatches from Thailand. His widely acclaimed book ‘Moment of Truth in Iraq’ has just been released in paperback. [Ed. Note: Yon actually began to crit the general sometime in April.]
 

grizzer

New member
I'd say he's gone, but the problems in Afghan are larger than ever:

June 22, 2010, 6:29 pm
Military Blogs Ask: Should He Stay or Go?

By STEPHEN FARRELLSchadenfreude among his critics, gloom among his admirers. That sums up the military blogs’ reaction to Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal’s flattening by a Rolling Stone profile.

Michael Yon, a former Green Beret who has had his own very public disagreements with Gen. McChrystal, posted an article on his website under the headline ‘Michael Yon’s criticism of McChrystal deemed prophetic
Over at Small Wars Journal, Robert Haddick deploys a soccer World Cup metaphor, saying that Gen. McChrystal will get a red card – which for anyone familiar with the round-ball version of football means a player is sent off. He continues:

“It is hard to believe that President Obama and his staff will be able to continue to work with McChrystal after the revelation of the Rolling Stone affair. President Obama will have to defend his commander-in-chief powers under Article II of the Constitution and that will almost certainly require McChrystal’s swift retirement. To allow McChrystal to apologize and stay on would set a bad precedent, send the wrong signal regarding civil-military relations to the rest of the military, and would cause great uproar among Obama’s civilian staff.”

Taking the exact opposite stance Schmedlap professes boredom.
“Seriously? This is a big deal? I am no McChrystal cheerleader and I consider myself to be a lot more concerned about civil-military relations than most …But this is just a whole lot of nothing. The outrage over this fairly tame, vague hearsay strikes me as beyond brain dead.”
Abu Muqawama (which translates as ‘Father of the Resistance) says that he was among those interviewed by Michael Hastings, and questions the wisdom of allowing the reporter within Gen. McChrystal’s inner circle. He concludes:

“This is hardly MacArthur-Truman territory, but POTUS has every right to be furious, and there are good arguments both for and against the sack. I think the key question here is how much risk POTUS wants to
run with respect to the war in Afghanistan. If this were, say, the mission in Kosovo, McChrystal would already be packing his bags. But the war in Afghanistan is a different beast, and POTUS may decide he can’t switch commanders 12 months out from his June 2011 deadline for beginning a withdrawal. (On the other hand, he might also decide that at this point, the well is so poisoned between McChrystal, Eikenberry and Holbrooke that he simply must get a new commander.)”

On The Long War Journal’s Threat Matrix blog Bill Roggio concludes that Gen. McChrystal’s “days may be numbered,” putting the indiscretion in the context of recent setbacks in the war itself.

“This story tops weeks of terrible news pouring out of Afghanistan, including: the delay of the Kandahar security operation and a lack of support from tribal leaders in the province; the difficulty in securing Marja; Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s loss of confidence in the US and NATO; the resignation of the Afghan Interior Minister and the chief of the National Directorate of Intelligence, two pro-American officials who are anti-Taliban hawks; General David Petraeus’ fainting spell during testimony before Congress on the course of the war; and the report that the military is in effect funding the insurgency through transportation contracts.

“The comments by McChrystal and his staff are at the least disrespectful to the President and the administration, and at worst insubordinate. It is unlikely that he can continue his command of Coalition forces in Afghanistan given the circumstances. And given that his staff had participated in the mudslinging, the slate will need to be wiped clean, leaving the question of who will succeed McChrystal if he resigns or is fired.”
http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/22/military-blogs-ask-should-he-stay-or-go/
 

Glink

Active member
Site Supporter
I am not sure if I think he should be fired for what he, or his aids, said or not. Seems like maybe the consensus is that he should. Never been in the military, don't fully understand the rules of decorum or otherwise, so I can't forward an informed opinion. But I will offer that there seems to be a body of evidence that Obama himself is at least partially responsible for the situation. His ambivalence toward Afganistan and the policy there, and his dithering over decisions on troop strength, rules of engagement and the constant babbling over a timetable, has actually caused a rift internal to the administration itself. As such McChrystal has operated in an environment of mixed message and even ankle biting by ranking members of the administration such as Biden and Eichenberry.

Really looks to me like McChrystal is going to be sacrificed in order to give the appearance that Obama is a decisive and involved CIC. When in fact just the opposite is true; and it is Obama and his ambivalence, that are at root cause fault of the situation at hand.

It is politics first with Obama and this administration. Maybe it is with all of them?
 

Big Dog

Large Member
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
Interesting twist ......... the Afghan's still want him!

Afghan leaders say firing NATO commander McChrystal over remarks could hurt war effort

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — Afghan officials said Wednesday that firing Gen. Stanley McChrystal would disrupt progress in the war and could jeopardize a pivotal security operation under way in Taliban strongholds in the south.
At the end of a one-hour video conference Tuesday night with President Barack Obama, Afghan President Hamid Karzai expressed his confidence in the top NATO commander in Afghanistan, Karzai spokesman Waheed Omar said.
McChrystal was summoned to Washington to explain disparaging comments published in Rolling Stone magazine that he and his top aides made about Obama's national security team.
While McChrystal, who was meeting with Obama on Wednesday, was harshly scolded by his superiors in the United States, officials in Afghanistan rallied to his support, saying he had increased cooperation between Afghan and international troops, worked to reduce civilian casualties and gained the trust of the Afghan people.
"The president believes that we are in a very sensitive juncture in the partnership, in the war on terror and in the process of bringing peace and stability to Afghanistan, and any gap in this process will not be helpful," Omar told reporters.

"We hope there is not a change of leadership of the international forces here in Afghanistan and that we continue to partner with Gen. McChrystal."
The controversy erupted as June is on track to becoming one of the deadliest months for U.S. and international forces in the nearly nine-year Afghan war.
The military said Wednesday that two American service members died Tuesday following separate bomb attacks in southern Afghanistan, and another Wednesday in a bomb attack in the west. That makes 70 international forces killed so far this month. Forty-four of them were Americans.
The deadliest month of the conflict for U.S. forces was October 2009, when 59 service members were killed. For NATO forces overall, the deadliest month was July 2009, when 75 troops were killed.
The violence is also hitting Afghans. A vehicle belonging to a candidate for parliament hit a roadside bomb early Wednesday in the east, killing the candidate's brother. The candidate was wounded but survived, said Ghafoor Khan, a police spokesman in Nangarhar province.
The flap over McChrystal comes as NATO and Afghan forces are ramping up security in and around the key southern city of Kandahar, the birthplace of the Taliban.
Karzai's younger half brother, Ahmad Wali Karzai, the head of the Kandahar provincial council, gave McChrystal a ringing endorsement, telling reporters in Kandahar that McChrystal's leadership would be sorely missed.
"If he is fired, it will disrupt the operation," Ahmad Wali Karzai said. "It definitely will affect it. He (McChrystal) started all this, and he has a good relationship with the people. The people trust him and we trust him. If we lose this important person, I don't think that this operation will work in a positive way."
In Kabul, Afghan Defense Ministry spokesman Gen. Mohammad Zahir Azimi also publicly voiced his support for the general, who is prepared to submit his resignation to Obama, according to two military officials. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about the issue.
"Since Gen. McChrystal took over the job as commander of the international forces, there have been a lot of changes in different departments, which are very important and positive," Azimi said. "For example, there has been a decrease in the numbers of civilian casualties and we're still working jointly with McChrystal to decrease it further."
Azimi spoke at a regular news conference held with Brig. Gen. Josef Blotz, spokesman for the NATO command in Kabul. Blotz declined to discuss McChrystal's fate or the magazine article, which reported deep rifts between the top commander in the war and the U.S. administration.
 

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
Yes but he also allowed it to expire without acting.
NO HE DID NOT :hammer:

Bush allowed it to expire. In fact this is the statement then Senator Obama made about that:
I think it is a scandal that this president did not authorize a renewal of the assault weapons ban.
You are constantly defending Obama on gun issues when the facts clearly show that Obama is violently anti-gun.
 

SShepherd

New member
there seems to be a number of 4star generals that play by there own terms...maybe thats how they got where they are. Patton comes to mind, although I'm not comparing the 2.

that being said, I'm sure there's some kind of repremand that can be given without relieving him of his command on condition if it happens again he's out of a job.
Unfortunatly though, I think Barry will give him the boot because of a brused overinflated ego.
 

joec

New member
GOLD Site Supporter
I checked and it seems you are correct about that so I stand corrected. Now as for defending Obama on guns I'm not defending him I just don't see him at this moment as a treat to guns. It really isn't important what he might want or wish for but in the current political atmosphere he isn't going to get it.

What is with this gun thing with you. You bring up problems that haven't been created yet. Constantly worrying about something you think he might do. I haven't got the want nor need to worry about something I have no control over and won't when the time comes. As for losing my guns, not a big deal as I can sure get more regardless of what the political party or group thinks.

Now again this has nothing to do with the subject of this tread so if there is a moderator reading please close it down.
 

joec

New member
GOLD Site Supporter
there seems to be a number of 4star generals that play by there own terms...maybe thats how they got where they are. Patton comes to mind, although I'm not comparing the 2.

that being said, I'm sure there's some kind of repremand that can be given without relieving him of his command on condition if it happens again he's out of a job.
Unfortunatly though, I think Barry will give him the boot because of a brused overinflated ego.

From everything I've heard today and yesterday the military brass says he needs to go. He has put himself in bad situation, and this isn't the first time. As for changing generals it really isn't going to amount to much as they will have another there in 72 hours just as good as he is. It also won't effect the troops there at all, as nothing will change for them.
 

Big Dog

Large Member
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
I haven't got the want nor need to worry about something I have no control over and won't when the time comes. As for losing my guns, not a big deal as I can sure get more regardless of what the political party or group thinks.

Joe, when it comes to politicians and gun control, if we wait to respond it's usually too late! Gun laws are something all gun owners should constantly keep aware of to protect their freedom. Head in sand gets no result!
 

joec

New member
GOLD Site Supporter
Joe, when it comes to politicians and gun control, if we wait to respond it's usually too late! Gun laws are something all gun owners should constantly keep aware of to protect their freedom. Head in sand gets no result!

Until they say they are planing on doing something there is no point in going all up in the air over imagined threats. Now you if you want threats that are real they are sure there. California registering rifles and shotguns, limiting ammo sales etc. You have Illinois, namely the city of Chicago attacking gun ownership as well as the state of NY. You also have Maryland and DC not abiding by current law but you are worried about what Barry might or might not do.

You do have a supreme court that it appears to have interpreted the 2nd Amendment the way it should be. Now you might need to go back and take a civics class again as you can't repeal an Amendment to the Constitution very easily. It has never been done with the first 10 that I'm aware off at all other than slavery. To do this takes a super majority of states to ratify it and I don't mean the representatives in the US congress I mean the state congresses their full houses.

Hell they couldn't get equal rights amendment for women passed in recent history. I just don't see the point in worrying about what might happen as I'm more interested in what is happening. Now if that is sticking my head in the sand then so be it.
 

Big Dog

Large Member
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
Joe the following thread is a thread started by Bob of recent that is a perfect example of which I speak.

http://www.forumsforums.com/3_9/showthread.php?t=38167

This so called PA loop hole law on OOS permits was moving in the PA judiciary committee which would not have need to go to the full house to be passed. It was presented to committee within 2 months of being scripted and until the public got wind of it and bombarded the committee with opposition it get delayed. It has been delayed at least 4 times, narrowed, and as current on the books today but lost priority. Really think you're on top of your local, sate, and federal gun laws?
 

joec

New member
GOLD Site Supporter
Ok I'm aware of that and it is a real treat not some imaginary one that hasn't been made yet. I've also been following it as I have a lot of friends there a couple of which are lawyers that are all over this to stop it.

That is a big difference from that and Clinton taking to the UN about a treaty involved in selling small arms to a third world nations in mass quantity which also had every one in a tiff over it. Every one saw a treaty as an amendment to our constitution too. It is a bit of hysteria and nothing more. It is like that part of the prayer that goes like below:

Grant me the serenity;
To accept the things I cannot change;
The courage, to change the things I can;
And the wisdom, to know the difference.
 

joec

New member
GOLD Site Supporter
I just heard that McChrystal has been relieved of his command. He will be replaced by Petraeus.
 
Last edited:

Big Dog

Large Member
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
Now we can focus on the content of which he revealed in the article ........... hope he goes on a media tour and spills his guts!
 
Top