PDA

View Full Version : Will McChrystal be Fired?



llotter
06-22-2010, 11:14 AM
By injecting a little too much honesty into the what's happening in our war effort, McChrystal must be fired according to most observers but I doubt that The Moron will have the cajones to do the task. First, he should be cognizant of further damaging his already tarnished image with the military. Second, he needs the best people doing an extraordinarily difficult job if he has any hope of actually coming out ahead in what most now call his war.

If he McChrystal does get fired, it only confirms what the Rolling Stone article says about The Moron. Of course, there is no doubt that McChrystal was only speaking the truth and most everyone knows it.

eg8r
06-22-2010, 11:21 AM
What did McChrystal do specifically that he should be fired for?

eg8r

pooltchr
06-22-2010, 11:26 AM
In the military, you do not publically speak out against your superiors. Whether or not you agree with him, Obama is CIC. If he had issues, they should have been addressed privately and directly, not in Rolling Stone!

Steve

llotter
06-22-2010, 11:31 AM
McChrystal told the truth:

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/the-runaway-general-the-full-text

Sev
06-22-2010, 12:15 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In the military, you do not publically speak out against your superiors. Whether or not you agree with him, Obama is CIC. If he had issues, they should have been addressed privately and directly, not in Rolling Stone!

Steve </div></div>

I agree.
However the president is in a difficult position. If he fires McChrystal and there is a change in the theater of operations and it goes awry Obama will be in trouble.

The troops have to come first when engage in a difficult war.

McChrystal knows his craft.

Stretch
06-23-2010, 03:44 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In the military, you do not publically speak out against your superiors. Whether or not you agree with him, Obama is CIC. If he had issues, they should have been addressed privately and directly, not in Rolling Stone!

Steve </div></div>

I agree.
However the president is in a difficult position. If he fires McChrystal and there is a change in the theater of operations and it goes awry Obama will be in trouble.

The troops have to come first when engage in a difficult war.

McChrystal knows his craft. </div></div>


I think McChristal will resign before he gets fired and Obama will accept his resignation. St.

Gayle in MD
06-23-2010, 05:43 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In the military, you do not publically speak out against your superiors. Whether or not you agree with him, Obama is CIC. If he had issues, they should have been addressed privately and directly, not in Rolling Stone!

Steve </div></div>

I agree.
However the president is in a difficult position. If he fires McChrystal and there is a change in the theater of operations and it goes awry Obama will be in trouble.

The troops have to come first when engage in a difficult war.

McChrystal knows his craft. </div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">McChrystal knows his craft. </div></div>

What do you mean by this?

LWW
06-23-2010, 06:37 AM
McChrystal is a good officer who made a career ending mistake.

He should resign and move on.

LWW

Gayle in MD
06-23-2010, 07:51 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stretch</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In the military, you do not publically speak out against your superiors. Whether or not you agree with him, Obama is CIC. If he had issues, they should have been addressed privately and directly, not in Rolling Stone!

Steve </div></div>

I agree.
However the president is in a difficult position. If he fires McChrystal and there is a change in the theater of operations and it goes awry Obama will be in trouble.

The troops have to come first when engage in a difficult war.

McChrystal knows his craft. </div></div>


I think McChristal will resign before he gets fired and Obama will accept his resignation. St. </div></div>


<span style="color: #FF6666">I think he'll do whatever Gates tells him to do in their early meeting, this morning, probably to resign, as you say. However, I never really liked him anyway. As I understand it, not many people in the Military, do like him. McCh was the one who pushed for this surge in Afghanistan, in the first place. Several others, in the war cabinet, are said to have been against it. I think, McCh. may have ovesold his own abilities.

I didn't like him for covering up the facts on Pat Tilman's (sp)death. He clearly lied.

I had read a lot of good things about McCh's counter insurgency abilities, but his personality turned me off big time. What he did this time, not the first, either, was really stupid.


This is actually the second time he's been completely out of line. I don't think the President is going to give him another chance to straighten up. But he might, since he has stated that his decision will be about what is best for the mission. If the president feels McCh has impaired his own effectiveness, he'll be gone.


As long as Gates supports this president's decisions about Afghanistan, and McC, then so will I. I have great respect for Gates, and believe that he is a straight shooter. His appointment was the one good decision Bush made while in office, IMO, but he made that decision far too late.

Gates and Biden are realists, about war and it's limits, and both carry heavy influence with the President. They are all very fond of one another, so I read from Washington Insiders.

Man, I'd like to be a fly on the wall when Gates meets with McChrystal! The **** is going to hit the fan on this! McChrystal's behavior hurts most, the men and women under his command.

He has put the President between a rock and a hard place, if there is no other person experienced enough, who can lead the mission at this time. I hope the President gets rid of him, but the damages created by McChrystal, are hard for outsiders, to determine. However, President Obama has said in the past, that no one is indispensible.

President Obama will do what is best for the mission, whatever he determines that to be, IMHO. I think Gates' advice on this will be the determining factor, in the president's final decision.



G. </span>

Deeman3
06-23-2010, 09:19 AM
He should quit or be fired. He will be better off somewhere else and Obama cannot prosecute a war with people he cannot trust.

All military groups have this nasty stuff being said about civilian authority. The pure lack of judgement on letting Rolling Stone hear it si unforgivable.

You can't disrespect your commander-in-chief. If you don't have confidence in him resign and shut up. I would have expected the same for Bush's commanders.

pooltchr
06-23-2010, 10:30 AM
Bush had a few generals who resigned, but then didn't shut up. This guy didn't wait to resign first.

No official word yet, but he met with Obama this morning, and then left before the meeting on Afghanistan, which would suggest that he offered his resignation, and it was accepted.

Unfortunately, while I think what he did was wrong, I don't disagree with what he said. Obama's rules of engagement are effectively tying the hands of the military to do their job, and is costing us in more troop deaths. Not a good plan, in my opinion. If we are going to have troops there, let them go all out to win the war. If we aren't going to do that, bring them home and let Afghanistan go to hell on their own.

Steve

Gayle in MD
06-23-2010, 10:32 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He should quit or be fired. He will be better off somewhere else and Obama cannot prosecute a war with people he cannot trust.

All military groups have this nasty stuff being said about civilian authority. The pure lack of judgement on letting Rolling Stone hear it si unforgivable.

You can't disrespect your commander-in-chief. If you don't have confidence in him resign and shut up. I would have expected the same for Bush's commanders. </div></div>

There were a number of Generals who resigned over Bush's policies, but they did not, that I recall, speak out until they took off their uniforms.

McChrystal is five levels down on the chain of command. He has no business trashing policies, or people.

Gates, Clinton, Biden and Eikenbury were all against McChrystal's policy of a surge in Afghanistan. he obviously persuaded the president that he could succeed, and the President gave hi a chance to prove it. IMO, he failed so far. I think our policy might take a huge change if McCh. is gone.

I hope the President forces him to resign, since McChrystal gave no indication before he met with Gates this morning, that he was even considering handing in a resignation.

He, McC. finished his meeting with gates, early, and the time was moved up for McCh's meeting with the president, He has left the White House, and is not in on the wider meeting with the Joint Chiefs. That may indicate that he did resign????


But then, as I said, I think the president will make his decision according to what is best for the cmpaign, not his political purposes or appearances, and I don't see how we can know enough about what all has to be considered.

It's surely bad timing, given recent results in Afghanistan, IMO.
General McCaffery is sounding like the current conditions are serious enough, that McChrystal's stupidity falls short of other considerations and issues in Afghanistan.

The President is to make a statement around one thirty.
G.

eg8r
06-23-2010, 11:13 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He should quit or be fired. He will be better off somewhere else and Obama cannot prosecute a war with people he cannot trust. </div></div>I agree completely.

eg8r

Deeman3
06-23-2010, 12:16 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He should quit or be fired. He will be better off somewhere else and Obama cannot prosecute a war with people he cannot trust.

All military groups have this nasty stuff being said about civilian authority. The pure lack of judgement on letting Rolling Stone hear it si unforgivable.

You can't disrespect your commander-in-chief. If you don't have confidence in him resign and shut up. I would have expected the same for Bush's commanders. </div></div>

There were a number of Generals who resigned over Bush's policies, but they did not, that I recall, speak out until they took off their uniforms.

McChrystal is five levels down on the chain of command. He has no business trashing policies, or people.

Gates, Clinton, Biden and Eikenbury were all against McChrystal's policy of a surge in Afghanistan. he obviously persuaded the president that he could succeed, and the President gave hi a chance to prove it. IMO, he failed so far. I think our policy might take a huge change if McCh. is gone.

I hope the President forces him to resign, since McChrystal gave no indication before he met with Gates this morning, that he was even considering handing in a resignation.

He, McC. finished his meeting with gates, early, and the time was moved up for McCh's meeting with the president, He has left the White House, and is not in on the wider meeting with the Joint Chiefs. That may indicate that he did resign????


But then, as I said, I think the president will make his decision according to what is best for the cmpaign, not his political purposes or appearances, and I don't see how we can know enough about what all has to be considered.

It's surely bad timing, given recent results in Afghanistan, IMO.
General McCaffery is sounding like the current conditions are serious enough, that McChrystal's stupidity falls short of other considerations and issues in Afghanistan.

The President is to make a statement around one thirty.
G.
</div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000"> We agree on most of this here and I respect the President's decison. It was a hard to win sort of decision and, as you say, could not have come at a worse time for us.

As you also say, many of the Bush commanders trashed him after retiring. I have no problem with that but our President deserves better than this form a guy he gave all the marbles to and backed when everyone else was against him. Loyalty still should count for something.</span>

Gayle in MD
06-23-2010, 02:54 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He should quit or be fired. He will be better off somewhere else and Obama cannot prosecute a war with people he cannot trust.

All military groups have this nasty stuff being said about civilian authority. The pure lack of judgement on letting Rolling Stone hear it si unforgivable.

You can't disrespect your commander-in-chief. If you don't have confidence in him resign and shut up. I would have expected the same for Bush's commanders. </div></div>

There were a number of Generals who resigned over Bush's policies, but they did not, that I recall, speak out until they took off their uniforms.

McChrystal is five levels down on the chain of command. He has no business trashing policies, or people.

Gates, Clinton, Biden and Eikenbury were all against McChrystal's policy of a surge in Afghanistan. he obviously persuaded the president that he could succeed, and the President gave hi a chance to prove it. IMO, he failed so far. I think our policy might take a huge change if McCh. is gone.

I hope the President forces him to resign, since McChrystal gave no indication before he met with Gates this morning, that he was even considering handing in a resignation.

He, McC. finished his meeting with gates, early, and the time was moved up for McCh's meeting with the president, He has left the White House, and is not in on the wider meeting with the Joint Chiefs. That may indicate that he did resign????


But then, as I said, I think the president will make his decision according to what is best for the cmpaign, not his political purposes or appearances, and I don't see how we can know enough about what all has to be considered.

It's surely bad timing, given recent results in Afghanistan, IMO.
General McCaffery is sounding like the current conditions are serious enough, that McChrystal's stupidity falls short of other considerations and issues in Afghanistan.

The President is to make a statement around one thirty.
G.
</div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000"> We agree on most of this here and I respect the President's decison. It was a hard to win sort of decision and, as you say, could not have come at a worse time for us.

As you also say, many of the Bush commanders trashed him after retiring. I have no problem with that but our President deserves better than this form a guy he gave all the marbles to and backed when everyone else was against him. Loyalty still should count for something.</span> </div></div>

I absolutely agree with that, Deeman. In the long run, though, this change may work to the President's advantage, as I feel that Patreaus has far better judgement, generally speaking, than McChrystal, so perhaps we will see more success, far sooner, under General Patraeus.

Let's hope so.

G.

Deeman3
06-23-2010, 03:24 PM
I can't disagree on the judgement issue as this was as poor a case of judgement on a military leader's part since General Cornpone said, "Naw, they can't hit anything at this dist..."

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Gayle in MD
06-23-2010, 03:35 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I can't disagree on the judgement issue as this was as poor a case of judgement on a military leader's part since General Cornpone said, "Naw, they can't hit anything at this dist..."

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </div></div>

Are you sure his name wasn't cowpone? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

wolfdancer
06-23-2010, 03:44 PM
Jubilation T. Cornpone was the South's finest General!!!
XXX (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuWRh-lZicg)

Gayle in MD
06-23-2010, 04:18 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Jubilation T. Cornpone was the South's finest General!!!
XXX (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuWRh-lZicg)
</div></div>

LOL, shoulda known it by his gut!

wolfdancer
06-24-2010, 01:55 AM
Careful now...." I have it on good authority " that a member here was known to take the role of Gen. Jub. in a college musical...

hondo
06-24-2010, 12:14 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In the military, you do not publically speak out against your superiors. Whether or not you agree with him, Obama is CIC. If he had issues, they should have been addressed privately and directly, not in Rolling Stone!

Steve </div></div>

That's the way I see it. Obama had no choice.
I just finished reading the McChrystal article in RS.

hondo
06-24-2010, 12:15 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">McChrystal told the truth:

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/the-runaway-general-the-full-text </div></div>

If this had been a general speaking out against Bush, you would have been all over him, truth or not.

hondo
06-24-2010, 12:16 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">McChrystal is a good officer who made a career ending mistake.

He should resign and move on.

LWW </div></div>


Good post.

Deeman3
06-24-2010, 12:20 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Careful now...." I have it on good authority " that a member here was known to take the role of Gen. Jub. in a college musical... </div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000">and was treated unusually gratiously by the left leaning, liberal local press reviews at the time.

But to set the record straight, I played Marryin' Sam, a much fuller and rich character as the General was just a statue in the play! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </span>

pooltchr
06-24-2010, 01:47 PM
I was the captain of the HMS Pinnafore! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/blush.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/blush.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/blush.gif

Steve

Deeman3
06-24-2010, 03:00 PM
While I have supported Obama's decision and actions in this case, you have to admit that, while most of us feel Petraus is a good replacement, it was not that long ago that he was President Bush's pick, was called General Betrayus by all on the left and was not trusted to deliver a report on the war status without allowing the Bush Administration to write it for hiim.

He is the same guy, right? He is basically deploying the same increased troops plan he prooffered in the Iraq war the only difference being who he reports to now.

Like the more than strange occurrance of all three networks discontinuing there nightly report of how many were killed (in a runnning total) just as Obama took office.

Now, still I support Obama in the war and Petraus as his leading man but you would have to partisan blind to miss the irony here.

Speaking of General Cornpone, I would be willing to bet that his incarnation, had he been appointed, would have been celebrated if under Obama and rioting ensure if named under Bush.

Come on, admit it! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif I won't tell.

wolfdancer
06-24-2010, 03:07 PM
an here I had this image of you,decked out as the Gen. with pigeons surrounding you.....

bobroberts
06-24-2010, 03:14 PM
[quote=Deeman3]While I have supported Obama's decision and actions in this case, you have to admit that, while most of us feel Petraus is a good replacement, it was not that long ago that he was President Bush's pick, was called General Betrayus by all on the left and was not trusted to deliver a report on the war status without allowing the Bush Administration to write it for hiim.

He is the same guy, right? He is basically deploying the same increased troops plan he prooffered in the Iraq war the only difference being who he reports to now.

Like the more than strange occurrance of all three networks discontinuing there nightly report of how many were killed (in a runnning total) just as Obama took office.

Now, still I support Obama in the war and Petraus as his leading man but you would have to partisan blind to miss the irony here.

That's the problem with the far left as well as the far right.When its convenient they attack.You should all become libertarians.

eg8r
06-25-2010, 06:50 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">While I have supported Obama's decision and actions in this case, you have to admit that, while most of us feel Petraus is a good replacement, it was not that long ago that he was President Bush's pick, was called General Betrayus by all on the left and was not trusted to deliver a report on the war status without allowing the Bush Administration to write it for hiim.
</div></div>He is the same guy and the majority of Americans (minus the extreme lefties who called him betrayus because of the hatred of the President) know he was the right guy for the job then and he is the right replacement for the job now. I think this was a smart move by Obama because he knows that Petraus (sp?) is not only the right guy but he is also the "Reps guy" which will help him in the long run by not only showing he was decisive in removing the "problem guy" and putting in the "Reps guy".

eg8r

hondo
06-25-2010, 07:03 AM
Yep. I agree.