PDA

View Full Version : McChrystal Fired - Replaced by Petraeus



Kay
06-23-2010, 01:27 PM
Just breaking - Barry has fired Gen. McChrystal and is replacing him with Gen. Petraeus, according to Fox News who says according to AP.


EDIT: Oops....just realized I misspelled Petraeus in the title if a mod could fix that please.

M21
06-23-2010, 01:38 PM
I predict a lot of GREAT SOF Officers will drop their retirement papers soon.

djones520
06-23-2010, 01:52 PM
I predict a lot of GREAT SOF Officers will drop their retirement papers soon.

Doubt it. A lot of great SOF Officers will be saying that he got what he asked for.

M21
06-23-2010, 01:58 PM
Doubt it. A lot of great SOF Officers will be saying that he got what he asked for.

:rolleyes: That's not what I'm hearing where I work but your mileage may vary. FWIW - He resigned and I'm sure he'll get by just fine on 4 star retired pay.

I'm sure all the liberals who hate his ass from way back are orgasmic over this turn of events.

FlaGator
06-23-2010, 02:59 PM
I wonder what the Afghans think about this? They lobbied O to let him stay.

Right-Wing Conspirator
06-23-2010, 03:01 PM
So, the choices here were-

1). Obama fires McChrystal because he's a thin-skinned little bitch that can't take the heat of scrutiny that the office of POTUS brings with it

2). Obama doesn't fire McChrystal, which shows him to be weak and spineless (well, we already know he is, it just further re-enforces it)

...and he chooses thin-skinned little bitch, which really doesn't surprise me.

m00
06-23-2010, 03:06 PM
I actually watched the Obama speech about this on the news today. I could actually picture two teleprompters to his left and his right, as he mechanically turned his head every 5 seconds while his eyes moved in an unbroken left-to-right fashion. And every so often he would pause on a very odd word.

I realize that all politicians use teleprompters, but it honestly seemed like his first time seeing the text he was reading. He really failed to connect with the audience.

FlaGator
06-23-2010, 03:46 PM
I actually watched the Obama speech about this on the news today. I could actually picture two teleprompters to his left and his right, as he mechanically turned his head every 5 seconds while his eyes moved in an unbroken left-to-right fashion. And every so often he would pause on a very odd word.

I realize that all politicians use teleprompters, but it honestly seemed like his first time seeing the text he was reading. He really failed to connect with the audience.

The man is clearly unable to articulate even simple concepts with out the aid of speech writers and teleprompters. He seems incapable of ad hoc, off the cuff remarks that come across as even remotely intelligible.

Rockntractor
06-23-2010, 04:45 PM
McChrystal voted for Obama and deserves what he gets.

Megaguns91
06-23-2010, 04:52 PM
McChrystal voted for Obama and deserves what he gets.

Can't argue with that logic :p

Lager
06-23-2010, 04:54 PM
I only saw excerpts from the article, but what was highlighted seemed no way near bad enough to warrant firing. Did anyone read the whole thing? Perhaps this is a smoke screen to cover the worsening situation in that country.

lacarnut
06-23-2010, 05:26 PM
I only saw excerpts from the article, but what was highlighted seemed no way near bad enough to warrant firing. Did anyone read the whole thing? Perhaps this is a smoke screen to cover the worsening situation in that country.

It is bad alright. I watched 2 retired military on Fox give a grade on the status of this shit-hole country a 2 out of 10 with 10 being the highest. We need to get out of that fucked up, corrupt, country before more American lives are lost. Bomb the shit out of their strongholds and leave. If that involves going outside of Afghan, tough shit.

Troll
06-23-2010, 05:33 PM
Richly deserved.

One of the first things you learn in boot camp is not to do something like what McChrystal did. Rolling Stone magazine falls nowhere in the military chain of command. Very unprofessional, and the man should have known better. If I were Obama, I would have fired him over the phone.

linda22003
06-23-2010, 06:06 PM
I only saw excerpts from the article, but what was highlighted seemed no way near bad enough to warrant firing. Did anyone read the whole thing? Perhaps this is a smoke screen to cover the worsening situation in that country.

It's insubordination, and he should have known better. The old retired military guys I know have been emailing and Facebooking about it today. They can't stand Obama, but they all agree that McChrystal screwed the pooch.

djones520
06-23-2010, 06:21 PM
Richly deserved.

One of the first things you learn in boot camp is not to do something like what McChrystal did. Rolling Stone magazine falls nowhere in the military chain of command. Very unprofessional, and the man should have known better. If I were Obama, I would have fired him over the phone.

Probably the first thing I've ever agreed with you on.

Odysseus
06-23-2010, 06:44 PM
Doubt it. A lot of great SOF Officers will be saying that he got what he asked for.
There's a RIF coming, so I suspect that it will be done for a lot of us, and not just the SOF guys.

It is bad alright. I watched 2 retired military on Fox give a grade on the status of this shit-hole country a 2 out of 10 with 10 being the highest. We need to get out of that fucked up, corrupt, country before more American lives are lost. Bomb the shit out of their strongholds and leave. If that involves going outside of Afghan, tough shit.
Give it a rest, will you? Retired military talking heads told us that we were going to take massive casualties during Desert Storm. We didn't. Afghanistan is a crappy situation, but we don't have the luxury of running with our tails between our legs. We have no choice but to keep fighting and maybe, just maybe, if we can get the support that we need here in CONUS, we might just be able to accomplish something over there, but as long as we're willing to do the job, the least that you can do is stop telling us how afraid you are that we're doomed and stop pissing on our mission. It's really getting old. In fact, you're starting to sound like Gator.

I only saw excerpts from the article, but what was highlighted seemed no way near bad enough to warrant firing. Did anyone read the whole thing? Perhaps this is a smoke screen to cover the worsening situation in that country.
I downloaded the article here (http://markhalperin.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/r1109mcchrystal.pdf). What struck me was that almost all of the critical comments were (a) directed at subordinate personnel in the administration (Biden, Jones, Holbrooke, Eikenberry, etc., which is still actionable under Article 88 of the UCMJ if the language is deemed "contemptuous") and (b) were made by GEN McChrystal's staff, with nothing directly attributed to him by the author of the article except for a few comments which were clearly not derogatory, but were critical of specific actions (like Eikenberry's leaking of a CYA memo). Also the tone of the article is downright nasty towards the military, but not Obama, who still gets the adoring treatment from Rolling Stone. For example, here's the description of Obama's performance on Afghanistan with my comments in blue italic parenthesis:


When barack obama entered the Oval Office, he immediately (after over a year, that is) set out to deliver on his most important campaign promise on foreign policy: to refocus the war in Afghanistan on what led us to invade in the first place. “I want the American people to understand,” he announced in March 2009. “We have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat Al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan.”
He ordered another 21,000 troops to Kabul (who were already scheduled to go, after dithering for three months after the request was made), the largest increase since the war began in 2001 (even if it was only two-thirds of what was requested, Obama was taking care of business, see?). Taking the advice of both the Pentagon and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he also fired Gen. David McKiernan – then the U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan (he trusted those fascists, man, and look what that got him) – and replaced him with a man he didn’t know and had met only briefly: Gen. Stanley McChrystal (so it wasn't his fault, he barely knew the man).
And here is one of many loaded descriptions of the general:

The next morning, McChrystal and his team gather to prepare for a speech he is giving at the École Militaire, a French military academy. The general prides himself on being sharper and ballsier than anyone else (not that he actually is, mind you), but his brashness comes with a price: Although McChrystal has been in charge of the war for only a year, in that short time he has managed to piss off almost everyone with a stake in the conflict (beginning with Rolling Stone, apparently).
Here's one of their descriptions of the staff:

The general’s staff is a handpicked collection of killers (well, yeah, that's what Soldiers do), spies (I believe the term is intel analysts), geniuses (well, someone had to give us access so that we could write this article), patriots (an evil word at Rolling Stone), political operators (Civil Affairs, not to be confused with politicians, who are another breed entirely) and outright maniacs (it's the military, what else would Rolling Stone call them?). There’s a former head of British Special Forces, two Navy Seals, an Afghan Special Forces commando, a lawyer, two fighter pilots and at least two dozen combat veterans and counterinsurgency experts (a lawyer? Now that's insulting!).
The section that goes into the general's bio emphasizes his heavy drinking and disciplinary issues at West Point, and downplays or dismisses his leadership qualities. For example:


He also set a manic pace for his staff, becoming legendary for sleeping four hours a night, running seven miles each morning, and eating one meal a day. (In the month I spend around the general, I witness him eating only once.) It’s a kind of superhuman narrative that has built up around him, a staple in almost every media profile (we can't have the media treating a public figure as superhuman, can we? Unless it's Obama, of course, then it's okay), as if the ability to go without sleep and food translates into the possibility of a man single-handedly winning the war (when we all know that it's really the ability to decompress with a few rounds of golf during a crisis). His stint at the Kennedy School of Government is dismissed as his "improv[ing] his inside game" rather than having been accepted into one of the Army's premier scholarship opportunities. Every move that he made is snidely derided as careerism, and his support for the chain of command prior to Obama is cited as grounds for being tossed out, including a slanderous accusation that the general participated in a cover up of Pat Tillman's death. It's such an obvious hatchet job that I'm surprised that anyone is taking it seriously. For an officer of GEN McChrystal's caliber to be removed for something this blatantly biased and shoddy is a disgrace.

Articulate_Ape
06-23-2010, 06:47 PM
McChrystal voted for Obama and deserves what he gets.

Our resident swine is spot on. It's called being hoist by your own petard.

m00
06-23-2010, 06:53 PM
It's insubordination, and he should have known better. The old retired military guys I know have been emailing and Facebooking about it today. They can't stand Obama, but they all agree that McChrystal screwed the pooch.

Personally, I'd rather that our generals were good at generaling rather than public relations and media management. And by all accounts, McChrystal is a very good general.

Articulate_Ape
06-23-2010, 06:57 PM
Personally, I'd rather that our generals were good at generaling rather than public relations and media management. And by all accounts, McChrystal is a very good general.

Bam Bam disagrees, and who are we to question his impeccable judgment? Get with the program, m00. Geez.

Lager
06-23-2010, 07:04 PM
Thank you Odysseus for posting the link. Up to this point I haven't read much about McChrystal. I agree with many, that submitting to the interview with Rolling Stone was probably bad judgement regardless of the severity of what was said. I had heard many compare this situation to Truman and MacArthur, and even though I haven't read the full text of the interview yet, I'm quite sure that's just extreme hyperbole and exaggeration. However, Obama is Commander in Chief, and it's within his power to hire or fire whom he sees fit to fill that role.

Troll
06-23-2010, 07:35 PM
Probably the first thing I've ever agreed with you on.

Plus, hey, Obama is replacing him with General "Betray Us" - this might generate a semi-interesting response from the far left blogosphere.

warpig
06-23-2010, 07:37 PM
I wonder if Barry wet himself when he fired him?

Zeus
06-23-2010, 08:21 PM
While it is not unusual for a general to be relieved of a duty it is unusual for that Generals Boss to be selected to replace hime.

Kay
06-23-2010, 08:27 PM
I saw this article posted on another forum - it's a Newsweek interview of
the Rolling Stone reporter on the backstory of how the article came about:

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/06/22/rolling-stone-author-discusses-general-mcchrystal-interview.html

M21
06-24-2010, 12:16 AM
General McChrystal was my Battalion Commander at one point in my life and at another point in my career I was a worker bee on his staff. I'm proud to be one of his has beens rather than a never was.

From his bio "He runs seven to eight miles a day, eats one meal, and sleeps for four hours a night." If you don't know what makes guys like this tick then I can't explain it to you. You'll never get it.

I also heard a commenter today say that in contrast to General MCrystal, General Petraeus was a "Gentleman first and then a warrior." Friends we have met the enemy and it is us.

M21
06-24-2010, 12:18 AM
I saw this article posted on another forum - it's a Newsweek interview of
the Rolling Stone reporter on the backstory of how the article came about:

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/06/22/rolling-stone-author-discusses-general-mcchrystal-interview.html

Like I said in another thread; A rat in the Eagles nest. I see the Taliban is pleased today.

M21
06-24-2010, 01:06 AM
McChrystal voted for Obama and deserves what he gets.

Do you have a source other than the Hastings piece in Rolling Stone? Do you believe Hastings knows who McChrystal voted for? Is Hastings a reliable reporter? He writes that the surge began in 2006 and that McChrystal was "Regimental" Commander of 3rd Ranger "Battalion." That is factually wrong. How many other errors did he make?

It's all water under the bridge now, but....

Rockntractor
06-24-2010, 01:35 AM
Do you have a source other than the Hastings piece in Rolling Stone? Do you believe Hastings knows who McChrystal voted for? Is Hastings a reliable reporter? He writes that the surge began in 2006 and that McChrystal was "Regimental" Commander of 3rd Ranger "Battalion." That is factually wrong. How many other errors did he make?

It's all water under the bridge now, but....
I either heard it from Quinn & Rose today or Mark Levin I don't remember which.

M21
06-24-2010, 01:51 AM
I downloaded the article here (http://markhalperin.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/r1109mcchrystal.pdf).

Thanks for the article EVERYONE should read. The Fifth Column won one today.

Odysseus
06-24-2010, 09:53 AM
Thank you Odysseus for posting the link. Up to this point I haven't read much about McChrystal. I agree with many, that submitting to the interview with Rolling Stone was probably bad judgement regardless of the severity of what was said. I had heard many compare this situation to Truman and MacArthur, and even though I haven't read the full text of the interview yet, I'm quite sure that's just extreme hyperbole and exaggeration. However, Obama is Commander in Chief, and it's within his power to hire or fire whom he sees fit to fill that role.
I don't know that there was an interview. Here's a very interesting take on how this went down (http://NoQuarterUSA.net):


Something’s Wrong with the McChrystal Slam Dunk
By Larry Johnson
Email: larry_johnson@earthlink.net
Site: http://NoQuarterUSA.net

I realize General McChrystal is already tried and convicted in the court of public opinion. The lazy fucking media reports, “GENERAL MCCHRYSTAL SAID . . .” but, if you take time to read the article, McChrystal is not quoted once saying anything disparaging about anyone up his chain of command. Several guys who work on his staff are talking shit, but not Stan. Now, I’m not excusing Stan McChrystal for hiring those assholes or not riding herd on them, but I’m troubled by a key unanswered question–who made the decision to let the Rolling Stone reporter embed with McChrystal?

This was a set up of General McChrystal. While I’m not a personal friend, I worked under his command for several years and know that he frowned on sharing anything with the media. In fact, I’m certain he did not invite the Rolling Stone reporter into his lair. So he did? Was this one of his over zealous staff or was he ordered by someone higher up to give the reporter access?

Yes it is true that McChrystal is apologizing for the information in the article. I know why.

I spend a significant amount of time each year working with U.S. military forces that have the counter terrorism mission. They talk alot of shit when they are among friends. Some of it is rude. Much of it is blue. And it, within the context, is funny as hell. It is a way of blowing off steam. When you put men (and the forces I’m with are 100% male, no females) who are working in life and death situations on a 24/7 basis they do need to blow off steam. Unfortunately, these guys are not President Obama. They can’t play golf when it suits them. They can’t invite Paul McCartney in to sing “Hey Jude.” They can’t host the NCAA Men and Women’s Basketball Champs for a meet and greet. Instead they use crude humor as a release. You get a flavor of that in the Rolling Stone article.

More importantly, they make jokes about political figures and leaders. But it is supposed to be kept in-house. They’ll follow Obama’s orders but they don’t like nor respect him. That’s the reality and some of those feelings expressed by subordinates of McChrystal got out into public.

So far Obama has played this event pretty cool. He’s trying to act Presidential. Good. Let’s see what happens tomorrow. If McChrystal shows up with resignation in-hand and Obama accepts it then McChrystal will soon be outside of the tent pissing in. I don’t think Obama wants that nightmare. Alternatively Obama can refuse to accept the resignation and then, in a gesture magnanimity, forgives McChrystal and sends him back to the fight. If he does the latter it will boost Obama’s standing. American’s love it when a President, like a Roman Emperor at a gladiator circus, gives the thumbs up and saves a warrior.

Meanwhile, this does not answer the question–who let the enemy in the tent?

UPDATE: Here’s what I think happened. Rolling Stone asked someone at the White House or DOD for permission to do a piece on the counter insurgency progress in Afghanistan. McChrystal was told to let the reporter accompany them. He thought that the piece being done was on the counter insurgency. Boy, was he wrong. What he did not count on was that the reporter would choose to focus on the remarks made by staff members. As Politico has reported, Rolling Stone never ran the whole article by McChrystal and his team. The rest of the media needs to ask the more important question I raised above, “Who put the reporter in the McChrystal camp?”

General McChrystal was my Battalion Commander at one point in my life and at another point in my career I was a worker bee on his staff. I'm proud to be one of his has beens rather than a never was.

From his bio "He runs seven to eight miles a day, eats one meal, and sleeps for four hours a night." If you don't know what makes guys like this tick then I can't explain it to you. You'll never get it.

I also heard a commenter today say that in contrast to General MCrystal, General Petraeus was a "Gentleman first and then a warrior." Friends we have met the enemy and it is us.

I've never heard a bad thing said about the man before this comes out, but I'm not in the SOF community so I wouldn't be in the know, but from everything that I've heard, he was a truly gifted commander and a stand up guy. The article makes it clear (unintentionally) that he had a great rapport with his staff and counterparts everywhere but at the State Department (which has a history of using leaks to sink their rivals). Just a thought, but you can generally tell who a reporter used as a source in this kind of article, as the source is the one who comes out smelling like a rose while everyone else is painted as manure. Given that the article gives high marks to Hillary and goes out of its way to slam Holbrooke and Eikenberry, it strikes me that this could have originated at Foggy Bottom as a means of giving State a greater role in Afghanistan and getting rid of problematical staffers who have run afoul of Hillary.

Lager
06-24-2010, 06:50 PM
McChrystal is not quoted once saying anything disparaging about anyone up his chain of command. Several guys who work on his staff are talking shit, but not Stan.


That's an interesting point, one that I noticed as well.
The President and the General represent two very different cultures. I noticed that the biased author begins his piece with a description of Stan's tastes, and his rejection of "Gucci" french wining and dining. In the world of the left, that's indicative of a put down. It's supposed to show that he's unsophisticated.

Now the RS writer and Obama might look down at the military culture, but the truth is that much of it shares more in common with McCrystal than it does with either of them. You might not like their tastes, but their personalites make them a perfect fit for the messy job they have to do.

Two questions stand out in my mind. First, if there's a strong sentiment against the COIN strategy in the administration, then what good does it do to put in charge the man who basically wrote the guide book for it?

Second, - and I admit I'm from an Air Force background, so perhaps I don't understand everything about ground ops -- but why in the world do you go to such great lengths to publicize the start time of a major military operation?, such as the one in Kandahar?

lacarnut
06-24-2010, 07:34 PM
Second, - and I admit I'm from an Air Force background, so perhaps I don't understand everything about ground ops -- but why in the world do you go to such great lengths to publicize the start time of a major military operation?, such as the one in Kandahar?

That one is easy. You have a bunch of political dunces and Pentagon desk jockeys running the show. Giving the enemy advance warning so that we do not kill a few precious civilians while putting our own troops in more danger is nuts. Publicizing targets, nation building, training lazy Afghans, and dealing with a totally corrupt government is not a way to win a war in my opinion.