Should obama fire McChrystal?

[Pandora]

Ultimately, McChrystal left Obama no choice whatsoever.

Lobbying for a troop increase publicly following the leak of his formal request last Fall, McChrystal placed Obama in the uncomfortable position of choosing between the recommendation of the man he personally selected to prosecute and ultimately conclude the war in Afghanistan and his political base that clamored for an end to America’s seemingly fruitless and open-ended occupation of Hell’s half acre. While some charitably characterized McChrystal as merely being a step ahead of Obama’s ultimate decision, others saw a political gambit that undermined the principal of civilian control of the military and a challenge to the President’s national command authority.

In light of the remarks covered in the Rolling Stone piece, the position of those who believe the latter was significantly strengthened by what appears to be a culture of open contempt of the administration and key members of the National Security Council among McChrystal’s command staff. Accordingly, the President had to save face as well as firmly reassert the principal of civilian control of the military.

Beyond the realm of constitutional principals, there is also the very real world concern of presidential perception and America’s national security. Currently, though personally popular among adoring throngs the planet over, there is considerable doubt among his peers – as well as America’s antagonists – about Obama’s resolve. Indeed, the perception of Obama among world leaders belies the image one normally associates with a veteran of the rough and tumble, cut-throat Chicago political scene. To retain McChrystal with little more than a hearty serving of humble pie as his punishment would have reinforced the perception of an irresolute and weak-willed president. The implications for America’s national security are potentially significant as her adversaries and antagonists would be further emboldened and increasingly believe they can challenge or disregard her with impunity.

All in all, it's an abrupt and disappointing end to what appears to be an otherwise exemplary military career. I do, though, believe there are a number of lessons that can be gleaned from this unfortunate turn of events.

1) Once a star appears on your shoulders, everything you do and say will be subjected to the harsh and unforgiving light of bureaucratic and public scrutiny.

That scrutiny exponentially increases with each additional star.

This multiplies astronomically when one becomes the field commander of a lingering, multi-year war that many regard as a hopeless, festering wound.

Act accordingly, 24/7/365.

2) Soldiers are human, too.

Off-duty, they drink, use course language, act sophomoric and immature, have issues with authority, believe they're smarter than their superiors, are disdainful of self-important politicians, have strong political views and share them with their peers and friends in discussions that often include the aforementioned course language.

3) The President's perception problem permeates the military as thoroughly as it does the international arena.

4) Loose lips sink ships. And decades-long military careers. Take the Go-Go's admonition to heart and keep your lips sealed.

5) Unlike Dr. Hook, generals should never, ever long to appear on the cover of the Rolling Stone.

A retired General speculated that he did it on purpose knowing he would either be fired or at least be able to give a resignation.

 

[Pandora]

I did, so deal with it. You however can't say the same...you cower in the corner saying well so and so did X, so I can do it...a childs game. Fact is you want to play politics with the Military, and if 1 or 100,000 others did it before, does not change the fact your guilty. Next time some of our troops get killed in Afghanistan, you can rest happy to know you put Politics first.

ok what ever. You reverted back to the person you were two years ago and that person is not worth talking to or taking insults from so you win, be happy ...........conversation ended.

 

[The Scotsman]

A retired General speculated that he did it on purpose knowing he would either be fired or at least be able to give a resignation.

..........Pandi, the man was an idiot. As well as being in command of soldiers in a war he has to be in command of the information war. He personaly demonstrated a remarkble degree of naivety as did those under his command. The fact that he was shown and approved an advanced copy of the article just boggles the mind.

Had it been his commanders and their staff undermineing McChrystal and his efforts in A'stan he would have been quite justified in demanding from them the respect and support due to a commander in the field. He owed the same duty! It is insupportable that such disrespect was openly and publically aired and thus could not have been allowed to continue in his position.

 

[Pandora]

..........Pandi, the man was an idiot. As well as being in command of soldiers in a war he has to be in command of the information war. He personaly demonstrated a remarkble degree of naivety as did those under his command. The fact that he was shown and approved an advanced copy of the article just boggles the mind.

Had it been his commanders and their staff undermineing McChrystal and his efforts in A'stan he would have been quite justified in demanding from them the respect and support due to a commander in the field. He owed the same duty! It is insupportable that such disrespect was openly and publically aired and thus could not have been allowed to continue in his position.

Lots of people on the right agree he should be fired, I am sure you are right,

The part that bothers me is that nothing he said was wrong or a lie and really I am not sure anything he said was even bad. Some of the people with him said things that were bad though, I admit.

Since this happened I have asked a number of military people what the rules are when it comes to speaking your mind a about things like the president and I have been told you can not. I have a hard time with that. Military people are Americans too and should have rights to free speech and they should be able to say how they feel about the leaders

 

[dahermit]

Lots of people on the right agree he should be fired, I am sure you are right,

The part that bothers me is that nothing he said was wrong or a lie and really I am not sure anything he said was even bad. Some of the people with him said things that were bad though, I admit.

Since this happened I have asked a number of military people what the rules are when it comes to speaking your mind a about things like the president and I have been told you can not. I have a hard time with that. Military people are Americans too and should have rights to free speech and they should be able to say how they feel about the leaders

In order for a command structure to work, privets do not "speak their minds" about their sargents, they carry out orders without question (unless unlawful). Sargents do not "speak their minds" about lieutenants, etc.

Generals do not speak their minds or allow their subordinates to speak their minds about the commander in chief. "Ours is not to question why, ours is to do and to die..."

The military command structure is not a debate club. We have civilian control of the military, unless you would prefer a South American style military Junta running the USA.

McCrystal was called to the White House and warned about making comments that contradicted civilian authority on an occasion previous to his firing. He did not take heed of the warning, and like MacArthur, lost his position.

 

[Pandora]

In order for a command structure to work, privets do not "speak their minds" about their sargents, they carry out orders without question (unless unlawful). Sargents do not "speak their minds" about lieutenants, etc.

Generals do not speak their minds or allow their subordinates to speak their minds about the commander in chief. "Ours is not to question why, ours is to do and to die..."

The military command structure is not a debate club. We have civilian control of the military, unless you would prefer a South American style military Junta running the USA.

McCrystal was called to the White House and warned about making comments that contradicted civilian authority on an occasion previous to his firing. He did not take heed of the warning, and like MacArthur, lost his position.

I did not agree with the last time he was "called in" either. He was asked by a reporter if he had met the president face to face and he said no. What should he have said? Should he of lied to cover for the president? The truth was he had not met him. I do not think obama should have been able to get on his case for telling the truth, if obama did not want to look bad he should have done his job correctly in the first place.

It just seems so dumb to have trained Generals answering to a community organizer. I have never thought much about the relationship with the military and the president before now, and it does not seem like a functional one to me. I have though thought about the relationship with the military and congress and that has always seemed extra dumb to me, but I have known for a long time that congress is full of clueless idiots.

 

[dahermit]

It just seems so dumb to have trained Generals answering to a community organizer.

Not a "community organizer", the Commander-in-Chief! Elected by the people of the United States to be, Commander-in-Chief.

I have never thought much about the relationship with the military and the president before now, and it does not seem like a functional one to me.

That is because you are too young to have been aware (ignorant), of what was at stake in the MacArthur/Trueman conflict.

I have though thought about the relationship with the military and congress and that has always seemed extra dumb to me, but I have known for a long time that congress is full of clueless idiots.

Clueless idiots elected by the people to represent them. Would you have it some other way?

You just do not seem to get it.

 

[Pandora]

Not a "community organizer", the Commander-in-Chief! Elected by the people of the United States to be, Commander-in-Chief.

That is because you are too young to have been aware (ignorant), of what was at stake in the MacArthur/Trueman conflict.

Clueless idiots elected by the people to represent them. Would you have it some other way?

You just do not seem to get it.

I am not old enough to know about Vietnam either but Its my understanding we lost that war because it was fought in congress rather than the battle fields. I will look up the MacArthur/Truman conflict and see If I will feel any better about this recent situation.

I know obama is more than a community organizer, he is president but his only experience in much of anything is being a community organizer and I find it odd and not comforting at all that he can trump a seasoned general in war topics.

I never thought about this before and I am sure we still have the best system on Planet Earth but I admit its really troubling that thousands of mens lives (our military) is in the hands of idiots in congress and a president who knows little about war, little about the service and who seems to put the enemy's safety before our own guys.

 

[Pandora]

Not a "community organizer", the Commander-in-Chief! Elected by the people of the United States to be, Commander-in-Chief.

That is because you are too young to have been aware (ignorant), of what was at stake in the MacArthur/Trueman conflict.

Clueless idiots elected by the people to represent them. Would you have it some other way?

You just do not seem to get it.

I could be wrong but it turns out I am not alone, actually less than half the people agree that a civilian should have the final say over military matters.


Many of the Founding Fathers, including James Madison, the chief author of the U.S. Constitution, strongly advocated civilian control of the military to ensure a stable democracy. President Obama’s decision this week to sack the top commander in Afghanistan after publication of the latter’s comments criticizing the president and his advisers is a high-profile example of this policy in action.
But a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 44% of U.S. voters think civilian control of the military is good for the country.
Twenty-eight percent (28%) think it’s a bad idea to have civilians with the final say over military leaders. Another 28% are not sure which course is best.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub..._say_civilian_control_of_military_bad_for_u_s

 

[dahermit]

I am not old enough to know about Vietnam either but Its my understanding we lost that war because it was fought in congress rather than the battle fields. I will look up the MacArthur/Truman conflict and see If I will feel any better about this recent situation.

No, it was lost because Americans will not support an indefinite war with many casualties. The North Viet's were prepared to continue despite the casualties and were prepared to send generation after generation. The leadership in the North told mothers to have children to become future soldiers to fight in the South...and they did. Their plan for war was to continue fighting without end until they prevailed. The reason the war Viet Nam war ended is that the people of the U.S. would no longer support it including one of its chief perpetrators, McNamara. We lost that war when we betrayed Ho Chi Mhin and allowed the French to re-occupy Viet Nam at the end of WWII when the Japanese left.

I know obama is more than a community organizer, he is president but his only experience in much of anything is being a community organizer and I find it odd and not comforting at all that he can trump a seasoned general in war topics.

President George W Bush did not have the experience either. He served in the Texas National Air Guard during Viet Nam...However, it is reported that it was to evade military service and that he seldom showed up for duty. But, he was commander in chief over experienced generals and invaded Iraq because, "...God told me to...". Nevertheless, as duly elected commander in chief he must be obeyed and treated with due respect by the military under him.

I never thought about this before and I am sure we still have the best system on Planet Earth but I admit its really troubling that thousands of mens lives (our military) is in the hands of idiots in congress and a president who knows little about war, little about the service and who seems to put the enemy's safety before our own guys.

Now who are you talking about? The Bush administration and that congress or Obama and the present congress. May I point out that the current congress has McCain and others who are veterans of warfare.

 

[Pandora]

No, it was lost because Americans will not support an indefinite war with many casualties. The North Viet's were prepared to continue despite the casualties and were prepared to send generation after generation. The leadership in the North told mothers to have children to become future soldiers to fight in the South...and they did. Their plan for war was to continue fighting without end until they prevailed. The reason the war Viet Nam war ended is that the people of the U.S. would no longer support it including one of its chief perpetrators, McNamara. We lost that war when we betrayed Ho Chi Mhin and allowed the French to re-occupy Viet Nam at the end of WWII when the Japanese left.


President George W Bush did not have the experience either. He served in the Texas National Air Guard during Viet Nam...However, it is reported that it was to evade military service and that he seldom showed up for duty. But, he was commander in chief over experienced generals and invaded Iraq because, "...God told me to...". Nevertheless, as duly elected commander in chief he must be obeyed and treated with due respect by the military under him.


Now who are you talking about? The Bush administration and that congress or Obama and the present congress. May I point out that the current congress has McCain and others who are veterans of warfare.

I think people were tired of Vietnam and the deaths but it could have been won long before people tired of it if congress didn't keep getting involved, at least that is how I see it.

I guess that is something people will just have to agree or disagree on.


You are right about Bush and that is probably why the war(s) were never doing very well in the first place. I do not remember Bush firing any generals or anyone in the military for insulting him. Everyone on the D side in congress insulted him regularly and he never seem to let it get under his skin. Had Bush fired people for insulting him everyone would be gone

And if Bush fired anyone for personal insults then it was stupid of him and makes him too thin skinned IMO

I have never questioned the relationships between elected leaders and military till this firing of McChrystal for insults. I could see firing him for torturing prisoners or other illegal things, I just think the reason was silly and didn't help our situation in Afghanistan.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

I think people were tired of Vietnam and the deaths but it could have been won long before people tired of it if congress didn't keep getting involved, at least that is how I see it.

I guess that is something people will just have to agree or disagree on.


You are right about Bush and that is probably why the war(s) were never doing very well in the first place. I do not remember Bush firing any generals or anyone in the military for insulting him. Everyone on the D side in congress insulted him regularly and he never seem to let it get under his skin. Had Bush fired people for insulting him everyone would be gone

And if Bush fired anyone for personal insults then it was stupid of him and makes him too thin skinned IMO

I have never questioned the relationships between elected leaders and military till this firing of McChrystal for insults. I could see firing him for torturing prisoners or other illegal things, I just think the reason was silly and didn't help our situation in Afghanistan.

you understand that in the military, its against the rules to mock and attack your Superiors like he did right? And there is a reason for it...and it applies here...and even His top backers said the same thing, it was cause for being Fired...

Also I think the fact that Bush sold the war on WMD and that it would be over quick and easy...then went years, cost thousands, and there where no WMD...may have had a bigger part then insults to the W...who fired Generals for saying...we need more troops...or the cost will be higher then what Bush said ( he was right , but still only guessed half the real cost....But you know It was ok to fire then,,,He was a republican...and they made valid points

 

[dahermit]

I think people were tired of Vietnam and the deaths but it could have been won long before people tired of it if congress didn't keep getting involved, at least that is how I see it.

I would be fascinated to hear a young woman's theory of how the Viet Nam war could have been won. A young woman who has never been in the military, no military knowledge, no knowledge of war history, no knowledge of the history of the Viet Nam war. Just a "Gut feeling", that it could have been won.

I await enlightenment.

 

[Pandora]

I would be fascinated to hear a young woman's theory of how the Viet Nam war could have been won. A young woman who has never been in the military, no military knowledge, no knowledge of war history, no knowledge of the history of the Viet Nam war. Just a "Gut feeling", that it could have been won.

I await enlightenment.

You will be waiting a long time I never claimed to be able to enlighten you.

Something I find interesting about your post though is if you change young woman to young man you could be talking about obama just as much as you are talking about me except I know better than to fire a very competent General for hurting my feelings.

I can not help when I was born in history but I have tried to learn some about history. below is a quick pick of the type of things I have read concerning Vietnam.



http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=36041

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/15...inkCode=xm2&camp=1789&creativeASIN=1596985674

http://books.google.com/books?id=J5...=vietnam war lost because of congress&f=false

 

[Pandora]

you understand that in the military, its against the rules to mock and attack your Superiors like he did right? And there is a reason for it...and it applies here...and even His top backers said the same thing, it was cause for being Fired...

Also I think the fact that Bush sold the war on WMD and that it would be over quick and easy...then went years, cost thousands, and there where no WMD...may have had a bigger part then insults to the W...who fired Generals for saying...we need more troops...or the cost will be higher then what Bush said ( he was right , but still only guessed half the real cost....But you know It was ok to fire then,,,He was a republican...and they made valid points

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/
http://www.factcheck.org/bushs_16_words_on_iraq_uranium.html
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/yellowcake.asp