I would add the word good prior to 'public debates' and say, isn't that too bad?
Do you have any evidence of that?
That's a link to a summary of an article where someone was interviewed and that person called him a liberal. This is many steps removed from being a raging liberal. Not that it should be an insult anyway. He may well indeed hold some left-of center positions. The only piece of evidence? He allegedly banned Fox News from his HQ - probably because he didn't want people infected with idiocy. Hopefully he banned cartoons and porn as well while people were on the job.
Friendly fire...isn't. Same with Fox news, it just isn't.
Former US commander Stanley McChrystal calls Trump dishonest and ?immoral?
Unusual for a retired senior Officer publicly rebuke the President
Oh and yes Sen. Graham who called it an XXX, today is now all in, calls it a pause? WTF is that?
https://www.ksat.com/news/politics/graham-trumps-syria-withdrawal-stain-on-honor-of-united-states
Nope, we fought three nation's forces wherever they were found and tried to cut off their supplies by destroying any facility that was supplying them. At the end we used nuclear bombs to take the will to fight, even to defend their homeland, from them. We did not fight the idea of an Italian, German or Japanese nation we fought the idea of them taking more territory by force.
The statement in the OP link was that ISIS fighters were growing all over the world - obviously being in or staying in Syria (alone) is not addressing that. IMHO, it is mission impossible for the US military to prevent ISIS fighters from finding safe havens anywhere in the world.
We have had US military in Afghanistan for 17 years and have achieved, at best, a stalemate. At some point one has to admit that what we have been and are still doing militarily is not working - much like saying that no matter how many times I saw this board it is still too short.
Van you imagine if President Trump kicked a news network out of the White House? You people would lose your minds.
No need to imagine, Trump has already more or less tried to do the same thing with at least one reporter.
However as I understood it the article said McChrystal didn't let his subordinates watch Fox at HQ, which is understandable if people are supposed to get reliable news and use their brains to parse any intel gained from public media sources. Fox often just spins BS and he didn't want that clouding his staff's judgment.
If it meant he also denied Fox reporters (but not other networks) access to his staff or HQ for the purposes of interviews and other news gathering then I think that's going too far.
Team of Teams: New Rules of Engagement for a Complex World Hardcover – May 12, 2015
Stanley McChrystal
What if you could combine the agility, adaptability, and cohesion of a small team with the power and resources of a giant organization?
THE OLD RULES NO LONGER APPLY . . .
When General Stanley McChrystal took command of the Joint Special Operations Task Force in 2004, he quickly realized that conventional military tactics were failing. Al Qaeda in Iraq was a decentralized network that could move quickly, strike ruthlessly, then seemingly vanish into the local population. The allied forces had a huge advantage in numbers, equipment, and training—but none of that seemed to matter.
TEACHING A LEVIATHAN TO IMPROVISE
It’s no secret that in any field, small teams have many ad*vantages—they can respond quickly, communicate freely, and make decisions without layers of bureaucracy. But organizations taking on really big challenges can’t fit in a garage. They need management practices that can scale to thousands of people.
General McChrystal led a hierarchical, highly disci*plined machine of thousands of men and women. But to defeat Al Qaeda in Iraq, his Task Force would have to acquire the enemy’s speed and flexibility. Was there a way to combine the power of the world’s mightiest military with the agility of the world’s most fearsome terrorist network? If so, could the same principles apply in civilian organizations?
A NEW APPROACH FOR A NEW WORLD
McChrystal and his colleagues discarded a century of conventional wisdom and remade the Task Force, in the midst of a grueling war, into something new: a network that combined extremely transparent communication with decentralized decision-making authority. The walls between silos were torn down. Leaders looked at the best practices of the smallest units and found ways to ex*tend them to thousands of people on three continents, using technology to establish a oneness that would have been impossible even a decade earlier. The Task Force became a “team of teams”—faster, flatter, more flex*ible—and beat back Al Qaeda.
https://www.amazon.com/Team-Teams-R...coding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=28683ND3QC0CB4X03DSG
McChrystal DID do it, to an entire network. How do you feel about that?
If it meant he also denied Fox reporters (but not other networks) access to his staff or HQ for the purposes of interviews and other news gathering then I think that's going too far.
Wait for the "McCrystal is dumb as a rock" tweet. I don't know if it will be before, or after, the "I don't have any respect for quitters and McCrystal quit." tweet. Both should be followed shortly by one decrying the fact that "McCrystal spent his whole life sucking at the US government teat and now he repays it with disloyal statements that are akin to treason.".
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?