• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gen Stanley McChrystal to retire from US Army

He is now available for speaking engagements at $10,000 a pop. His website is under construction. You may contribute to his campaign by check, credit card, or Paypal.
 
MyOwnDrum said:
He is now available for speaking engagements at $10,000 a pop. His website is under construction. You may contribute to his campaign by check, credit card, or Paypal.
Click to expand...

Yes, support the dude for Civillian leadership that dissed the civillian leadership ;)
 
Say what you will, but not many people do nearly as much for their country as he has.
 
Redress said:
Say what you will, but not many people do nearly as much for their country as he has.
Click to expand...

There you go. I certainly have not.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Yes, support the dude for Civillian leadership that dissed the civillian leadership ;)
Click to expand...

Please provide the exact quotes stated by McChrystal that dissed civilian leadership
 
MyOwnDrum said:
He is now available for speaking engagements at $10,000 a pop. His website is under construction. You may contribute to his campaign by check, credit card, or Paypal.
Click to expand...

That he exercised bad judgment in what resulted in the Rolling Stone piece and failed to establish strong working relationships with key members of the team responsible for Afghanistan does not in any way take away from his considerable accomplishments during his lengthy career in the Army. One should not lose sight of what he did achieve nor the sacrifices he made on behalf of his country.
 
donsutherland1 said:
That he exercised bad judgment in what resulted in the Rolling Stone piece and failed to establish strong working relationships with key members of the team responsible for Afghanistan does not in any way take away from his considerable accomplishments during his lengthy career in the Army. One should not lose sight of what he did achieve nor the sacrifices he made on behalf of his country.
Click to expand...


hopefully this line of thought will be remembered when he pulls a Shinseki (sp?) and starts the talk show circuit revealing all about the Obama administration......

j-mac
 
donsutherland1 said:
That he exercised bad judgment in what resulted in the Rolling Stone piece and failed to establish strong working relationships with key members of the team responsible for Afghanistan does not in any way take away from his considerable accomplishments during his lengthy career in the Army. One should not lose sight of what he did achieve nor the sacrifices he made on behalf of his country.
Click to expand...

It absolutely takes away from his career, because he ends it in disgrace. You can rationalize his "bad judgment" however you like, but to ignore the fact that his legacy in history will be one of "bad judgment" is disingenuous. Political concerns may be allowing him to save face and retire honorably, but he failed to live up to his duty as an officer, period.
 
donsutherland1 said:
That he exercised bad judgment in what resulted in the Rolling Stone piece and failed to establish strong working relationships with key members of the team responsible for Afghanistan does not in any way take away from his considerable accomplishments during his lengthy career in the Army. One should not lose sight of what he did achieve nor the sacrifices he made on behalf of his country.
Click to expand...

There are some calling for Obama to clean house, but jerking the ambassador and others that couldn't work with McChrystal back to Washington and firing them. That although McChrystal made a mistake, blame and accountability needs to be spread around to those who were really incompetent over there.
 
j-mac said:
hopefully this line of thought will be remembered when he pulls a Shinseki (sp?) and starts the talk show circuit revealing all about the Obama administration......

j-mac
Click to expand...

If he behaves in ways that could possibly be construed as further endangering our troops while this war is still ongoing, I can assure you it will not endear him to the American public in any way.

It's time for McCrystal to buy a cabin in the Adirondacks and spend some quality time communing with nature and perfecting his fly-fishing technique.
The appropriate time for tell-all books and interviews is far in the future, if ever.
He has already earned himself a reputation as an individual who can't keep his mouth shut, to the detriment of himself and our troops.
 
It is quite amazing the vitriol some have for an honorable American who served his country, simply because he was around people who dissed thier guy. :roll:
 
I'd never heard of this guy until he was put in charge in Afghanistan, so I don't know whether he was a great servant of the American people or a brown-nosing, paper-pushing, politician-in-uniform who scaled the greasy pole any way he could. I'm sure some of you out there could make an argument.

What IS undeniable is that he made a serious error of judgement with the Rolling Stone article and that he had failed to make strong enough alliances in Washington to innoculate himself from the effects of said error of judgement. If he was one of the good guys, then this is a sad end to his career. If he was a military politician who screwed up politically, then too bad.
 
Guy Incognito said:
It absolutely takes away from his career, because he ends it in disgrace. You can rationalize his "bad judgment" however you like, but to ignore the fact that his legacy in history will be one of "bad judgment" is disingenuous. Political concerns may be allowing him to save face and retire honorably, but he failed to live up to his duty as an officer, period.
Click to expand...

You make the mistake of thinking that those of us that served and retired give a flying **** about civilian leaderships opinion of us. Disgrace? in whose eyes? Certainly not the eyes of the military. Speaking only for myself...I disagree with his actions but certainly understand the sentiment.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
It is quite amazing the vitriol some have for an honorable American who served his country, simply because he was around people who dissed thier guy. :roll:
Click to expand...

He insulted their god. Shame on him.

now...thinking folk might consider that even though it WAS WRONG for them to air their opinions in RS, MAYBE JUST MAYBE they denigrated the civilian leaders because they were weak, incometent assholes...and might recognize that there should be some change needed there as well...
 
Guy Incognito said:
It absolutely takes away from his career, because he ends it in disgrace. You can rationalize his "bad judgment" however you like, but to ignore the fact that his legacy in history will be one of "bad judgment" is disingenuous. Political concerns may be allowing him to save face and retire honorably, but he failed to live up to his duty as an officer, period.
Click to expand...

Just so my view on this issue is clear, my position is:

1. When evaluating General McChrystal's entire legacy, his good and bad moments have to be considered. Otherwise, the picture would not be complete, much less accurate.

2. By recognizing that the General engaged in bad judgment, etc., one is not compelled to discount his positive achievements. The two are not mutually exclusive.

3. A little professional consideration in handling the General's departure is not a bad thing. Firing him outright might have led to some feelings of vindication among those whom the General offended. In terms of substantive policy, such a move would have accomplished nothing more than his resignation did. Worse, an outright firing might have had an adverse morale impact on the military. The General did the right thing in offering his resignation. The President did the right thing in accepting it.

4. With respect to message #9 concerning General Eric Shinseki (whose judgment on Iraq happened to prove correct), like General Shinseki, General McChrystal will soon be a civilian. As such he will be free to publicly express political opinions, including those related to the U.S. military strategy in Afghanistan, the President's policies, etc. Prior to then, the chain of command principle barred such conduct, otherwise we would not have been discussing the Rolling Stone article, much less the apparent end of his military career.
 
American said:
There are some calling for Obama to clean house, but jerking the ambassador and others that couldn't work with McChrystal back to Washington and firing them. That although McChrystal made a mistake, blame and accountability needs to be spread around to those who were really incompetent over there.
Click to expand...

The President already reprimanded his team for their squabbling so to speak and instructed them to work together. Among those members, even if he might be difficult to work with, Amb. Eikenberry's judgment on Afghanistan has proved most accurate to date. My guess is that the next review of Afghanistan strategy slated to begin late this year might result in additional personnel changes, changes in the goals/strategy, etc. There is growing impatience in Congress on both sides of the aisle with respect to the situation in Afghanistan. The Karzai regime is widely viewed in Afghanistan as illegitimate, incompetent, and corrupt. There is also growing fiscal pressure in the U.S./West that will make it more difficult down the road to avoid a hard-nosed review as to whether financial resources could be better used elsewhere e.g., deficit reduction. Manpower gaps could also emerge should allies facing their own difficult choices withdraw troops.

Given that policy context and environment, a lack of significant and sustained progress in Afghanistan could accelerate prospects for a rapid drawdown of U.S. forces. Under such a scenario, Vice President Biden's narrower strategy of focusing only on Al Qaeda could be adopted. On the other hand, meaningful and sustained progress could lead to a more measured end game. Hopefully, given the large interests at stake, rash decisions will be avoided, the necessary strategic changes made, and a successful outcome (meaning the permanent reduction of risk that the Taliban-Al Qaeda would regain a safe haven in Afghanistan) pursued.
 
VanceMack said:
He insulted their god. Shame on him.

now...thinking folk might consider that even though it WAS WRONG for them to air their opinions in RS, MAYBE JUST MAYBE they denigrated the civilian leaders because they were weak, incometent assholes...and might recognize that there should be some change needed there as well...
Click to expand...
Maybe it's the other way around. Maybe generals that denigrate their civilian leaders are the incompetent ones. Competent generals don't denigrate their superiors, if they have serious disagreements or grievances, they voice them properly, just like Shinseki did during the Bush administration. Do you think Petraeus would pull a stunt like this? I doubt it. And besides, he pretty much got what he wanted, he got the troops and had pretty much free reign over Afghanistan, don't know what he was complaining about.

I'm not so concerned about the Rolling Stones problem, although it was pretty bad, as I am about his policies as commander in Afghanistan which probably led to more US troop casualties and a decline in the situation. Maybe he was a good special forces commander, but when it comes to a big and proper command, I don't think McChrystal was cut out for it.
 
1069 said:
He has already earned himself a reputation as an individual who can't keep his mouth shut, to the detriment of himself and our troops.
Click to expand...

Something that is primarily a media driven thing.

I've still, to this day, yet to have anyone provide an actual damning or obviously over the line comment directly quoted to him.

Every statement made directly by him in the magazine article were extremely light at most and completely benign for the majority of them. The only comments arguably made that he needed to "keep his mouth shut" in regards to stating were nothing but heresay reported by unnamed sources and aides to a reporter who had a definitive and obvious bias and agenda.

His only seeming mistake in any of this was the idiocy of allowing the magazine into his inner circle in the first place and assuming it was going to take a fair and neutral position in the story rather than have an obvious agenda of searching out deterimental comments and situations from those around him.
 
Zyphlin said:
Something that is primarily a media driven thing.

I've still, to this day, yet to have anyone provide an actual damning or obviously over the line comment directly quoted to him.

Every statement made directly by him in the magazine article were extremely light at most and completely benign for the majority of them. The only comments arguably made that he needed to "keep his mouth shut" in regards to stating were nothing but heresay reported by unnamed sources and aides to a reporter who had a definitive and obvious bias and agenda.

His only seeming mistake in any of this was the idiocy of allowing the magazine into his inner circle in the first place and assuming it was going to take a fair and neutral position in the story rather than have an obvious agenda of searching out deterimental comments and situations from those around him.
Click to expand...



It is head scratching... I've asked as well for over a week. :shrug:
 
VanceMack said:
You make the mistake of thinking that those of us that served and retired give a flying **** about civilian leaderships opinion of us. Disgrace? in whose eyes? Certainly not the eyes of the military. Speaking only for myself...I disagree with his actions but certainly understand the sentiment.
Click to expand...

I can completely understand his sentiments, but he buggered himself professionally for good.

When I worked for a local police force, we often made scathing comments about the Mayor, and had little nicknames for the city councilmen behind closed doors in the department. Would we have been so arrogant and stupid as to make those comments in front of a member of the media? hell no. And would we have been fired if we had? Hell yes. I was interviewed almost every week on something related to my job, and somehow managed not to step on anyone's dick.

I knew the rules, and so did McCrystal. I chalk it up to utter arrogance. He majorly stepped on his own dick, and has only himself to blame for it.
 
Last edited:
Catz Part Deux said:
I can completely understand his sentiments, but he buggered himself professionally for good.

When I worked for a local police force, we often made scathing comments about the Mayor, and had little nicknames for the city councilmen behind closed doors in the department. Would we have been so arrogant and stupid as to make those comments in front of a member of the media? hell no. And would we have been fired if we had? Hell yes. I was interviewed almost every week on something related to my job, and somehow managed not to step on anyone's dick.

I knew the rules, and so did McCrystal. I chalk it up to utter arrogance. He majorly stepped on his own dick, and has only himself to blame for it.
Click to expand...



Maybe he stepped on it on purpose. Though what was the offending remark?
 
Catz Part Deux said:
I can completely understand his sentiments, but he buggered himself professionally for good.

When I worked for a local police force, we often made scathing comments about the Mayor, and had little nicknames for the city councilmen behind closed doors in the department. Would we have been so arrogant and stupid as to make those comments in front of a member of the media? hell no. And would we have been fired if we had? Hell yes. I was interviewed almost every week on something related to my job, and somehow managed not to step on anyone's dick.

I knew the rules, and so did McCrystal. I chalk it up to utter arrogance. He majorly stepped on his own dick, and has only himself to blame for it.
Click to expand...
Ive never argued the point. As a military man i agree that he had to expect the repercussions. Im actually OK with the results.

Problem is...this is a real no win situation for BO and his supporters.

If McChrystal was a good and effective leader...what is it about this administration that caused he and his staff to be so dismissive of the adminsitration?

And if as some are now saying McChrystal was a bad leader, then why on earth did BO hire him? Or keep him? If the war policy is bad, then what kind of a leader tolerates that?
 
VanceMack said:
Ive never argued the point. As a military man i agree that he had to expect the repercussions. Im actually OK with the results.

Problem is...this is a real no win situation for BO and his supporters.

If McChrystal was a good and effective leader...what is it about this administration that caused he and his staff to be so dismissive of the adminsitration?

And if as some are now saying McChrystal was a bad leader, then why on earth did BO hire him? Or keep him? If the war policy is bad, then what kind of a leader tolerates that?
Click to expand...
Yeah, I do fault Obama for putting McChrystal in charge. He did hire him, no one else did. I'm not a "Obama is always the best" kind or person, sometimes I have disagreements. He should have put Petraeus in charge from the beginning, I always wondered why he went to CENTCOM as an administrative position, maybe it was just to reward him for service. At least Obama made the good move to put Petraeus in charge now, that's not such a bad thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom