Gen. McChrystal Needs To Go!

by Ben Hoffman

KABUL — The top U.S. general in Afghanistan is headed to Washington to apologize for a magazine profile that includes for highly critical remarks by him and his staff about top Obama administration officials involved in Afghanistan policy.

Read more…

Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal is a buffoon. He has the judgment of an imbecile and should be fired for insubordination. Last year he made a speech criticizing the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan. Now he’s running his mouth again. His loyalty is supposed to be to our country, yet he shows no loyalty whatsoever. His comments hurt our efforts in already difficult situations. It’s one thing to criticize policy in private meetings, but to go public with it is insubordination: plain and simple.

McChrystal needs to be fired.

Advertisements

48 Comments to “Gen. McChrystal Needs To Go!”

  1. The Obama administration sends leaders to lead, then doesn’t let them, meanwhile showing little leadership here at home. We’ve got wimps and wafflers in office, so of course they’re going to be criticized by those who actually lead and get things done for a living. The criticisms are understandable, especially when our military leaders have been largely ignored by Obama. The fact that those criticisms went public, is stupid.

    Fire a General? Oooh, what a show of strength. It will once again show how thin skinned this Administration is when it comes to anyone who happens to THINK differently than they do.

    And replace him with whom? You guys talk of replacing Generals like it’s changing socks. With true leaders it’s not so easy and there are other things to consider.

    No, let him apologize, and let’s move on. Even Kerry (btw a former military guy), supports this.

  2. Btw, if he DOESN’T get fired I will be surprised, especially since Obama is pushing his “Kick some a$$” campaign right now.

  3. An example from that Rolling Stone article on how Dems like to fight a war:

    One soldier shows me the list of new regulations the platoon was given. “Patrol only in areas that you are reasonably certain that you will not have to defend yourselves with lethal force,” the laminated card reads. For a soldier who has traveled halfway around the world to fight, that’s like telling a cop he should only patrol in areas where he knows he won’t have to make arrests. “Does that make any f–king sense?” Pfc. Jared Pautsch. “We should just drop a f–king bomb on this place. You sit and ask yourself: What are we doing here?”

    • [An example from that Rolling Stone article on how Dems like to fight a war:]

      Republicans are too damned stupid to know that you shouldn’t start a war that is not winnable. This is now the longest war in U.S. history.

      [You sit and ask yourself: What are we doing here?”]

      That’s right. What the hell are we doing there?

      • Leave the anti-war ideology out for now and focus on the point of the post, which is where McChrystal’s criticisms come from – which is what Dems always seem to ignore. McChrystal gave Obama his plan for withdrawal which is supported by NATO and the troops. Even within that, Obama is leaving them with absolutely ridiculous ROE.

        As for the soldier’s comments, it’s obvious he wasn’t saying it in support of your politics. What he’s saying is, “What the hell are we doing here IF WE’RE NOT ALLOWED TO FIGHT”?

        Your oh-so-hated past President may have started a war, but it’s your oh-so-loved current President that puts policies like this in place to guarantee that it’s unwinnable.

      • [Leave the anti-war ideology out]

        “Anti-war ideology?” Was the Russian’s failure to win in Afghanistan just “ideology?” Was the Brittish loss in Afghanistan just “ideology?”

        I realize that everything is politics to you right-wingers, but some things are indeed facts. The facts are: taking over and occupying Afghanistan was a bad idea.

        The 9/11 hijackers weren’t even operating out of Afghanistan. They planned the mission from Germany. And bin Laden is still at large.

        The Afghanistan war/occupation was a complete and utter failure of the Bush administration to consider the consequences and one of the biggest blunders in U.S. history. That is not ideology; that is fact.

      • And another thing… I’m heading out to pick up my new table saw. WhooooooooooHOOOOOoooo!!! 🙂

      • [“Anti-war ideology?” Was the Russian’s failure to win in Afghanistan just “ideology?” Was the British loss in Afghanistan just “ideology?”]
        No, it starts with an unrealistic ideology that turns into b.s. policy which turns into ridiculous rules of engagement like the one the article mentions. Only guys with your ideology would KEEP people in a battle but not want them or allow them to actually fight. Even if they could win, you don’t want them to since winning, of course, goes against your anti-occupier, anti-aggressor, anti-Bush hatred.

        And btw, what won the Afghan-Russian war was when you wafflers and talkers got out of the way and we were able to give the soldiers on the ground what they needed to win. And how did they win? Your type of policies? No – they blew the enemy out of the sky. I don’t seem to recall those MI-24 helicopters coming down with talking.

        Whether in that or any other war, I can just imagine what your rules of engagement would be:
        1) locate enemy (don’t go looking for them, because that’s invading their space. Instead just sit back and wait for them to come to you).
        2) hold up sign saying “We’re sorry we have to be here, it was Bush’s fault. Can we just talk?”
        3) Announce same message over loudspeaker 3x. Be sure volume is loud enough to speak over the sounds of the bullets and RPG’s that are being fired at you.
        4) If still alive, pick up rifle. Warn enemy that you’re about to fire, but inform them that you really don’t want to fire, but because of that damned Bush you have to. Stop and make sure the enemy heard your warning – after all, you want to be fair.
        5) Picking up that rifle might have felt too aggressive. If so, then pause, close eyes, and say “We really shouldn’t be here” 3x while clicking your boot heels.
        6) If still alive, fire – but just a warning shot. Even those these people don’t believe in “warning shots”, you still don’t want to come across as a barbarian.
        7) Ask them one last time if you can talk this out (or maybe just get a hug?)
        8) Apologize, then fire.
        9) Apologize again, then fire.
        10) Repeat if necessary.

      • [Even if they could win, you don’t want them to since winning, of course, goes against your anti-occupier, anti-aggressor, anti-Bush hatred.]

        I’m just anti things that are bad for our country. It’s impossible to “win” when there is no definition for what it means to “win.”

        What would happen if everything went perfectly and the Afghani government was able to stand on its own? What does that accomplish? The Karzai government is one of the most corrupt in the world. And the Afghani people will never accept him as the legitimate leader of Afghanistan. He’s just part of the government installed by the U.S. and as soon as we leave, they’re going to elect their own president.

      • I have to side with Ben on this one. The objective of this war and the name of this war has continued to evolve and change. At least most Americans label Vietnam…”Vietnam”. This war, what is it? Operation Iraqi Freedom? The War on Terror? Operation Freedom? War on Al-Qaeda? Seriously…it’s a joke. And BTW one of the major reasons (study up on your history on this one) why Russia went bankrupt was with their war again Afghanistan. We could actually learn something for the Russians…for once.
        Back to the point at hand…Obama was right to fire this guy, but McChrystal made some good points. The best thing for Obama right now would be to pull the troops completely out. We’ll save money and have extra troops to deploy on our borders 😉

  4. [I realize that everything is politics to you right-wingers, but some things are indeed facts.]
    You don’t realize anything. You keep dodging the fact of the liberal ROE put there by politicians that keeps soldiers in a war without the ability to fight – one that leads to the continuing loss of American soldiers. Why are those idiotic ROE there in the first place? Because of YOUR politics, not mine.

    Enjoy the tablesaw! (Hope it was made in America!)

    • BH:[I realize that everything is politics to you right-wingers, but some things are indeed facts.]

      V.R. Kaine: You don’t realize anything. You keep dodging the fact of the liberal ROE put there by politicians that keeps soldiers in a war without the ability to fight – one that leads to the continuing loss of American soldiers. Why are those idiotic ROE there in the first place? Because of YOUR politics, not mine.

      I hate to intercede in this, well, somewhat heated discussion but I would like to interject some fact into what is being said.

      Ben currently does have a point about politicizing that your have engaged in Vern. It is by the orders of Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal himself. No ROE partisanship going on whatsoever. I quote what the general says himself:

      A soldier complains that under the rules, any insurgent who doesn’t have a weapon is immediately assumed to be a civilian. “That’s the way this game is,” McChrystal says. “It’s complex. I can’t just decide: It’s shirts and skins, and we’ll kill all the shirts.”

      So really, drawing the conservative/liberal divide is not necessary here.

      The WP article is really absolute bunk. As I read through it I kept asking myself what exactly did this man say.

      I recommend reading the original Rolling Stone article before continuing with this particular line of debate.

      • Great interjection. I have to think that the reason McChrystal was preferred/selected by the Admin was his more “liberal” stance on ROE. You’re saying that McChrystal’s choice of ROE wasn’t political? Likely so, but it did seem to “fit” the administration’s position on what was necessary to win the war.

        From what I know of our armed forces, it’s interesting to hear where the “true” decisions and tactical plays come from within the units of Army and Marines. It is much more “ground level” as I understand it (not being enlisted myself), so when I hear soldiers complaining about ROE’s being “dangerous”, ineffective, and costing troops’ lives I think that’s important.

    • [Enjoy the tablesaw! (Hope it was made in America!)]

      It was. It says right on it “Hecho en U.S.A.”

  5. [His loyalty is supposed to be to our country, yet he shows no loyalty whatsoever.]
    Says you in what uniform, Ben? You may not agree with his tactics, and McChrystal may very well not be the right guy for the job in Afghanistan, but who are you to attack the loyalty of anyone in uniform – especially a General? The fact that he wears a uniform (not to mention how long he’s worn one for) shows more loyalty to this country than you or I could ever show. Loyalty should be rewarded with support, which this Administration hasn’t shown any of towards any of our servicepeople.

    • [who are you to attack the loyalty of anyone in uniform – especially a General?]

      The Generals and everyone else in government work for us. My tax dollars pay their salaries. And I don’t need to wear a uniform to know when someone is being disloyal. It’s the same in business. If you have an employee who badmouths the company, that is being disloyal. It’s one thing to disagree with policy, but when you try to make a company, or in this case, an administration, look bad, THAT is being disloyal.

      • Your specific words were that he “shows no loyalty whatsoever.”
        His words may be disrespecting the President, but yours are disrespecting to the uniform. These guys show more loyalty to the country than you or I could ever do in business, and it’s a joke to try and even compare the two.

        And the “my taxes pay their salaries” thing – do you ever make this point to their faces? It’s pure arrogance to take that stance with people who do a job that a) we’re too chicken to do ourselves, and b) we know next to nothing about. We’re indebted to them as much as they’re indebted to us.

      • [These guys show more loyalty to the country than you or I could ever do in business, and it’s a joke to try and even compare the two.]

        Loyalty is the same, whether it’s to family, business, or country. McChrystal’s job is to follow orders, and those orders come from the commander-in-chief. That’s his boss. If one of your employees badmouthed you behind your back, what would you do? Give him a bonus? No, you’d probably fire him.

      • [If one of your employees badmouthed you behind your back, what would you do? Give him a bonus? No, you’d probably fire him.]
        People in my companies aren’t volunteering to run into bullets and seeing their coworkers get their limbs blown off. On that basis, no employee’s loyalty could ever come close to the loyalty our troops display. Even with McChrystal’s stupid comments, I think he’s proven loyalty to our country in a way most of us could never live up to, and that shouldn’t be ignored/forgotten.

      • Latest news is he’s offered up his resignation. We’ll see what happens tomorrow.

  6. Vern R. Kaine,

    ” McChrystal may very well not be the right guy for the job in Afghanistan, ”

    As President Obama’s General you are right. McChrystal is there to win the war, Obama is not . McChrystal wanted 40,000 new troops, President Indecision made him wait months for only 30,000. Mr. Hoffman is partially right, Afghanistan in unwinnable as long as Obama is Commander in Chief. A real executive makes timely decisions in a crisis. A college Professor does not .

    Obama is too concerned about politics and not with being a good President. I believe he set the time table for with drawing the surge troops before the 2012 elections.

    This is just another area that shows President Obama is in way over his head as President.

    Let’s summarize the Obama Presidency so far. He cannot create any new jobs. He cannot win a war that he said was the right war. He cannot plug the damn hole. He cannot even manage the cleanup.

    Only 2 and a half more years of putting up with the most unqualified President since James Buchanan.

    Think of great leaders who could make good decisions under Pressure. Think Thatcher when the Falklands War rose up from nowhere. Republicans have several potential Maggie Thatchers waiting to take over in 2013 . Even Hillary got more balls than President kickass.

    • I personally don’t think either war is “winnable” in any decent amount of time, so I believe on that point Ben and I probably agree, however I do believe we need a presence there to protect our energy and economic interests, and to weaken the terrorist apparatus.

      I agree with you, however, in that when Obama claimed this as his Good War, or Honorable War, or whatever he chose to rename it, he at that point owned it along with sending in more troops. It’s his war, and McChrystal was his General that he essentially has ignored.

      There’s a point in that Rolling Stones article where troops are asked why they were sharing these comments with a reporter. The response was that “McChrystal’s policies are hurting us”, which are essentially Obama’s. I don’t think the President is listening to his military advisors. The 60 Minutes segment showed this before, and McChrystal’s comments are showing it now. I care less of the zero military experience Obama has, and more that his politics are keeping him ignorant and careless of what his troops are saying. If any good comes out of this incident, hopefully they’re given more of an ear and more respect in the near future.

    • [McChrystal wanted 40,000 new troops, President Indecision made him wait months for only 30,000.]

      That’s a lie. There was never any request for more troops to be deployed before the beginning of this year and that’s when they were deployed. And all together, it comes out to about 40k.

  7. but who are you to attack the loyalty of anyone in uniform – especially a General?

    Blinded by the flag much? If a persons’ integrity or loyalty need to be called into question is should be done. Blindly worshipping at the foot of any authority figure is never a good idea. I’m not accusing you of this Vern, I would just like to state that putting certain topics out of bounds for examination and analysis because of a persons ‘loyalty’ can have disastrous consequences because loyalty is not a function of justice or morality.

    this Administration hasn’t shown any of towards any of our servicepeople.

    I would think that taking McChrystal’s recommendation and adding 30,000 troops to Afghanistan might be indicative of the current Administration’s support of American servicepeople.

    • That’s not being blinded by the flag, Arb, it’s simply having some true respect for the people who defend and die for it. Does McChrystal have to be dead or silent for us to call him loyal? His uniform, rank, and career should be more than enough. Who here can say we risk our lives for our country as proof of our loyalty?

      Question his sense of duty, perhaps, but I don’t think questioning his loyalty is called for at all. Same with when the “General Betray-Us” crap came out. These are guys who were getting spit on by us “sideliners” as baby killers not very long ago, and still fought to defend us. The LEAST we can do for their oath to put themselves in harm’s way is to respect their loyalty, not call it into question over some rock ‘n’ roll magazine article.

    • [I would think that taking McChrystal’s recommendation and adding 30,000 troops to Afghanistan might be indicative of the current Administration’s support of American servicepeople.]
      Which a) wasn’t what McChrystal actually asked for, and b) took WAY too long to deliver, costing how many lives in-between?

      Why didn’t McChrystal get the troops he asked for, and why did it take so long? Seems to me it was politics over on-the-ground necessity.

    • Re: “any”, you’re right – I should be saying “some” to be fair, but you’ll see these sorts of generalizations elsewhere which go unchecked.

      • I do it as well when an issue strikes me as being important or meaningful to me.

        Why didn’t McChrystal get the troops he asked for, and why did it take so long? Seems to me it was politics over on-the-ground necessity.

        Politics seems to be the culprit at least as far as the time frame is concerned. Although, I would add, going off half cocked is not the best idea either.

        McChystal asked for 40,000 according to the article, as it seems he wants to implement a strategy that is somewhat unorthodox in nature.

        If the pitfalls of Algeria and Vietnam can be avoided, it would be a good thing. The bad thing is that there is little actual strategic geopolitical value in Afghanistan. Other than being famous as the location empires go to get their butt kicked, it does not have much going for it.

      • Russia wanted it for a reason, I suspect so do we, especially if the reports of the minerals are true.

  8. Mr. Hoffman,

    “[McChrystal wanted 40,000 new troops, President Indecision made him wait months for only 30,000.]”

    “That’s a lie. There was never any request for more troops to be deployed before the beginning of this year and that’s when they were deployed. And all together, it comes out to about 40k. ”

    I stand by my statement, in fact the General originally wanted 50,000,but was convinced to only ask for 40,000 because our Commander in Chief would have had sticker shock.

    I wonder if McCrystal had gotten 50,000 right away if the war would be going better. I wonder if Obama had waved the Jones Act and accepted help from the Dutch in that first week of the spill, whether some of the beeches would be clean. I wonder if Obama had listened to Jindal about the barrier islands if the marshes could have been saved . I wonder how much better things would be now if Sarah Palin were VP instead of Joe Bite Me. 🙂

    • [I wonder if Obama had waved the Jones Act and accepted help from the Dutch in that first week of the spill, whether some of the beeches would be clean.]

      The first week of the spill, BP was lying about the amount of oil being leaked, and indicated they could handle it.

      The Jones act applies only to commercial shipping — not to disaster response. Norway, the Netherlands, Canada and other countries are helping with the cleanup.

      [I wonder if Obama had listened to Jindal about the barrier islands if the marshes could have been saved .]

      I wonder if you would know what to think if right-wing media didn’t exist.

  9. And just think last year he was Obama’s handpicked guy.
    Now it’s throw him under the Greyhound bus and back over him time!
    So is Obama going to take 4 months to do different half-assed strategy?

  10. Here’s Robert Dallek’s take on it:

    IRRESPECTIVE of anything he said, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top American commander in Afghanistan, committed a clear breach of traditional standards by even agreeing to give an interview to Rolling Stone magazine. Presidents and defense secretaries make policy decisions, and military officers, from the lowest to the highest ranks, are obliged to follow orders without public comment. To be sure, civilian authorities ask military chiefs for private counsel on the best means to fight a war, but final decisions on grand strategy are the responsibility of the president. If a top officer feels strongly that his commander in chief is mistaken, he can resign and take his case to the public as a private citizen.

    Read more…

    • I agree – I don’t think anyone can make excuses for what McChrystal did, both for granting the interviews and for what he said. There’s got to be some sort of punishment here.

      I think what also needs to be addressed, however, is how this Administration is truly handling both wars. a) are we picking the right people, and b) are we truly giving them what we need to win? I think this whole “comments” issue brings those two questions back to the table.

  11. Just read that they canned him.

  12. Mr. Hoffman,

    ” The first week of the spill, BP was lying about the amount of oil being leaked, and indicated they could handle it. ”

    You mean kinda like the State officials lied to Bush about Katrina? At any rate, BP then lied for many weeks and your guy did nothing.

    Oh by the way, now that McCrystal is out, why did Obama call in Betrayus, I mean Petrayus???? Senator Obama all but called him useless. Now President Obama wants him to personally replace McCrystal.

    Aren’t there any worthless Democratic Generals who hated Bush that President Kick Ass can appoint?

    • Obama’s thankfully smart enough to know we can’t switch horses mid-race. Petraeus knows the game and the strategy. I just hope he doesn’t say “status quo” on strategy before using this opportunity to revisit it.

    • [You mean kinda like the State officials lied to Bush about Katrina?]

      Once again, you’re lying to defend Bush. We saw live footage of people in Louisiana going without food and water while the Bush administration was congratulating itself for doing a good job.

  13. Vern R. Kaine,

    I’m sure that it is love of country and loyalty to his troops in the field that allows General Petrayus to take orders from a weak fool. Like when he had to listen to Senator Obama blast him for carrying out Bush’s Iraq strategy that Senator Kickass said could not work, but did. McCrystal finally had enough. All of us have worked for morons at one time or another and can sympathize.

    Mr. Hoffman,

    ” We saw live footage of people in Louisiana going without food and water while the Bush administration was congratulating itself for doing a good job. ”

    Again, in case you have no idea, which you don’t, local and State officials have first responder responsibility. After they determine that their resources are inadequet, they request further help from the Feds. Just because something is on TV, it is not always true.

    Most Governors and Mayors pretty quickly ask the Federal Government to declare a State of Emergency. Unfortunately, you had Democrats directly in charge at the State and local level.

    MMS officials on scene are supposed to be smart enough to know what BP is doing. The Interior Secretary Salazar is supposed to be smart enough to whether his MMS officials are any good. Obama is supposed to be smart enough to know whether Salazar knows what he is doing.

    • [Just because something is on TV, it is not always true.]

      Ha! Are you saying the videos of people stranded with SOS banners were fake? What about our trips to the moon? Are you one of those people who thinks it was staged and we never really went?

  14. Mr. Hoffman,

    ” Are you saying the videos of people stranded with SOS banners were fake? ”

    Uhhh, no! Earth to Mr. Hoffman. I meant that you can’t always tell the extent of the disaster. Federal power is massive and slow. Kinda like a Battleship. The State and Local PT boats are supposed to go in first. When they determine that the problem is ginormus they are supposed to call in the big boys. The Feds trusted local and State Democrats that those videos were isolated and relatively small in number.

    • [I meant that you can’t always tell the extent of the disaster.]

      True, when you see people screaming that they don’t have any food or water, you don’t know if they are just really thirsty and hungry or about to keel over.

  15. Mr. Hoffman,

    ” True, when you see people screaming that they don’t have any food or water, you don’t know if they are just really thirsty and hungry or about to keel over. ”

    Lets see if I can splain it better . Numbers, numbers, numbers. You see people in trouble on TV. Is it hundreds, or a couple thousand, or a couple hundred thousand, or a couple of million. TV cannot always make that clear.

    That is where having incompetent local and State Democrats feeding you information as opposed to having a Guilianna, can make you look bad.

    Now, I’m glad we cleared that up ! 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: