PDA

View Full Version : McChrystal firing



SgtJoo
24 Jun 2010, 12:33am
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38947.html

First off I think McChrystal was stupid to call out some important people in Washington in a Rolling Stone interview. I think he's right, but he committed political suicide. I think Obama's firing was justified politically, but it was the wrong move in terms of the military. The prevailing sentiment in the armed forces is not in Obama's favor. People I know in the military think McChrystal is a good general doing a great job in Afghanistan, whilst they think somewhat less of Obama. So I can understand why Obama had to do it, I just think it's going to have a negative impact.

Whatchu think?

Drox
24 Jun 2010, 01:20am
I heard about this, kinda dumb to get rid of a General because of how he thinks but thats just how politics works. General Petraeus is going be taking over which might be good since he was the one who got us thru Iraq, so just have to wait and see what happens.

Wrathek
24 Jun 2010, 07:49am
I don't care either way. All i know is is that Petraeus is one of the greatest strategists alive, and its a crying shame that he'll never run for office, because he could clean this country up well.

What i'm saying is, regardless of if McChrystal was doing well or not, there is no better than Petraeus, so s'all good, yo.

Slavic
24 Jun 2010, 03:04pm
I heard about this, kinda dumb to get rid of a General because of how he thinks but thats just how politics works. General Petraeus is going be taking over which might be good since he was the one who got us thru Iraq, so just have to wait and see what happens.

Its not about the General's contrasting political view with Obama, its the fact that the General went against the chain of command and openly bashed his boss in a magazine interview.

If the General had a problem with Obama, then he should have orchestrated a private meeting with him, not to go around him and flaunt in the media. The military isn't organized to function that way.

PotshotPolka
24 Jun 2010, 03:17pm
Its not about the General's contrasting political view with Obama, its the fact that the General went against the chain of command and openly bashed his boss in a magazine interview.

If the General had a problem with Obama, then he should have orchestrated a private meeting with him, not to go around him and flaunt in the media. The military isn't organized to function that way.


In so many words, this. If people in high places like generals, politicians etc. want draw the media's attention to an issue then there are channels by which to do so, officially via memos, conferences, meetings with Congress/Executive etc, and there are underground methods like say being an "anonymous source" to a reputable journal if all else fails. What did McChrystal do? He went public and instead of highlighting actual incidents of incompetence or errors by the administration and made a roast article for Rolling Stones, who could make a drama piece out of an excel sheet.

In all honesty what did he expect the President to do? Ruffle his hair?

Shadowex3
25 Jun 2010, 03:24am
Seconding Potshot. There are any number of ways that the general could have actually productively solved his problems with a significant chance of success. Instead he chose to basically act like a damn /b/tard.

Delirium
27 Jun 2010, 03:34am
Either way it's going to end up with our policy of counter-insurgency

SchmoSalt
28 Jun 2010, 10:16pm
I just hope that Petraeus is all he is cracked up to be. I would hate for more of our troops to die because of some general throwing insults around.

SgtJoo
28 Jun 2010, 10:34pm
From what I heard some of the things McChrystal said were off the record but the guy from Rolling Stone put them in the story anyway. Rather, some of the things that were said whilst in the company of the journalist should not have been repeated. It's sad that in this day and age reporters are looking for "the scoop" and lack some journalistic integrity/respect for top officials.

PotshotPolka
29 Jun 2010, 08:22am
From what I heard some of the things McChrystal said were off the record but the guy from Rolling Stone put them in the story anyway. Rather, some of the things that were said whilst in the company of the journalist should not have been repeated. It's sad that in this day and age reporters are looking for "the scoop" and lack some journalistic integrity/respect for top officials.

......It was a reporter for the Rolling Stones. Have you read their articles?

Shadowex3
29 Jun 2010, 08:31pm
From what I heard some of the things McChrystal said were off the record but the guy from Rolling Stone put them in the story anyway. Rather, some of the things that were said whilst in the company of the journalist should not have been repeated. It's sad that in this day and age reporters are looking for "the scoop" and lack some journalistic integrity/respect for top officials.

Are you fucking kidding me? This IS their job, if some general thinks he's such hot shit that he's above the chain of command it's a pretty big fucking deal. Their job is not to cover for other people's lack of integrity, their job is specifically to find and out that kind of bullshit.

Or would you rather the press have quietly ignored the police's indiscretions with Rodney King, Pres. Nixon's booboos, and other such "scoops".

Respect is something you EARN, it's not integrity for everyone else to kiss your ass and tell you your shit has no smell just because you're a govt employee. The government works for US, not the other way around. They need to behave in a manner WE feel is appropriate, it is not our duty or the duty of the press to cover for them and ignore their problems.

It's your kind of thinking that got us into this mess of circular BS logic claiming that people with power and wealth are automatically deserving of that power and wealth and we should all just bow down to them.

SgtJoo
1 Jul 2010, 04:49pm
Are you fucking kidding me? This IS their job, if some general thinks he's such hot shit that he's above the chain of command it's a pretty big fucking deal. Their job is not to cover for other people's lack of integrity, their job is specifically to find and out that kind of bullshit.

Or would you rather the press have quietly ignored the police's indiscretions with Rodney King, Pres. Nixon's booboos, and other such "scoops".

Respect is something you EARN, it's not integrity for everyone else to kiss your ass and tell you your shit has no smell just because you're a govt employee. The government works for US, not the other way around. They need to behave in a manner WE feel is appropriate, it is not our duty or the duty of the press to cover for them and ignore their problems.

It's your kind of thinking that got us into this mess of circular BS logic claiming that people with power and wealth are automatically deserving of that power and wealth and we should all just bow down to them.

No, it isn't. It's a thing called politics. It's not McChrystal's lack of integrity that brought him into this situation, it's some pissant reporter who overhears a passing remark and blows it into a political firestorm/headhunt. Just because Obama is the CIC doesn't mean he's god, or even right most of the time when it comes to military decisions.

Comparing vicious police brutality beatings and criminal acts to an offhand comment to a staffer is a grossly wrong thing to do. It's like me comparing Obama mishandling the BP case to the genocide in Darfur. It's fucking retarded, plain and simple.

You're right, the military works for you. You need to make an important distinction between the government and the military. They're the ones busting their ass to save you while you languish in middle class comfort. Their oversight should not be controlled by the average joe in the public. Civilian oversight and responsibility? Yes. You having a say in military affairs? No. You're not a military tactician, you're not in the military, you don't know military intelligence, you don't know McChrystal. How can you honestly say that one twat blowing an offhand remark out of proportion is justified?

I'm not even talking about wealth or power. I'm talking about respecting the men in charge of the US military enough to not go reporting every little bitch and gripe they have about the President. Most people in the military do not think highly of our dear leader. Should we go fire all of them too? Maybe some of you wacko left wingers who protest recruitment sites at colleges could volunteer too and come back in body bags? The world could use less of you.

Slavic
2 Jul 2010, 03:43pm
No, it isn't. It's a thing called politics. It's not McChrystal's lack of integrity that brought him into this situation, it's some pissant reporter who overhears a passing remark and blows it into a political firestorm/headhunt. Just because Obama is the CIC doesn't mean he's god, or even right most of the time when it comes to military decisions.

Whether it is an offhand comment or not, McChrystal broke chain of command and bashed his superior to the public. As all military personnel should know, there is no such thing as an off the record comment with regards to the media. The reporter did his job, he reported, its a little thing called the free press.

Also it doesn't matter so much about proper military decisions, its about following orders and trusting in your superiors. There are proper channels that can be taken if you believe your superior's judgment to be wrong; what McChrystal did wasn't one.

You're right, the military works for you. You need to make an important distinction between the government and the military. They're the ones busting their ass to save you while you languish in middle class comfort. Their oversight should not be controlled by the average joe in the public. Civilian oversight and responsibility? Yes. You having a say in military affairs? No. You're not a military tactician, you're not in the military, you don't know military intelligence, you don't know McChrystal. How can you honestly say that one twat blowing an offhand remark out of proportion is justified?

There is a little thing called the Department of Defense and the Joint Chief of Staffs. You see the President is just a man whom the nation expects to fix problems ranging from conducting a war all the way to agriculture. This lovely DoD advises the President on military matters so that the President doesn't have to be a military expert.

Whether you like it or not, civilians need to have a say in our military because we fund everything they do. We are a Democratic Republic, we can't have a heavily armed force calling all the shots and doing things their way.

I'm not even talking about wealth or power. I'm talking about respecting the men in charge of the US military enough to not go reporting every little bitch and gripe they have about the President. Most people in the military do not think highly of our dear leader. Should we go fire all of them too? Maybe some of you wacko left wingers who protest recruitment sites at colleges could volunteer too and come back in body bags? The world could use less of you.

The men in charge or our military should deserve our highest respect. You don't seem to understand that top man in charge of our military is the President. You don't openly bash your boss and not expect to be reprimanded. If I go off and start bashing my Sergent to my local paper I guarantee you I would get written up. You talk about respect, but you defend the General's lack of respect for his own superior.


.