Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

Gen. Stanley McCrystal to resign over comments?

  • 22-06-2010 12:55PM
    #1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭


    Furious President Obama summons Gen. Stanley McCrystal to explain comments

    Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38837.html#ixzz0ra91uViN
    The top commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, has been summoned to the White House to explain biting and unflattering remarks he made to a freelance writer about President Barack Obama and others in the Obama administration.

    The face-to-face comes as pundits are already calling for McChrystal to resign on grounds of obvious insubordination.

    McChrystal has been instructed to fly from Kabul to Washington today to attend Obama’s regular monthly security team meeting tomorrow at the White House.

    An administration official says McChrystal was asked to attend in person rather than by secure video teleconference, “where he will have to explain to the Pentagon and the commander in chief his quotes about his colleagues in the piece.”

    McChrystal and his top aides appeared to let their guard down during a series of interviews and visits with Michael Hastings, a freelance writer for the magazine.

    The article, titled “The Runaway General,” appears in the magazine later this week. It contains a number of jabs by McChrsytal and his staff aimed not only at the President but at Vice President Biden, special envoy Richard Holbrooke and others.

    McChrystal described his first meeting with Obama as disappointing and that Obama was unprepared for the meeting.

    Jim Jones is described by a McChrystal aide as a “clown” stuck in 1985. Others aides joked about Biden’s last name as sounding like “Bite me” since Biden opposed the surge.

    McChrystal issued an immediate apology for the profile, advance copies of which were sent to news organizations last night.

    “It was a mistake reflecting poor judgment and should never have happened,” McChrystal said. “Throughout my career, I have lived by the principles of personal honor and professional integrity. What is reflected in this article falls far short of that standard. I have enormous respect and admiration for President Obama and his national security team, and for the civilian leaders and troops fighting this war and I remain committed to ensuring its successful outcome.”

    NATO issued a statement overnight indicating continued support for McChrystal despite the “unfortunate article.”

    It will be hard for the White House to get past this since the remarks appear to amount to some level of insubordination.

    “This general has to be fired, he has to be gone by the end of the day,” said Joe Scarborough, on “Morning Joe” on MSNBC.

    “Gates and Petraeus have to come out and fire McChrystal.” They should have already done it - Petreaus and Gates should have already fired McChrystal.”



    Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38837.html#ixzz0ra9VuoLq


«1

Comments

  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Very interesting indeed. The thing is though it appears that McCrystal has taken a swipe at quite a few officials in the white house, both democrats and republicans. What is worrying is that he was so prepared to voice his opinions in public. It will do nothing for the effort in the region and just isolates him from the rest of the army. Will be interesting what Manic thinks about this. As they say in football what happens in the dressing room should stay in the dressing room. Its a big No-No to go public no matter how much you don't like the manager.

    Bit of a McArthur moment for Obama.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,175 ✭✭✭Amerika


    I guess we now know the real reason Petreaus fainted in the hearing ;). Brave, yet ludicrous thing McChrystal did. You can feel his frustration. The military does report to civilian authority, regardless of the incompetence. Unfortunately he does have to be relieved. I think he will do the honorable thing and resign.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Amerika wrote: »
    I guess we now know the real reason Petreaus fainted in the hearing ;). Brave, yet ludicrous thing McChrystal did. You can feel his frustration. The military does report to civilian authority, regardless of the incompetence. Unfortunately he does have to be relieved. I think he will do the honorable thing and resign.

    Wow, one of the more reasonable posts from you. I thought you were going to come out and support him to the hilt. I suppose Bush's problems with his generals puts things in perspective.

    It is becoming increasingly rare that presidents serve in uniform. I suppose it comes down to the end of the draft. There is always going to be a disconnect. Regardless the military report to the white house. The USA is not Argentina.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,175 ✭✭✭Amerika


    jank wrote: »
    Regardless the military report to the white house.
    Acutally, I think they report to the Commander-In-Chief.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Amerika wrote: »
    Acutally, I think they report to the Commander-In-Chief.

    Who lives where?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,619 ✭✭✭fontanalis


    The Biden remarks seem very petty and the article doesn't go into detail about what exactly he isn't happy with regaridng Obamas policy. Whatever he's unhappy with, Rollign Stone isn't the place to do it.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,082 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Will be interesting what Manic thinks about this. As they say in football what happens in the dressing room should stay in the dressing room.

    You are correct on the dressing room comments. I'd be curious to read it myself. I find it hard to believe that McChrystal would be stupid enough to knowingly speak ill of his superiors in an interview. Most of the mentioned comments seem to have been from persons under McChrystal (And a lot of them, though politically embarassing, won't actually come under the prohibited speech rules in the Army: We're allowed quite a bit of leeway: Take the MSN article on the subject, for example, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37839756/ns/us_news-military/ which finishes with a PFC criticising the policy set by McChrystal.

    I don't think it's quite a MacArthur moment, though. Once McChrystal's been given an order, so far he's said 'Yes Sir' and gone on with the job. With the MacArthur situation, even after the decision not to use the A-Bomb on China or otherwise attack into China had been made, MacArthur continued to speak vocally in opposition to that stated policy.

    NTM


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,175 ✭✭✭Amerika


    jank wrote: »
    Who lives where?
    From recent accounts... seems to be the golf course.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Amerika wrote: »
    From recent accounts... seems to be the golf course.

    I missed the real PJ!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,175 ✭✭✭Amerika


    Here is the Rolling Stone article if interested.
    http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/119236


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,683 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Personally I think he should be dismissed as soon as possible. But I don't know when possible is. Sometime before the end of the calendar year perhaps, when the majority/completion of troop withdrawals is meant to have occured by august...


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,082 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    You know, politically embarassing though the comments may be, they're actually not as far out of line as I had thought from reading the initial reports.

    NTM


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,817 ✭✭✭ynotdu


    If a mod would like to delete it from Military,please do,but it might be interesting to hear the thoughts of the American Politics forum point of view and in the Military forum a purely serving or ex serving Servicemans point of view?

    cheers

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66547493&postcount=1


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 14,575 ✭✭✭✭FlutterinBantam


    Hmm...

    Looks like the left wingers are trying to clip the wings of Stan McCrystal who is cutting a swathe through Afghanistan.

    Kicking some ass.

    Looks like he overextended himself on Rolling Stone and annoyed a few suits.

    Hopefully Mr O will see reason and let him clean up the place.

    In my opinion he is the man for the job.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,607 ✭✭✭✭sceptre


    Threads merged.
    Amerika wrote: »
    jank wrote: »
    Regardless the military report to the white house.
    Acutally, I think they report to the Commander-In-Chief.
    Welcome to the modern use of metonyms in the 21st century. Not something I want silly hand-bagging over if you please, take it to the Linguistics & Etymology forum if desired.

    /mod


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,817 ✭✭✭ynotdu


    CNN are confirming that McChrystal has been sacked.

    Gen Petraeus to take his place.

    Obama to Speak any minute now.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,011 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    Intriguing - whilst what McCrystal said was probably ill advised, was he particularly wrong in what he said?

    McCrystal didnt leave Obama with any good options, but Obama would have come out of this stronger if he had retained a chastened McCrystal. As it is, it looks a bit touchy - military leadeship expresses issues with civillian leadership, Obama sacks military leadership with little or no obvious investigation of issues.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,817 ✭✭✭ynotdu


    A Video of Obama's 10 minute speech were he explains and justifies the sacking has finally appeared somewhere online.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wABTap2d2aQ


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Hmm...

    Looks like the left wingers are trying to clip the wings of Stan McCrystal who is cutting a swathe through Afghanistan.

    Kicking some ass.

    Looks like he overextended himself on Rolling Stone and annoyed a few suits.

    Hopefully Mr O will see reason and let him clean up the place.

    In my opinion he is the man for the job.

    Sorry even the GOP dont agree with you.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Sand wrote: »
    Intriguing - whilst what McCrystal said was probably ill advised, was he particularly wrong in what he said?-

    Well he didn't actually say publicly that he disagreed with the overall strategy that Obama was pursuing. Its kinda petty actually that he would speak of white house administration staff as clowns or fools. Jones as a retired 4 star general to be stuck in the 80's who we all remember was appointed by W. Bush. Hubris maybe?
    Sand wrote: »
    McCrystal didn't leave Obama with any good options, but Obama would have come out of this stronger if he had retained a chastened McCrystal. As it is, it looks a bit touchy -

    If he left him in place he would have looked unbelievably week and the right would have killed him for it. Even you Sand all theory aside would have to agree with that. The dems have always had an issue of being perceived week on national security. Fair or not leaving a general in command after he basically told to world that he thinks the VP is an idiot is not a show of strength. You dint come out in an interview with the rolling stones magazine of of publication and express disagreements with the civilian leadership and in all intents and purposes your boss.

    Sand wrote: »
    military leadership PUBLICLY expresses issues with civilian leadership,.

    Fixed that for you
    Sand wrote: »
    Obama sacks military leadership with little or no obvious investigation of issues.

    So all conversations between Obama and his national security adviser, the chief and staff and the pentagon are now public knowledge. WOW! Can I get your security clearance:D:rolleyes:


    Look we all agree that Afghanistan is not exactly going to plan. Is it thus because of Obama or in spite of Obama. IMO, it was going to be a mess regardless if you had Palin, FDR, Bush, Obama etc in the WH and I find it very fox news like of you Sand that people use this as an excuse to take a swipe at him.
    Never let a bad news story go to waste eh!


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,584 ✭✭✭digme


    mmm lithium etc etc etc....


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 53 ✭✭scallioneater


    Sand wrote: »
    As it is, it looks a bit touchy - military leadeship expresses issues with civillian leadership, Obama sacks military leadership with little or no obvious investigation of issues.

    I think it is touchy because the civilian leaders are terrified of losing control of the strongest military that the world has ever known. Both Democrats and Republicans know that to allow a general to run his mouth off like that is very dangerous for the continuation of civilian control. That is why you have seen strong support for removing McCrystal from the Republicans on the Armed Services Committees.

    What I find most interesting about this is that it wasn't just McCrystal, it seemed like his entire staff had lost the run of themselves. I wonder if it is a variant of the Zimbardo study. (Amateur prison guards go on power trip in fake prison)

    These staff officers are put in effective control of the nation of Afghanistan and the virtually unlimited power that they have in that nation results in them forgetting the rules that exist outside of their military jurisdiction. They speak and act like there is no check on their power, until someone from outside comes in and reports what is actually happening.

    Obama had no choice. No civilian government could safely ignore this level of hubris.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,011 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    @jank
    Well he didn't actually say publicly that he disagreed with the overall strategy that Obama was pursuing. Its kinda petty actually that he would speak of white house administration staff as clowns or fools. Jones as a retired 4 star general to be stuck in the 80's who we all remember was appointed by W. Bush. Hubris maybe?

    People are people and they dont always think everyone else is great, especially their co-workers or bosses. Maybe he thinks they are clowns and fools and was overly honest or believed he was talking "off the record", both being mistakes.
    If he left him in place he would have looked unbelievably week and the right would have killed him for it. Even you Sand all theory aside would have to agree with that. The dems have always had an issue of being perceived week on national security. Fair or not leaving a general in command after he basically told to world that he thinks the VP is an idiot is not a show of strength. You dint come out in an interview with the rolling stones magazine of of publication and express disagreements with the civilian leadership and in all intents and purposes your boss.

    Maybe - like I said, McCrystal didnt give Obama much in the way of good options. But if McCrystal was the man for the job a week ago, and Karzai seems to think hes the best the US have sent to Afghanistan, and then a week later hes dismissed for whats at worst ill advised comments revealing a fairly typical personality clash...well, it doesnt come out great either. It could and probably will be spun as being weak on national security.

    Somehow I think Obama would have demonstrated his control and much vaunted calm/detachement by having McCrystal apologise publically, pledge to concentrate on winning the good fight, and then forgetting about the story until the next story of the week showed up.
    military leadership PUBLICLY expresses issues with civilian leadership,.

    Publically? He hardly called a press conference to express political views - he just very foolishly let his guard down talking to his aides with a reporter present and made some disparging remarks about the people he worked with. Unwise, yes, abnormal, no.
    So all conversations between Obama and his national security adviser, the chief and staff and the pentagon are now public knowledge. WOW! Can I get your security clearance

    They had a 20 minute meeting and McCrystal was on a plane to Washington very soon after the story broke. I amnt sure there was much time for examination of the personality clashes.

    Look we all agree that Afghanistan is not exactly going to plan. Is it thus because of Obama or in spite of Obama. IMO, it was going to be a mess regardless if you had Palin, FDR, Bush, Obama etc in the WH and I find it very fox news like of you Sand that people use this as an excuse to take a swipe at him.
    Never let a bad news story go to waste eh!

    I amnt sure what youre getting at tbh. Dems/Reps dont matter much in terms of foreign policy. They face the same problems and they have the same tool box and the usually have almost identical advisors. Some just lean forward, others lean back. Just a style thing.

    The people most upset about Obama are those who truly bought into the hype and thought they were getting the second coming of Jesus Christ.

    @scallioneater
    I think it is touchy because the civilian leaders are terrified of losing control of the strongest military that the world has ever known.

    It might be a little OTT to portray McCrystal as some sort of sullen and rebellious Caesar with his legion camped on the Rubicon planning a march on Rome to overthrow the Senate.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,175 ✭✭✭Amerika


    I wish I knew the answer to two questions in the matter. First, why in the world would General McChrystal even allow Rolling Stone Magazine, which by many accounts is staffed by anti-war liberal hippie retreds, into his inner circle? And second, why in the world would he and his staff let their guard down in front of this Rolling Stone individual, which given the opportunity to portray the military in less than favorable light, will most definitely take advantage of it?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 53 ✭✭scallioneater


    Amerika wrote: »
    I wish I knew the answer to two questions in the matter. First, why in the world would General McChrystal even allow Rolling Stone Magazine, which by many accounts is staffed by anti-war liberal hippie retreds, into his inner circle? And second, why in the world would he and his staff let their guard down in front of this Rolling Stone individual, which given the opportunity to portray the military in less than favorable light, will most definitely take advantage of it?


    I wondered about that too.... The best I can guess is that McChrystal and his entire staff came to see themselves as omnipotent because they were effectively omnipotent in Afghanistan. They got used to talking down to everyone in Afghanistan and then just forgot that the rest of the world didn't operate by those rules.

    I've seen it time and time again with less powerful people in business and government. Give them power over others and they lose control of themselves. The greater the power the greater the temptation.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,683 ✭✭✭✭Overheal




  • Closed Accounts Posts: 53 ✭✭scallioneater


    Sand wrote: »
    It might be a little OTT to portray McCrystal as some sort of sullen and rebellious Caesar with his legion camped on the Rubicon planning a march on Rome to overthrow the Senate.

    I disagree, there are not very many steps from insubordination to rebellion. In fact, it might be a good exercise for you to read up on Ceasar crossing the Rubicon.

    Remember, when you and I complain about our politicians, all we have to effect change are individual votes. A four star general can effect a lot of change with a couple of infantry divisions.

    In a democratic system, any challenge by a general staff officer to the civilian leadership is a no-no. If the civies don't dismiss the general involved, then the problem only gets bigger.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Sand wrote: »
    People are people and they dont always think everyone else is great, especially their co-workers or bosses. Maybe he thinks they are clowns and fools and was overly honest or believed he was talking "off the record", both being mistakes.
    .

    Well that is life, of course people are not always going to get along but he didnt critise policy he just critised people publicly. Therefore it's a bit petty on his and his teams behalf.

    Sand wrote: »
    Maybe - like I said, McCrystal didn't give Obama much in the way of good options. But if McCrystal was the man for the job a week ago, and Karzai seems to think hes the best the US have sent to Afghanistan, and then a week later hes dismissed for whats at worst ill advised comments revealing a fairly typical personality clash...well, it doesn't come out great either. It could and probably will be spun as being weak on national security..

    Yea, spun by right wing nuts such as Michael Savage.
    Also seriously I wouldn't take heed of any thing that corrupt stooge Karzai says or thinks. He likes McCrysral probably because he gets to line his own pockets with relative ease. His opinion on matters such as this is worth toilet paper
    Sand wrote: »
    Somehow I think Obama would have demonstrated his control and much vaunted calm/detachement by having McCrystal apologise publically, pledge to concentrate on winning the good fight, and then forgetting about the story until the next story of the week showed up...

    This is fantasy and you know it!!

    Sand wrote: »
    Publically? He hardly called a press conference to express political views - he just very foolishly let his guard down talking to his aides with a reporter present and made some disparging remarks about the people he worked with. Unwise, yes, abnormal, no. ...

    Abnormal, tell me how many 4 star gernerals have been let go by the president for making disparing personal remarks.
    What was he thinking anyway of letting that publication into his inner circle?

    Sand wrote: »
    They had a 20 minute meeting and McCrystal was on a plane to Washington very soon after the story broke. I amnt sure there was much time for examination of the personality clashes....
    Ah, so you are just "guessing" and "assuming" nevermind "guessing" and assuming" that that was the only meeting Obama had with this staff and military about this situation.... ever. You know what they say about the word assume. It makes an ass of u and me!:p


    Sand wrote: »
    I amnt sure what youre getting at tbh. Dems/Reps dont matter much in terms of foreign policy. They face the same problems and they have the same tool box and the usually have almost identical advisors. Some just lean forward, others lean back. Just a style thing.

    The people most upset about Obama are those who truly bought into the hype and thought they were getting the second coming of Jesus Christ.

    Sorry but I dont think Glenn Beck and his cohorts and Fox news voted for Obama.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,817 ✭✭✭ynotdu


    Arghhhhhhhhhhh How could any discussion even approaching "The right thing to do" Democracy etc include the name Karzai?????


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,445 ✭✭✭BluePlanet


    ynotdu wrote: »
    Arghhhhhhhhhhh How could any discussion even approaching "The right thing to do" Democracy etc include the name Karzai?????
    Well he was hand picked by the yanks to begin with.
    And in fairness he did look good on paper...


Advertisement