OT - I'd like to find out who's willing to replace him.

"Quadibloc" wrote in message
...
On Jun 23, 5:28 pm, Brian Thorn wrote:

The President was being polite calling it 'division'. That was
insubordination in no uncertain terms. My god, what was McCrystal
thinking?

That brave American boys fighting the terrorist scum murdering
innocent civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan were dying needlessly?

So you believe living under some self-appointed religio-drug warlord
telling you how, when and if you live, is what is best for "them".
With friends like you, who needs enemies?


This sort of thing can warp one's objectivity, and drive one to react
in an emotional manner.
You don't get to be a General in the United States Army by being
dispassionate, objective, and unemotional by nature;


I think you'd be surprised at the level of passion and fervor in
the American military today when it comes to the war on terror.
A war which has evolved into a war on the 'lawless' areas in
the region.



such people
become scientists and engineers, or perhaps - given the details of the
qualities required - civil servants or lawyers, and if fate makes them
soldiers, they are not particularly effective soldiers.

But ..openly..ridiculing your boss has a tendency to send a career
in the opposite direction. What I like about this is President Obama
has used it to soften the deadline policy. As long as the current gang
in Iran is in power, we should be resigned to the fact the US military
will have to remain in the region in numbers.


John



John Savard

On 6/23/2010 3:28 PM, Brian Thorn wrote:


The President was being polite calling it 'division'. That was
insubordination in no uncertain terms. My god, what was McCrystal
thinking?

The most incendary comments in the article were made by his aides, not
McChrystal himself.

I think historians are going to be trying to figure this one
out for a very long time.

Look at it this way; if he thought Afghanistan is a lost cause, not
being around when it finally goes down the tubes is one way to keep his
reputation somewhat intact.
He can always say "if they had only listened to me, we would have won
that war" in best MacArthur tradition.

Pat

On 6/24/2010 2:09 PM, Quadibloc wrote:

Better the odd McChrystal or MacArthur than that. Far better.

Here's the full article BTW:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/119236

Pat

On Jun 24, 5:09*pm, Quadibloc wrote:

You don't get to be a General in the United States Army by being
dispassionate, objective, and unemotional by nature; such people
become scientists and engineers, or perhaps - given the details of the
qualities required - civil servants or lawyers, and if fate makes them
soldiers, they are not particularly effective soldiers.

You are aware there's a difference between enlisted men and officers,
right? (Or at least that there theoretically should be?)

On Jun 24, 7:52*pm, Damien Valentine wrote:

You are aware there's a difference between enlisted men and officers,
right? *(Or at least that there theoretically should be?)

This is true. But even officers had better be fighting men to command
respect from their troops. That's why, while they shouldn't do what
McChrystal did, they can't be the kind of person who, by nature, would
never even *think* of doing such a thing.

That's why I think that we can't avoid this sort of thing happening
once in a while - particularly if any situations arise where external
political considerations get in the way of total support for whatever
the forces in the field need for victory - as swiftly as possible and
with minimum bloodshed on _their_ part.

John Savard

The military prefers OVERWHELMING FORCE!

it should be adopted by the political leaders too.

Overwhelm the enemy
and destroy some citys.

cripple the country being invadad so the KNOW THEY LOST, and our
dependent on the winners ( thats us ) for aid and reconstruction.

but first the US must keep its nose in our own business, and quit
mucking in other countries so they hate us

we need to end depence on others for energy, food and most consumer
ggoods

On 6/24/2010 2:09 PM, Quadibloc wrote:


That brave American boys fighting the terrorist scum murdering
innocent civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan were dying needlessly?

General McChrystal: "You Taliban scum."
Captured Taliban leader: "General McChrystal...I thought I recognized
your foul stench when I was brought into the base. Soon, your troops
will be fleeing our country, just like the Soviets did."
General McChrystal: "Evacuate? At our moment of triumph? I think you
overestimate your chances." ;-)

Pat

On Jun 25, 11:53*pm, Quadibloc wrote:
This is true. But even officers had better be fighting men to command
respect from their troops. That's why, while they shouldn't do what
McChrystal did, they can't be the kind of person who, by nature, would
never even *think* of doing such a thing.

From what I understand, Gen. McChrystal was engaged in insubordination
against the commander-in-chief of the United States. And he
encouraged similar insubordination among his staff. And he ignored
the chain of command, by bringing his problems to a magazine instead
of his superiors. And he fouled up every PR and foreign relations
duty he was assigned, beyond all recognition.

Nor is this his first offense. In my first page of Google searches,
I've got articles citing complaints against him since he took the
post, back in 2009. And somebody mentions his involvement in the Pat
Tillman fiasco.

A "fighting man" needs discipline more than he needs courage: officers
in particular, and certainly the commanders of an entire theater .
Discipline is apparently the one quality McChrystal didn't have.

That's why I think that we can't avoid this sort of thing happening
once in a while - particularly if any situations arise where external
political considerations get in the way of total support for whatever
the forces in the field need for victory - as swiftly as possible and
with minimum bloodshed on _their_ part.

The political considerations are not external. Read your Clausewitz:
"War is the continuation of politics by other means." That even
applies to guerilla wars...especially to guerilla wars, in fact, where
it doesn't matter how much firepower your side can throw around.
You're allowed to want to protect the "brave American boys". The
"boys" themselves are not -- not if doing so interferes with the
mission.

It occurs to me you might want to read this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/24/op...4truscott.html Found it in
the Google search.

On 6/26/2010 1:26 PM, Damien Valentine wrote:


From what I understand, Gen. McChrystal was engaged in insubordination
against the commander-in-chief of the United States. And he
encouraged similar insubordination among his staff.

I still like the "Medal For Restraint" that was to be awarded to troops
who didn't fire on people while under attack.
It's once in a blue moon when I agree with Rush Limbaugh, but his
statement that this sounds like a award that's going to be primarily
awarded posthumously is dead on target.
That's a completely insane tactic, unless you are trying to convince the
Afghani population that you are the most pathetic set of invaders that
ever marched into the place.
And BTW...when exactly did the war on Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan mutate
into the war on the Taliban in Afghanistan?
I don't seem to remember any Taliban being involved in 9/11.

Pat

The Taliban are mean, vicious, evil people. Not nice heroes fighting
for freedom like Princess Leia.

It should be possible to tell the difference.

John Savard