What Exactly Did McChrystal Say or Do

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Dragoon68, Jun 25, 2010.

  1. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    What exactly did General McChrystal say or do that resulted in his resignation or being relieved of command?

    I understand the standards or conduct and the reasons for them - that's not the point of this question. I know the President is the "boss" - that's also not the point of the question. I know there are differences of opinion on the conduct of the war - that's not the question either. I know the President really didn't have to have a reason to replace the General - it's his choice and so that in itself isn't the question.

    What I don't think has been made very clear in the news yet - it rarely is - are the specifics of this case that would be good for us to understand. The question is specifically where and how did the General cross the line?
     
  2. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    I won't link to the article because it is pretty foul. Just google McChrystal and Rolling Stone to get the original article.

    Be forewarned.
     
  3. Don

    Don
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2000
    Messages:
    10,550
    Likes Received:
    213
    For the most part, McChrystal said nothing about Obama. HOWEVER, his aides said a few things, with McChrystal present, and McChrystal did nothing.

    Each of those aides is guilty of violating Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). For what McChrystal said about Vice President Biden, he is guilty of the same charge. For not correcting his aides for their conduct, he is guilty of fostering an atmosphere that is not conducive to good order and discipline, and is therefore guilty of violating Article 134 of the UCMJ.

    Further, McChrystal is reported as saying or giving the appearance of disparaging comments/attitudes towards France; while I personally have no love for France either, in his position, he's causing a detriment towards our international relations.

    If left unresolved, it fosters an atmosphere among the ranks that if our highest military leaders can be disparaging towards our civilian commanders, well, then anyone in any rank should be able to, too. *That* is the true danger: the loss of respect towards the civilian authorities to whom the military is supposed to answer to, and not the other way around.

    And that was why McChrystal had to go.
     
    #3 Don, Jun 25, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 25, 2010
  4. pinoybaptist

    pinoybaptist
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2002
    Messages:
    8,123
    Likes Received:
    1
    thank you. Don, for a very good explanation.
    I guess when you get to look at the principles violated, no one will disagree.
     
  5. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    I've read the article - I did that first!
     
  6. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    Right on the money!
     
  7. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,184
    Likes Received:
    326
    His key quote in the article concerns his men "I'd die for them and they'd die for me".

    That's what he did (virtually).

    He could care less what we or the president think of him or what all of us armchair warriors pronounce.

    His men know what he did for them.

    IMO of course.


    HankD
     
  8. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    In my opinion, any member of the military - and especially a flag officer - has to set the example of conduct they want their warriors to have. How could they otherwise exercise discipline over them? Contempt of officials - which is the key misbehavior in this case and specially addressed in the law - is not an appropriate conduct and has nothing to do with dying for those who serve under your command. Courage in battle does not require contempt for those in authority over you. I have no "love" for Obama and his administration but, if I were still in the military, I would be obligated to follow all lawful orders and refrain from any form of contempt of them or their authority over me. If I could not do that I'd have to resign but I should never set the dangerous precedent of contempt least those who might report to me would consider it appropriate for them as well. This little step is one that could lead to much more pain for our nation. McChrystal made a serious mistake by not holding his staff to the proper standards and by engaging in contemptuous comments about officials specifically covered in the law. He knew better but chose not to discipline himself to hold to this law. He accomplished a lot of good things in his career but this episode revealed a serious character flaw that we don't need or want in our flag officers. Such leaders hold great power in their hands - their subordinates would follow their orders - and it is, to great extend, only their commitment to military law that holds that in proper check. As much as I dislike Obama's political positions and the direction he's leading our nation I completely agree with his decision to relive McChrystal of command and, if it were me, I might even take it a step further. Further, although some of us are armchair warriors today we were once in harm's way ourselves and we do know firsthand the painful results of weak and confused political leadership. In fact, that's why we're so disgusted with them now. That problem, however, must be solved by the citizens at large and not by contempt from the military least we find ourselves on the path to revolts and coups.
     
    #8 Dragoon68, Jun 26, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 26, 2010
  9. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,184
    Likes Received:
    326
    Like I said to another poster. I have my opinion, you have yours.

    I do agree with you that he left the president no choice, but in my opinion (underline IMO) he knew that it would be the most likely outcome.

    HankD
     
  10. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's no problem with me that we may have slightly different opinions about this.

    It may well be that he did know what the outcome would be. If that's true then I'd say he wasted an otherwise good career and his point is lost by his failure to obey the laws to which he was subject. That's sad and I hate to see it happen to any officer or enlisted person. In my opinion, he should never has demonstrated nor permitted those under his command to demonstrate contempt for officials such as the President and Vice President. It was a bad mistake or, if intentional, all the worse! Doing so also doesn't help the credibility of other senior officers as they deal with their civilian superiors. Members of the military don't have the same "freedom" to speak their mind as others do and for very good reasons. I'm sure he knew that and most likely required it from others along the way in his career.
     
  11. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,184
    Likes Received:
    326
    Agreed for the most part except to say that as a result, the whole dynamics of the afghan war have probably changed because of 1) Public awareness and the demand of accountability at the executive level, and 2) the Petraeus' assignment with a "revised" executive strategy to correspond to that public awareness and accountability.

    So, it remains to be seen if General McChrystal succeeded (if indeed he had an objective in mind) and even if he did it may never come to light.

    Again, my opinion.

    HankD
     
  12. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    In any case the occupation of Afghanistan will go on and on, the military industrial complex will still get their regular paychecks as will the "global" banks that finance them with fiat money created out of thin air and the opium will still flow freely so we'll have a reason to keep the "war on drugs" soaking up billions of tax dollars and generating plenty more laundered drug money to finance even more global covert operations and all the (50-100 thousand more or less, probably more) corporate warriors aka "contractors" will still be gainfully employed. No matter which general is in charge.

    Most of what you all said makes sense I guess or used to make sense at one time, but in these days of corporatized wars all we can really count on is more endless engagements with no lack of gung ho red white and blue cheerleaders rallying the folks at home who still think American foreign policy is meant to "keep us safe" from all the monsters we're creating everyday by waging these endless corporate wars around the world.

    WOO HOO! The war business is still booming in Afghanistan!

    Forever wars = endless profits.

    GO TEAM GO
     
    #12 poncho, Jun 26, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 26, 2010
  13. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,184
    Likes Received:
    326
    Poncho, have you read George Orwell's 1984 and the endless war between Oceania, Eastasia, Eurasia?

    He wrote this book in 1949, very prophetic.

    "War is Peace" (Example of Orwellian "doublethink" slogan in 1984),

    HankD
     
  14. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Yeah. Long time ago Hank.

    Now I just read the news. Not much difference between the book and today's reality is there?

    There's a reason Afghanistan is called the graveyard of empires.

    Want to know the real reason we're still in Afghanistan after 9 years? Hint, it has nothing to do with protecting us from the Taliban or making the world safe for democracy, Osama who???. There is no real red white and blue reason to still be there.

    It's about long term corporate profits. General McChrystal knows this as does Petraeus. The only difference between the two is Petraeus is still willing to put personal honor and integrity aside and act like it isn't so he can continue to be a good ole NWO water boy while McChrystal has had a belly full and is sick of pretending the occupation of Afghanistan is something other than what it actually is.

    Another global cash cow for the international banksters, the military industrial complex and all the other global corporate raiders that are in bed with our Wall Street "government".

    In other words the "international community" is using Afghanistan (and Iraq) to bilk us for trillions in fiat tax dollars while our republic slides into a black hole of endless debt and despare.

    I find nothing particularly glorious or honorable in that at all. Evidently, even General McChrystal had his limit.
     
    #14 poncho, Jun 27, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 27, 2010
  15. Don

    Don
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2000
    Messages:
    10,550
    Likes Received:
    213
    That doesn't make a lick of sense.

    What monetary/financial benefit is gained by staying in Afghanistan? What profit margin is achieved? What return on investment?
     
  16. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    You're asking the wrong question Don. The one you should be asking is "Cui Bono?"

    From our standpoint as citizens and taxpayers we do not profit from these endless engagements. We lose always and consistantly. But our wealth doesn't just disappear into a black hole never to be seen again, it's transfered. To those who do benefit from endless engagements, and who might that be Don?

    Cui bono?
     
  17. Don

    Don
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2000
    Messages:
    10,550
    Likes Received:
    213
    That's exactly what I'm asking you, Poncho. Because I'm not seeing anyone who actually benefits.
     
  18. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    You're asking me who benefits when I've already told you. In my first post.


    I thought I did a pretty good job explaining how our wealth (through these endless multiple engagements) is being transfered and who is doing the transfering.

    What's not to get?

    How much has these endless engagements cost us (taxpayers) so far? A trillion, 2 trillion? How much is the interest on air Don? Nope it's not a trick question at all. The bankers who finance these engagements for us (government) create money out of thin air by using the magical power of the printing press. We then pay interest on that loan of air. We also pay an inflation tax when more thin air is turned into money by lowering the money's value.

    You don't see that as a transfer of wealth? You don't see anyone who might benefit from a scam like that? That's a huge transfer of wealth. Probably the biggest in the world right now. And that's just the banksters who grant us loans. All that money has to go somewhere. Where does it go? Follow the money.

    Then tell me if you think those who are getting the lion's share would beneft more from short engagments, long engagements or endless engagements. Then tell me where the incentive is supposed to come from to actually win and thus end these monsterously profitable enterprises in the form of multinational military engagements.
     
    #18 poncho, Jun 28, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 28, 2010
  19. Don

    Don
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2000
    Messages:
    10,550
    Likes Received:
    213
    Where I'm not following your logic is the government itself. I agree that banks and companies can reap large monetary benefits from military engagements; whether it's Boeing or Lockheed, who provide military hardware...or KBR, which provides military support...or Xe (formerly Blackwater), which provides privatized security.

    So I could follow your logic if these companies and banks were lobbying the politicians to keep the conflicts going--because, ultimately, it's the government's decision to continue to engage in the conflict(s).

    So where's the government's benefit from keeping the conflict going? Or are you insinuating that the politicians (or at least the most influential ones) are in league with the banks & companies? (and by that I mean, receiving some form of payment)
     
  20. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,184
    Likes Received:
    326
    There is some truth in what poncho is saying, that is why I mentioned 1984 by George Orwell.

    "War is Peace" an orwellian doublethink statement.

    In other words, Orwell's message is that when we are at war there is a kind of domestic social "peace" among the people because they are united behind a common enemy.

    Also, war can be a kind of economic shot in the arm for a nation.
    Did you see Schindler's List?

    Apart from that there is a very real threat and present domestic danger to us from global islamic terrorism.

    If (actually, when) Iran developes miniturized nukes we will be their first or second target from a suicide bomber who will easily slip through our borders with a suitcase full of death by nuclear fission maybe even fussion.

    The war in Afghanistan has too big of a politically compromised component of Pollyanna ROE, bickering, disagreement and PC timidity which is hindering it from actually being won.

    War is hell and if we are going to engage in one, it must be fought as such.

    What were the "Rules Of Engagement" when we incinerated almost a quarter million people (men, women, childen, infants) in Nagasaki and Hiroshima in 1945?

    We did what we had to do in order to survive.


    HankD
     

Share This Page

Loading...