Accused of?Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
McChrystal's staff straight up dissed Obama and Eikenberry, their civilian superiors. Firing seems an like proportionate response to me.
Printable View
Accused of?Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
McChrystal's staff straight up dissed Obama and Eikenberry, their civilian superiors. Firing seems an like proportionate response to me.
OK, I will rephrase the original question using your preferred language.
Wait a second. McChrystal is now universally agreed to be disrespectful and seriously lacking in judgment. Petraus was his direct superior while this was going on. If you buy the story that McChrystal was fucking up, what does this say about Petraus's management skills?
Better?
Now address the question directly instead of nit-picking words out of context.
Not very much, IMO. Maybe he hoped McChrystal would keep his big mouth shut and continue to be an effective commander.Quote:
If you buy the story that McChrystal was fucking up, what does this say about Petraus's management skills?
Unfortunately, Petraeus would seem to have misjudged his character/good judgement, and McChrystal's indiscretion (and disrespect to the president) soon revealed his unfitness to command at such a high level.
"If I buy the story that McChrystal was fucking up"?Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
McChrystal fucked up by bitching to the press about his civilian authorities and letting his staff do the same. He got fired because of it, so he clearly fucked up. If you can give me an example of Petraeus' doing the same thing, we'll talk about that.
So the direct answer to your question is it doesn't say anything about his management skills.
Actually, if you can give me any example of any US senior officer's career benefiting from actions such as McChrystal's, that would be impressive.
So are you saying that that the disrespect/bitching about the civilian authorities was just a one time "drunk in the bar" thing and not the norm in McCrystals staff?
In which previous articles or interviews has McChrystal and his staff directly criticized the civilian authorities in this manner?Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
Answer this question directly.
The only thing I remember is his leaking recommendations for troop increases.
One would hope that an effective manager wouldn't have to read about his subordinates disrespect for civilian authorities in the newspaper.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Gen. McChrystal's staff ought to know better than to get drunk with journalists while on the record, even one time.
You didn't answer the question, hypocrite.Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
:toast , and I agree/admit, Karzai and the Afghan leadership's opinions are a moot point in this matter. Their approval or lack thereof won't change any of the fundamentals of this war. I just thought it an interesting aspect of the situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
I sure did. An effective MANAGER wouldn't have to read it in the newspaper if there was a problem with his subordinates attitudes. He would have recognized it and dealt with it. Unless, maybe, he SHARED their attitude.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
That wasn't the question.Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
The fish-rots-from-the-head-down gloss ought to apply to McChrystal equally.
It was the loose cannons under his supervision who bollixed everything up. Suggesting blame for that should devolve primarily on Petraeus because Gen McChrystal was under his supervision seems kinda chickenshit.
It was Gen. Chrystal's responsibility to ride herd on his own staff, not his commander's.
McChrystal forfeit his credibility to continue in command, before he was ever fired.
So. Is your reading comprehension so bad that you couldn't deduce the answer? There had been no previous newspaper articles expressing a bad attitude. However, as THEIR MANAGER if they had bad attitudes he should have already dealt with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
So this never happened before, though you tried to pretend it had.Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
OK.
It's a little silly to compare shop managers with warriors, CC. Just saying.Quote:
However, as THEIR MANAGER if they had bad attitudes he should have already dealt with it.
By that logic Tony Hayward had no responsibility for the Gulf oil spill because he wasn't the direct supervisor when it happened.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
At least be consistent.
If the attitudes expressed weren't just a one time drunken thing then the attitudes had been expressed before. Take your pick.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
A four star general should simply know better how to manage himself and his own staff. There is clear precedent for this.
LOL
I never said he shouldn't have been fired.
You said they had not been expressed in the media before. Make up your mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
Everyone is entitled to his or her private opinion. The mistake was giving it to the press. McChrystal fucked up that way and got fired for it.
So are you saying Petraeus should be fired?Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
I didn't say Petraeus had "no responsibility."
Look, the onus quite reasonably falls on Gen. McChrystal rather than his commander. Your reasoning that Petraeus is to be punished for McChrystal's misconduct -- and to a similar extent -- is a harebrained idea that would petulantly sweep Gen. Petraeus from the chessboard too. Do you really want that?
Not really. I'm suggesting that Petraus shares McCrystal's disdain for Obama and Hillary aka the State Department. Do you not remember the grilling he got over the Iraqi surge? Do you not remember Hillary calling him a liar right in front of Congress/CSPAN? I believe the famous phrase was something like "You are asking us for a willful suspension of disbelief".Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
Has he expressed these sentiments to the media?Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy