Reply With Quote
Jack, where did you get this propaganda?
You should read the original Rolling Stone article, and see how much of your article is out of context.
The Runaway General
I agree with that. However I don't think he should be booted for it.
FTR when generals questioned bush, it was turned into that bush didn't have the support.
I think what we are missing is some of McChrystal's complaints. That he is timid and around "clowns" might be worth a discussion. McChrystal is Obama's point man for his Afghan plan which is not doing good from when Barry took over.
Jack, where did you get this propaganda?
You should read the original Rolling Stone article, and see how much of your article is out of context.
The Runaway General
Why are you both falling prey to effective media lies?
Read the Rolling Stone linked article in my last post.
I'm just stating that as a rule in general, not specifically to this case. It seems most of the quotes are attributed to his aides. However, if my troop screws up, then I'm at a fault as well. I'm guessing the same mindset applies to the General's aides.
Yea, his aide says that the boss is disappointed. So?
What did McChrystal say that was out of line?
Yes, but even most the quotes of the aides are out of context:
The bad reinvention of the Rolling Stone article:
The Rolling stone article:General McChrystal is also quoted making disdainful remarks about Mr. Eikenberry, the ambassador to Afghanistan, with whom he has had sharp disagreements over the war. Last year, Mr. Eikenberry sent confidential cables to Washington opposing Mr. Obama’s decision to send more troops.
“He’s one that covers his flanks for the history books,” General McChrystal is quoted as saying. “Now, if we fail, they can say, ‘I told you so.’ ”
Here’s the clip in the article:
The bad reinvention of the Rolling Stone article:The relationship was further strained in January, when a classified cable that Eikenberry wrote was leaked to The New York Times. The cable was as scathing as it was prescient. The ambassador offered a brutal critique of McChrystal's strategy, dismissed President Hamid Karzai as "not an adequate strategic partner," and cast doubt on whether the counterinsurgency plan would be "sufficient" to deal with Al Qaeda. "We will become more deeply engaged here with no way to extricate ourselves," Eikenberry warned, "short of allowing the country to descend again into lawlessness and chaos."
McChrystal and his team were blindsided by the cable. "I like Karl, I've known him for years, but they'd never said anything like that to us before," says McChrystal, who adds that he felt "betrayed" by the leak. "Here's one that covers his flank for the history books. Now if we fail, they can say, 'I told you so.' "
The Rolling stone article:The magazine article, en led “The Runaway General,” quotes aides of General McChrystal saying the general was “pretty disappointed” by an Oval Office meeting with Mr. Obama, and that he found the president “uncomfortable and intimidated” during a Pentagon meeting with General McChrystal and several other generals.
The bad reinvention of the Rolling Stone article:Even though he had voted for Obama, McChrystal and his new commander in chief failed from the outset to connect. The general first encountered Obama a week after he took office, when the president met with a dozen senior military officials in a room at the Pentagon known as the Tank. According to sources familiar with the meeting, McChrystal thought Obama looked "uncomfortable and intimidated" by the roomful of military brass. Their first one-on-one meeting took place in the Oval Office four months later, after McChrystal got the Afghanistan job, and it didn't go much better. "It was a 10-minute photo op," says an adviser to McChrystal. "Obama clearly didn't know anything about him, who he was. Here's the guy who's going to run his ing war, but he didn't seem very engaged. The Boss was pretty disappointed."
The Rolling stone article:On another occasion, General McChrystal is described as reacting with exasperation when he receives an e-mail message from Mr. Holbrooke. “Oh, not another e-mail from Holbrooke. I don’t even want to open it.”
The bad reinvention of the Rolling Stone article:McChrystal reserves special skepticism for Holbrooke, the official in charge of reintegrating the Taliban. "The Boss says he's like a wounded animal," says a member of the general's team. "Holbrooke keeps hearing rumors that he's going to get fired, so that makes him dangerous. He's a brilliant guy, but he just comes in, pulls on a lever, whatever he can grasp onto. But this is COIN, and you can't just have someone yanking on ."
At one point on his trip to Paris, McChrystal checks his BlackBerry. "Oh, not another e-mail from Holbrooke," he groans. "I don't even want to open it." He clicks on the message and reads the salutation out loud, then stuffs the BlackBerry back in his pocket, not bothering to conceal his annoyance.
"Make sure you don't get any of that on your leg," an aide jokes, referring to the e-mail.
The Rolling stone article:The article describes a conversation in which General McChrystal and an aide talk about Mr. Biden. Mr. Biden is known to have opposed the decision to escalate the war, preferring instead a slimmed-down plan focused on containing terrorism.
“Are you asking about Vice President Biden?” General McChrystal jokes.
“Biden?” suggests a top adviser. “Did you say ‘Bite me?’ ”
The bad reinvention of the Rolling Stone article:Now, flipping through printout cards of his speech in Paris, McChrystal wonders aloud what Biden question he might get today, and how he should respond. "I never know what's going to pop out until I'm up there, that's the problem," he says. Then, unable to help themselves, he and his staff imagine the general dismissing the vice president with a good one-liner.
"Are you asking about Vice President Biden?" McChrystal says with a laugh. "Who's that?"
"Biden?" suggests a top adviser. "Did you say: Bite Me?"
The Rolling stone article:The magazine article also describes a meeting in which a soldier vents his frustration over General McChrystal’s tightening of the rules governing the use of air strikes against suspected insurgents. In the article, the soldier, Pfc. Jared Pautsch, is quoted telling General McChrystal that he is endangering soldiers’ lives by forcing them to be too restrained.
Pfc. Jared Pautsch is quoted as telling the general the Americans should just drop a “bomb on the place,” and asking, “What are we doing here?”
One soldier shows me the list of new regulations the platoon was given. "Patrol only in areas that you are reasonably certain that you will not have to defend yourselves with lethal force," the laminated card reads. For a soldier who has traveled halfway around the world to fight, that's like telling a cop he should only patrol in areas where he knows he won't have to make arrests. "Does that make any ing sense?" asks Pfc. Jared Pautsch. "We should just drop a ing bomb on this place. You sit and ask yourself: What are we doing here?"
The rules handed out here are not what McChrystal intended – they've been distorted as they passed through the chain of command – but knowing that does nothing to lessen the anger of troops on the ground.
I don't think you can hold an aide to the same standard. Otherwise, how many people in DC would be fired?
I agree that it wasn't egregious enough to warrant his resignation or his being fired.
I'm not saying aides should be held to the same standard as a general; I'm saying the General is responsible for what his aides say. There's a difference.
I don't expect people to hold my troop to the same standards I hold for myself. I am responsible for what my troop does.
From the standpoint that he actually apologized instead of claiming that the aides lied or were quoted wrongly, etc, it gives authenticity to the fact things were the way aides said they were.
To me, this is a way for him to get out of the Afghanistan mess. I wouldn't be surprised if he came out talking once he leaves his post.
So the aide can be punished. Everyone is responsible for what they say about work related topics. The original post makes it out as if the General said worse things than he did. None of this is enough to recall the General from off the AO. Obumbler is just being a sissy.
Could be. It's also possible he asked his aide to say things he couldn't.
Exactly.
Agreed that everyone is responsible for their mistakes. However, the General is probably responsible for his aide's mistakes as well, just as an NCO AND the Amn he supervises are responsible if the Amn makes a mistake.
Agreed. But it still reflects poorly on him/his office. If it was one aide, sure. But it seems like it was multiple aides, and for the aides to be that frank, it makes one wonder about the candor in that office as well as the level of respect for civilian leadership.
I'd consider that poor leadership if that were the case. I would never tell my airman to say something about/to leadership that I didn't feel comfortable saying.
And blow a book deal? No way...
This is why I'm enlisted instead of an officer...And blow a book deal? No way...
I know I would consider letting the cat out of the bag in some indirect way if I was one of Obumbler's generals.
Actually, I would probably resign first.
Did I say uncomfortable?
Sorry, I meant forbidden to say.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 06-22-2010 at 10:13 PM.
Well, I've read the Rolling Stone article front to back.
I know why Obama is pissed.
It's not what McChrystal said or did.
The article exposes the false premise that we can actually "win" in Afghanistan.
Afghanistan is Obama's war. He owns it.
So Bush was a sissy for firing all the officers who disagreed with him publicly as well.
OK.
So now you are against the war in Afghanistan.Well, I've read the Rolling Stone article front to back.
I know why Obama is pissed.
It's not what McChrystal said or did.
The article exposes the false premise that we can actually "win" in Afghanistan.
Afghanistan is Obama's war. He owns it.
And you are laughing about the servicemen dying and being maimed there.
Nice.
I have consistently said for years we can't win a war in Afghanistan. The USSR at the height of their military power couldn't do it and for them it was geographically like us invading Mexico.
As for the drunk/stupid crack about my insensitivity to servicemen dying there I defy you to find a quote of mine that backs that claim up.
You can't.
This general didn't publicly disagree now did he.
Link...
Yep, he's just a big chump, isn't he.
Thing is, we aren't trying the same type of war the Soviets tried. As hard as it is, I think we can accomplish our mission. That is, as long as the president listens to the military experts.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
