Bye Bye General

[Easy Drifter]

As far as I can remember no US President has fired a General since Truman fired MacArthur.
Obama has now fired two. :confused:

[AndyRAC]

Is Obama anti or pro Military?

[dunes]

Is Mac going to start his own army and finish the job as a contracted mercernary? One has to say "HMMMMMMMMM"

[harvick#1]

once again, Obama's ego has gotten the better of him again, when do we get to fire him soon, this crap freak show is getting depressing, I guess he wants to kill America within 4 years YES WE CAN!!!!!!

[Valve Bounce]

As far as I can remember no US President has fired a General since Truman fired MacArthur.
Obama has now fired two. :confused:

That makes him a double barreled president. :eek:

[Mark in Oshawa]

Is Obama anti or pro Military?

Lets see....University professor...lawyer...friends with a guy who once was convicted of domestic terrorism in the early 70's...friends with a guy who yells "GD AMERICA" in the aftermath of 9/11, friends with various socialists, academics and all out radicals before he enters politics....community organizer for ACORN....ya....I think I can say it definatively..he HATES the idea of having to be anything do with the military.

He is however, not a stupid man, so if he hates the military, he also knows that showing that just might really turn off a lot of people who voted for him. He I suspect has no doubt learned now he is in charge, that the responsibility of the office dictates that they are part of his tools to help govern and carry out US foreign policy so he better learn more about it.

No..Obama's first instincts would be to ignore or cut the military, but there is too much political skin districts he needs in Congress to stay Democrat to mess with it...

[Mark]

Although of course he has the right to employ who he sees fit. Getting rid of someone just because they don't agree with you, it's a slippery slope.

[Valve Bounce]

Lets see....University professor...lawyer...friends with a guy who once was convicted of domestic terrorism in the early 70's...friends with a guy who yells "GOD DAMN AMERICA" in the aftermath of 9/11, ...............

Surely you don't mean this nice man: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hPR5jnjtLo&feature=fvst

[Jag_Warrior]

Although of course he has the right to employ who he sees fit. Getting rid of someone just because they don't agree with you, it's a slippery slope.

I don't think it was the man's beliefs that got him in trouble. It was his mouth. Should he take a job in private industry once he's out of the military, he'll find the exact same situation there. I'm not aware of any institution (public or private) which allows public insubordination. No matter who the President is (Bush II, Obama or *shudder* Palin), the Commander in Chief is the Commander in Chief.

But here's the part that I can't figure out. OK, you're in the military. Of ALL the magazines on this planet that you'd give an indepth interview to... wouldn't Rolling Stone be among your last choices? I mean, ya know... would you really want to bare your (military) soul to a publication that's never been known to be a big fan of the military to begin with?! McChrystal's situation almost sounds like those (insane) people who want to commit suicide and confront a cop wile holding a gun. "Suicide by cop", I believe it's called. I guess this is "suicide by magazine"?

But Petreaus seems like a better choice anyway. So... :dozey:

[markabilly]

well, you have your Macaurthurs, Haratio Gates, McChrystal....and then you have Washington......

And I do not think Washington and his crew would have been riding around on a bus, getting drunk, with some fag reporter from the rolling stones.....although that reporter is just another reason why I laugh when one of them manages to get himself killed off.....

[Mark in Oshawa]

Surely you don't mean this nice man: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hPR5jnjtLo&feature=fvst

yup..that's the fella. Does anyone REALLY believe Barack didn't hear some of this rhetoric when he was sitting there? Obama claims he never heard it. Quick, get him a Whisper 2000!

[airshifter]

I don't think it was the man's beliefs that got him in trouble. It was his mouth. Should he take a job in private industry once he's out of the military, he'll find the exact same situation there. I'm not aware of any institution (public or private) which allows public insubordination. No matter who the President is (Bush II, Obama or *shudder* Palin), the Commander in Chief is the Commander in Chief.

But here's the part that I can't figure out. OK, you're in the military. Of ALL the magazines on this planet that you'd give an indepth interview to... wouldn't Rolling Stone be among your last choices? I mean, ya know... would you really want to bare your (military) soul to a publication that's never been known to be a big fan of the military to begin with?! McChrystal's situation almost sounds like those (insane) people who want to commit suicide and confront a cop wile holding a gun. "Suicide by cop", I believe it's called. I guess this is "suicide by magazine"?

But Petreaus seems like a better choice anyway. So... :dozey:

What part of the comments qualify as insubordination? Does Obama have any standing orders stating that the military can't make an honest statement of their opinion to someone? McChrystal spoke his mind, and apparently Obama would rather have a tight lipped yes man even if the job isn't done as well. He should consider his situation, as they aren't many people as liberal as McChrystal at the upper end of military leadership.

Of course his lack of judgement in talking to Rolling Stone would lead one to think he's not the sharpest tack out there too.... maybe he thought Mr Yes We Can would allow freedom of speech?

[race aficionado]

Good ridance.
:s mokin:

[Easy Drifter]

Probably the man most well known for firing Generals who did not agree with him on strategic or even tactical matters was a little former corporal called Hitler. :p

[Valve Bounce]

What part of the comments qualify as insubordination? Does Obama have any standing orders stating that the military can't make an honest statement of their opinion to someone? McChrystal spoke his mind, and apparently Obama would rather have a tight lipped yes man even if the job isn't done as well. He should consider his situation, as they aren't many people as liberal as McChrystal at the upper end of military leadership.

Of course his lack of judgement in talking to Rolling Stone would lead one to think he's not the sharpest tack out there too.... maybe he thought Mr Yes We Can would allow freedom of speech?

Not sure of the exact wording, but I think he did say something about" the real enemy and the White House administration".

However, I am surprised that a General in his position could not get a direct line to speak to The President, and chose to speak to Rolling Stone Magazine.

If I was in charge of a Government Organization (Water Supply, for arguments sake) and one of my senior Engineers spoke to Rolling Stone Magazine about me in that manner, I'd sack him on the spot.

Maybe some of you guys might see things differently and tell me why you wouldn't sack the guy.

[Rudy Tamasz]

Probably the man most well known for firing Generals who did not agree with him on strategic or even tactical matters was a little former corporal called Hitler. :p

Eki would argue that Hitler was nice enough to offer his generals discharging themselves with honor by means of suicide.

[Rudy Tamasz]

Old Joe Stalin was pretty good at firing his generals (and marshals), too.

[Jag_Warrior]

If I was in charge of a Government Organization (Water Supply, for arguments sake) and one of my senior Engineers spoke to Rolling Stone Magazine about me in that manner, I'd sack him on the spot.

Maybe some of you guys might see things differently and tell me why you wouldn't sack the guy.

I'm also not aware of any sort of organization which would allow even the most high ranking executive to express himself as McChrystal did (in public). And according to what I've read, this is at least the second time that McChrystal stuck his foot in it. The first being last fall, afterwhich Obama called him onto Air Force One for a dressing down. I guess General Stan is the kind of guy who likes to press his luck.

If you have an opinion that is contrary to that of your boss, you either keep your mouth shut OR you find a constructive and tactful way of expressing that opinion. If you're unable to do either of those things, and you also develop "diarrhea of the mouth" while talking to a reporter, there's a real good chance you're going to get fired. That's just how life is. Why some are surprised by that fact of life, I'm not really sure.

[anthonyvop]

I'm also not aware of any sort of organization which would allow even the most high ranking executive to express himself as McChrystal did (in public). And according to what I've read, this is at least the second time that McChrystal stuck his foot in it. The first being last fall, afterwhich Obama called him onto Air Force One for a dressing down. I guess General Stan is the kind of guy who likes to press his luck.

If you have an opinion that is contrary to that of your boss, you either keep your mouth shut OR you find a constructive and tactful way of expressing that opinion. If you're unable to do either of those things, and you also develop "diarrhea of the mouth" while talking to a reporter, there's a real good chance you're going to get fired. That's just how life is. Why some are surprised by that fact of life, I'm not really sure.


I agree.

I still find it amusing though that even though most agree he shouldn't have said what he did nobody is arguing about what he said.

[race aficionado]

I agree.

I still find it amusing though that even though most agree he shouldn't have said what he did nobody is arguing about what he said.

What is there to argue.
He and his "subordinates" have their own opinions and that is not questioned.
It is in what context they expressed their opinions that is in question here.
:s mokin:

[markabilly]

. If you're unable to do either of those things, and you also develop "diarrhea of the mouth" while talking to a reporter, there's a real good chance you're going to get fired. That's just how life is. Why some are surprised by that fact of life, I'm not really sure.
Military is a bit different as there is much bitching in private talk that would well amount to treason and all sorts of stuff....Saving Private Ryan is a good example...but as was said in the movie, bitching goes up the chain, not down the chain.

What happened is a classic reporter move...and some great luck......instead of spending a day or so, the reporter spent ten days with them because of the volcano grounding flights and stuff....in the process, he became one of the boys, indeed, he became a drinking buddy.

and when drunk, and with a close bud, you say all sorts of things, never thinking that it MIGHT BECOME PUBLIC... and with a few drinks and a person good at conversation, it was easy, too easy, to be forgetting the guy was a reporter with a microphone and tape as the days went by.....

But i am not saying it was okay, indeed, NOT....but it is understandable...would george washington have fallen victim??? I would like to think NOT, but still....

And to quote my grand daddy, never whisper anything about someone quietly behind their back, that you are not willing to say out loud to their face...(or for those in the public eye, on the front page of some newspaper)

Funny is how everyone complains about his open mouth, but not the merits of what he said.....as VPOP pointed out....

[Roamy]

Unfortunately when you get a star - all things must change in the way one acts.
A great warrior does not make a great politician. Both are expected when one receives their first star. In the case of McC they should have realized this before promoting him to Commander and let him do what he does best. Special Ops. Also McC should have probably know his shortcomings and adjusted his career path. However he will probably have so many lucrative opportunities now that this will just be a stepping stone.

[Mark in Oshawa]

McChrystal made himself the story, and it is his fault the message was lost. If he was going to skewer his boss, let him do it in a book when he retires...or do the sneaky thing..leak it to the press. God knows that is what progressive bureaucrats love to do to Presidents they don't like...

[airshifter]

Not sure of the exact wording, but I think he did say something about" the real enemy and the White House administration".

However, I am surprised that a General in his position could not get a direct line to speak to The President, and chose to speak to Rolling Stone Magazine.

If I was in charge of a Government Organization (Water Supply, for arguments sake) and one of my senior Engineers spoke to Rolling Stone Magazine about me in that manner, I'd sack him on the spot.

Maybe some of you guys might see things differently and tell me why you wouldn't sack the guy.

Don't get me wrong, it is no surprise to me that he was sacked. However insubordination, especially in the military sense, would imply the willing act of disobeying an order. And as far as I know, there is no order in writing or implied, that a person can't speak their mind. After all, in this country it's a constitutional right.

The oath of a US military man centers on protecting and defending the Constitution, not being a puppet for all the politicians.

And for the record, I doubt any other president in recent history would have acted differently than Obama did. My guess is that rather than look at the record of the man and what he was doing, they would have sacked him just like Obama did. If the politicians were really serious about getting the job done in Afghanistan, his qualifications in that regard should have been the major factor in keeping or losing his position in that post.


Admiral Yamamoto was vocal in his feelings regarding Japan starting a war with the US, and IIRC even threatened to resign his post when politicians wanted to stop him from attacking Peal Harbor. Having studied in the US he was much more aware of the resolve of the US people, and thus saw Japans only chance at victory involving the premptive attack that would disable much of the US fleet in Pearl Harbor.

But he was not sacked for making statements against the war or doubting if the politicians of Japan had the resolve to win a war against the US. Instead the politicians of Japan saw him as the most qualified officer to plan such things, and commanded him to do so. It is said that Yamamoto went to great lengths in both planning the war actions and fighting with politicians in Japan so that he could make his best effort in fighting a war that deep down inside he knew Japan would not win. But he died trying.

That, IMHO is how politicians should view military leaders.

[markabilly]

True, but Admiral Yamamoto did not hang out with the Rollin Stones, with him and all his aides getting drunk and mouthin off about the "real enemy"

the rule has always been bitchin as with Admiral Yamamoto, goes up the chain and not down to the troops

[Mark in Oshawa]

True, but Admiral Yamamoto did not hang out with the Rollin Stones, with him and all his aides getting drunk and mouthin off about the "real enemy"

the rule has always been bitchin as with Admiral Yamamoto, goes up the chain and not down to the troops
Oh so true.

McChrystal though has been given a similar task for sure. Afghanistan, like Vietnam is a winniable conflict, but the people in the White House have more or less decided it isn't worth it, and most of the NATO nations have only paid lip service to it. Outside of Canada, the UK and the Netherlands, the other members of the NATO alliance there have refused to actually put troops in the field doing the dirty work.

This whole mess might have been averted had Obama had the guts to do what he said he would in the election, win in Afghanistan, but most of us who could connect the dots know this is a President who isn't a fan of the military, what they do, or being a strong man on the world's stage.

Bush got things done because no matter how much people hate his guts, if he said he was sending the army in, they knew he would. Obama wants a surge...but not really a surge...and then says he wants to pull out in a year. That is sorta like a guy saying to a woman he loves her, but then also saying he has other commitments. No wonder Karzai is looking to do a deal with the Taliban and other rebels, and no wonder no one takes Obama seriously on winning in Afghanistan.

We have put in 7 years there, and really, first Bush and now Obama has only paid real lip service to finally putting a stop to the stupidity there; and now Obama wants out so he can take that money spent and put it into his domestic agenda while looking the peace maker. IT is Jimmy Carter all over again...

[Jag_Warrior]

What did Bush get done? I missed that part. We overthrew the Taliban government of Afghanistan, which IMO was the exact right thing to do. These were the people who had supported the Al Qaeda attack on the U.S. But instead of keeping a focus on them and fully destroying them, we put our focus on the "bad man" in Iraq. That's where the majority of our troops were. And while we were off playing pocket pool in Iraq (about a trillion $ for that so far) and treating Afghanistan as a "side war"/hobby, the Taliban regrouped. The way I see it, THAT's what Bush got done. I don't see patting him on the back for that. That's the exact reason why we're in the deep #### that we're in right now.

As for "winning" in Afghanistan, I've yet to hear anyone, inside or outside the government, describe what victory would even look like. And the longer this drags on, the less likely it becomes that the Afghan people are going to side with us. Those people and their culture haven't survived for this long by being stupid. By what I've read, it's their nature to stick their fingers to the wind to see who is pulling ahead. Whoever that is, that's who they'll side with. If that changes the next day, they just change sides. Rinse & repeat. The Taliban seem to understand our fickle, sensitive public even better than they understood the Soviets. Their aim is just to hang tight and wreak as much havoc as possible. If they can kill one of our boys for every ten of them we kill, they'll probably take that as a victory. Because they know that one coalition death does more harm to us than ten deaths will do to them. Our forces probably aren't half as brutal as the Ruskies were... and they didn't get anywhere fast there. So the hammer approach doesn't necessarily work there. What I liked about McChrystal is that he seemed to understand that and seemed to have in mind an approach similar to the approach that Petraeus successfully used in Iraq... which got that quagmire to a better state. But unlike Petraeus, McChrystal also seemed determined to ruffle feathers, instead of just doing the job. So rather than try to coax McChrystal to use the Petraeus approach and he had already been warned by Obama once), hell, why not just bounce his silly azz and get the man with the plan to begin with?

Going back in time, I preferred McCain but I voted for Bush, and was genuinely happy that he won in 2000. Ya see, I didn't really know what a neocon was back then. I (foolishly) believed his pledge that he was opposed to nation building. If you attack or support an attack against us, the way I see it, you get your azz kicked long & hard. After 9/11, I felt that we should have been primarily in Afghanistan, and needed nothing more than a foot on Saddam's neck, to keep him from trying any silliness again. I don't give two ####s about whether he was "bad" or not. The world is full of bad people! And hell, we supported the little monster for the longest time. But anyway, I'm not in favor of using a trillion dollars of U.S taxpayer dollars to unseat some two bit dictator, and I don't care how bad he is or how many faux Hitler analogies somebody wants to dream up to get the hayseeds lathered up! But I just knew we were in trouble when I read various polls which showed that 40%+ of the American people (er... sheeple) believed that one or more of the 9/11 hijackers was Iraqi. :rolleyes: You can't fix stupid. And that was a whole lot of stupid.

As for the way forward, I think Petraeus is a good start toward something better. I still don't know what victory looks like or what the real goal is. And whether it's Bush or Obama, it's a waste of life if the goal in Afghanistan remains a moving target.

[F1boat]

If Barack is anti-military, that's another reason to like him :)

[Jag_Warrior]

If Barack is anti-military, that's another reason to like him :)

Some people think that Bush was "pro military" because he had no problem sending other peoples' 18 year old sons to die in some desert ####hole. That's yet another reason I wish that McCain had won the GOP nomination in 2000 and gone on to capture the Presidency. The John McCain of the 90's really was a maverick. IMO, he would not have been beholden to the neocons and the nation building chickenhawks, as Bush proved to be. At least from a foreign policy standpoint, we'd have been SO much better off now had McCain been the President from 2000-08. At the very least, McCain wasn't some fake lover of the military. Because of his POW experiences, I believe he would have used the troops only when necessary, and wouldn't have wasted lives on a pointless crusade that had nothing to do with the actual security of the United States. I also think he would have done more for the VA system, which Bush did not. Strange that W. Bush "loved" the military so much, yet the VA became an even bigger, sicker joke under him than any other President in recent memory. Go get your legs blown off and we'll put you in a rat infested hospital and hope that you don't get a staph infection. Yeah, that's some real love right there. :rolleyes:

[F1boat]

Some people think that Bush was "pro military" because he had no problem sending other peoples' 18 year old sons to die in some desert ####hole. That's yet another reason I wish that McCain had won the GOP nomination in 2000 and gone on to capture the Presidency. The John McCain of the 90's really was a maverick. IMO, he would not have been beholden to the neocons and the nation building chickenhawks, as Bush proved to be. At least from a foreign policy standpoint, we'd have been SO much better off now had McCain been the President from 2000-08. At the very least, McCain wasn't some fake lover of the military. Because of his POW experiences, I believe he would have used the troops only when necessary, and wouldn't have wasted lives on a pointless crusade that had nothing to do with the actual security of the United States. I also think he would have done more for the VA system, which Bush did not. Strange that W. Bush "loved" the military so much, yet the VA became an even bigger, sicker joke under him than any other President in recent memory. Go get your legs blown off and we'll put you in a rat infested hospital and hope that you don't get a staph infection. Yeah, that's some real love right there. :rolleyes:

Very possibly. While I do not approve of the idea of a warrior leading the most powerful country today, I do believe that McCain could have been better than W. He seems like a honorable man and undoubtedly when you have stared death in its face, you won't be so casual when sending kids to die. Actually, to me McCain seemed lost in his final speeches in GP camps, surrounded by some awful people who believe in things he doesn't. Actually, despite my joy from the victory of Barack (I like everything Obama represents), I do felt sympathy for a very worthy rival and honorable man who unfortunately failed to reach the ultimate achievement in his career.
Although I do wonder whether McCain was not finally relieved, away from the fans of Palin lol.

[Bob Riebe]

Some people think that Bush was "pro military" because he had no problem sending other peoples' 18 year old sons to die in some desert ####hole. That's yet another reason I wish that McCain had won the GOP nomination in 2000 and gone on to capture the Presidency. The John McCain of the 90's really was a maverick. IMO, he would not have been beholden to the neocons and the nation building chickenhawks, as Bush proved to be. At least from a foreign policy standpoint, we'd have been SO much better off now had McCain been the President from 2000-08. At the very least, McCain wasn't some fake lover of the military. Because of his POW experiences, I believe he would have used the troops only when necessary, and wouldn't have wasted lives on a pointless crusade that had nothing to do with the actual security of the United States. I also think he would have done more for the VA system, which Bush did not. Strange that W. Bush "loved" the military so much, yet the VA became an even bigger, sicker joke under him than any other President in recent memory. Go get your legs blown off and we'll put you in a rat infested hospital and hope that you don't get a staph infection. Yeah, that's some real love right there. :rolleyes:

McCain is just another R-i-n-o, who changes his tune too often.

The only good thing about Obama getting elected is that McCain was not. While McCain would have handled military matters better, his Belt-Way insider status would have maintained the status quo, which Obama has shredded.

[BDunnell]

Some people think that Bush was "pro military" because he had no problem sending other peoples' 18 year old sons to die in some desert ####hole.

A very good point. It's very sad that it has to be made at all, yet some people really do think that way.

[dunes]

I didn't read all the post but I find it somewhat interesting that he got canned for speaking out and then was sort of congradulatede in quite by the new general and company adopting a new aim or twist in thier statigies.
Good job Macystal. If you have to blow you're pension and career to save a few thousand innocent soldiers, I say thanks and tally-ho.