Abu Muqawama: Post
Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS. Abu Muqawama retains the right to delete comments that include words that incite violence; are predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass; or degrade people on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. In summary, don't be a jerk.
Three Options for the President
Something very, very positive happened today in Washington, DC. Senior Republican legislators, to include Sen. John McCain, and Bush Administration national security specialists, to include Peter Feaver and Eliot Cohen (both careful scholars of counterinsurgency and civil-military relations, I might add), have made clear that the president is well within his rights to fire Gen. McChrystal for comments made in a Rolling Stone article by Michael Hastings. Those who love our constitutional democracy should exhale, because I for one was really afraid this was going to turn into a partisan catfight, with those on the Left screaming for the president to fire McChrystal and those on the Right laying the blame at the feet of the president.
I am at a loss, though, as to what the best option for the president is. As I have made clear, I believe any course of action carries risk. The purpose of this post is to share three options for the president that, I believe, minimize those risks.
1. If you decide to retain Gen. McChrystal:
Have him resign ... and then do not accept his resignation. If you really do not think the war in Afghanistan can be waged without Gen. McChrystal, you still have to make clear that words and actions carry consequences and that at the end of the day, the President of the United States is the commander in chief. This option allows the president to keep Gen. McChrystal while at the same time reestablishing a healthier civil-military balance.
2a. If you decide to fire Gen. McChrystal (but believe the current strategy is still the most appropriate strategy for Afghanistan):
Fire him, and replace him with LTG Dave Rodriguez, McChrystal's deputy. This is a simple "drop one" drill, it allows for the greatest continuity, and it allows you to procede as planned with both operations this summer and this fall's strategic review.
2b. If you decide to fire Gen. McChrystal (but decide you need a new strategy as well):
Fire him and name LTG Rodriguez the interim commander while you carry out another strategic review. Once you decide on your new strategy, name a commander best suited for carrying out that strategy. The shame here is that the U.S. general best qualified to carry out a lighter-footprint counter-terror strategy like the one described by Austin Long is ... Stan McChrystal.
Sigh.
The shame here is that the
The shame here is that the U.S. general best qualified to carry out a lighter-footprint counter-terror strategy like the one described by Austin Long is ... Stan McChrystal.
Maybe that was true yesterday.
Personally, I think McChrystal was the wrong guy for the job in the first place. The complex political and inter-agency environment demanded an Eisenhower and instead we got a Patton.
personally, i think COIN
personally, i think COIN doesn't work.
and if COIN doesn't work, then nothing will work in the graveyard of empires.
lets GTFO before any more people die.
let Afghanistan become a Pakistani protectorate or a territory.
Why don't the Pres., the
Why don't the Pres., the General and maybe you Ex, have beers in the front lawn, like that Police/Black guy thing last year. The media loved that shit.
If the president really
If the president really thinks he has the right General in McChrystal then he has a right to be Nelsonian; to choose to be blind to Hasting's signal and to ignore the weight of fire directed at his General in the belief that is what will lead to ultimate victory.
joke line says the
joke line says the resignation is in.
Palin/McChrystal 2012 FTW!
I thought the political take
I thought the political take here was pretty on the money: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/06/dont_blame_mcchrys...
General McChrystal certainly deserved to be fired for taking a bad situation and making it worse, but the real food for thought ought to be what would lead him down this path. If he's the best we've got (or anywhere close), and he's trying out the military career equivalent of suicide by cop, then the ultimate blame needs to fall on the administration for failing at the politics of the war.
I've pretty long thought that the politicians weren't holding up their end of the bargin when it came to the post-911 wars. When we say war is a the continuation of politics by other means, the conclusion we should reach is that our military should be an extension of our political and diplomatic force. Unfortunately, our political and diplomatic capabilities are so non-existent that our military force has been increasingly asked to become a political and diplomatic force itself.
This problem seemed evident in Iraq, where the military somewhat succeeded in creating political reconciliation in addition to winning battles, but it seems even more evident in Afghanistan. In Iraq, we had inadequate political and diplomatic elements, but they certainly appeared to be hard at work and to some effect. To put it simply, look at the roles and efforts of Khalizad and Crocker in Iraq to the role and efforts of Wood and Eikenberry in Afghanistan.
To put it simply, the diplomats chosen for the key periods in Afghanistan aren't even close to our diplomatic A-Team. Wood was a latin American hand and Eikenberry wasn't even a foreign service guy, he was a general... with a narrow view of Afghanistan from his military tenure.
In short, if you want to get anywhere close to "winning" a COIN war, aren't you going to need all the political muscle you can get, and isn't it going to have to work extremely closely with the military. Ultimately, the leadership of such an effort needs to be political, and here you've got no strategic leadership, no real diplomats on the ground, and the ones that are are not on the same page with a military trying and failing to do it all themselves.
dig Ricks. Send in the
dig Ricks.
Send in the Petraeus!
Jokes aside, Petraeus is
Jokes aside, Petraeus is Obama's best option for an Iraq style non-winning "win" in the Graveyard of Empires.
minimize the damage.
I've got to ask: what's up
I've got to ask: what's up with McCrystal's staff? Who are they?
Let me try to fine tune this question:
I'm not surprised that McCrystal and his staff talk trash about the other key players in the US/AFPAK scene. I'm not surprised there's bitter resentment between government officials (military or not) who are covering their asses in a giant bureaucracy during a high pressure situation where the end state is utterly unclear. I wouldn't be surprised if Biden, Holbrooke, Eikenberry all talk (highly inflammatory) smack to their staffs about each other and McCrystal. That's just the reality of big personalities working in a high-profile, high-pressure, high-stakes situation inside massive bureaucracies (DoD, State, etc). It's gonna happen. The problem is that it got out, now Obama has to get involved, the pundits are going apeshit, etc etc.
Here's what was surprising to me: The article describes McCrystal's staff as "a handpicked collection of killers, spies, geniuses, patriots, political operators and outright maniacs". Granted, this is Michael Hastings writing for Rolling Stone, and therefore the article will likely tend to be biased towards a general anti-war mindset, towards glibness and hyperbole in the prose, and towards a lack of nuanced understanding of military-culture and military-personalities.
Even when compensating for hyperbole, McCrystal seems to be rolling with a pretty rough crowd compared to the previous senior generals of the GWOT. Petraeus had a brain trust that was both wonky and operationally savvy when he was implementing the surge in Iraq (Kilcullen, Meese, Mansoor, McMaster, etc). At the same time, Emma Sky was working for Odierno. Before that Casey had a collection of advisers with diverse academic cred (Henderson, Sepp, Hix, etc).
So, I'm curious: Is McCrystal's entourage as capable and diverse as the one that worked for Petraeus? As bad as they are portrayed in the article? Who are these guys, what does that say about McCrystal, and what's that mean for the war in Afghanistan? Abu Muqawama! You worked with these guys and I'm very curious if you can add anything to this!
I guess my question is: if
I guess my question is: if he's so tone-deaf on this situation, when true COIN policy requires a fine tuned ear, why is he so deserving of KEEPING his job?
In Afghanistan, he becomes a genius about dealing in political situations? Huh? If anything, it's more complicated over there.
So why again is he so qualified?
(MikeDC) I agree with your
(MikeDC)
I agree with your comments on the Diplomatic/Political side of the equation. How many times does the Army have to take the lead on the diplomatic/political side of an engagement? Any and all blame for things when they don't go as planned always falls at the feet of the Army. Do we even have an effective State Department? Where has it been since...Ben Franklin?
What for God's sake were
What for God's sake were they doing talking smack around RS anti-war (as opposed to the Pro-War RS ;-) reporter? Do any of these geniuses ever read RS? Heard of Hunter S Thomson?
Were they indulging in a native delicacy (hashish)?
Supposedly he offered the resignation already. We'll see. If you think there's a low impact way to lose this guy...
And really at the end of the day, he didn't challenge the President. He talked smack around someone, either his staff or a RS reporter. This isn't McArthur, and this is more important than Korea.
@al ghazali on a pretty rough crowd - well that's a RS reporters view. It happens to be pretty rough work. As far as rough crowds compared to the Iraq "Surge" scholars - you forgot Mookie and the Badr Brigades. You know, the people who did what we couldn't or wouldn't. Ethnic cleansing being part of it. You may have been drinking too deep of the Kool Aide, or perhaps not....not to knock it. I bought that line myself for awhile.
Let's be honest here: the
Let's be honest here: the most damning part of the Rolling Stone piece is the fact that McChrystal's favorite beer is Bud Light Lime. How could one not lose confidence after that leak?
Say this to yourself a few
Say this to yourself a few times: "There is no Stanley McChrystal.... There is no Stanley McChrystal.... There..." There is no point in thinking about a post-McChrystal world in which he is still relevant (which is not to say he is a goner, only that we should be able to conceive of a world without him). Doing so shows a profound lack of confidence in the institution. If we move on without Stanley McChrystal in charge in Afghanistan, the sun will continue to rise. If you're going to consider that world, at least do so with seriousness.
Ex, allow me to posit COA
Ex, allow me to posit COA #4.
Since Stan and Karzi seem to be like Shake & Bake and although Stan and Joe might go together a bit like tuna fish and cigarettes he didn't say to Obama "You got a lumpy butt," and maybe if he says he's sorry and all that and then tell Joe and Barry and Bob “I get emotional. You guys are workin' so hard, and I'm just so proud of you. You remind me of me, precocious and full of wonderment,” well, it just might be alright.
So there's the dis-stink possibility that Obama whacks Stan's peepee and he subsequently goes on that there national TeeVee and apologizes for his ornery staff...they all go eat at a Waffle House, and all is right in NASCAR and the World.
General Mattis
General Mattis
No some are wondering if
No some are wondering if this would be fatal to the enterprise if he goes like this...over bar talk ?
A profound lack of confidence in the institution. Elf pleads guilty. When we succeed it's in spite of it. Because of extraordinary individuals coming together and forcing the corporation to fight war. This is a warrior who has handed his head to the Corporate types who believe in the "institution". We'll get a safe hack as replacement.
OK, we can him, we lose Astan, get blasted to Hell and back here and around the world in consequence, everyone with a brain in the world runs from us like we've got airborne transmissible Herpes, we pick up the pieces and repeat from scratch.
We've taken Civilian control of the military to it's own cult, we fire anyone who speaks up and says it won't work, pillory them, and find out when disaster hits they were right. Remember Eddie Rickenbocker? Well gee, turns out the Japanese did bomb Pearl Harbor to great effect. Patton slaps a soldier who's unmanned. How many died that didn't have to because our talent was sitting on the bench?
You have a crisis in Civil Military Relations when you have tanks heading towards the Capitol. You have a crisis when you have a Hugo Chavez, or a Pinochet if you like. That's a crisis. Put down the hash and Milwaukee's Beast. The Republic will survive a bad magazine interview. Or criticism of flawed strategy.
I think BTW the USA is a Constitutional Republic, albeit with very strong democratic institutions.
Je n'ai pas noté ce "Bruno"
Je n'ai pas noté ce "Bruno" était mort. Sien qui passe est un de la vieille garde, certainement il était une vieux grognard. La France tirerait bénéfice de avoir plutôt lui.
Boot General
Boot General McChrystal.
Send in General Mattis.
Get the Army and SOCOM out of Afghanistan.
Rename Afghanistan, Marinestan.
And we'll wait for China there.
I am utterly shocked that a
I am utterly shocked that a man like Stan McChrystal could be so foolish. But I guess we're all human... What a tragedy that such a talented individual might fall as a result of a news article that he more or less authorized when he decided to let Rolling Stones into his office. This is the worst possible time for this, and the ISAF/US commander needs to be concentrating on a war, not playing political games.
McChrystal is an inspirational man and he will be sorely missed, but the mission comes first. Let his 2iC take over for the interim.
Time to bring in the Marine, Gen James 'Mad Dog' Mattis.
At least he managed to survive his brush with Rolling Stones magazine (Generation Kill anyone?)
On a side note, somebody mentioned the Canadian General Menard (fired a month ago)... The way I heard it, his removal had more to do with incompetence than who he was sleeping with (but it provided a convienent excuse to get rid of him and bring back Gen Vance)
Comment by Devil Dog Supreme
Comment by Devil Dog Supreme on June 22, 2010 - 8:38pm
Boot General McChrystal.
Send in General Mattis.
Get the Army and SOCOM out of Afghanistan.
Rename Afghanistan, Marinestan.
And we'll wait for China there.
if mcchrystal is getting the
if mcchrystal is getting the boot, he should kick obama's ass for being a pussy.
I think McChrystal just
I think McChrystal just wants to bail, so he can start working for the many "solutions" companies in DC, and start making his billions. He's just sick and tired of this shit.
Option 1a: the Harold
Option 1a: the Harold Campbell precedent: non-judicial punishment (fine of a month's pay and a reprimand), but reject the resignation. Seee http://www.nytimes.com/1993/06/19/us/general-ousted-for-derisive-remarks...
Of course, that door half-closed with the immediate White House carpet-calling.
Previous loud-mouth military officers (Patton, McClellan, even MacArthur) had a couple layers of insulation, which allowed the President discretion. Summoning him to Gates' carpet first would have seemed more politic.
@Elf 8:23 -- agreed. How
@Elf 8:23 -- agreed. How are we all losing our heads over this? How in the hell is JOHN KERRY the lone voice of reason in this matter, for God's sake?
AM, spell out again how this is an Article 88-worthy offense? By the letter ... maybe. By the spirit of the law ... I disagree. Of course, we all serve at the pleasure of the President; it's his decision to keep any of us on, or not, at any time and for any reason (or none at all). But: This. Is. Stupid. How is a shitty RS article by some hack reporter able to drive major policy decisions of the President?
How does this add up:
B-list reporter with a clear agenda +
a handful of embarrassing gotcha quotes from unnamed "senior aides" (some of who, it's worth remembering, may not even be U.S. military) +
only two quotes from M4 himself; one about how NOT to repeat his foot-in-mouth London episode ("what do we do if someone asks a question about Biden again?" "ummm ... I'll pretend I don't know who they're talking about?" hahaha) and the other expressing mild irritation at receiving an email from Holbrooke (not the content of the message itself)
=
Civil - Military Crisis
=
Fire COMISAF
Embarrassing, yes (who would want their boss/peers to hear what they say behind their backs?). A mistake that shouldn't have been made by a high-visibility organization like this, sure. Worthy of a public apology and private Presidential ass-chewing, of course. Firing a 4-star theater commander? No way.
Boot General
Boot General McChrystal.
Send in General Mattis.
Get the Army and SOCOM out of Afghanistan.
Rename Afghanistan, Marinestan.
And we'll wait for China there.
It'd great that Elf has no
It'd great that Elf has no confidence in the institution and instead embraces the cult of the One True Warrior-God as supreme national security policy. The question is whether Ex does.
Boot General
Boot General McChrystal.
Send in General Mattis.
Get the Army and SOCOM out of Afghanistan.
Rename Afghanistan, Marinestan.
And we'll wait for China there.
Interesting. Obama thumbs
Interesting.
Obama thumbs his finger at the Bush Admin and says he has a change and along comes McChrystal.
Things in A'stan start to not sound too good and McChrystal throws himself under the bus.
Now Obama has an excuse.....and a scape goat.
Convenient......
Still say let the Chinese have their turn in the barrel. Take the Taliban off the US payroll and save some of the deficit.
Suggest Obama hand the
Suggest Obama hand the problem back to Stan. Tell Stan, well, General, you (and your staff, who speak for you) sure dropped a huge turd into the middle of the war effort here. Dissed allies, dissed the VP, dissed the Afghans, dissed my guys Holbrooke and Eikenberry, dissed Senators and Congressmen. It's not like we really need domestic or international or Congressional or Afghan support for the war effort, General, it's just nice to have. So, since you've made my job much more complicated and difficult than it was already, I'm gonna give you one chance to fix it.
Tomorrow evening you get to stand in the Rose Garden with me. I'll introduce and you and say, General McChrystal has a few things he wants to say to the American people, and to the people and leaders of Afghanistan, our NATO allies, and, most of all, to our soldiers on the ground in Afghanistan, and to their loved ones. And then I will say, General, the mike is yours. And you tell all those listening what you really think needs to be said at this point. You do what you think needs to be done.
I would not give him one clue as to what I think (if I were POTUS) what he ought to say. He's got four stars and thirty years. He should be able to figure this out, with the help of all those staffers that helped with the Rolling Stone article. He can redeem himself, or resign. He will understand what his choices are.
If he says, I resign, Mattis or another commander is available. If he comes up with a brilliant statement that apologizes appropriately and checks the erosion of support for his strategy, that reassures the audiences he needs to address, that shows he really is able to lead at the level where operations and strategy intersect with national and global politics, fine, let him stay. Right now, the Rolling Stone interview indicates he really doesn't understand what his job is--it's not about showing he can still lead patrols or argue with sergeants or do 120 pushups before breakfast. But he is a driven, talented commander, so I'd give him one last chance to show that he understands what it means to be a four-star general in a coalition war with shaky domestic support.
Everyone is asking how this
Everyone is asking how this happened with a Rolling Stone reporter.
If you've watched "Almost Famous", you'll know how good these guys are.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Qn3tel9FWU
I'm not sure why he left out the part where they were singing 'Tiny Dancer' with McChrystals team.
@AnonArmyMAJ 10:17: It's
@AnonArmyMAJ 10:17:
It's easily a firing offence.
Creating massive headaches for the President is a firing offence.
Fucking the domestic and international perception of a unified administrative strategy on Afghanistan in the ass while repeatedly donkey punching it and shouting "I'm gonna be in Rolling Stone!! I'm gonna be in ROOOOLLING STOOONE!!!" is — volcano or no volcano — a firing offence.
I'm pretty sure 'court martial' > 'getting fired' for four star generals. If a President can't fire the leadership of his military forces essentially at whim, then one's democracy is always a step away from a messy, inglorious collapse.
- just anon, not anyone.
I'm starting to come over to
I'm starting to come over to the side that sees this as intentional. I imagine he believes he is doing the president a favor by forcing his hand now because he (McC) has realized the effort is lost as currently resourced and time constrained. So he figures he can save the president and the country a year, a couple hundred billion and several hundred lives. he might be right. Of course, he could just come out and say that in a resignation speech after telling the president as much in private. This makes him seem a passive-aggressive weirdo. So maybe he did just fuck up. Who knows.
There is no risk in firing
There is no risk in firing the guy. No man is indispensable. If the strategy is sound, someone else can execute it.
Gen. Petraeus fainting and
Gen. Petraeus fainting and now this. I'm sure it's all connected.
Give up, leave,
and hand Afghanistan to China.
Kick everyone out. Send in
Kick everyone out.
Send in the Marines.
And call it Marine Corps Base Afghanistan.
We'll make special arrangement with the towns in Afghanistan
like we do with the town of Quantico.
AM's argument is that we
AM's argument is that we should keep Gen. McChrystal's approach to the Afghan war, with or without McChrystal. The guys on McChrystal's staff, provided a cloak of anonymity by Rolling Stone's reporter, seem to feel intense loyalty to McChrystal, irrespective of McChrystal's approach to the war.
The first may be taking us in the wrong direction in Afghanistan, but it's hard to see how the second could not be doing so. If you believe in counterinsurgency, how damaging do you think the kind of public point-scoring engaged in by people working under McChrystal's command is to our war effort? How does it help, and what does it say about the commander on whose behalf this point-scoring is done? This is bad enough, but there is something else.
My personal belief is that most of the public debate about McChrystal's approach to the war has dwelt on a marginally relevant academic place -- is counterinsurgency right or is it oversold as a doctrine, does a deadline send this signal or that, and so forth. What McChrystal actually did was
* make a major commitment of troops to Helmand Province soon after taking command; * announce a major offensive around Marja to everyone who would listen after making this dubious choice, weeks before the offensive began;
* announce he was prepared with a "government in a box" for the Marja area, which he was not;
* announce a subsequent offensive in the much more important area around Kandahar, once again to anyone who would listen, once again weeks before he was ready to begin; and
* postpone said offensive until the fall.
These all look like mistakes to me, though the last may have followed inevitably from the first four..
I have little reason to doubt Gen. McChrystal's competence as a terrorist-hunter in Iraq (the job he used to have). It may be that he is leading an Army that just doesn't want to follow where he is going as far as counterinsurgency is concerned. However, it looks as if McChrystal has made some pretty questionable command decisions in Afghanistan about fundamental subjects like where to deploy his forces and how to conduct his operations. He's gotten a pass on this from many people, either because they saw him as President Obama's man or because they regarded him as COIN's new fighting champion in the Army. They have been prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt. If they, or at leat President Obama himself, is not prepared to do this anymore for reasons not directly related to the progress of the war on the ground, it may be just as well.
@Visitor 10:57: >Creating
@Visitor 10:57:
>Creating massive headaches for the President is a firing offence
Of course, if the President deems it so, as I mentioned in my comment. Follow-up (rhetorical) question: VP Biden has given the President way more than his share of head pain, should Obama have asked for HIS resignation? Subordinates creating headaches for their bosses is a fact of life. The boss can't go around firing everyone willy-nilly or nothing would ever get done. Good bosses weigh the cost of the headache vs. the benefit of retaining the headache-maker and decide accordingly. My opinion is that this will prove to be a small headache, caused by the irritating buzz of a second-rate reporter and magazine with an agenda, easily cured with measures well short of the guillotine.
>Fucking the domestic and international perception of a unified administrative strategy on Afghanistan in the ass ...
An interesting way to put it. But the only ones who would perceive it that way are those who swallow whole the entire RS article without pausing to chew. I suggest reading the article again, and think about it ... this is really non-news, dressed up as a "revealing" profile piece: What?!? VPOTUS, State, Defense, NSA, CJCS, Ambassador, Spec. Envoy, and Theater CG don't ALL 100% agree in exactly the same way on the strategy? And some of their staffers occasionally say some impolite things to the wrong people? Stop the presses!!
Or stop the madness.
Finally got a chance to
Finally got a chance to finish reading the Rolling Stone article (too many BS calls at the fire station tonight).
Why all the uproar over the "Rolling Stone" article? McChrystal's men were just trash-talking a bit (admittably not the smartest thing to do on the record). In particular, the Biden remark was totally taken out of context; it was a friggin joke!
If McChrystal is to be fired, it should have been over his central role in the Army's cover-up of Tillman's friendly-fire death. Hastings quoted Mary Tillman, "… "The false narrative, which McChrystal clearly helped construct, diminished Pat's true actions," wrote Tillman's mother, Mary, in her book "Boots on the Ground by Dusk". McChrystal got away with it, she added, because he was the "golden boy" of Rumsfeld and Bush, who loved his willingness to get things done …”
Hastings wrote, “In May 2009, as McChrystal prepared for his confirmation hearings, his staff prepared him for hard questions about Camp Nama and the Tillman cover-up. But the scandals barely made a ripple in Congress, and McChrystal was soon on his way back to Kabul to run the war in Afghanistan.
Exactly. Over the past year I've documented the bi-partisan actions to protect General McChrystal, especially those taken by the Democratic Congress and President Obama (especially Senator Webb and Congressman Waxman) at http://www.feralfirefighter.blogspot.com
Coincidentally, this morning I happened to finish my latest piece, "The Emperor's General" -- President Obama and the Whitewash of General McChrystal's Role in the Cover-up of Pat Tillman's Friendly-Fire Death", just before I first heard of the Rolling Stone blow-up here at AM.
It's posted at http://feralfirefighter.blogspot.com/2010/06/emperors-general-president-...
The RS article more than
The RS article more than anything makes me believe we are losing in Afghanistan. Would this have happened if the war was going well? It's a failing enterprise and the long knives are out. Everybody looking to stab someone else in the back.
@AnonArmyMAJ [this is
@AnonArmyMAJ [this is 10:57]: Oh, I agree that significance of the comments themselves is overblown. Except that, they were made to a reporter from Rolling Stone. A reporter from Rolling Stone, an *unknown*, *freelance* reporter working for Rolling Stone. Which shows an astounding lapse of professional judgement, coming from a four star general. (Hence the hyperbolic metaphor.) Either he did it on purpose, or was incompetent (ie, allowed himself to get entangled in politics outside the DoD), or he trusted incompetent people. None of these prospects are particularly confidence building.
By the way, what is the
By the way, what is the standard penalty for (gross, public) insubordination? If some no-name captain spoke like this on the record about a general (say, Stanley McChrystal for instance), would that captain get booted from the army? Demoted? A week peeling potatoes? A reprimand? What?
If COIN is still the way to go, stick the reprimand in his file and let him get back to what he does well (since PR clearly isn't it).
I think Stanley has been
I think Stanley has been spending too much time with Pakistani generals. However even the Pakistan army chief has sense enough to say such stuff 'off the record'.
CJ Chivers of NY Times is a
CJ Chivers of NY Times is a respected and noted journalist who has a very good sense of the situation on the ground. He is reporting dissent among US troops over Gen.McChrystal and his team. Interesting read:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/23/world/asia/23troops.html?hp
"He's just sick and tired of
"He's just sick and tired of this shit"
Of course he is! Christ, he's got DEA under his command in a foreign country. What's next, the Special Olympics?
I'm sure that $1 trillion in iron ore was a real morale booster, too.
The Chinese in Afghanistan: "We forgot to bring food, and we're getting hungry." That might just do it.
Afghanistan, fuck yeah!
Afghanistan, fuck yeah! Islam is the only way. Americans, your game is through, cos now you have to answer to, Afghanistan, fuck yeah!
Article 88 letter of the
Article 88 letter of the Law:
============================================================
Article 88 - Contempt towards Officials
Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
=============================================================
I have to think if this were Bush it would go unnoticed. But it's the Chosen One, so...
Andy et al.. there's no Article 88 case here towards McChrystal. The President can fire at will, but let's not wave around charges.... Yes Kerry is the voice of reason here...
I'm not embracing the Cult of the One True Warrior God Mike D. I'm dissing the institution, in particular the Bureaucratic and Corporate Part. I'm saying when it succeeds it's because people rise above the inertia and pressures to keep fighting Krasnovia (our mythical wargame OPFOR) and REFORGER (Return Of Forces to Germany - Cold War). I don't know McChrystal, was skeptical here of the plan, my usual snarkness with Humane Triage comments, etc... But this is a BS lynching.
The only people in this loop guilty of worship of a man as God are the disenchanted Obama followers, who seem to be following the standard Liberal practice of projecting their guilty consciences on others.
This is a journalistic lynching done to make Mike Hasting$ richer, infamous, and for the people who get all their politics from RS feel vindicated getting back at Obama.
Holy Shit. If this anon bitching in the article is UCMJ Grounds we can do the entire military under Article 89, to include Exum who doesn't like TOC Jockeys. You can do me under 10 x 40th power for Article 89...I said innumerable times I don't like the ass kissers around the Captain, COL, LTC, I can't stand Maj X____
Hopefully cooler heads prevail at noon today. The General has already submitted his resignation.
AM...........you forgot a
AM...........you forgot a possible...
3. McChrystal is right....all the people he called bozos are bozos.
Obama resigns along with his administration.
.................................see Virginia, there is a kind God......................
@Rolling Stones is Good:
@Rolling Stones is Good: "I'm not sure why he left out the part where they were singing 'Tiny Dancer' with McChrystals team."
Or the fact that Kate Hudson is a part of Stan's team!
@ elf I warned yesterday to
@ elf
I warned yesterday to quit wasting brain cells on ucmj crap which anonmaj went into a bit more detail. If am and others are spending time reading rules for mcm then more sad commentary on the lack of political awareness that got the general into this. After reading the article thay all should be doing hari kari about now.
Add your comment