Obama's firing of McChrystal

[FauxRaiden]

I haven't yet picked out the political ideology of the board yet, but I feel this warrants some attention. For the record, let's try to keep it clean.

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=126&sid=11282869

I'm sure we've all heard at this point that Obama has fired General McChrystal. In summation, McChrystal was the general in charge of the war effort in Afghanistan. In an interview with the press, McChrystal spoke out against Obama's war strategy with some rather "scathing" remarks.

Now, this being Utah, I've mostly heard that Obama firing McChrystal was the wrong choice and a bad thing to do. However, I believe that his choice though regrettable, was the right one.

The thing about the military platform is you simply don't bad mouth your "boss". It may be fine in a regular job, but when you have a slew of men under you that trust and count on you to make the proper decisions, you can't tell them that you don't believe in their effort. A general cannot say, "Hey I think this is stupid, but go ahead and do it anyway." It undermines the trust of our soldiers in that man and in the president himself.

The military is such that their gripes go up hill. If a soldier has a problem with the way things are being done, he doesn't take it to the press. He tells his senior, who tells their senior and so on. McChrystal's disagreements with the strategy belong in a planning room, not in the public eye. Our government relies far too much on trust for it to be otherwise.

Finally, the fact of the matter is that the president is the commander and chief. If the General didn't agree with his strategy, he should disagree to the president not the world. If McChrystal doesn't like the way things are running, he should have stepped down. That would be expression enough of his disagreement with Obama's strategy.

[Marduk]

I actually think you're being a bit too lenient on McChrystal. He didn't simply criticize the plan, he criticized individuals, and vituperatively so. His remarks would not even have had place within the private sector. Had he been a number two under a CEO at a company, I would've expected similar results. There's an appropriate way to disagree, and an inappropriate way, and McChrystal was guilty of the latter.

Personally, I think Obama handled it like a pro. A republican would likely have been malicious. (Of course, generally senior military strategists agree far more with republicans, since republicans funnel funds aggressively into the military).

[habiba]

Personally, I think Obama handled it like a pro. A republican would likely have been malicious. (Of course, generally senior military strategists agree far more with republicans, since republicans funnel funds aggressively into the military).

Come on, man. Really?

It'll be interesting to see how relations with Karzai and Pakistan change. But if anyone was up to the job, I'd put my money with Petraeus.

[vorpal blade]

Hmmm...are we talking about the same General Stanley McChrystal?

The general in charge in Afghanistan did not speak out against Obama's war strategy. There was no disagreement in strategy. Obama was letting General McChyrstal conduct the war in the way General McChyrstal wanted to conduct it.

There was no bad mouthing of the boss, unless you are talking about an incident last fall when "In a Rolling Stone magazine article, McChrystal didn't criticize Obama himself but called the period last fall when the president was deciding whether to approve more troops "painful" and said Obama appeared ready to hand him an "unsellable" position." (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37866754/ns ... ?GT1=43001, see also the Rolling Stone article, http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne ... how_page=0)

There was no disagreement with the strategy.

The "bad" thing McChrystal said, other than the expression of concern McChrystal had last fall, was that "McChrystal also said he was "betrayed" by Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, the man the White House chose to be his diplomatic partner in Afghanistan. He accused Eikenberry of raising doubts about Karzai only to give himself cover in case the U.S. effort failed. "Now, if we fail, they can say 'I told you so,'" McChrystal told the magazine. And he was quoted mocking Vice President Joe Biden." (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37866754/ns ... ?GT1=43001)

You really think a general should be fired for saying such things? Even an Obama supporter like McChrystal?

[ahem.]

Now, this being Utah, I've mostly heard that Obama firing McChrystal was the wrong choice and a bad thing to do.

Really? I don't think anyone was surprised at all over what happened. It was expected. This is what happens when a high ranking military official criticizes the administration, no matter which party is in power.

[Tao]

The thing about the military platform is you simply don't bad mouth your "boss". It may be fine in a regular job, but when you have a slew of men under you that trust and count on you to make the proper decisions, you can't tell them that you don't believe in their effort. A general cannot say, "Hey I think this is stupid, but go ahead and do it anyway." It undermines the trust of our soldiers in that man and in the president himself.

The military is such that their gripes go up hill. If a soldier has a problem with the way things are being done, he doesn't take it to the press. He tells his senior, who tells their senior and so on.

I do not know enough to say anything about this specific situation, but my experience with the military throws a slightly different light on this. While it is true that you don't usually want to talk poorly of your superiors, when the all too common event of a less-than-competent CO overrides your suggestions, your only option is to pass on their instructions with very much the air of "This is stupid, but go ahead and do it anyway". After spending years training one-on-one, my brother was put in charge of a select group of animal trainers in the Navy, only to end up with a new CO that had little practical experience. Orders were handed him that in his opinion needlessly put the animals at risk, while hampering their training. After explaining his views, his advice was overridden and he was forced to tell his subordinates that, yes, he was aware of how asinine their orders were, but they must be followed anyway, while he petitioned up the chain of command to find some reason.

But what do you do if your CO has no direct superiors to appeal to? I'd think you'd either have to take it to their constituents (not likely effective, but an option) or retire while making your objections known. I don't know my history in enough detail, but I would be surprised if this situation hasn't happened repeatedly over the years.

[Waldorf and Sauron]

Vorpal's right, McChrystal didn't criticize Obama's afghanistan policy, even though some of the media has reported it that way. (see http://mediamatters.org/research/201006230001)

Reading the Rolling Stone article though, it seems like a pretty embarrassing way for our general to act and speak. I don't know what the right answer is.

[FauxRaiden]

I'll see if I can't find the interview when I get to work tomorrow for clarity's sake.

However, I would like to note when I say "This being Utah..." I'm pretty much basing that on what I read from the KSL comment board. If you haven't read through KSL's comment boards before, look up a more controversial topic and read through it. That's an experience.

[vorpal blade]

As I pointed out before, the Rolling Stone article can be found at http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne ... how_page=0

It is interesting to watch a writer, Michael Hastings, present a story in such a way as to discredit the war in Afghanistan, a war he hates, and discredit the General in command of that war. The article is entitled "The Runaway General -- Stanley McChrystal, Obama's top commander in Afghanistan, has seized control of the war by never taking his eye off the real enemy: The wimps in the White House." Never mind that his article does nothing to substantiate that charge. This is the way that the press widely reported the article. And evidently this is the way President Barack Obama reacted to the article. President Obama had to look tough, not putting up with this sort of thing from the military. President Obama had been criticized by his own supporters for being indecisive and ineffective in regard to the gulf oil spill incident; it was time to show us who is boss.

It is hard to say how accurate Michael Hastings's article is. Certainly, during the month Michael Hastings spent with General McChrystal in the war theater there would be times when the General or his staff would let down their guard and say what they truly felt. These men are accustomed to say what they think without pussyfooting around. I don't find anything embarrassing about the way they spoke or acted (except for the profanity, which is unfortunately typical of the military). I do think that Hastings was very careful to select facts and quotes that supported his thesis, as given in the title. He actually was given by General McChrystal suprisingly little to go on. But if the article is accurate it does portray the General as slightly less in awe and reverence of President Obama than President Obama would like.

General McChrystal is critical of words spoken by Biden and Eikenberry, words which had become public and were seriously undermining the war effort in Afghanistan. General McChrystal is as much a part of the Obama administration as Biden and Eikenberry, and I don’t see why General McChrystal deserves to be fired more than Biden and Eikenberry.

In the end it seems that General McChrystal should never have let a reporter become embedded in the General’s staff. It is best not to discuss things with the press. Don’t let an enemy inside the camp. In that General McChrystal is guilty of poor judgment. But it is hard to feel too sorry for the General. In some respects he deserves what he got. After all, he did vote for Obama. That poor judgment came back to bite him.

[vorpal blade]

The firing of General McChrystal isn't the first time Obama has fired one of his generals for personal reasons and publicly given other reasons. Unfortunately the corrupt press goes along with the president and does not dig deeper.

Marine Major General David Heinz, a native of Salt Lake City, was put in charge of the F-35 program at a time when the program was behind in schedule and over cost. Unfortunately for him, the general was a believer in competition. He wanted the engine for the JSF to be built on a competitive basis. He thought it would reduce costs in the long run. Quietly he supported this point of view, which irritated Obama and the Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates.

General Heinz was quiet about his view, and publicly supported the president, and he did his best to turn around the F-35 program. But he was in the program for only two or three months before they found a way to get rid of him. They decided to blame him for the problems in the program. He really was doing all that could be done, and there was nothing wrong with the decisions he made, but Obama doesn't forget a slight. So, like McChrystal, David Heinz was publicly discredited, fired from his position, replaced by someone higher up in command (a three star - Admiral Venlet), and forced to retire in disgrace. And the corrupt press goes along with it, and the unquestioning population doesn't blink an eye. Meanwhile General Heinz's counterpart in industry, at Lockheed Martin Aero, was promoted for the progress the F-35 program made while General Heinz was in charge.

It isn't right.