General McChrystal relieved

reply to post by Captain Dave


The only thing for sure in any mess about Obama. Obama he make the worst decision.

We have seen it time and time again. Tell me... say....5 things he made the correct decision on-in that it went with the majority. Okay-too tough? Make it 3. Naw 1.

What a putz

I hope that after the 4* general was relieved from his duty position...

that he relieved himself on mr. Øbama's plush leather Oval Office chair !

Hey McChrystal, step into my office....

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9e7cfe91529c.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by Aggie Man


I wonder which is really true, or if it was just a general agreement. If McChrystal was going to resign, why did he wait till AFTER the meeting with Obama to do so? The news stories are saying both. I would love to have been a fly on the wall.

Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas

 

SKL is correct. Military discipline is one of the pillars that allow it to function. Right, wrong, or indifferent, McChrystal allowed the press in for happy hour, and that is a no-no.

Especially in time of war.

That is correct.

Again, whether anyone agrees with our being in Afghanistan, or not, is irrelevant.

Whether anyone agrees with us having troops there, or elsewhere, or not, is irrelevant.

The fact that an active campaign is being fought, or not fought, depending upon your own personal perceptions, it is an active and hot zone.

The enemy is listening, watching, and acting upon everything happening.

If I take on a job, no matter what it is, military or not, I follow the chain of command, if I disagree with that chain of command, I do that in private.

Straight to their face.

If the chain of command asks me to do something which I feel is the wrong course of action, or an unethical course of action, or perhaps something which will get those under my command killed, I will do what is asked of me to the best of my ability, while keeping my mouth shut.

I will while still in a private setting try to make that person understand how I see the mission will happen, according to current and live intelligence information, and share my knowledge and experience.

I will tell my men in my chain of command we're about to enter a FUBAR mission.

That is all, that should tell them enough, and to hang on for dear life.

This is of course if I am in their chain of command to begin with.

If I am not in their chain of command, or I do not recognize their authority over me, which happens when Officers in the military are higher ranking and try to force their orders upon someone who is not under their command, I will still keep it private, but through my actions tell them exactly what part of my anatomy to kiss as I bend over.

That McChrystal opened his mouth was stupid, he knew better, but being a long term and highly decorated snake-eater, he let his mouth get out of control, and those under him are a representation of him.

So, by the people below him opening their mouths, they literally said what he was thinking, therefore they are just as culpable as he is and should be immediately relieved of duty as well as General McChrystal.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas

 

You nailed it, SKL.

I have never served, but i am accustomed to being in upper management. A rule that you have to follow is, no one who reports to you can ever hear your real opinion on any person. To criticize those above you is insubordination. To publicly criticize those below you is violating trust. On a ship i am running, both will get you fired.

That is correct.

Insubordination.

Dereliction of duty.

In the chain of command there is little lee-way when it comes to agreeing and disagreeing, and if you disagree you had better have it backed up with proof.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Holy Hell it finally happened.

No, we do agree on quite a bit, but more often than not it is not something we speak of in a thread, or there are so many differing opinions already.

It is as well probably the way we express ourselves, being male and female.

And we can celebrate any time you want.

Originally posted by drsmooth23

So the people in his cabinet like Emanuel can make all the snide remarks they want, but the second someone outside of his inner circle voices their OPINION, they are out of a job? Its good to hear that people defending the constitution across the world cant use it themselves.

Freedom of speech

(Well it looks like rahm is head out after midterms, So I guess no one can say what they think anymore)

One of the many things that one gives up when they choose to defend your right to freedom of speech is the right for said individual to enjoy it themselves - ironic, isn't it?

When serving in the United States Armed Forces, you relinquish your right to freedom of speech.

The good General violated 3 articles of the UCMJ, most notably Article 88.

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.”

Elements.

(1) That the accused was a commissioned officer of the United States armed forces;

(2) That the accused used certain words against an official or legislature named in the article;

(3) That by an act of the accused these words came to the knowledge of a person other than the accused; and

(4) That the words used were contemptuous, either in themselves or by virtue of the circumstances under which they were used. Note: If the words were against a Governor or legislature, add the following element

(5) That the accused was then present in the State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession of the Governor or legislature concerned.

[edit on 23-6-2010 by crisko]

Originally posted by drsmooth23

Originally posted by Aquarius1

“The conduct does not meet the standards that should be set by a commanding general.”

www.politico.com...

So the people in his cabinet like Emanuel can make all the snide remarks they want, but the second someone outside of his inner circle voices their OPINION, they are out of a job? Its good to hear that people defending the constitution across the world cant use it themselves.

Freedom of speech

(Well it looks like rahm is head out after midterms, So I guess no one can say what they think anymore)

Just a quick FYI...Once in the military you lose your " Freedom of Speech" and are subject to the mi,military code of conduct. That is what Got McCrystal dismissed.

However, once in the military you are welcomed and in fact obligated to fight for everyone else's "Freedom of Speech."

McChrystal Out, Petraeus In, Yet Buffoonish Commander-In-Chief Remains

Quote lifted from another forum,

Originally posted by drsmooth23
Freedom of speech

People often are confused by what Freedom of Speech means. It doesn't mean you can say whatever you like without consequence. What is means is that Congress shall make no LAWS abridging freedom of speech. No laws were made to keep General McChrystal from speaking his mind. He's a free man, not arrested or jailed for what he said.

But there are consequences. There are ALWAYS consequences.

reply to post by burdman30ott6


I have to agree with you here. Maybe it's the conspiracy theorist in me. When I read the article, the comments he and his aids made seemed so incredibly crass and unbecoming. Dare I say, purposeful? Especially when McChrystal said "Joe Biden. Who is that?" and the aid said, "did you say bite-me?" I couldn't believe it! And then the part about dreading reading an email/text from what-his-name?

I don't know. It reeks.

Regardless of possible conspiracies, my opinion is that McChrystal, whether I agree with him or not, said some things that just shouldn't be said in public by a general leading a major front on the war on terror about his commander-in-chiefs administration. Insubordination? I'm not sure, but then again, anything that is less than a "yes sir" is insubordination in the military isn't it?

Also, to those who are outraged and compare his comments to other politicians. There's a big difference between what type of candor is expected of a politician vs. a high-ranking military man under direct orders to the President.

reply to post by crisko


I gave you a star (I don't always let people know when I do this). Great find and should definitely put some arguments to rest.

Originally posted by ladyinwaiting
Wonder if he thinks the white house is full of wimps, NOW?

Bite me.

There is no doubt in my ex-military mind that most members of our military knows exactly what's in The White House. And the word wimp is giving him the benefit of the doubt.

The match-up today was between a man that superbly "talks the talk" versus the epitome of a man that "walks the walk". And because of his position, the talker came out on top. I do understand why.

It may appear that Obama won this one for now, but in the long run he may have severed his own hamstring. We've done this Patraeus routine once before and he was replaced.

Behind the curtain, this one isn't over.

wait why are we still there...?

what are we fighting for?

i forgot cause we've been there so long... we're training the 3 world national soliders right?

ummm fighting Alvin-Quidiaa's regime right...?? or "quote"unquote"
INSURGENTS....

No wait i heard something about the poppy plant there that are used for herion, protecting that for Big Pharma...???

umm spending democracy...? Whoops... SPREADING democracy?

i cant remeber

I'm seeing Anderson 360 interview the author of the RS article, Michael Hastings. The reporter is saying that McChrystal and his aid's comments seemed to be purposeful as if they were making a point to say the things that were said. He said either they were saying these things knowing they'd be published to "shake things up" or they rally didn't even realize what they were doing. Either way, the reporter says that he was surprised at some of the things they were saying in front of him knowing he was going to publish most of them.

Well, im a thinkin that with petraeus back in the drivers eat, were gonna loose a lot more people over there....
I am supremely glad that my own country is retiring from the combat role next year....
(Canada)
We need to give the Afghani people something more than bullets bombs and empty promises.....
When you do the math, it would probably have been a helluva lot cheaper to just give every afghani a couple thousand US bucks going in.....theyd have something to show for all the death and destruction then anyways.....
And perhaps would have started their own businesses by now, thus would have a reason to support the goverment instead of the taliban.

I guess this only works up the chain of command. I am pretty sure obama has not once apologized for casting our Troops in not such a flattering light.

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas


" He was a General in a combat zone, someone who is responsible for inspiring his troops, responsible for morale, and over all command of troops in war."

Ever consider troops might be "inspired" by some frank honesty from a CO that reflects their pain? relates to their frustrations at losing??.. or are troops these days inspired by stale BS comments?

Originally posted by GovtFlu

Ever consider troops might be "inspired" by some frank honesty from a CO that reflects their pain? relates to their frustrations at losing??.. or are troops these days inspired by stale BS comments?

That's a big negative, there, sky trooper!

What good is inspiration to troops when the commanding general inspires them to be insubordinate to their chain of command? What help is it to a Staff Sergeant, to whom soldiers may be loyal and respectful, if that Staff Sergeant must dutifully and rightly execute and expect his soldiers to execute the orders of POTUS, when the troops are 'inspired' to disrespect him?

In the Army, it's dereliction. In the Navy and Marines, it's mutiny. It can lead to a severe breakdown in morale and discipline, which in turn can lead to unnecessary loss of life.

I would agree there has already been unnecessary loss of life, and I would also agree that these wars have been poorly planned and executed from the beginning.

I'm personally not surprised that it's come to this. McChrystal's been known to run his mouth since the academy. Much weight is placed on candor in the officer corps when one is considered for promotion, however, in the NCO corps, more consideration is placed on tact and protocol.

That's a good thing though, because once a soldier pays his dues enough to be promoted to First Sergeant, he knows just when and how to tell a Captain or a Lieutenant to get bent.

After all this, I'm wondering if McChrystal isn't just looking forward to a new job in consulting or media.

And sorry about us being war mongers, but that comes with the job because when we're given orders, we carry them out and don't give up.

How would you call someone who blindly follows orders without thinking about them? SHEEP

I come from a Military family, and that is all the more reason to despise the entire system where people go and kill other people, without even wondering if they should or not. And if someone else does.....

He's lucky he wasn't court martialed. Insubordination and demoralizing the troops with his view of the war as 'unwinnable'. He should be in a brig somewhere right now.

Then he is a Traitor.

I have never served, but i am accustomed to being in upper management. A rule that you have to follow is, no one who reports to you can ever hear your real opinion on any person. To criticize those above you is insubordination. To publicly criticize those below you is violating trust. On a ship i am running, both will get you fired.

Here is the attitude that brought us the BP Oil spill.

See, when someone from BP does not speak up, it's a crime. But when it suits you guys, it's the way business should be done.

You are so brainwashed and so brainless with it.

Originally posted by DeltaChaos

Originally posted by GovtFlu

Ever consider troops might be "inspired" by some frank honesty from a CO that reflects their pain? relates to their frustrations at losing??.. or are troops these days inspired by stale BS comments?

That's a big negative, there, sky trooper!

What good is inspiration to troops when the commanding general inspires them to be insubordinate to their chain of command?

Well if command and troops know they are boged down in a patrol function with troops being picked off 2 here and a few here every day without any responasible offensive retaliation....thats hard on inspiration.

Military command loses respect in front of thier troops in these usually political situations. And this filters down through the generations.....like the empty weapon bull# and endless useless patroling from the Vietnam war remains a point to this day of the stupidity of civilian authiority and the problems this sort of dumb thing ferments between troops and thier leadership in the field.

Westmorland went to his grave still being mocked as a Washington yes man rather than a combat comander.

Some times the military must think of the military even if this means someone being the public goat to let his troops and the public know that the war has become political and mens lives are being wasted in a circle jerk ....bringing no real heat on the enemy.

I served in two branches in and around combat units and can tell some of yous with this love of protocal that it can be shoved up the a## at times! I mean what does a godda#ed comand posting mean to a fighting general when he is ordering more body bags but cant retaliate? This isnt a godd#med administrative post its a combat post. Hes got to look himself in the mirror you know after he writes home to the bereaved. And as a fighting man with honor and respect for his men its nothing to take this kind of fall.

And there will be no Courts Martial in my opinion lest a lot of this will come out and backfire on some.