A military commander is not entitled to his opinion?
There is a huge amount of commentary around about this but it seems to me that the General has told us all stuff that we should know. It is a welcome breach in the wall of "spin".
"The top US commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, has been ordered to the White House to explain his criticism of the President and his senior advisers in an interview in Rolling Stone magazine.
In a profile in Rolling Stone, General McChrystal critcised Vice President Joe Biden, who has been sceptical of the general's war strategy, and imagined ways of "dismissing the vice president with a good one-liner."
McChrystal also told the magazine that he felt "betrayed" by the US ambassador to Kabul, Karl Eikenberry, in a White House debate over war strategy last year.
And an unnamed adviser to General McChrystal told the magazine that the general came away unimpressed from a meeting with President Barack Obama in the Oval Office a year ago.
"It was a 10-minute photo op," the general's adviser said. "Obama clearly didn't know anything about him, who he was ... he didn't seem very engaged."
Another aide called the national security adviser, Jim Jones, a "clown" who was "stuck in 1985".
General McChrystal has apologised for his remarks to the magazine.
Source
Note that the general himself did not criticize Obama or his policies. It was other players whom he criticized. More detail here. The general has now offered to resign, which Obama would be foolish to accept. It would just free the general to tell more.
And if the war is being as badly hampered as the general seems to think, getting out now might be the best thing for his future reputation. Let somebody else take the blame for failure. And if the war does fail, it would be a great blow to Obama's standing. Only far-Leftist Americans would be happy about their country failing in something that has cost so much blood and treasure.
Update
Obama has replaced McChrystal with Petraeus, an impeccable move. Petraeus is clearly a much better thinker and could well rescue the campaign from its present floundering state. A wonder what Hillary thinks about General "Betray-us" now?
13 comments:
The latest news is that many of the comments were made by the General's staff members, not by the General himself. But, since he's their boss, the blame is his.
I've read some background on General McChrystals military career, and from what i've read, this is the ultimate combat soldier. He's not a politician or one of the Pentagons uniformed political hacks. He's a warrior worthy of Americas respect and honor.
Unfortunately for the General, that will not save him. He forgot a basic rule. "There is no such thing as an honorable reporter, and no such thing as (off the record)". These young media people will kill for attention and notoriety. Why the military allows these Leftist, anti-war, anti-military maggotts to be in their midst is beyond me.
In the first Gulf war, Gen. Norman Swartzkopf (sp) did not allow the media anywhere near his top staff or his briefings, since he knew the info would be "gladly and willingly" broadcast to the enemy. (in fact, in the begining, it actually was by some pro-terrorist at CNN) That policy served him, his troops, and the country well.
General McChrystal "may" be left in command for the present, but his career is over. And knowing that, it's rather sad that he chose to go out with apologies to just about everyone he saw, rather than standing by what he said. If you can't stand behind what you say, you shouldn't say it! America will lose a true warrior.
Master-Chief, your comments are the best on this subject that I have read or heard from any source on this subject. Thank you.
Actually, this is a case where the general is not entitled to his opinion. It is against the Code of Military Justice (Article 88?) for a commissioned officer to make disparaging comments about the President, VP, Sec of Defense, etc. He technically could be court martialed for making these comments or allowing his staff to make them. Freedom of speech does not extend to active military officers.
While I tend to agree with the comments, they shouldn't have been said. The President does need to reprimand him in some way, though I think it would not be wise to accept his resignation.
Oh the hubris of military nations. Afghanistan alone has historical lessons that ought to have been learned. The Russians failed there in the 1980s and the British in the 19th century. The Europeans ultimately failed to impose a military solution on their global colonies and the US failed so badly in a 3rd world country like Vietnam. Indeed the American Revolution itself showed that a well-organized local resistance with some outside support can overcome or undermine a better resourced global power.
"Stan McChrystal" can have an opinion. "Gen McChrystal" cannot.
This story suggests that beer and an unexpected bus ride gave too much time to the reporter.
End results - Gen McChrystal showed poor judgement in allowing a reporter to remain in the same area.
I saw another link (can't find) that suggested Rolling Stone showed the quotes/stories, and the Gen didn't backtrack on anything. so...
Get the embedded reporters the hell out of the military for crap sake. It is they who are enabling the political correctness to flourish in-checked. They have Constitutional freedom of speech to report what they want, but they do NOT have any Constitutional right to be embedded. It is a privilege for them, not a right. Military operations are typically "need-to-know" events, and giving reporters the freedom to report whatever they want whenever they want within the bounds of a military situation will only compromise our nation's security.
Whatever happened to "Loose lips sink ships."?
When an officer takes his oath he exchanges his right to publicly express his opinion for his commission. He is also responsible for his subordinates. It does not have anything to do whit the veracity of his observations or options. Douglas MacArthur learned that the hard way. The moment the armed forces exercise their opinions we will loose the republic. It’s regrettable that we the only competent leader we have in Afghanistan has to leave because he offended the incompetent leaders. .
Final question. What would have been said if McChrystal criticized Bush instead of Obama?
i do not think he should have apologised,the kenyan mullato mutt is not a real president, an illegal alien himself.
"Final question. What would have been said if McChrystal criticized Bush instead of Obama?"
I think we all know the answer to that one :)
Of course, Obama not being commander in chief until he proves to the law he's a natural born citizen of the United States, the good general should never have accepted his commission and neither should anyone ordered under orders from Obama to take up arms against anyone.
Until such a time that Obama (as he calls himself) establishes that he is indeed not a usurper, any orders he gives are illegal and anyone following them should be court marshalled for that.
General Patton, General McArthur.
In the military shit flows in one direction: DOWN!
And Generals are directly beneath the siting President's asshole.
Sorry Stanley, you may be a hard-charging warrior, but you made the consumate error. You exposed yourself to the "Sniper-in-charge" and it was the usual: "One-shot, One-Kill!
As for the comparisons to Generals Patton and McArthur, remember, those two warriors were castrated not simply because of their comments, but because Truman saw them as potential "political" threats. (in McArthurs case he was right) He did not realize the real threat would come from Eisenhower.
For generations, well-intentioned, rational, and knowledgeable people have questioned the policy of having politicians control the military. In spit of what the Constitution and laws require, there are good arguments to be made on both sides of this issue, such as, having a president (GWB) send our military to fight a totally unnecessary war in Iraq while our military experts advised against it.
Some would argue (understandably) that if we had a military free from politics, they could take control of our government. Does anyone really think that even under the current system, if the military wanted to take control, they couldn't? Hot air from politicians will not stop bullets. It's a topic worthy of thought.
@Anonymous 4:45:
"Until such a time that Obama (as he calls himself) establishes that he is indeed not a usurper, any orders he gives are illegal and anyone following them should be court marshalled for that."
You have that exactly backwards, of course.
Post a Comment