- Status
J
Jonzac
The small thing that jumped out at me is the fact they were drinking. General Order #1 forbids the consumption of alcohal while assigned to that theater of operations. That restriction follows you even if you get sent to Germany for a medical check. (I've personally seen this restriction). That means that the BOSS and his entire STAFF violated their own orders, an order that other soldiers/sailors/marines/airmen have been punished for breaking.
They are obviously cocky as shit and willing to play the mavericks...if if the article is to be believed, it AIN'T playing with the folks in the field...and THAT is the reason he should/might be removed.
They are obviously cocky as shit and willing to play the mavericks...if if the article is to be believed, it AIN'T playing with the folks in the field...and THAT is the reason he should/might be removed.
E
Element 117
looks like I lost, early cable wires are saying McChrystal has been relieved. I sent the money, I have no idea if I did it right.
---------- Post added at 11:31 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:28 AM ----------
NBC: Obama to relieve McChrystal of command - Military- msnbc.com
REAKING NEWS
NBC News and news services
updated 5 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama has decided to relieve Gen. Stanley McChrystal of his command over all U.S. military forces in Afghanistan, sources tell NBC News.
Obama is scheduled to make an official 1:30 p.m. EDT announcement about the general. Meantime, the Associated Press reported that Obama has chosen Gen. David Petraeus to replace McChrystal as top Afghan commander.
Earlier, McChrystal was seen leaving the West Wing and climbing into a van after his nearly half-hour private showdown with the president.
Summoned to Washington to explain himself, McChrystal arrived from Kabul in the early morning and met first at the Pentagon with Defense Secretary Robert Gates. After his next face-to-face, with Obama, the general was not seen returning to the White House for a scheduled Afghanistan strategy session, as had been expected. It was not known where he went, as he did not appear at his Pentagon office, either.
Even before their showdown, the White House's rebuke of the general suggested it would be hard for him to save his job.
I am a little shocked at the timing. I thought this would come after the offensive in the south was over.
Whether or not this was the right decisions, I think this is going to bite him in the butt big time, possibly for quite a variety of reasons unless Petraeus turns this war on it's head. Is the General totally out of the military or is he merely stepping off this post I wonder? I'm not sure how that works.
E
Element 117
Wednesday that he has accepted Gen. Stanley McChrystal's resignation as the commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan following a scathing article in which McChrystal and his aides were quoted criticizing the administration for its handling of the war.
In doing so, Obama nominated Gen. David Petraeus, the head of U.S. Central Command and the former commanding general in Iraq, to replace him. The president stressed that while the decision was a difficult one, it does not represent a change in the course of the war.
"This is a change in personnel, but it is not a change in policy," Obama said in the Rose Garden, Petraeus by his side and McChrystal nowhere to be seen.
The president praised McChrystal, saying he always showed "great courtesy" and carried out his orders "faithfully," and that they were on the same page in terms of war strategy. He said the decision to accept the general's resignation was not based on "personal insult," but a desire to ensure there is no "diversion" to the mission. Obama said the conduct described in the article "does not meet the standard that should be set by a commanding general," which led him to his decision.
"I did so with considerable regret, but also with certainty that it is the right thing for our mission in Afghanistan, for our military and for our country," Obama said. "War is bigger than any one man or woman, whether a private, a general or a president."
Obama said the commentary in the article "undermines" civilian control over the military chain of command. "It erodes the trust that is necessary for our team to work together to achieve our objectives in Afghanistan," he said, adding: "Now is the time for all of us to come together."
McChrystal got his marching orders in Washington, where he met face-to-face with the president after meeting with Defense Secretary Robert Gates at the Pentagon.
The Wednesday meeting preceded a regular session of the administration's strategy team for Afghanistan, held in the White House Situation Room. Normally, McChrystal would have joined via teleconference, but he was summoned to Washington as he faced a private flogging over the article that appeared in Rolling Stone.
If not insubordination, the remarks in the Rolling Stone magazine article were at least an indirect challenge to civilian management of the war in Washington by its top military commander. Military leaders rarely challenge their commander in chief publicly, and, when they do, consequences tend to be more severe than a scolding.
The president won bipartisan support for his decision Wednesday. Republicans, while praising McChrystal for his service, said he had crossed a line.
"General McChrystal's recent comments were entirely inappropriate," Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., said in a written statement.
Afghan President Hamid Karzai reportedly said through a spokesman that he hoped for a different outcome but respected the decision.
Gates hand-picked McChrystal to take over the war last year, calling him a driven visionary with the fortitude and intelligence to turn the war around. Obama fired the previous commander at Gates' recommendation.
In Kabul on Tuesday, McChrystal issued a statement saying: "I extend my sincerest apology for this profile. It was a mistake reflecting poor judgment and should never have happened." He later fired his press aide.
In the Rolling Stone article, McChrystal and his staff described the president as unprepared for their first one-on-one encounter.
McChrystal also said he felt betrayed and blind-sided by his diplomatic partner, Ambassador Karl Eikenberry. Eikenberry remains in his post in Kabul, and although both men publicly say they are friends, their rift is on full display. McChrystal and Eikenberry, himself a retired Army general, stood as far apart as the speakers' platform would allow during a White House news conference last month.
The Rolling Stone story characterized the general as unable to convince some of his own soldiers that his strategy can win the nation's longest-running war, and dejected that the president didn't know about his commendable military record.
The article says that although McChrystal voted for Obama, the two failed to connect from the start. Obama called McChrystal on the carpet last fall for speaking too bluntly about his desire for more troops.
"I found that time painful," McChrystal said in the article, on newsstands Friday. "I was selling an unsellable position."
It quoted an adviser to McChrystal dismissing their early meeting last year as a "10-minute photo-op."
"Obama clearly didn't know anything about him, who he was. The boss was pretty disappointed," the adviser told the magazine.
Some of the strongest criticism was reserved for Richard Holbrooke, Obama's special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan.
"The boss says he's like a wounded animal," one of the general's aides was quoted as saying. "Holbrooke keeps hearing rumors that he's going to get fired, so that makes him dangerous."
McChrystal also said he felt "betrayed" by Eikenberry for expressing doubts about his proposed troop buildup last year and accused the ambassador of giving himself cover.
"Here's one that covers his flank for the history books," McChrystal told the magazine. "Now, if we fail, they can say 'I told you so."'
Obama agreed to dispatch an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan only after months of study that many in the military found frustrating. The White House's troop commitment was coupled with a pledge to begin bringing troops home in July 2011, in what counterinsurgency strategists advising McChrystal regarded as an arbitrary deadline.
The profile, titled "The Runaway General," emerged from several weeks of interviews and travel with McChrystal's tight circle of aides this spring.
It includes a list of administration figures said to back McChrystal, including Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, and puts Vice President Joe Biden at the top of a list of those who don't.
The article claims McChrystal has seized control of the war "by never taking his eye off the real enemy: The wimps in the White House."
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
FOXNews.com - McChrystal Resigns Over Critical Remarks, Obama Names Petraeus as Replacement
In doing so, Obama nominated Gen. David Petraeus, the head of U.S. Central Command and the former commanding general in Iraq, to replace him. The president stressed that while the decision was a difficult one, it does not represent a change in the course of the war.
"This is a change in personnel, but it is not a change in policy," Obama said in the Rose Garden, Petraeus by his side and McChrystal nowhere to be seen.
The president praised McChrystal, saying he always showed "great courtesy" and carried out his orders "faithfully," and that they were on the same page in terms of war strategy. He said the decision to accept the general's resignation was not based on "personal insult," but a desire to ensure there is no "diversion" to the mission. Obama said the conduct described in the article "does not meet the standard that should be set by a commanding general," which led him to his decision.
"I did so with considerable regret, but also with certainty that it is the right thing for our mission in Afghanistan, for our military and for our country," Obama said. "War is bigger than any one man or woman, whether a private, a general or a president."
Obama said the commentary in the article "undermines" civilian control over the military chain of command. "It erodes the trust that is necessary for our team to work together to achieve our objectives in Afghanistan," he said, adding: "Now is the time for all of us to come together."
McChrystal got his marching orders in Washington, where he met face-to-face with the president after meeting with Defense Secretary Robert Gates at the Pentagon.
The Wednesday meeting preceded a regular session of the administration's strategy team for Afghanistan, held in the White House Situation Room. Normally, McChrystal would have joined via teleconference, but he was summoned to Washington as he faced a private flogging over the article that appeared in Rolling Stone.
If not insubordination, the remarks in the Rolling Stone magazine article were at least an indirect challenge to civilian management of the war in Washington by its top military commander. Military leaders rarely challenge their commander in chief publicly, and, when they do, consequences tend to be more severe than a scolding.
The president won bipartisan support for his decision Wednesday. Republicans, while praising McChrystal for his service, said he had crossed a line.
"General McChrystal's recent comments were entirely inappropriate," Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., said in a written statement.
Afghan President Hamid Karzai reportedly said through a spokesman that he hoped for a different outcome but respected the decision.
Gates hand-picked McChrystal to take over the war last year, calling him a driven visionary with the fortitude and intelligence to turn the war around. Obama fired the previous commander at Gates' recommendation.
In Kabul on Tuesday, McChrystal issued a statement saying: "I extend my sincerest apology for this profile. It was a mistake reflecting poor judgment and should never have happened." He later fired his press aide.
In the Rolling Stone article, McChrystal and his staff described the president as unprepared for their first one-on-one encounter.
McChrystal also said he felt betrayed and blind-sided by his diplomatic partner, Ambassador Karl Eikenberry. Eikenberry remains in his post in Kabul, and although both men publicly say they are friends, their rift is on full display. McChrystal and Eikenberry, himself a retired Army general, stood as far apart as the speakers' platform would allow during a White House news conference last month.
The Rolling Stone story characterized the general as unable to convince some of his own soldiers that his strategy can win the nation's longest-running war, and dejected that the president didn't know about his commendable military record.
The article says that although McChrystal voted for Obama, the two failed to connect from the start. Obama called McChrystal on the carpet last fall for speaking too bluntly about his desire for more troops.
"I found that time painful," McChrystal said in the article, on newsstands Friday. "I was selling an unsellable position."
It quoted an adviser to McChrystal dismissing their early meeting last year as a "10-minute photo-op."
"Obama clearly didn't know anything about him, who he was. The boss was pretty disappointed," the adviser told the magazine.
Some of the strongest criticism was reserved for Richard Holbrooke, Obama's special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan.
"The boss says he's like a wounded animal," one of the general's aides was quoted as saying. "Holbrooke keeps hearing rumors that he's going to get fired, so that makes him dangerous."
McChrystal also said he felt "betrayed" by Eikenberry for expressing doubts about his proposed troop buildup last year and accused the ambassador of giving himself cover.
"Here's one that covers his flank for the history books," McChrystal told the magazine. "Now, if we fail, they can say 'I told you so."'
Obama agreed to dispatch an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan only after months of study that many in the military found frustrating. The White House's troop commitment was coupled with a pledge to begin bringing troops home in July 2011, in what counterinsurgency strategists advising McChrystal regarded as an arbitrary deadline.
The profile, titled "The Runaway General," emerged from several weeks of interviews and travel with McChrystal's tight circle of aides this spring.
It includes a list of administration figures said to back McChrystal, including Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, and puts Vice President Joe Biden at the top of a list of those who don't.
The article claims McChrystal has seized control of the war "by never taking his eye off the real enemy: The wimps in the White House."
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
FOXNews.com - McChrystal Resigns Over Critical Remarks, Obama Names Petraeus as Replacement
C
Chazwozel
100% agree with what went down.
Insult your boss and his methods in a way that promotes insubordination = fired from any and every company.
Insult your boss and his methods in a way that promotes insubordination = fired from any and every company.
If nothing else, it shows incredibly poor judgement in a war that is as political as it is military. If the head general publicly insults his commander in chief, it looks bad for all parties. This isn't a matter of personal feelings - that kind of apparent division makes our resolve to finish the campaign look weak, and that is an advantage to our opponents.
- Status