General McChrystal - Hero or Villain?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The two elephants - make that 'mammoths' - in the room that no one are addressing are
(1) the definite deep involvement of the Iranian Government in training, equipping and financing the Taliban. They are basically doing to the Americans what the Americans did to the Soviets.
and
(2), the other mammoth in the room that even fewer people want to see is the almost certain fact that the Pakistani Government is doing almost the same thing - while accepting tens of millions of dollars a month from the US for (supposedly) being on our side. I can't say I can blame the Pakistanis for having the bet each way, because they know their history. They know that the West will tire of the blood and monetary sacrifice long before the Taliban do. And they know that any Afghan Government the West sets up will topple within a few short years of an American pull out.
With the Iranians, the Americans could possibly do something. But I don't think they have the political will (or the money) to do it. (For which we should all say a silent 'Thank God'.) For anything they did to stop the Iranian support, to be effective, would have to be the equivalent of Truman having let MacArthur loose with every weapon in his inventory available to him on the Yalu River in 1950-51.
I don't think the world is ready for that.
(1) the definite deep involvement of the Iranian Government in training, equipping and financing the Taliban. They are basically doing to the Americans what the Americans did to the Soviets.
and
(2), the other mammoth in the room that even fewer people want to see is the almost certain fact that the Pakistani Government is doing almost the same thing - while accepting tens of millions of dollars a month from the US for (supposedly) being on our side. I can't say I can blame the Pakistanis for having the bet each way, because they know their history. They know that the West will tire of the blood and monetary sacrifice long before the Taliban do. And they know that any Afghan Government the West sets up will topple within a few short years of an American pull out.
With the Iranians, the Americans could possibly do something. But I don't think they have the political will (or the money) to do it. (For which we should all say a silent 'Thank God'.) For anything they did to stop the Iranian support, to be effective, would have to be the equivalent of Truman having let MacArthur loose with every weapon in his inventory available to him on the Yalu River in 1950-51.
I don't think the world is ready for that.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately not surprised to read of US Special Forces underestimating the ambush capabilities of the "the other side", a brief review of Afghan conflicts 1839 to date would have provided the necessary clues. McC retires undefeated, any withdrawal from the conflict without victory by the West will eventually be seen as a defeat, this will tarnish those associated with it.
The current phase of the Afghan conflict has to be open ended, the battles are better fought in Afghanistan than London or New York. Priority number one has to be to ensure that "the other side" does not achieve access to sophisticated SAMs, Westermann's "The Bear versus the Mujahideen" describes how Stingers shifted the balance in a previous conflict.
Re: British Empire and Moslims, see Indian sub-continent 1740 - 1947
The current phase of the Afghan conflict has to be open ended, the battles are better fought in Afghanistan than London or New York. Priority number one has to be to ensure that "the other side" does not achieve access to sophisticated SAMs, Westermann's "The Bear versus the Mujahideen" describes how Stingers shifted the balance in a previous conflict.
Re: British Empire and Moslims, see Indian sub-continent 1740 - 1947
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
The earlier comment about ordinary tribesmen joining in the fire fight for bragging rights, or simply because the US SF were intruders or invaders would hold true just about anywhere.
Suppose in UK we asked for French police to help police a football match? (Ouch the RSA did just that).
Having a Scottish PM and Government was not accepted without bitter argument. Cross county boundary angst also exists, look at Lincolnshire and Yorkshire when Humberside was foisted on them. Grimsby only saw this as a land grab by Yorkshire and Hull, especially as Hull wanted to rename Humberside airport.
OK we don't rise up in arms about it (as we have been disarmed) but feelings still run deep.
Even in the US, I suspect, there will be cross-State frictions and certainlt between Federal and State.
After WW2 the Allies provided aid and stability but did not try to impose their ideas of democracy (I think) but helped the European countries re-establish theirs. You cannot impose a Governance system from outside nor overnight.
Rather than try and pacify the middle, I wonder if it would be better securing the borders? Or trying at least.
Suppose in UK we asked for French police to help police a football match? (Ouch the RSA did just that).
Having a Scottish PM and Government was not accepted without bitter argument. Cross county boundary angst also exists, look at Lincolnshire and Yorkshire when Humberside was foisted on them. Grimsby only saw this as a land grab by Yorkshire and Hull, especially as Hull wanted to rename Humberside airport.
OK we don't rise up in arms about it (as we have been disarmed) but feelings still run deep.
Even in the US, I suspect, there will be cross-State frictions and certainlt between Federal and State.
After WW2 the Allies provided aid and stability but did not try to impose their ideas of democracy (I think) but helped the European countries re-establish theirs. You cannot impose a Governance system from outside nor overnight.
Rather than try and pacify the middle, I wonder if it would be better securing the borders? Or trying at least.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: US
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was fortunate that in my really 'interesting' period, when my decision making was really important, I had Maggie as PM & Ronnie was President.
I was also very fortunate not to have to put my life on the line for a numbskull like Obama. He's so bad he almost makes Carter look like a genius.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But as an American I can say this Obama welfare man is the biggest idiot we have ever elected to office.
Where do you find these guys?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SALISBURY
Age: 77
Posts: 706
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OFBSLF
I agree with your opinion of Obama. While that might explain McChrystal's frustration, it doesn't justify his actions.
I'm sure he will be very employable now that he has resigned.
Employable as what? He need never work again, as his retirement pay isn't all that bad. He'd probably want to, though, as most flag officers are real go-getters ... which is part of why they achieve stars.
It will be interesting to see if Congress accepts his resignation as a four star, which is a temporary rank, or if his retirement is as a two-star, the last permanent rank.
As a point of reference, VADM Dunleavy was retired as a two star, not a three, in part due to the A-12 fiasco, and in part due to the Tailhook fiasco ... not sure if the Congress feels that General M has been involved in a fiasco, or if he's made a lesser transgression.
It will be interesting to see if Congress accepts his resignation as a four star, which is a temporary rank, or if his retirement is as a two-star, the last permanent rank.
As a point of reference, VADM Dunleavy was retired as a two star, not a three, in part due to the A-12 fiasco, and in part due to the Tailhook fiasco ... not sure if the Congress feels that General M has been involved in a fiasco, or if he's made a lesser transgression.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: US
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Employable as what? He need never work again, as his retirement pay isn't all that bad. He'd probably want to, though, as most flag officers are real go-getters ... which is part of why they achieve stars.
McChrystal would be a huge rainmaker for that sort of company.
True enough.
I'd like to ask a question about something that confuses me.
Why in the HELL do Congress need to confirm Petraeus as Commander in Afghanistan? Has something changed since I last checked? He was already combatant commander in charge of two major operations in his theater: Iraq and Afghanistan.
He was confirmed as CENTCOM by the Senate.
CENTCOM is the combatant commander of record. He has two subordinate commanders running operations: Odierno in Iraq, and McChrystal in Afghanistan. If McChrystal is relieved, Petraeus never wasn't in charge of that operation, as McChrystal was his direct subordinate. It defaults to him, or McChrystal's deputy.
What the hell happened to the chain of command?
Obama/SecDEF (National Command Authority) -> CINC -> Theater/Operation Commander.
Is Petraeus being demoted to theater/operation commander, and replaced at CENTCOM?
Can someone help me please? Has some idiot in Washington created stovepiped chains of command that violate everything in the book?
Or has the book changed while I've been gone?
I'd like to ask a question about something that confuses me.
Why in the HELL do Congress need to confirm Petraeus as Commander in Afghanistan? Has something changed since I last checked? He was already combatant commander in charge of two major operations in his theater: Iraq and Afghanistan.
He was confirmed as CENTCOM by the Senate.
CENTCOM is the combatant commander of record. He has two subordinate commanders running operations: Odierno in Iraq, and McChrystal in Afghanistan. If McChrystal is relieved, Petraeus never wasn't in charge of that operation, as McChrystal was his direct subordinate. It defaults to him, or McChrystal's deputy.
What the hell happened to the chain of command?
Obama/SecDEF (National Command Authority) -> CINC -> Theater/Operation Commander.
Is Petraeus being demoted to theater/operation commander, and replaced at CENTCOM?
Can someone help me please? Has some idiot in Washington created stovepiped chains of command that violate everything in the book?
Or has the book changed while I've been gone?
Lonewolf50 - it is confirmed by the Pentagon that Patraeus has been demoted to be able to backfill this position. But make no mistake - he will be paid back big time for this 'interruption to his career' upon completion - up at the 'hill' at a time of his choosing.
In the meantime - who better to take over from a loose cannon who has been a wild child since military academy it seems.
In the meantime - who better to take over from a loose cannon who has been a wild child since military academy it seems.
As I understand what you said, Central Command is vacant billet now. Do you have a report or a source I can refer to?
EDIT after some poking around:
OK, I see the reports in a different light now, and notice numerous comments that CENTCOM's new commander is yet to be announced
What is going on here is novel. Patreaus stepped down a chain in command to take command of that war.
As to "wild child" description of General M, I'd be careful of believing the stories you read in the paper. Newspaper writers write stories, and they frequently care not how inaccurate their artistic license renders their final product.
It is my suspicion that the last thing you'd think of General McChrystal, were you to meet him in person, is that he is "wild."
The American military stopped promoting genuinely wild and colorful officers quite a while back. The media still haven't caught up to the current year, preferring to link the men they write about to the colorful characters of yesteryear, and Hollywood's fabricated tales of the adventures in uniform.
Put another way, the Colonel, as played by Jack Nicholson in "A Few Good Men," isn't somebody you will meet in real life, but instead a caricature created by a writer to make for decent drama and a successful film. Likewise, the only guy I recognized in Top Gun was Goose. He was as close to real as anyone in that film got. The rest were cartoon characters.
EDIT after some poking around:
OK, I see the reports in a different light now, and notice numerous comments that CENTCOM's new commander is yet to be announced
What is going on here is novel. Patreaus stepped down a chain in command to take command of that war.
As to "wild child" description of General M, I'd be careful of believing the stories you read in the paper. Newspaper writers write stories, and they frequently care not how inaccurate their artistic license renders their final product.
It is my suspicion that the last thing you'd think of General McChrystal, were you to meet him in person, is that he is "wild." The American military stopped promoting genuinely wild and colorful officers quite a while back. The media still haven't caught up to the current year, preferring to link the men they write about to the colorful characters of yesteryear, and Hollywood's fabricated tales of the adventures in uniform.
Put another way, the Colonel, as played by Jack Nicholson in "A Few Good Men," isn't somebody you will meet in real life, but instead a caricature created by a writer to make for decent drama and a successful film. Likewise, the only guy I recognized in Top Gun was Goose. He was as close to real as anyone in that film got. The rest were cartoon characters.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 30th Jun 2010 at 17:37.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NW FL
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting take for the crowd that believes McCrystal did this on purpose:
The General and the Community OrganizerPublications Family Security Matters
The General and the Community OrganizerPublications Family Security Matters
Lonewolf- let me turn the tables: Why would the author of the article purposefully draw all this fire to the article, if the comments he makes about McC are false? Do you genuinely believe McC would stand by and allow this defamation to continue. He has/was accused of two cover ups in his career to date and the stories surrounding his "personnal team" have been corroborated in other articles. Even his wife agrees that he was/is a 'colourful' character. How sweet.
The modern Command structure may have cleaned up its act, but McC is definitely from the old school, I suspect...........
It's one thing suggesting he did this on purpose - but another watching his personality being dissected in public. IF he was so astute as to plan all this - it doesn't say much for his self esteem does it?
My take on it: This guy thought he was above authority - immune from criticism. Atleast now he only has himself to think about on those lonely 7 mile daily runs.
The modern Command structure may have cleaned up its act, but McC is definitely from the old school, I suspect...........
It's one thing suggesting he did this on purpose - but another watching his personality being dissected in public. IF he was so astute as to plan all this - it doesn't say much for his self esteem does it?
My take on it: This guy thought he was above authority - immune from criticism. Atleast now he only has himself to think about on those lonely 7 mile daily runs.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Erehwon
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know about the US of A's exit strategy for Afghanistan, but when this happened, I said to my wife that I felt this was the General's exit strategy.
Doesn't help the poor bastards left there of course.
Doesn't help the poor bastards left there of course.
Response to Thomas Coupling:
He's a journalist, which means of dubious ethical character. The article does not have to be false to be less than true, not to mention I suspect a great deal of what he reported was true enough.
Not sure, but I am pretty sure that if the climate in the HQ is somewhat as the reporter presented, the Chief of Staff of the HQ didn't do what he was supposed to do in terms of what attitude to take in re the political leadership.
What has this to do with the RS article? He was vetted, the previous service matter on record, and still selected for command.
Good, which may be why he was promoted: he could mix colorful with mission with all else. I've worked with enough drones to prefer not to again .
Heh, I am not sure just which version of "old school" you refer to, as "old school" conventional wisdom was that careers in SF were not general/commander builders. Hugh Shelton was seen by many as an abberation .
It says nothing about his self esteem, which I don't see as other than intact, but it leaves open some questions about why his term was so short. It is my suspicion that what we are seeing in the press is only part of the story. A critique of him by Sec Def Gates:
When you boss is generally pleased with your operational bona fides, I don't think your self esteem is going to suffer.
I seriously doubt that, and find your summary both two dimensional and cartoonish.
He doubtless thinks about other things as well, given my small data set on SF officers I have worked with.
You and I are both working with incomplete information.
Yale to take him on: interesting.
Lonewolf- let me turn the tables: Why would the author of the article purposefully draw all this fire to the article, if the comments he makes about McC are false?
Do you genuinely believe McC would stand by and allow this defamation to continue.
He has/was accused of two cover ups in his career to date and the stories surrounding his "personnal team" have been corroborated in other articles.
Even his wife agrees that he was/is a 'colourful' character.
The modern Command structure may have cleaned up its act, but McC is definitely from the old school, I suspect ...
Hugh Shelton was seen by many as an abberation .
It's one thing suggesting he did this on purpose - but another watching his personality being dissected in public. IF he was so astute as to plan all this - it doesn't say much for his self esteem does it?
“No single American had inflicted more fear, more loss of freedom and more loss of life” on American enemies, Gates said of the retiring general.
My take on it: This guy thought he was above authority - immune from criticism.
At least now he only has himself to think about on those lonely 7 mile daily runs.
You and I are both working with incomplete information.
Yale to take him on: interesting.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Rocky Mts High
Age: 61
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wasn't this general also implicated in the Pat Tillman fiasco? There is certainly much more than is let on.
Coming to Afghanistan; will it be another Vietnam? Sure it will be, the question now is how to plot a " graceful " exit? Isn't Afghanistan part of the grand strategy of " choking " and " containing " China?
Coming to Afghanistan; will it be another Vietnam? Sure it will be, the question now is how to plot a " graceful " exit? Isn't Afghanistan part of the grand strategy of " choking " and " containing " China?
The apparent billions of $'s worth of minerals in the Afghan hinterland wouldn't have any bearing on anything, would it? I bet the Chinese will be in like Flynn - I don't think the Taliban policies on education and emancipation will get in the way of business.....
