General McChrystal - Hero or Villain?
 

As everyone knows General Stanley McChrystal has been summoned by President Obama (his C-in-C) to the White House to explain his recent well publicised remarks expressing, shall we say, less than 100% confidence in certain parts of "the Administration".

The question no one is asking is whether his opinion is well-founded or questions whether Gen McChrystal has the confidence of his subbordinate commanders and troops under his command?

What should be the outcome of his hat-on interview? Should he be compelled to resign or be replaced in post, or should his grievances be acknowledged, investigated and action taken?

I am not condoning his indiscretion to the media but there is seldom "smoke without fire" and he wouldn't have said what he has without justification. The bottom line is....is it ever reasonable for a militayr commander (on active service) to point the finger at his political masters or blow the whistle?

Many may feel that Gen. McChrystal is the "right man in the right job" having the 100% confidence of his men, and would be a hard act for anyone to follow. If his un-guarded remarks are correct surely he should get support from his C-in-C and not a public bo**ocking?

MB

Yes, to point the finger but in private not in public.

Then comes the difficult decision - resign or stay

They chopped him !

For those who haven't read the Rolling Stone article, here it is..
Wonder who the is?
PN, think there's a third option - resign, stay or be sacked..
sv

I have to say that I think Obama has made a big mistake here.... a very big mistake.

No bigger mistake than the American people made in 2008 by electing him in the first place, surely :ugh:

While I share his opinions of Vice President Biden and Anthony Holbrooke, he was way out of line expressing those opinions to the press. And was not doing a very good job leading his subordinates by expressing his contempt in that fashion.

Totally out of order and sacking him was a given.
Will the redoubtable General now run for office as a Republican?

Villain
 

Like it or not, he works for the politicians.

If you don't like it, hand in your notice and go tend your garden. To make those comments in the media showed a serious lack of judgement and he deserves the push.

Not sure he will be bothered though. He knows the war will not be won in any military sense, he gets his pension and his troops will idolise him. Would not be surprised to see him pop up as a republican candidate in the next few years.

SideValve, be sacked is a consequence of STAY and not a personal decision that he could make.

Have not had similar issues recently but where the person concerned has publicly apologies or what was said was spun?

Maybe McC had a choice after all recant or be dismissed.

While I have to agree with Wyler, one has to admire a top Officer who dares not to toe the line as his people die; a few like that in Britain would be a good idea.

I wish him an illustrious retirement or political career, and Obama has dropped to sub-zero in my estimation ( which must really worry him ! ) with his handling of this and the BP ' seize on the foreigners, ignore what we do ! ' incidents.

More to the point this will give massive succour to the taliban et al.

This is an intelligent man here, by virtue of his long career, rank and experience - these comments were not a "mistake/slip of the tongue/misjudgement" - he will have known the consequences!

So why did he do it? In my opinion he must have wanted out.

The question is why?

SV - Thanks for the link, very intresting to see his own troop's no longer belive in him, even if he did take the time to go and see them after they e mailed him, wonder how many of our 4*'s would do that.
But from that artical I belive it is time for Gen Stan to go as his plan is not going the way he thought it would...his CinC knows that as well

I bet Petraeus is well chuffed.....not....:{

I agree that he knew exactly what he was doing by such gross insubordination. He certainly knew that he would be fired, just as he certainly knows that his war is unwinnable.

It was his only way out. This way somebody else will lose his war, not him.

Their respective post-dismissal statements were characteristically limp and non-credible.

He claimed that he's "leaving" because he wants to see the mission succeed. His boss, meanwhile, lied through his teeth and said that he didn't fire McC because of the personal insults. Yeah, right.

Coupling all this with the sidelining of HBM's Ambassador in Kabul and the General's view of the US Ambassador in Kabul and there is clearly something very very wrong afoot.

Jack

All I'd say is McChrystle is a master of information Operations. Wait and see.

Why the 'Rolling Stone mago' and not a more reputable news outlet?