Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Stanley McChrystal summoned.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by S-2 View Post
    "Word on the grapevine is that he did it on purpose so he could get out of the job."

    Then you read it from Mihais and ol' S-2 first. We were way out in front on that possibility. The more I read it along with the absence of any refutation regarding the quotes, the more convinced I am that he's gotta go...and may have fully understood such.
    You're attributing an outcome of a chaotic situation to contrivance when incompetence more simply explains it. Trying to resign this way is like trying to commit suicide by dropping a hand grenade on the floor: it'll do something bad to you, but maybe not what you expected. There were far more direct ways for McChrystal to announce his disagreement with the Administration, ways that wouldn't take out the careers of staffers close to him. I believe McChrystal was successfully ambushed like so many others in their first encounters with the national press. No malice by RS was involved, other than that involved in feeding the peculiar appetites for controversy of their readership.
    Last edited by Kasmir; 23 Jun 10,, 19:27.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by zraver View Post
      General officers have a right and a duty to call a dog turd a dog turd. General officers are allowed to put their career and reputation on the line as the ante, where a lower rank would be brought up on charges. Part of maintaining civilian control is to give the brass a way to speak truthfully, while also removing their ability to continue serving. The process has a long history in America.
      General officers do have the duty to provide their best military judgment. However, how and where is just as important as the what. Congress and the President are still the bosses, and so they must behave accordingly. Also, the quip about lower rank being brought up on charges is off the mark, as the lanes are different.

      While GEN McChrystal didn't personally utter most of the remarks, the fact that he tolerated such behavior to such a degree is his responsibility. It's a command climate issue and has nothing to do with offering his best military advice to the civilian leadership.
      "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Kasmir View Post
        You're attributing an outcome of a chaotic situation to contrivance when incompetence more simply explains it. Trying to resign this way is like trying to commit suicide by dropping a hand grenade on the floor: it'll do something bad to you, but maybe not what you expected. McChrystal was successfully ambushed like so many others in their first encounters with the national press.
        Cross me once, shame on you. Cross me twice, shame on me.

        This is McChrystal's third major media gaffe, the first being getting out ahead of the President on the issue of a troop surge, and the second being the disembed of Michael Yon. Furthermore, while the RS piece was clearly an expose piece more than a profile, it wasn't an ambush. By simply classifying interactions as off the record, background, or on the record, he could have controlled what or wasn't published in the article. However, the fact remains that if he had maintained an appropriate command climate, the off the record/background/on the record distinction wouldn't have mattered. It didn't cause the problem, it only exposed it.

        .
        "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Shek View Post
          General officers do have the duty to provide their best military judgment. However, how and where is just as important as the what. Congress and the President are still the bosses, and so they must behave accordingly.
          I thought I explained that? Flag rank comes with the ability to sacrifice the career for the war effort. I must admit i made my comments before reading the article. I wa sunder the false impression that he personally had used the RS reporter as a pulpit to bash Obama. In which case the falling on the sword would have fit. It doesn't because he didn't.

          Also, the quip about lower rank being brought up on charges is off the mark, as the lanes are different.
          I thought I made note of the difference, that the ability to offer up a career as the ante allows the flag rank officer to say what needs to be said without fear of criminal prosecution.

          While GEN McChrystal didn't personally utter most of the remarks, the fact that he tolerated such behavior to such a degree is his responsibility. It's a command climate issue and has nothing to do with offering his best military advice to the civilian leadership.
          I think it reflects more on the nature of where he and his closest advisers come from. SOCCOM plays by different rules. When everyone has the equivalent of a Ph.D (officers) or M.A (enlisted) in war fighting, then the ramrod discipline of line troops is less important and free exchange is more vital.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Shek View Post
            Cross me once, shame on you. Cross me twice, shame on me.

            This is McChrystal's third major media gaffe, the first being getting out ahead of the President on the issue of a troop surge, and the second being the disembed of Michael Yon. Furthermore, while the RS piece was clearly an expose piece more than a profile, it wasn't an ambush. By simply classifying interactions as off the record, background, or on the record, he could have controlled what or wasn't published in the article. However, the fact remains that if he had maintained an appropriate command climate, the off the record/background/on the record distinction wouldn't have mattered. It didn't cause the problem, it only exposed it.

            .
            I suspect McChrystal thought he achieved a successful outcome with the surge, although I agree with you he was playing with fire.

            Yon has amazing antennae but he is a sh*t-stirrer, and he was reckless himself in his attacks on the Canadians, even if he may have been right. Yon has made lots of enemies, and McChrystal can't really be blamed for taking action.

            As for the command climate issues, boys will be boys in those circumstances. The mistake was that they weren't made aware that the girls would be listening.
            Last edited by Kasmir; 23 Jun 10,, 19:43.

            Comment


            • #36
              Command Climates

              "SOCCOM plays by different rules."

              Indeed they do. No access by journalists being one of them. Deadly in a higher profile command with a direct line to civilian leadership as well as the public.

              My question about the prevailing staff climate of those closest to McChrystal is whether it's an act of commission or omission by him? How much was actively encouraged by his own private comments and how much a by-product of benign neglect. Loyalty on an OER as a rated category extends all the way up the chain of command as I once understood matters.

              As there's no refutation of neither the comments nor actions (flipping the finger) on can assume that there was a spirit of disparagement and defiance to superiors regardless of any image-control at press conferences. Behind the scenes, the back n' forth between his staff and McChrystal was unacceptable.
              "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
              "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by zraver View Post
                I thought I explained that? Flag rank comes with the ability to sacrifice the career for the war effort. I must admit i made my comments before reading the article. I wa sunder the false impression that he personally had used the RS reporter as a pulpit to bash Obama. In which case the falling on the sword would have fit. It doesn't because he didn't.
                I don't necessarily disagree, but it can be done in a noble or ignoble way. This was neither, as he wasn't trying to fall on his sword.

                Originally posted by zraver
                I thought I made note of the difference, that the ability to offer up a career as the ante allows the flag rank officer to say what needs to be said without fear of criminal prosecution.
                First, Joe Snuffy that criticizes the chain command or criticizes a policy, while a punishable offense under the UCMJ, while not be prosecuted. However, a flag officer can criticize a policy because it's in their lane. They have the requisite professional knowledge to be able to judge the merits of certain policies. Thus, on that piece, it's not a matter of trading rank for no criminal prosecution - it's part of the duty description and therefore not an offense. That's the heart of what I was getting at. Now, if this is done incorrectly, then it can be undermining the chain of command, at which point the punishment is administrative as opposed to judicial.

                Originally posted by zraver
                I think it reflects more on the nature of where he and his closest advisers come from. SOCCOM plays by different rules. When everyone has the equivalent of a Ph.D (officers) or M.A (enlisted) in war fighting, then the ramrod discipline of line troops is less important and free exchange is more vital.
                Concur. However, this isn't the case of line troops providing free exchange. It's a case of mid-grade and senior-grade officers acting unprofessionally (getting drunk in Paris after being in a dry country is no big deal - derogatory remarks that present a hostile command climate towards civilian bosses is a big deal). Petraeus had a free exchange of information in his command, and had probably an order of magnitude more reporters around him compared to McChrystal, but no one would expect this to come out of a Petraeus camp.

                The difference here isn't one of free exchange, but professionalism.
                "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by S-2 View Post
                  "SOCCOM plays by different rules."

                  Indeed they do. No access by journalists being one of them. Deadly in a higher profile command with a direct line to civilian leadership as well as the public.
                  Once again, deadly only if you're not professional to core. That isn't to say that McChrystal's inner coterie wasn't professional across other areas, but there were clearly not when it came to the civilian leadership. Petraeus is the counterpoint to an argument that this was inevitable.

                  Originally posted by S-2
                  My question about the prevailing staff climate of those closest to McChrystal is whether it's an act of commission or omission by him? How much was actively encouraged by his own private comments and how much a by-product of benign neglect. Loyalty on an OER as a rated category extends all the way up the chain of command as I once understood matters.

                  As there's no refutation of neither the comments nor actions (flipping the finger) on can assume that there was a spirit of disparagement and defiance to superiors regardless of any image-control at press conferences. Behind the scenes, the back n' forth between his staff and McChrystal was unacceptable.
                  I suspect a bit of both. McChrystal probably gave an inch, and his staffed pushed this to the proverbial mile. I'm sure that this will be revealed in pieces over time.
                  "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Kasmir View Post
                    I suspect McChrystal thought he achieved a successful outcome with the surge, although I agree with you he was playing with fire.

                    Yon has amazing antennae but he is a sh*t-stirrer, and he was reckless himself in his attacks on the Canadians, even if he may have been right. Yon has made lots of enemies, and McChrystal can't really be blamed for taking action.

                    As for the command climate issues, boys will be boys in those circumstances. The mistake was that they weren't made aware that the girls would be listening.
                    I think that sh!t-stirrer is a mischaracterization of Yon. I'd call him a shark - if he smells blood, he's going to attack. I think it's instructive to see his opinion of Petraeus v. McChrystal. Yon began attacking some PAOs in Iraq that weren't taking care of journalists and Petraeus intervenes on the behalf of those who will tell the story. On the flip side, McChrystal starts getting some negative press about Afghanistan and shuts Yon out and obscures the reasons why. It's uncanny what Yon's record is on reporting smoke and how they've all turned out to be fire. While I don't like how personal his Facebook posts have become, it's hard to fault when he's been right.

                    Next, boys will be boys is a poor excuse. We need men in those positions. Our framers clearly provided for a civ-mil distinction, with the civvies having the mostest, and if you can't respect that, then you're simply not a professional. Off remarks here and there to vent steam, fine. To seemingly have a culture where it's at least implicitly approved, not fine.
                    "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Shek Reply

                      "Once again, deadly only if you're not professional to core... Petraeus is the counterpoint to an argument that this was inevitable."

                      Concur. If access was desired, necessary or required I still find the choice of ROLLING STONE both perplexing and amusing. There were other candidates I might have found more circumspect such as C.J. Chivers.

                      Here's NEWSWEEK's interview with Michael Hastings-

                      How ROLLING STONE Got Into McChrystal's Inner Circle-Newsweek June 22, 2010

                      "Can you explain how the article came about—what was the pitching and reporting process?

                      I was Baghdad correspondent for NEWSWEEK for two years, and I left the magazine after covering the elections. I wrote a piece for GQ before Obama took office that raised some serious questions about the direction we were taking in Afghanistan. So it was something I wanted to be writing about. I saw General McChrystal and his new strategy as a way to look at our Afghan policy to see if it’s working or if it’s a totally insane enterprise. I met with editors at Rolling Stone, they seemed into the idea, so I e-mailed McChrystal’s people. I didn’t think I was going to get any access at all. It’s one of those strange journalistic twists. They said yes, come on over to Paris to spend a couple days with us.

                      How much time did you spend with McChrystal over the month?

                      Another strange journalistic twist. The Icelandic volcano happens, and so my two-day trip turned into this month-long journey following General McChrystal and his staff around from Paris to Berlin to Kabul to Kandahar and then back to Washington, D.C. I wasn’t with him at every moment, obviously, but fairly regularly over that period of time."
                      "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
                      "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        So what does this mean for the direction of future campaigns in Afghanistan (and Pakistan)? Continued COIN? Or a shift towards CT?

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by S-2 View Post
                          "Once again, deadly only if you're not professional to core... Petraeus is the counterpoint to an argument that this was inevitable."

                          Concur. If access was desired, necessary or required I still find the choice of ROLLING STONE both perplexing and amusing. There were other candidates I might have found more circumspect such as C.J. Chivers.
                          I concur here, too, although I suspect that another problem here is the # of in-depth articles on McChrystal. I haven't read enough to know if this was the only big article following an initial slate after taking command, but I suspect that it's one of just a few. If you give more folks lots of access, you get a bunch of competing views, and if other profiles have ignored banter like this, then you get a public debate as to whether this was a hatchet job or reality. If it's a hatchet job, then the other reporters will call it out. If it's reality, then wagons will circle around it.
                          "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Can Obama tell Patraeus to start a "Get us the hell out of Afghanistan, come Hell or high water" policy?
                            Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

                            Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Cactus View Post
                              So what does this mean for the direction of future campaigns in Afghanistan (and Pakistan)? Continued COIN? Or a shift towards CT?
                              I don't think it will change the conduct of the war too much, except for adding time back to the Washington clock because of Petraeus' clout and expect a much more media savvy team to grant more access and actually compete in the information sphere.
                              "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                From Pakistan

                                Pakistani Media-- from broadcast to print journalism including both wings right and left-- is reporting McChrystal sacking as the reflection of first crystal-clear ignominious defeat of US forces in Afghanistan. They are reporting that Military Generals are at loggerheads not only among themselves but also with civil administration. Mr. Najam Setti-- a leftist analyst-- comments that McChrystal knew that the US is losing this war under his command, therefore, he deliberately conducted in a hostile way to undermine Obama's regime in order to prevent his name written as defeated soldier in the books of history.

                                I just interacted with few Afghan Journalists and they didn't welcome this decision. According to them, the US forces were doing great under his command to counter Taliban. My opinion in ecclesiastical terms: it is a SIN for the USA to lose this war. Losing this war will provide much needed impetus to terrorists/Taliban to carry out their attacks with more audacity. Taliban's triumph will have serious repercussions for regional peace because it may give a further momentum to Taliban's movement in Pakistan. Taliban's defeat is the dire need of the day for the regional and global peace.

                                Pakistan is dangerously derelict in acknowledging the Taliban as grave threat to regional security. Pakistan's Establishment (Army) and kleptomaniac civil government should realize that this so called "strategic depth" of Pakistan-- Taliban-- has turned into a "strategic death" for Pakistan and the region, therefore, their defeat will be a good riddance for regional security. The double standards of Pakistan-- on one side utterly relying on the USA for military and civil assistance and on other hand celebrating the death of US soldiers at hands of Taliban-- are blighting the chances of the USA to win this war. Pakistan finds itself in betwixt and between: on one side it wants to secure its "strategic asset" (Taliban) to counter India's rising influence in India and on other side, she also doesn't want to infuriate the USA as it cannot afford to lose the US military assistance.

                                Regardless of McCrystal's role whether positive or negative, this decision of sacking him has pleasantly surprised me because it truly reflects strong democracy in the USA. Had this happened in Pakistan, the civil government would have been toppled in an hour. I salute this avowed commitment to democracy of the USA and I was quite impressed by the speech of Obama in which he articulated his position with strong conviction and authority that any attempt to undermine the democracy will meet with such consequences. I just experienced the true reflection of democracy. There is a good lesson for Pakistani Generals and Politicians in this decision of Obama.
                                Peace, Peace, Peace

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X