General McChrystal - Dead Man Walking

[travelinman67]

That's a despicible way to put it, klean. There's gotta be a better way to put it, dude.

No its not. Call a Spade a Spade.

Okey dokey.

When it comes to politics, Klean, you're an epic moron. In fact, if a political truism was in your own back pocket, you couldn't find it with a flashlight at high noon.

You've become the JState of CS.Com, alleging racist motives for everything you disagree with.

Get a life.

BTW, you're welcome.

[mrklean]

No its not. Call a Spade a Spade.

Okey dokey.

When it comes to politics, Klean, you're an epic moron. In fact, if a political truism was in your own back pocket, you couldn't find it with a flashlight at high noon.

You've become the JState of CS.Com, alleging racist motives for everything you disagree with.

Get a life.

BTW, you're welcome.

Still a Little Bitch

[houndawg]

Weak ROE is not why we're losing in Afghanistan, Nate, and you trying to link them with lost wars is simply another of your bald faced lies.

The Russians killed anything that moved and went after children with land mine toys, a straight up terror campaign, and the Afghans threw them out like they've done to everybody else who has invaded them throughout their history. The problem is that there is no military solution to Afghanistan, not weak ROE.

The troops of today are not as weak minded, drugged out and irresponsible as you were in the day, sad sack. If you were either sober or honest you might be able to recognize and acknowledge that there exist substantive differences in ROE from one war to another, from one theater to another, and even from one operation to another. In particular, Obama and McChrystal are using ROE in Afghanistan that are different from, and in my opinion weaker than, previous ROE. This is neither a truth nor a lie, but my opinion and a point for discussion.

ROE are not an either/or proposition. There are as many variations of ROE as there are engagements. Whether or not a particular set of ROE are successful depends on a variety of factors, like local conditions, order of battle, staying power and strategic objectives.

If you read my post honestly and carefully, I am not saying that the Obama/McChrystal ROE could not work in the long run, only that they are reminiscent (not identical) to weak ROE associated with losing efforts in other wars. I am not arguing for adoption of the Russian ROE, only suggesting that the Obama/McChrystal approach may not be effective, especially considering Obama's time and resource constraints, and are probably regarded by the troops themselves as weak and unreasonable restrictions.

You're a blowhard, nate, but you're response when owned is always predictable: first go ad hominem then blow smoke and divert.

Todays troops may or may not be as weak-minded, drugged out, and irresponsible as they were back in the day. You wouldn't know, it was back before the best part of you ran down your mommy's leg.

You're little spiel about ROE is a cute, but irrelevant, diversion. One more time, navel: ROE have nothing to do with why we're losing in Afghanistan.

Now, if you have something relevant to say on-topic, for a change, please feel free to share, but nobody buys your faux-intellectual windbag act.

[GannonFan]

One more time, navel: ROE have nothing to do with why we're losing in Afghanistan.

Just an interesting aside, are we really "losing" in Afghanistan? What exactly is failure? For that matter, what is winning?

[houndawg]

One more time, navel: ROE have nothing to do with why we're losing in Afghanistan.

Just an interesting aside, are we really "losing" in Afghanistan? What exactly is failure? For that matter, what is winning?

Very good question, GF.

IMO, we are losing because we're still there and have there longer than any other war in our history, we're losing because the mission has changed from Osama Dead or Alive to something else, (what exactly that something else is isn't clear), we're losing because we were galactically stupid enough to get involved in Afghanistan in spite of the Russian experience staring us in the face, and we're losing because we're expending billions of dollars of money we have to borrow from the Chinese on a war that doesn't do a damn thing for us.


Winning? At this point the best that could happen is that we kill Osama, declare victory, and go home. Unfortunately, since we don't even know what country Osama is in.

[native]

The troops of today are not as weak minded, drugged out and irresponsible as you were in the day, sad sack. If you were either sober or honest you might be able to recognize and acknowledge that there exist substantive differences in ROE from one war to another, from one theater to another, and even from one operation to another. In particular, Obama and McChrystal are using ROE in Afghanistan that are different from, and in my opinion weaker than, previous ROE. This is neither a truth nor a lie, but my opinion and a point for discussion.

ROE are not an either/or proposition. There are as many variations of ROE as there are engagements. Whether or not a particular set of ROE are successful depends on a variety of factors, like local conditions, order of battle, staying power and strategic objectives.

If you read my post honestly and carefully, I am not saying that the Obama/McChrystal ROE could not work in the long run, only that they are reminiscent (not identical) to weak ROE associated with losing efforts in other wars. I am not arguing for adoption of the Russian ROE, only suggesting that the Obama/McChrystal approach may not be effective, especially considering Obama's time and resource constraints, and are probably regarded by the troops themselves as weak and unreasonable restrictions.

You're a blowhard, nate, but you're response when owned is always predictable: first go ad hominem then blow smoke and divert.

Todays troops may or may not be as weak-minded, drugged out, and irresponsible as they were back in the day. You wouldn't know, it was back before the best part of you ran down your mommy's leg.

You're little spiel about ROE is a cute, but irrelevant, diversion. One more time, navel: ROE have nothing to do with why we're losing in Afghanistan.

Now, if you have something relevant to say on-topic, for a change, please feel free to share, but nobody buys your faux-intellectual windbag act.

Of course I get ad hominem with you, dawg, just to return the favor! However, I prefer a civilized, reasoned discussion with you dawg, and I look for evidence of such in your posts.

You have your military generations wrong. My generation inherited the drug problems your generation left behind. To be fair, unworkable ROE contributed to some of the problems manifested in your generation. That is one of my motivations for caring about ROE. We helped some of your brothers get well, but we also had to get rid of the sad sacks. The current generation has moved beyond both of us and is the best there has ever been.

Besides the human considerations for the troops themselves, I also care about ROE as both a tactical and a strategic consideration. ROE is not a diversion, but as you suggest, it may not be the primary reason for our struggles in Afghanistan. I agree, as already posted, that numeros considerations besides ROE come into play.

But just so you know: ROE are relevant to this thread because ROE are reported to have been discussed in the Rolling Stone article as a source of friction among McChrystal's troops.

But back to your points: One of the things I'd like to see, and I suspect you would like to see, is a realistic and credible definition of "success." What say you?

[native]

...IMO, we are losing because we're still there and have there longer than any other war in our history, we're losing because the mission has changed from Osama Dead or Alive to something else, (what exactly that something else is isn't clear), we're losing because we were galactically stupid enough to get involved in Afghanistan in spite of the Russian experience staring us in the face, and we're losing because we're expending billions of dollars of money we have to borrow from the Chinese on a war that doesn't do a damn thing for us.

Winning? At this point the best that could happen is that we kill Osama, declare victory, and go home. Unfortunately, since we don't even know what country Osama is in.

Well said! There are limits to power. Wanting to do good is not the same as doing good. Sometimes trying to do good creates more bad than good. Sometimes overlooking evil and not trying to do good causes even more problems down the road, though.

Although I agree that the Russian (and British) experiences in Afghanistan and instructive and cautionary, that doesn't mean that every conceivable mission and policy is impossible. I don't think killing OBL would be enough now, and I am not sure that killing OBL alone would ever have been enough.

Isolationism might not work for us. I am not saying isolationism is the only alternative, or that you are advocating for isolationism (maybe you are?), but moving too far in that direction could cause more harm than good, just as replicating Soviet behavior in Afghanistan would have caused more harm than good... lots of tough choices...

[AZGrizFan]

Interesting perspective from the Afghan leadership's viewpoint:

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/ ... ystal.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Afghan officials said Wednesday that firing Gen. Stanley McChrystal would disrupt progress in the war and could jeopardize a pivotal security operation under way in Taliban strongholds in the south.

At the end of a one-hour video conference Tuesday night with President Barack Obama, Afghan President Hamid Karzai expressed his confidence in the top NATO commander in Afghanistan, Karzai spokesman Waheed Omar said.

McChrystal was summoned to Washington to explain disparaging comments published in Rolling Stone magazine that he and his top aides made about Obama's national security team.

While McChrystal, who was meeting with Obama on Wednesday, was harshly scolded by his superiors in the United States, officials in Afghanistan rallied to his support, saying he had increased cooperation between Afghan and international troops, worked to reduce civilian casualties and gained the trust of the Afghan people.

[COBBLESTONE]

During my military career I worked for some pretty damn good commanders from the Battery level to the Battalion level and as high up as the Brigade level. Only once did I have a commander who I felt was totally incompetent. Either way, as an NCO, especially as a senior NCO, you don't really want to criticize or comment on the commander's intent. At my level the job was to communicate the mission and see it followed through by my subordinates. And I'm talking the senior NCO chain, at the senior officer chain McChrystal should have known better.

[Col Hogan]

During my military career I worked for some pretty damn good commanders from the Battery level to the Battalion level and as high up as the Brigade level. Only once did I have a commander who I felt was totally incompetent. Either way, as an NCO, especially as a senior NCO, you don't really want to criticize or comment on the commander's intent. At my level the job was to communicate the mission and see it followed through by my subordinates. And I'm talking the senior NCO chain, at the senior officer chain McChrystal should have known better.

That's pretty much the way I learned it...

When I was a deputy commander, I was free to walk in and argue a point with the commander...until he said ENOUGH...

Then it was my job to take the commanders orders out to the troops and carry them out...as if it was MINE...

I would never say "This is dumb, but the boss wants it done this way"...

Because I did have a choice...resign...quit...ask for immediate transfer...

[travelinman67]

During my military career I worked for some pretty damn good commanders from the Battery level to the Battalion level and as high up as the Brigade level. Only once did I have a commander who I felt was totally incompetent. Either way, as an NCO, especially as a senior NCO, you don't really want to criticize or comment on the commander's intent. At my level the job was to communicate the mission and see it followed through by my subordinates. And I'm talking the senior NCO chain, at the senior officer chain McChrystal should have known better.

That's pretty much the way I learned it...

When I was a deputy commander, I was free to walk in and argue a point with the commander...until he said ENOUGH...

Then it was my job to take the commanders orders out to the troops and carry them out...as if it was MINE...

I would never say "This is dumb, but the boss wants it done this way"...

Because I did have a choice...resign...quit...ask for immediate transfer...

Kinda like marriage, huh?

[Col Hogan]

That's pretty much the way I learned it...

When I was a deputy commander, I was free to walk in and argue a point with the commander...until he said ENOUGH...

Then it was my job to take the commanders orders out to the troops and carry them out...as if it was MINE...

I would never say "This is dumb, but the boss wants it done this way"...

Because I did have a choice...resign...quit...ask for immediate transfer...

Kinda like marriage, huh?

Ahhhh...











I can't respond....too many of you know the wife...I'd be dead meat.....

I'll do what McChrystal failed to do....KEEP MY MOUTH SHUT!!!

[SuperHornet]

Just an interesting aside, are we really "losing" in Afghanistan? What exactly is failure? For that matter, what is winning?

Very good question, GF.

IMO, we are losing because we're still there and have there longer than any other war in our history, we're losing because the mission has changed from Osama Dead or Alive to something else, (what exactly that something else is isn't clear), we're losing because we were galactically stupid enough to get involved in Afghanistan in spite of the Russian experience staring us in the face, and we're losing because we're expending billions of dollars of money we have to borrow from the Chinese on a war that doesn't do a damn thing for us.


Winning? At this point the best that could happen is that we kill Osama, declare victory, and go home. Unfortunately, since we don't even know what country Osama is in.

There IS something to be said for this take, dawg. But consider this: by your logic, we must be losing in Korea and Germany, where Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines are still based. Not a big deal in Germany, but those in Korea are still in a direct line of attack, and the situation there deteriorates by the day due to a demented demagogue in charge in North Korea. Yet I haven't heard a word about pulling our folk out of there.

Just consider that for a moment, dawg. Does that change your argument any?

[grizzaholic]

Well looks like Obama removed him.

[SuperHornet]

Well looks like Obama removed him.

That should have been Petraeus' decision....

[ERK-MOBILE]

I agree.

Btw, crony politics is not touched on "heavily." I'm not sure why I wrote that, but the book is a fictional story about a young girl in Afghanistan. It's not a non-fiction political manifesto of any type, but the book is written in order to help an outsider understand life in Afghanistan. Very informative, and it's not a snoozer.

Some of the points I wrote above can be picked noticed in Hosseini's work.

Not that I'm an avid reader (I'll have to wait till winter to read the book you recommended), but have you read Rory Stewart's "The Places in Between"? It's another really good book about what life is like in Afghanistan. The dude literally walked through the country 2 months after our invasion in 2002, relying upon the muslim tradition of hospitality to travelers to get him by.

These type of books should be required reading for anyone who has an opinion on our efforts there.

Again, I agree. I think the personal, cultural, and political divide that exists between the populous of both countries could be greatly reduced if that were the case.

I haven't read it, but I'll be sure to add it to the list. Thanks!

[Baldy]

The next question that needs answering is: Why?

Now it's time to focus in on the content of the article itself. How bad have things gotten where a 4 star 30+ year veteran (and his aides I would guess) would kill their careers like that?

[93henfan]

Petraeus takes over.

[native]

Well looks like Obama removed him.

That should have been Petraeus' decision....

I disagree, SH. It was the President's place to make the decision.

Credit where credit is due. Obama made the correct decision, and he made it in a timely manner. Not too soon, not too late. He also deserves credit for articulating the correct reasons for making the decision (that McChrystal's conduct was intolerable for a general in his position), and for not making a bigger deal out of the situation than it already is.

[danefan]

The next question that needs answering is: Why?

Now it's time to focus in on the content of the article itself. How bad have things gotten where a 4 star 30+ year veteran (and his aides I would guess) would kill their careers like that?

+1

[OL FU]

The decision to remove him was the correct one. Now let's hope McChrystal is also wrong in his assessment

[native]

The decision to remove him was the correct one. Now let's hope McChrystal is also wrong in his assessment

If Petraeus pulls Obama's chestnuts out of the fire, that does not mean that McChrystal was wrong in his assessment.

I completely support President Obama's decision to accept McChrystal's resignation, but that has NOTHING to do with whether or not McChrystal's criticism was valid.

[native]

...McChrystal may be 100% correct, but it is 100% wrong to do what he did.

McChrystal was indeed 100% correct in his assessment, and 100% wrong in his actions.

[SuperHornet]

That should have been Petraeus' decision....

I disagree, SH. It was the President's place to make the decision.

Credit where credit is due. Obama made the correct decision, and he made it in a timely manner. Not too soon, not too late. He also deserves credit for articulating the correct reasons for making the decision (that McChrystal's conduct was intolerable for a general in his position), and for not making a bigger deal out of the situation than it already is.

I'm confused by this, native.

We agree that McChrystal had to go. So far so good.

But essentially, what Obama has done is not only sack an insubordinate nincompoop but simultaneously DEMOTE the guy who should have reined him in. Petraeus should have been held responsible for failing to take action on McChrystal long ago.

That said, it's going to look funny having another general over Petraeus.

BTW, did you hear the names that were in discussions for the position? I understand Mattis. He's had desert experience before. (The Army would have screamed bloody murder at seeing this post go to a Marine, though.) But ADM Stavridis?!? Afghanistan is practically landlocked. That move would have made no sense whatsoever.

[mrklean]

I disagree, SH. It was the President's place to make the decision.

Credit where credit is due. Obama made the correct decision, and he made it in a timely manner. Not too soon, not too late. He also deserves credit for articulating the correct reasons for making the decision (that McChrystal's conduct was intolerable for a general in his position), and for not making a bigger deal out of the situation than it already is.

I'm confused by this, native.

We agree that McChrystal had to go. So far so good.

But essentially, what Obama has done is not only sack an insubordinate nincompoop but simultaneously DEMOTE the guy who should have reined him in. Petraeus should have been held responsible for failing to take action on McChrystal long ago.

That said, it's going to look funny having another general over Petraeus.

BTW, did you hear the names that were in discussions for the position? I understand Mattis. He's had desert experience before. (The Army would have screamed bloody murder at seeing this post go to a Marine, though.) But ADM Stavridis?!? Afghanistan is practically landlocked. That move would have made no sense whatsoever.

in the last 40 years the U.S. Marine Corps has helped the U.S. Army in several Wars. The last Amphibious Landing the Marines participated in was over 40 years ago. The U.S. Army and Marines Corps mission have become one and the same.