Farewell General McChrystal

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Right to the point:

McChrystal responded to the comments made by Biden by saying that he believed that they were “short sighted.”

Right to the point:

McChrystal responded to the comments made by Biden by saying that he believed that they were “short sighted.”

Quote

UCMJ Art 88:
“Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”

Comments aren't people.

Quote

Again: McChrystal responded to the comments made by Biden by saying that he believed that they were “short sighted.”

Again: McChrystal responded to the comments made by Biden by saying that he believed that they were “short sighted.”

Quote

That is considered contemptous in military protocol, esp to say them to the entire world. If said in private, it could be let go upon the discretion of the superior.

Maybe you can find what article 'Contempt of comments' is for me in the UCMJ - I can't seem to find it.

Quote

I really, really care that you don't consider them contemptuous, it's just that military protocol does consider them contemptuous.

Which, of course, is why McChrystal is currently in front of a military court for Art 88 instead of sitting at home, retired.

Oh, wait....he *IS* sitting at home, retired. Guess you don't have a leg to stand on - but we all already knew that.

Quote

Now do as the rest of the neo-cons and run along; you've been beaten here.

Only in your VERY vivid fantasy world, Lucky.

Quote

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contempt

Main Entry: con·tempt
Pronunciation: \kən-ˈtem(p)t\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin contemptus, from contemnere
Date: 14th century

1 a : the act of despising : the state of mind of one who despises : disdain b : lack of respect or reverence for something

2 : the state of being despised

3 : willful disobedience to or open disrespect of a court, judge, or legislative body

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/comment

Main Entry: 1com·ment
Pronunciation: \ˈkä-ˌment\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin commentum, from Latin, invention, from neuter of commentus, past participle of comminisci to invent, from com- + -minisci (akin to ment-, mens mind) — more at mind
Date: 14th century
1 : commentary
2 : a note explaining, illustrating, or criticizing the meaning of a writing
3 a : an observation or remark expressing an opinion or attitude b : a judgment expressed indirectly

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[GeorgiaDon 385]

Actually, I agree with Mike that calling comments "short-sighted" can be a legitimate criticism of the comment. Such a criticism should, however, be given in the context of discussion of strategy or planning. If made to a subordinate, after the fact and in a context that fosters disrespect for established policy, it's a problem. Andy908's post (I think #34 upthread) is the best description of the issue.

Mike, what do you think of Andy908's comment (here it is again so you don't have to look it up):

Quote

McChrystal presided over a culture among his senior staff, emanating from himself on down, of disrespect and scorn toward the civilian leadership of the United States: the president, the president's civilian administration, the vice president, the Ambassador to Iraq, etc.

... And that basic fact is why McChrystal's out of his job today.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Actually, I agree with Mike that calling comments "short-sighted" can be a legitimate criticism of the comment. Such a criticism should, however, be given in the context of discussion of strategy or planning. If made to a subordinate, after the fact and in a context that fosters disrespect for established policy, it's a problem. Andy908's post (I think #34 upthread) is the best description of the issue.

Mike, what do you think of Andy908's comment (here it is again so you don't have to look it up):

Quote

McChrystal presided over a culture among his senior staff, emanating from himself on down, of disrespect and scorn toward the civilian leadership of the United States: the president, the president's civilian administration, the vice president, the Ambassador to Iraq, etc.

... And that basic fact is why McChrystal's out of his job today.

Don

I think it's a fairly accurate summation, with the possible exception of "From himself on down" - I don't recall any direct remarks from McChrystal in the RS story.

That said, he *is* responsible for his subordinates, so he is tainted by those remarks, regardless.

On the other hand...
"We aren't no thin red 'eroes, nor we aren't no blackguards too,
But single men in barricks, most remarkable like you;
An' if sometimes our conduck isn't all your fancy paints:
Why, single men in barricks don't grow into plaster saints"

If the troops don't feel that the chain of command has respect for them, they'll return that lack of respect. Unfortunately for McChrystal, his staff did that in public and the General paid the price.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

I think it's a fairly accurate summation, with the possible exception of "From himself on down" - I don't recall any direct remarks from McChrystal in the RS story.

The overall culture of disrespect and scorn extends beyond simply the one Rolling Stone article. Even in that article alone, his senior staff provides hearsay of critical remarks by McChrystal about the US civilian leadership. Yes, it's basic that hearsay evidence is less reliable than first-hand evidence. But the more people who repeat essentially their own accounts of McChrystal's remarks and attitudes overall, the greater reliability might be attributed to the overall hearsay. Analysis of the reliability of hearsay evidence is not just black-and-white; there's lots of grey. The impression one gets is that while McChrystal may have been fairly guarded when speaking in the presence of the RS reporters, his senior staff was less so, including being willing to repeat (or at least summarize the essence of) what "the boss" had been saying over time.

And McChrystal's disrespect, bordering on insubordination, pre-dated the RS article. For one example, according to his Wikipedia biography, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_McChrystal, McChrystal at least twice went public with advice he had given to the President when he should have kept it private: see the sub-headings, "Afghanistan assessment made public" and "Recommended troop increases". Basically, he was doing a public relations end-run around the President in order to put public pressure on the President to follow his recommendations. He was roundly criticized for doing this, and some people were urging the President to fire him for that. In that, I should note, he was following an established playbook. McClellan pulled that shit on Lincoln; Pershing did it to Wilson, Patton just couldn't STFU during WWII and immediately after Victory in Europe until Gen. Eisenhower finally had to relieve him, and MacArthur pulled the same shit on both FDR during WWII and Truman during Korea (and it's a large part of why Truman ultimately fired him).

It's more than just a superior's ultimate responsibility for the misbehavior of his subordinates. It's very naive to think that McChrystal's senior staff all behaved that way, but they were in no way taking their signals from the boss. Mind you, McChrystal's a very assertive, very personally-engaged personality, so no way would he have either failed to be aware of what his staff was doing and saying, or been aware of it but meekly failed to put a stop to it. Had he not been similarly inclined, he would have commanded his staff to STFU. But he didn't. He nurtured the scornful culture, he enabled that culture; and frankly, I find it simply impossible to believe that it would have existed had he not been an active participant behind the scenes.

And that is why, at The End of The Day, he simply had to go.

[airdvr 210]

It would appear that news of his demise is a bit premature. Sad.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/04/20/matt-gurney-the-rebirth-of-gen-mcchrystal/

Matt Gurney: The rebirth of Gen. McChrystal

Most of the worst quotes, those critical of President Obama, Vice-President Biden and then-U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan Richard Holbrooke, were not spoken by McChrystal at all, but by members of his staff.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

It would appear that news of his demise is a bit premature. Sad.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/04/20/matt-gurney-the-rebirth-of-gen-mcchrystal/

Matt Gurney: The rebirth of Gen. McChrystal

Most of the worst quotes, those critical of President Obama, Vice-President Biden and then-U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan Richard Holbrooke, were not spoken by McChrystal at all, but by members of his staff.

It's a well-balanced and, I think, fair piece, when read in its entirety, and not just the one passage you cherry-picked out of it; because that one passage, read alone, gives the casual reader the impression that the piece's overall gravamen is different from what it actually is.

I urge all readers to click on the link, read the entire piece - beginning, middle and end - and draw their own judgment.

I will note that, based on this piece in its entirety, I stand by my Post #54.

[airdvr 210]

My response wasn't aimed at you Andy...you were just the last post to respond to.

I read the entire article. It is a well balanced read. I'm still a bit concerned about how we can determine that the General wasn't directly linked to the statements now. I think RS had an agenda and it was served quite well.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[nanook 1]

It's a moot point whether he said those things or not. He lost control/situational awareness of his staff. That doesn't inspire confidence

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

I'm still a bit concerned about how we can determine that the General wasn't directly linked to the statements now. I think RS had an agenda and it was served quite well.

I think the article handles that concern quite well. It doesn't matter if we can or cannot attribute it directly. The fact he allowed to get himself into that situation was enough.