Quote :

" After Cpl. Pat Tillman, the former NFL-star-turned-Ranger, was accidentally killed by his own troops in Afghanistan in April 2004, McChrystal took an active role in creating the impression that Tillman had died at the hands of Taliban fighters. He signed off on a falsified rec- ommendation for a Silver Star that suggested Tillman had been killed by enemy fire. (McChrystal would later claim he didn’t read the recommendation closely enough – a strange excuse for a commander known for his laserlike attention to minute details.) A week later, McChrys- tal sent a memo up the chain of command, specifically warning that President Bush should avoid mentioning the cause of Tillman’s death. “If the circumstances of Corporal Tillman’s death become public,” he wrote, it could cause “public embarrassment” for the president."

Quote :

"He went out on dozens of night- time raids during his time in Iraq, unprec- edented for a top commander, and turned up on missions unannounced, with almost no entourage. “The fucking lads love Stan McChrystal,” says a British officer who serves in Kabul. “You’d be out in Some- where, Iraq, and someone would take a knee beside you, and a corporal would be like ‘Who the fuck is that?’ And it’s fuck- ing Stan McChrystal.” "

[Edited on June 22, 2010 at 10:07 PM. Reason : ]

6/22/2010 10:03:41 PM

Some people are floating General James Mattis, USMC to replace McChrystal. Apparently a lot think highly of his ability to expand "Marinestan" to the four corners of Afghanistan.

Huffington Post has a little slide show of possible other replacements:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/22/mcchrystal-replacement-po_n_621775.html

6/23/2010 2:44:34 AM

I don't understand why the option of the president accepting the comments somehow makes him a "spineless weenie". I'd rather him stand up and say "As president, I fully understand that there are going to be criticisms, but as Commander-in-Chief they are my decisions to make. Bitches."

6/23/2010 6:45:58 AM

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/119236

Full article

6/23/2010 8:15:42 AM

^^

6/23/2010 9:20:34 AM

Quote :

"I just don't get why publicly bad-mouthing your superiors earns you a forced peer pressured resignation. Why should it?"

I don't even know how to answer this. It's one of those obvious things where "if you have to ask, I don't know how to tell you."

Quote :

" Some people are floating General James Mattis, USMC to replace McChrystal."

First thing I thought of regarding a possible replacement of Gen McChrystal. He's very widely acknowledged as a COIN guru.

Also, I got to talk to Gen Mattis for about 10-15 minutes one time when I was a new Lt. I wish I had that chance again, knowing a little more and better able to converse with him in a worthwhile manner.

He's an interesting character. I'd hate to be a bad guy if Gen Mattis takes the reins...he "coined" the phrase "No better friend, no worse enemy than a U.S. Marine"...I think he is every bit as on board with the "no better friend" part of the equation as McChrystal is, but I wouldn't be surprised to see the "no worse enemy part" grow some longer, sharper teeth under a Mattis command.

Mattis has his own history of run-ins with the media, though.

_____________________

I go back to my earlier statement, though--I really wonder if this McChrystal ordeal was really an accident. You can take it that way, and view him as a bumbling idiot, which I find difficult to believe (although he wouldn't be the first General to become drunk with power and trip over his own ego), or you can take the view that he rolled the dice by strategically poking his finger in the eye of the most powerful man on Earth, as a means towards some end. A case of him being a squeaky wheel in order to get some grease? Some other motive? I don't know.

[Edited on June 23, 2010 at 10:22 AM. Reason : I expect him to offer his resignation, and for the President to decline it, but rebuke him.]

6/23/2010 10:21:17 AM

AP is reporting that McChrystal just left the WH before a scheduled war planning meeting

IOW, if that's true - he's out

6/23/2010 10:46:15 AM

Quote :

"Gen. Stanley McChrystal met for 30 minutes with President Barack Obama Wednesday morning, then left the White House abruptly, ahead of a planned national security meeting where he had been expected to attend. Ahead of the meeting with Obama, it was thought that McChrystal could save his job as U.S. commander in Afghanistan depending on how his Wednesday morning meeting went with Obama, top administration officials told POLITICO. Either way, the officials said, there will be a shakeup in the command because of the indiscipline among McChrystal's staff captured by Rolling Stone. McChrystal arrived at the West Wing at 9:39 Wednesday morning, out of reach of reporters. Asked if he had tendered his resignation as he arrived earlier at the Pentagon, McChrystal told NBC News that he had not. Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38911.html#ixzz0rgkyiwpJ "

6/23/2010 11:04:54 AM

This is starting to look rather messy. You either force the man's resignation or bring him into the clear. The worst thing the President can do is look indecisive about his path forward on how to deal with GEN McChrystal.

Quote :

"I just don't get why publicly bad-mouthing your superiors earns you a forced peer pressured resignation. Why should it?"

As a non-military type, I'm going to try and take a stab at this. First, it's hard to draw a perfect parallel with the civilian world because the military is a bit of a different animal. For a professional military, discipline and respect for the chain of command are central to the functioning of the organization, more so than almost any other job. After all, this is the business where men are literally ordered to take potentially suicidal actions. While McChrystal hasn't carried out blatant insubordination, the toleration of this sort of disrespect for the chain of command helps undermine this order. People bitch all the time about their superiors in private, but doing it in a public forum in front of all your men is a big no-no.

The second issue is the entire civil-military angle. In the United States, the Armed Forces are fully subordinate to the civilian leadership elected by the citizenry with the President as the Commander-in-Chief. This is a core, constitutional value and one of the fundamentals of our Republic. Any kind of insubordination or open disrespect by the military toward the civilian leadership (with the exception of illegal orders as outlined by the US Code and UCMJ) erodes that relationship. I'm not saying we need to worry about a coup or revolt in the near future, but I personally think any rebellion by senior military officials needs to be quickly dealt with to provide a clear reminder of who's in charge. Again, you can hate your boss in private (Obama wouldn't be the first president who had senior military officers who dislike him), but to openly do so in front of all your men is a big no-no.

6/23/2010 12:00:20 PM

Quote :

"This is starting to look rather messy."

How's that hopey changey stuff working out for ya?

6/23/2010 12:30:02 PM

I don't think quoting Sarah Palin helps your point, sir!

6/23/2010 12:32:07 PM

oh, it does.

6/23/2010 12:34:26 PM

I guess that's just your opinion!

6/23/2010 12:34:50 PM

Quote :

"The second issue is the entire civil-military angle. In the United States, the Armed Forces are fully subordinate to the civilian leadership elected by the citizenry with the President as the Commander-in-Chief. This is a core, constitutional value and one of the fundamentals of our Republic. Any kind of insubordination or open disrespect by the military toward the civilian leadership (with the exception of illegal orders as outlined by the US Code and UCMJ) erodes that relationship. I'm not saying we need to worry about a coup or revolt in the near future, but I personally think any rebellion by senior military officials needs to be quickly dealt with to provide a clear reminder of who's in charge. Again, you can hate your boss in private (Obama wouldn't be the first president who had senior military officers who dislike him), but to openly do so in front of all your men is a big no-no."

I was just about to type the same things as I was reading your first paragraph...but then I saw that you covered it.

Also, I'll note that Gen McChrystal has claimed that he voted for President Obama. I believe he's a registered Democrat.

_____________
Well, news just broke...McChrystal out, Petraeus in.

I wonder if Petraeus will be replaced at CENTCOM, dual-hat in both roles, or if this is a temporary move until a suitable commander is determined.

[Edited on June 23, 2010 at 1:29 PM. Reason : ]

[Edited on June 23, 2010 at 1:34 PM. Reason : ]

6/23/2010 1:27:30 PM

Did not see that coming at all

(well the Petraeus thing, not being relieved of command)

6/23/2010 1:36:46 PM

yeah, i was saying all day i didn't think he'd be relieved...but then i started having doubts tonight at dinner, just because of McChrystal's previous criticism of the Obama Administration about the OEF surge, the message it would send to the rest of the military, and the loss of momentum in some of the recent offensives in OEF.

[Edited on June 23, 2010 at 1:41 PM. Reason : yeah, i was definitely shocked at Petraeus getting the call]

6/23/2010 1:40:20 PM

McChrystal pwnt. go home

6/23/2010 1:57:14 PM

Quote :

"keeps the general, Obama risks looking like even more of a spineless weenie. If he fires him, who's gonna run the war"

Interesting either or framing you tried there. I guess you don't think he's a spineless weenie now?

I think the better way to frame the question is what is the best move for dealing with Aphganistan? The Petraeus option is something of a surpise but I don't think anyone will question his qualifications to run a war.

6/23/2010 2:04:24 PM

it'll be interesting if it turns out that rolling stone did a hatchet-job on this piece and they ended up getting an acting US General fired for it. that would be awesome

6/23/2010 4:08:58 PM

There's no doubt in my mind that if Bush was still in office, the left would be hailing any general that spoke out against him as a hero.

6/23/2010 4:44:11 PM

^ It'd be nice if we could de-politicize just a bit. That's an unprovable hypothetical.

6/23/2010 5:18:39 PM

Everything you just said is true, but I'd bet big money that ^^ is, too.

6/23/2010 5:37:47 PM

Quote :

"There's no doubt in my mind that if Bush was still in office, the left would be hailing any general that spoke out against him as a hero."

Part of me wondered if Obama would publicly pat him on the back for being a whistleblower, slim as the chances may have been.

6/23/2010 5:51:19 PM

once again, Optimum wants to silence the conservative voices in the name of "civility"

6/23/2010 6:00:01 PM

^^nah, he didn't dissent on any policy or anything substantive...and i've been saying since before he was elected that Obama isn't soft like some like to make him out to be. I vehemently disagree with him on a lot of domestic policy issues, but he's skilled and he's tough, unlike what some of his detractors seem determined to believe.

[Edited on June 23, 2010 at 6:01 PM. Reason : ]

6/23/2010 6:01:09 PM

Another part of me wondered if Obama would just start a "IF THIS GROUP GETS 1 MILLION MEMBERS I WON'T FIRE GEN MCCHRYSTAL" group on Facebook.

6/23/2010 6:05:57 PM

What no beer and sit down to resolve our differences?

6/23/2010 6:36:36 PM

Quote :

"and they ended up getting an acting US General fired for it. that would be awesome"

For the record, he resigned rather than being fired. But I'll grant he was probably under a lot of peer pressure to do so.

6/23/2010 6:57:31 PM

Quote :

""I'd rather have my ass kicked by a roomful of people than go out to this dinner," McChrystal says. He pauses a beat. "Unfortunately," he adds, "no one in this room could do it." With that, he's out the door. "Who's he going to dinner with?" I ask one of his aides. "Some French minister," the aide tells me. "It's fucking gay.""

Excellent.

6/23/2010 7:02:56 PM

Quote :

"once again, Optimum wants to silence the conservative voices in the name of "civility""

My comment was about de-politicizing things. Please do not assume more from what I said.

[Edited on June 23, 2010 at 7:04 PM. Reason : button fail]

6/23/2010 7:04:18 PM

Politics have no place in the soap box.

I'm serious on this one.

6/23/2010 7:07:27 PM

GEN. Petraeus is a real surprise. I guess the President wanted someone who has a proven record and is already well known to the players involved (through his CENTCOM hat).

6/23/2010 9:11:36 PM

I don't think he is a surprise unless you have more info. He was the one who apparently did well in Iraq. He's the best choice left.

6/23/2010 9:17:43 PM

I was hoping for the kid from Harold & Kumar.

6/23/2010 9:41:32 PM

Interesting to see what the far left and moveon think about this.

6/23/2010 9:41:48 PM

Quote :

"I guess you don't think he's a spineless weenie now? "

No I don't. Pres. Obama did the right thing in dismissing McChrystal.

Quote :

"I don't think anyone will question his qualifications to run a war."

Wait a minute now. Isn't this the same Petraeus who Move-On.org attacked? Remember "General Betray-us"?

6/23/2010 10:49:46 PM

^ He's proven himself. MoveOn.org can get it wrong sometimes.

6/23/2010 10:51:49 PM

It seems so pointless to evaluate the effectiveness of a general in a war that cannot and will not be won. What a charade. How long are we going to keep trying to save face?

6/24/2010 2:51:11 AM

Quote :

"Wait a minute now. Isn't this the same Petraeus who Move-On.org attacked? Remember "General Betray-us"?"

What Moveon.org says should not be the bell weather or whether or not a general can lead a war

6/24/2010 6:13:37 AM

^ Well it's not like Obama wasn't highly critical of him as well in 2007

6/24/2010 7:30:55 AM

^ Again, the man proved his effectiveness as a leader. What Obama thought in 2007, while a senator, isn't all that relevant here now.

6/24/2010 7:37:52 AM

Quote :

"I don't think he is a surprise unless you have more info. He was the one who apparently did well in Iraq. He's the best choice left."

For me it was a surprise because he was already in charge of CENTCOM. It's basically firing a guy and then asking his manager to do take the job afterward. No disagreement that he's best qualified for it, but I would have thought they'd bring someone else in and leave Gen. Petraeus at the hire level to coordinate across the region.

6/24/2010 10:14:11 AM

^ pretty much why i was surprised too

6/24/2010 10:58:13 AM

Like Rodriguez, already 2nd in command under McChrystal. Could hit the ground running and leave Petreus in place where he needs to be

6/24/2010 12:23:27 PM

RODRIGUEZ! FIX AFGHANISTAN WITH YOUR THROWING KNIFE!

6/24/2010 1:45:18 PM

RODRIGUEZ! USE YOUR SMOKE GRENADE TO GIVE COVER WHILE WE EVACUATE THE 90,000 SOLDIERS FROM IRAQ

6/24/2010 1:48:47 PM

^^^ yep, the deputy would've made sense, as would've General Mattis, USMC, who just got passed over for being named Commandant of the Marine Corps and is a hugely qualified mind just waiting to be put back into the mix.

Petraeus is certainly qualified...just didn't see that one coming. Wouldn't it be odd if, say, Mattis was placed in charge of CENTCOM?

[Edited on June 25, 2010 at 2:41 PM. Reason : though i've heard another General rumored, though not through any official source]

6/25/2010 2:40:32 PM

http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/pakistani-military-sees-opening-in-gen-stanley-mcchrystals-exit/19531100

Quote :

" The general's departure has heightened uncertainty throughout the 38-member ISAF alliance over how to proceed in a war slipping dangerously close to failure. Only days earlier, Britain's special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles, took an extended leave of absence following reports of rifts between him and senior U.S. officials over Afghan strategy. The apparent dissension with the U.S.'s most important NATO ally comes at a time when virtually every country in the coalition is preparing to wind down its mission, threatening to turn what was supposed to be an aggressive push to end the conflict in 2010 into a year of chaos and collapse. Yet for other players, ISAF's troubles present a moment of opportunity. Pakistan is pushing into Kabul with offers of ending the conflict through a negotiated power-sharing deal with the Haqqani network, considered the most powerful insurgent network operating in Afghanistan. Pakistan's military and intelligence services maintain strong ties to the Haqqanis, despite U.S. demands that they crack down on the group. According to a New York Times report, the Pakistanis have been waiting for a moment like the one offered by McChrystal's exit to activate that trump card. Karzai has lost faith in the U.S. administration and is looking for a partner that can bring peace to his war-torn nation. Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, head of the Pakistani army, has offered that possibility for peace, telling Karzai he can guarantee a deal with militants. McChrystal's amicable relationship with Kayani provided leverage for the U.S. administration in the murky world of the Pakistani military. McChrystal's successor, Gen. David Petraeus, does not enjoy the same level of influence. Kayani, a military man to the core, sees Petraeus as a lesser general than McChrystal. "He doesn't have the same kind of respect for Petraeus as he did for McChrystal," says one colonel. "General McChrystal is loyal to his military roots. In a way, he is a lot like General Kayani -- mistrustful of politicians and so completely focused on military strategy that he often comes into conflict with the political class. Petraeus is more of a politician, and this annoys General Kayani." "

-------------------------------------

Quote :

"The growing rapprochement between Kabul and Islamabad, led by Kayani himself and Lt. Gen. Ahmad Shuja Pasha, the head of Pakistan's Interservices Intelligence, the spy agency accused of supporting the Afghan Taliban and the Haqqani network, presents a host of problems for the U.S. At the forefront is Pakistan's historic reliance on jihad ideology as a tool of foreign policy. If the Pakistanis have their way in Afghanistan, it would prove that policy successful. For the U.S. administration, the Haqqani network's ties to al-Qaida make any dealings with the group suspect. "Haqqani will have to cut its ties to al-Qaida before the U.S. will accept any negotiated peace," says Rasul Bakhsh Rais, an expert on Pakistan's security and politics at the Lahore University of Management Sciences. "Kabul's growing relationship with Pakistan's military establishment is a concern for the U.S. because it is deviating from that strategic line." Inside Pakistan, militant groups like the Pakistani Taliban (TTP) have been encouraged by McChrystal's departure. Speaking to AOL News by phone, one commander says the move is evidence that the Taliban are winning the war. "Now the American people can finally see what their media has been hiding from them," says Assadullah Haq, a senior commander with the Hakimullah Mehsud faction of the TTP, speaking from an undisclosed location in North Waziristan. "The Taliban have broken the backs of the U.S. and NATO. This is the beginning of the end." For the Taliban, this is the moment they have been waiting for, he adds, with dissension among senior U.S. officials auguring "a repeat of the Soviet experience." "

6/25/2010 4:05:32 PM

the only way to win in Afghanistan is to take the gloves off. either take them off and hunt the Taliban or leave. the ROE are too restrictive for a victory and will only encourage a prolonged, indecisive conflict.

[Edited on June 26, 2010 at 4:12 PM. Reason : .]

6/26/2010 4:10:44 PM

No, no, no, goddammit, no. The ROE may be arguable in a few circumstances, but "taking the gloves off" will get us nowhere. You cannot kill your way out of this conflict. Even if you could, it's not viable with the forces that we have there or might even conceivably field there. The Soviets tried, with several times over the number of troops that we have in the country, and it didn't work for them.

6/26/2010 5:04:05 PM