I just finished reading the online article in RollingStone magazine titled "The Runaway General: General Stanley McChrystal, Obama's top commander in Afghanistan, has seized control of the war by never taking his eye off the real enemy: The wimps in the White House."

I know it would be expecting a great deal from Obama or his advisors in the White House, but I hope someone reads the article before meeting with McChrystal.

Why in the name of reason and good sense would McChrystal give Michael Hastings, a writer for RollingStone who, btw, is a former Newsweek writer, access to him and his staff?

There are really few direct quotes by McChrystal and even fewer direct quotes by McChrystal's staff. Most of the information is Hastings opinions and information provided, according to Hastings, by "sources familiar with the meeting" or "an adviser to McChrystal" or "one aide said" or "says another advisor" or "says a former Special Forces operator."

It is an interesting read, but I can imagine that McChrystal wishes he'd never opened his life to Hastings, let alone invited Hastings along for a drink with his staff. I don't know what he was thinking. It was a lapse in judgement we don't need to see from someone in his position.

Originally Posted by bkcunningham1

I just finished reading the online article in RollingStone magazine titled "The Runaway General: General Stanley McChrystal, Obama's top commander in Afghanistan, has seized control of the war by never taking his eye off the real enemy: The wimps in the White House."

I know it would be expecting a great deal from Obama or his advisors in the White House, but I hope someone reads the article before meeting with McChrystal.

Why in the name of reason and good sense would McChrystal give Michael Hastings, a writer for RollingStone who, btw, is a former Newsweek writer, access to him and his staff?

There are really few direct quotes by McChrystal and even fewer direct quotes by McChrystal's staff. Most of the information is Hastings opinions and information provided, according to Hastings, by "sources familiar with the meeting" or "an adviser to McChrystal" or "one aide said" or "says another advisor" or "says a former Special Forces operator."

It is an interesting read, but I can imagine that McChrystal wishes he'd never opened his life to Hastings, let alone invited Hastings along for a drink with his staff. I don't know what he was thinking. It was a lapse in judgement we don't need to see from someone in his position.

He has made a few questionable decisions (see Tillman for one), and you cannot say these things publicly about the commander in chief or allow your staff to say them or even allude to them.

I do not see how he survives !

Under ordinary circumstances he should be fired. That said, he is the best we have to prosecute the Afghan war. Made more important by our having a president who's competence and motives are questioned by most of the country.

Yoda

his aids did/allowed.
I personally choose to believe he has had it with the civilian politics of Obama and his whiz kid advisors, whose priority is not the war in Afghanistan.
His hands are tied with unrealistic rules of engagement that DO NOT allow the troops and their commanders to win.

So he knew/knows the ramifications of his actions to go outside the chain of command...and proceeded with purpose!

On the very positive side his actions reflect his priority is certainly not politics.
Check out his back ground...his accomplishments, especially in Iraq. He is a warrior with credibility.
Adjectives that do not apply to ANY of the civilian, political manipulators in the WH...including Obama.

btk

I don't have the depth of understanding that any of you do here in political, but I have been pondering this whole thing about General McCrystal since I first heard it yesterday.

I have to agree with my husband who has always explained to our children that the person in authority has the final say.

His saying is "Right or wrong, he's the boss."

billiethekid, I am beginning to think what you said may be true. Of course, as I write this, Obama is set to come out and announce that General David Petraeus is going to replace McChrystal. The only thing that really makes sense in this story is that McChrystal wanted this to happen.

McChrystal could have resigned his comission and been called a quitter who abandoned his troops by the White House.

He could have stayed in his post and allowed the senseless slaughter of troops despite his opposition to Obama's politically correct handling of our troops in Afghanistan.

Or do you allow a reporter from RollingStone magazine follow you around and get inflammatory sound bite quotes from unnamed aides, advisors et al.

Hmmm, makes me wonder.

My policy always was you can tear me a new one anytime you want...raise caiso with the door closed and the two of us alone.
n about what I do right or wrong anytime you want...disagree with me....etc....BUT do so when and only when we are alone. Outside I expected complete 100% support.....and if that was not do-able....there is the door!!!

McChrystal pulled the trigger.....knowingly....that there is no doubt about in my mind.

btk

All I can say is that McChrystal must have being extremely frustrated with his mission and the ability under conditions dictated to him to perform it. Still; there's no excuse for his public disclosure of this and he needed to just continue to fight this internal battle with more dignity.

That being said; I can remember when the press was jubilant and besides themselves with joy when generals criticized President Bush, and not apparently outraged as they present themselves today with this similar story.

I'm just saying...........

There is a "chain of command" that was violated by McChrystal.....but...was that any worst than Obama's "International Apology Tour?"

Who's trust did he violate?

Good question Annabelle. Do you mean whose trust did he violate besides the American people's trust? Let's see, people in the European region around the Czech Republic, Georgia, Isreal, Poland, people who worked to protect the world against muslim terrorists...what about when Hillary gave out the number of nuclear warheads we have?
BTW, welcome to the political forum.

Thanks Bk (for the hospitality)

I could not have answered your question any better!

As far as "the article" this is mostly an "opinion" piece written by a reporter for a very "liberal" publication.

How do we not know that Obama was already "looking" for an "excuse" to replace McChrystal......for a number of reasons (which I won't comment on)?

Annabelle

and don't let it hit you in the arse! Good riddance to McChrystal! Anyone that exercises the bad judgment to speak that way about his Commander in Chief to a reporter, does not have the good judgment to be in charge of so many young lives in Afghanistan!

If there is a method to his madness as some of you feel, I certainly can't see it. All this makes him look like is a fool. If he disagreed with policy, he should have resigned like a man on that basis. But, he certainly took the coward's way out.

The General had a decision to make and had these options:
Be a quitter and then

get rich selling books and making speaches or follow the Obama war tactics and become the loser and scapegoat on the war.

He chose to free himself from the rediculous Obama decisions on fighting the war which include the decision to shoot only if you first shot at.

Originally Posted by Annabelle

There is a "chain of command" that was violated by McChrystal.....but...was that any worst than Obama's "International Apology Tour?"

Who's trust did he violate?

Sorry, the two items mentioned have nothing in common. Comparing a “what is worse” scenario between the actions of a high level military officer and his civilian boss is totally unrelated. McChrystal DOES know better.

Our military is successful only when discipline is intact and codes of conduct adhered to. While sayings such as “lead by example” and “leadership comes from the top” are nice “feel good” one liners at private sector management meetings, they are taken very seriously in the military environment. McChrystal’s actions undermine the stability and trust of the troops in his charge. His “do as I say, not as I do” attitude is totally unacceptable. If this was his planned exit strategy it doesn’t speak well to his character.

Disagreements between high level commanders and their commander in chief is nothing new. Feelings are especially raw when the POTUS has little military background such as Obama, Bush, Clinton etc. But criticism needs to be kept to one’s self. It’s a requirement and OBLIGATION of the job.

Originally Posted by lazeelink

Sorry, the two items mentioned have nothing in common. Comparing a “what is worse” scenario between the actions of a high level military officer and his civilian boss is totally unrelated. McChrystal DOES know better.

Our military is successful only when discipline is intact and codes of conduct adhered to. While sayings such as “lead by example” and “leadership comes from the top” are nice “feel good” one liners at private sector management meetings, they are taken very seriously in the military environment. McChrystal’s actions undermine the stability and trust of the troops in his charge. His “do as I say, not as I do” attitude is totally unacceptable. If this was his planned exit strategy it doesn’t speak well to his character.

Disagreements between high level commanders and their commander in chief is nothing new. Feelings are especially raw when the POTUS has little military background such as Obama, Bush, Clinton etc. But criticism needs to be kept to one’s self. It’s a requirement and OBLIGATION of the job.

As much as I do not agree with this President, your post is absolutely right on !

We are NOT a military ruled country and we dont want to be. The commander in chief, no matter who he is, IS the commander in chief !