1. Welcome to the newer, better version of Android Forums! Be sure to see the announcement and enjoy checking it out!

    Some of you have been having login issues. - Please try now. Sorry for the trouble!
  2. All attachments uploaded on the first day of this new look need to be re-uploaded, or will appear broken. All prior to that, and all going forward, should work fine. We apologize for the inconvenience!

Should McChrystal be fired?


  1. hakr100

    hakr100 Well-Known Member

    Gen. Stanley McChrystal, America's top commander in Afghanistan, and his staff, made comments in a Rolling Stone article that will be in Friday's edition. The comments mock top civilian officials, including President Obama Vice President Joe Biden.

    McChrystal is supposed to meet with the president and White House officials tomorrow (Wednesday, 23 June) to discuss his disparaging remarks. He also has apologized for the remarks.

    Now, while some may disagree, there's really no acceptable explanation for the general's public remarks that disparage his commander. Officers of the United States military are not allowed to publicly disparage the President. Period.

    So, the issue really is whether McChrystal should be fired or whether he should be retained. McChrystal is important to the war in Afghanistan, but...he can be replaced.

    So, what think you?

    Advertisement
  2. MutantCheese

    MutantCheese Well-Known Member

    give him a raise. ;)

    j/k I think he should be reprimanded, but not fired. The change of command in a combat situation is never good for moral or continuity of the operation, unless it for gross incompetence.
  3. ballisticn8

    ballisticn8 Well-Known Member

    hahaha, nice, i choked on my coffee a little bit. :D
  4. 3devious

    3devious Well-Known Member

    There is no acceptable explanation for his actions. I wouldn't fire him for speaking the truth, but if there is an official course of action for punishing a commander guilty of publicly disparaging your commander in chief, I say it should be carried out.

    Maybe more of us can get fired for expressing our views on the current administration and all of the Whitehouse's yesmen can do some work for a change.
  5. hakr100

    hakr100 Well-Known Member


    Officers in the U.S. military are not allowed to publicly criticize the CiC. The acceptable way for someone like McChrystal to protest his displeasure with the CiC is to resign his commission.

    For a military officer, the issue is not "speaking the truth," as your post says.

    As a private citizen, you have the right to criticize any public official you feel is deserving of it. You give up that right when you put on an officer's uniform.

    This is not a matter of...politics, per se, although the general's behavior may have political ramifications.
  6. 3devious

    3devious Well-Known Member

    I know that, which is why I said if there is a procedure for handling this situation, it should be carried out. I still feel that pointing out facts does not make him a poor general and that most of these cronies have no real use at all. Pandering to them is a waste of time and the officials in the Whitehouse are doing nothing but that right now.

    I hope he really drags out the unclassified dirty laundry when he is no longer held to his command.
  7. hakr100

    hakr100 Well-Known Member

    Indeed. What we've been doing in Afghanistan has been a clusterf**k from the moment Bush put us in there.
  8. MutantCheese

    MutantCheese Well-Known Member

    I'm glad that Obama has kept his campaign promise to bring our troops home...

    [/end sarcasm]
    dpizzo, 2003vstrom and ballisticn8 like this.
  9. 3devious

    3devious Well-Known Member

    Oh, but I thought that was the "Necessary War," the "Good War," the "This is where the people who attacked NY are and these are the enemies we should be fighting" war, the "Atleast we aren't killing people for oil" war? Now it's "WTF are we doing in Afghanistan, anyway? Damn you, Bush!" Wow. Most people can't remember what happened 10 years ago, now we can't remember 1 year ago when we were so worried this guy was going to resign because we weren't giving him the tools to fight.
  10. Replacing a popular and great general while prosecuting an action is no easy task. Just ask Abe Lincoln.

    To answer your question, no, he should not be replaced. General McChrystal will be reprimanded, and rightly so under Article 88 of the UCMJ, but Oilbama is a complete idiot (well, he is already) if he insists on the general's resignation. He won't fire him, the general will offer his resignation at some point during the reprimand. That is what a man of honor like an officer does. If Oilbama has a lick of sense, he will be satisfied with the offer of resignation, put his over-sized ego in check, and decline. Hopefully Oilbama will then give his general more support to fight.

    Under Article 2 (UCMJ) retired members that draw pay or benefits are still held to the same standard as active duty members. If General McChrystal offers his resignation and it is accepted, then retires (his career would be over anyway), the general will still be subject to prosecution under the UCMJ. Prosecution under Article 88 has happened only once since the UCMJ was enacted in 1950 with United States v. Howe.

    So the general could speak out somewhat if he retired, but he still would have to tread very lightly. Then there is Article 134.....
  11. hakr100

    hakr100 Well-Known Member

    To get back on topic, apparently McChrystal may be guilty of gross insubordination.

    "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."

    Now...obviously...there are other factors in play here. The general's remarks put the POTUS in a tough situation. If I were Obama, I'd refuse to accept the general's resignation.
  12. 3devious

    3devious Well-Known Member

    That would be funny. What do you do if you're a general in the military and they refuse to accept your resignation? Can the Joint Chiefs bust you down to peeling potatoes? How does that work?
  13. When Oilbama refuses to accept General McChrystal's resignation, the JC's take their cue and stay the hell away from this one. It's between President Obama and General McChrystal now.
  14. hakr100

    hakr100 Well-Known Member


    I'd explain this, but...I'm not sure it would matter, eh?
  15. hakr100

    hakr100 Well-Known Member

    Well, I've read a lot more about the general. He needs to go.
  16. droid_freak

    droid_freak Well-Known Member

    Did anyone really pay much attention to this, most of the article are quotes from his staff and others around him not directly from Gen McChrystal being interviewed. Not to say that he did not say these things but the political crap that goes on behind the scenes is incredible, been there done that. They, the politicians should stay the hell out of his way and let a warrior fight the damn war, not a bunch of panty waste political idiots. Gen McChrystal is a true man of honor and I am proud to have worked with him. Our Afghanistan Ambassador is a spineless little school girl, and so are most of the rest of the current administration. Don't hurt the poor Taliban, treat them with respect, they are human too, that is complete crap and we should hunt down every one of them. Just my two cents worth.
    Fenga Papit likes this.
  17. Hear hear! General McChrystal is a true patriot, and that confuses Oilbama immensely. No way he should fire the general. Instead, Oilbama would be better off having one of his beer summits, but just between him and General McChrystal this time, and in private. Afterward the general can announce a public apology so Oilbama's earth-shattering ego is stroked properly and then General McChrystal can get back down to the business of killing them that needs killin'.

    And when located, the Taliban should be prosecuted with extreme prejudice. My sights at 700 meters....adjust for windage and elevation....gentle, deliberate pull...breaks at 4 lbs.....*pop*...no more terrorist.
  18. hood420

    hood420 Well-Known Member

    I admire that the General spoke out. I don't understand why he shouldn't be allowed to speak out publicly against his superiors, if his problems aren't addressed internally then he should be able to appeal to the American people. The politicians are allowed to recklessly make any statement they want. They often publicly criticize other politicians, judges, generals and others, and thats's OK. But somehow politicians are the only ones who get that privilege, could it be because they're the ones who made those very laws preventing others from doing the same thing? What a joke...
  19. hakr100

    hakr100 Well-Known Member

    In our system, the president is the commander-in-chief. The top brass report to the president. He or she is their boss. If a general has a gripe, he or she can complain up through the chain of command and even speak directly and privately to the president if necessary. But what an active duty general cannot do is speak out publicly over a dispute with his boss, the commander-in-chief.
  20. 3devious

    3devious Well-Known Member

    Yup, anyone who works for a retired military person who is still stuck in that mindset knows this well. Commanders take feedback from their subordinates but still do what they will. Only in an organization that pretends to have a chain of command can you tell your superiors that you will "take their comments under advisement." That phrase goes downhill, not up. Sort of like another substance that keeps rolling over me...
  21. brab

    brab Guest

    A milatary man of honor would not have publically rebuked those above him in the chain of command unless he felt he had no other choice and if so he should suffer the consequences. He should receive punishment proscribed under article 88 and be fired.

    Fenga
    If you were in the milatary, you know that what he did goes against the disipline he is supposed to instill in his subordinates and the rules that he swore to uphold. He swore an oath of allegiance to the commander in chief whether he or you like him or not. I suppose that oath is meaningless to you. You support McCrystal only because he said something to denigrate this president. This president has tripled the number of troops in Afghanistan and the war is being run exactly the way McChrystal has chosen to run it. He has defined the rules of engagement which many of his own troops believe leave them defenseless. Since the war is not going that well, maybe this is his way to take the easy way out and not finish it.

    If he was as smart as you think he is, he wouldn't have said what he said publically.
  22. hakr100

    hakr100 Well-Known Member

    General was relieved of command, according to news reports.
  23. 3devious

    3devious Well-Known Member

    If that is the punishment in article 88, so be it. Firing him is letting him off easy in my opinion. Now, he doesn't have to deal with all of this.

    If you want to start nitpicking about oaths, Brab, consider an instance where an american citizen traveled on an Indonesian passport to a volatile nation at at time when we (the peons) were not supposed to be going there? I guess some people get their feet held to the fire for conduct unbecoming a soldier while others can't even be a proper citizen, but I guess that is OK. No one seems to see the irony of having a meltdown over some jerk's diarreah of the mouth vs. rewarding flagrant disregard of State Department mandates and being buried under accolade after accolade.

    One individual's possible disgust for a nation he pretends to lead does not excuse his commander's moments of high drama, but it is difficult to be too outraged with the later when it is doubtful that he is much worse than the former. Some folks are willing to give Obama a pass because everything is Bush's fault. By that logic, the President brought those incidents upon himself.

    The general requested significantly more troops than he was given and was still hamstrung with the way he could carry on the war. I guess he should have taken his troops that were sent to him as a means of pandering to the people who wanted to hold the president responsible for his campaign and innauguration posturing with a smile. Certain federal law enforcement agencies have had their budgets cut by 85% and yet they get called on the carpet for all of the gaps that no one wants to pay to fill.

    The point is, it's still improper to criticize the person at the top, but the people at the top certainly deserve it. Perhaps there should be more effort put into not making so many boneheaded manuevers so that people won't have to work so hard to restrain themselves from blowing off steam about the sheer idiocracy we are ruled by.
  24. hakr100

    hakr100 Well-Known Member

    "If you want to start nitpicking about oaths, Brab, consider an instance where an american citizen traveled on an Indonesian passport to a volatile nation at at time when we (the peons) were not supposed to be going there?"

    Is some sort of oath necessary for an ordinary citizen to travel abroad? I don't remember anyone ever asking me to affirm in an oath that I would not go to X, Y, or Z.

    I don't think the government of the United States is on the right side when it tries to or in fact does restrict its citizens' travel destinations. And I think those on the right should agree. I appreciate warnings from the State Department about dangers in some foreign countries, but not restrictions.
  25. 3devious

    3devious Well-Known Member

    So, it is OK to circumvent restrictions if they're stupid?

Share This Page