• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

McChrystal called on the carpet to explain his comments

Faster horses

Well-known member
WASHINGTON – The top U.S. commander in Afghanistan has been summoned to Washington to explain derogatory comments about President Barack Obama and his colleagues, administration officials said Tuesday.

Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who publicly apologized Tuesday for using "poor judgment" in an interview in Rolling Stone magazine, has been ordered to attend the monthly White House meeting on Afghanistan and Pakistan in person Wednesday rather than over a secure video teleconference, according to officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly. He'll be expected to explain his comments to Obama and top Pentagon officials, these officials said.

Obama has the authority to fire McChrystal. His predecessor, Gen. David McKiernan, was sacked on grounds that the military needed "new thinking and new approaches" in Afghanistan.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen has told McChrystal of his "deep disappointment" over the article, a spokesman said.

The article in this week's Rolling Stone depicts McChrystal as a lone wolf on the outs with many important figures in the Obama administration and unable to persuade even some of his own soldiers that his strategy can win the war.

The interview describes McChrystal, 55, as "disappointed" in his first Oval Office meeting with Obama. The article says that although McChrystal voted for Obama, the two failed to connect from the start. Obama appointed McChrystal to lead the Afghan effort in May 2009. Last fall, though, Obama called McChrystal on the carpet for speaking too bluntly about his desire for more troops.

"I found that time painful," McChrystal said in the article, on newsstands Friday. "I was selling an unsellable position."

Obama agreed to dispatch an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan only after months of study that many in the military found frustrating. And the White House's troop commitment was coupled with a pledge to begin bringing them home in July 2011, in what counterinsurgency strategists advising McChrystal regarded as an arbitrary deadline.

In Kabul on Tuesday, McChrystal issued a statement saying: "I have enormous respect and admiration for President Obama and his national security team, and for the civilian leaders and troops fighting this war and I remain committed to ensuring its successful outcome."

"I extend my sincerest apology for this profile," the statement said. "It was a mistake reflecting poor judgment and should never have happened."

Mullen talked with McChrystal about the article Monday night, Capt. John Kirby, Mullen's spokesman said. In a 10-minute conversation, the chairman "expressed his deep disappointment in the piece and the comments" in it, Kirby said.

The Rolling Stone profile, titled "The Runaway General," emerged from several weeks of interviews and travel with McChrystal's tight circle of aides this spring.

In the interview, McChrystal he said he felt betrayed by the man the White House chose to be his diplomatic partner, Ambassador Karl Eikenberry. If Eikenberry had the same doubts, McChrystal said he never expressed them until a leaked internal document threw a wild card into the debate over whether to add more troops last November. In the document, Eikenberry said Afghan President Hamid Karzai was not a reliable partner for the counterinsurgency strategy McChrystal was hired to execute.

McChrystal accused the ambassador of giving himself cover.

"Here's one that covers his flank for the history books," McChrystal told the magazine. "Now, if we fail, they can say 'I told you so.'"

Caitlin Hayden, spokeswoman for the U.S. embassy in Kabul, said Eikenberry and McChrystal "are fully committed to the president's strategy and to working together as one civilian-military team."

McChrystal has a history of drawing criticism, despite his military achievements.

In June 2006 President George W. Bush congratulated McChrystal for his role in the operation that killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq. As head of the special operations command, McChrystal's forces included the Army's clandestine counterterrorism unit, Delta Force.

He drew criticism for his role in the military's handling of the friendly fire shooting of Army Ranger Pat Tillman — a former NFL star — in Afghanistan. An investigation at the time found that McChrystal was "accountable for the inaccurate and misleading assertions" contained in papers recommending that Tillman get a Silver Star award.

McChrystal acknowledged he had suspected several days before approving the Silver Star citation that Tillman might have died by fratricide, rather than enemy fire. He sent a memo to military leaders warning them of that, even as they were approving Tillman's Silver Star. Still, he told investigators he believed Tillman deserved the award.

This week's development comes as criminal investigators are said to be examining allegations that Afghan security firms have been extorting as much as $4 million a week from contractors paid with U.S. tax dollars and then funneling the spoils to warlords and the Taliban, according to a U.S. military document. The payments are intended to ensure safe passage through dangerous areas they control.

The payments reportedly end up in insurgent hands through a $2.1 billion Pentagon contract to transport food, water, fuel and ammunition to American troops stationed at bases across Afghanistan.

__

Associated Press Writer Pauline Jelinek contributed to this report.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
jingo2 said:
He's gone...............good.

Can you articulate why it is a good thing, if he is gone?


From Time Magazine

This is an extraordinary man, with the perfect skill set necessary for the mission in Afghanistan: a thorough knowledge of counterinsurgency and deep experience in special operations. But there is another side to McChrystal: he is so focused on his real job that he hasn't spent sufficient time learning how to play the public relations game. He speaks his mind; in private conversations, I've found, he is incapable of fudging the truth.
 

jingo2

Well-known member
Easy.


He's a fool with a big mouth who does not or can not realize who is boss is....AND...it's not his ' job' to like his boss.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
jingo2 said:
Easy.


He's a fool with a big mouth who does not or can not realize who is boss is....AND...it's not his ' job' to like his boss.

The big mouth is his problem, agreed. But he may not know who his boss is, due to a lack of leadership on his boss's part.

I bet he won't vote for the same boss in 2012.

When the military loses confidence in the CIC's leadership abilities, there's a real problem.
 

jingo2

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
jingo2 said:
Easy.


He's a fool with a big mouth who does not or can not realize who is boss is....AND...it's not his ' job' to like his boss.

The big mouth is his problem, agreed. But he may not know who his boss is, due to a lack of leadership on his boss's part.

I bet he won't vote for the same boss in 2012.

When the military loses confidence in the CIC's leadership abilities, there's a real problem.


If he does not know that his boss is the COMMANDER IN CHIEF..... he's gotta go.

This dog you're trying to hunt here...won't.


That's basic Military 101...." your boss is the Commander in Chief."
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
jingo2 said:
hypocritexposer said:
jingo2 said:
Easy.


He's a fool with a big mouth who does not or can not realize who is boss is....AND...it's not his ' job' to like his boss.

The big mouth is his problem, agreed. But he may not know who his boss is, due to a lack of leadership on his boss's part.

I bet he won't vote for the same boss in 2012.

When the military loses confidence in the CIC's leadership abilities, there's a real problem.


If he does not know that his boss is the COMMANDER IN CHIEF..... he's gotta go.

This dog you're trying to hunt here...won't.


That's basic Military 101...." your boss is the Commander in Chief."

So he wasn't following orders?

I suppose you think Patton should have been fired the first time he said something out of line, too?

there is a difference between a "boss" and a leader, which you don't seem to get.
 

jingo2

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
jingo2 said:
hypocritexposer said:
The big mouth is his problem, agreed. But he may not know who his boss is, due to a lack of leadership on his boss's part.

I bet he won't vote for the same boss in 2012.

When the military loses confidence in the CIC's leadership abilities, there's a real problem.


If he does not know that his boss is the COMMANDER IN CHIEF..... he's gotta go.

This dog you're trying to hunt here...won't.


That's basic Military 101...." your boss is the Commander in Chief."

So he wasn't following orders?

I suppose you think Patton should have been fired the first time he said something out of line, too?

there is a difference between a "boss" and a leader, which you don't seem to get.


You can keep on pickin' all you want. But you can't compare Patton's day to today nor wars.

If you like him so good , move him to Canada.

He's already tendered his resignation....it's up to the Pres to accept it. or fire him outright.

This Gen sank his own ship.

Would you keep an employee who disrespected YOU? I think not...no one would.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
A boss would accept his resignation.

A leader would say.

"our efforts in Afghanistan are too important to let an unfortunate lapse of judgment like this undermine them. So I told General McChrystal that he must finish his task, and that I would not accept his resignation at this time."

First off, I would ask the employee what was actually said, and not take the word of Rolling Stone. Most of the military is frustrated at present.

Do you suggest firing everybody that says something negative about the President's leadership?

That's not a very good way to find out what is happening on the ground, so you can make informed decisions.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Angusgord said:
hypocritexposer said:
jingo2 said:
Easy.


He's a fool with a big mouth who does not or can not realize who is boss is....AND...it's not his ' job' to like his boss.

The big mouth is his problem, agreed. But he may not know who his boss is, due to a lack of leadership on his boss's part.

I bet he won't vote for the same boss in 2012.

When the military loses confidence in the CIC's leadership abilities, there's a real problem.
You sure like sticking your nose into where it doesn't belong! Worry about the s*** going on in your own country!



Maybe you haven't heard about the Canadians in Afghanistan. they are part of the NATO forces, as are the US troops.

And the Generals are trying to keep young men and women alive, while obama plays "boss" and is emotionally fragile, to the point of being upset about something that is said about him.

I guess that psychologist was pretty accurate in what she said, about narcissists. Did you listen to the interview yet?

http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=466107&highlight=psychologist#466107
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
OBAMA ON McCHRYSTAL: After meeting with his Cabinet, President Obama tells the pool that Gen. Stanley McChrystal "showed poor judgment" in the Rolling Stone profile of him.

"But I also want to make sure that I talk to him directly before I make any final decision," he says.

Obama adds: "Even as General McChrystal is on his way here, I want everybody to keep in mind what our central focus is, and that is success in making sure that al Qaeda and its affiliates cannot attack the United States and its allies. And we’ve got young men and women there who are making enormous sacrifices, families back home who are making enormous sacrifices. And so whatever decision that I make with respect to General McChrystal or any other aspect of Afghan policy is determined entirely on how I can make sure that we have a strategy that justifies the enormous courage and sacrifice that those men and women are making over there and that ultimately makes this country safe. I know Secretary Gates feels the exact same way."


He's saying the right things. He would have looked like just a "boss", if he had just accepted the resignation, without asking a few questions first.

I'll give obama the thumbs up so far, on how he is handling this.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Angusgord said:
hypocritexposer said:
Angusgord said:
You sure like sticking your nose into where it doesn't belong! Worry about the s*** going on in your own country!



Maybe you haven't heard about the Canadians in Afghanistan. they are part of the NATO forces, as are the US troops.

And the Generals are trying to keep young men and women alive, while obama plays "boss" and is emotionally fragile, to the point of being upset about something that is said about him.

I guess that psychologist was pretty accurate in what she said, about narcissists. Did you listen to the interview yet?

http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=466107&highlight=psychologist#466107
Well sweet cheek's ,take your own advice and read the whole thread ,you'll maybe get the picture of what I think of you and your psycho-logist!!! Ass munch!

And you have probably read enough of my posts to know that I could care less what you think of me or what names you call me.

the way you conduct yourself is childish. I'm here to discuss politics with other adults.
 
Top