- advertisements -
Leave a man with no choice, and he's got no choice.
Well, last time I called a boss an unprepared, ignorant, and unprofessional prick, I got fired too. Just throwin' that out there.
If you stopped at "unprepared, ignorant" you'd be fine. Those can be real hard facts while personal opinion as attack weapon are unprofessional and ground for dismissal.
Exactly, Badmouthing your boss in a magazine interview. Mr. McChrystal is a fine man but I believe him to be way out of line and needed to be brought down to earth. The Armed forces are full of some very capable replacements. I don't like the Obama's choice of replacement but thats not my call. This is just like France's soccer players thinking that their place is to coach a team. After watching France self destruct I support the presidents decision 100%. Insubordination has no place in American armed forces PERIOD. signed VETERAN.
"Insubordination" you may call it, but I see it as blunt honesty from a man who refuses to let blind servility stand in the way of integrity. By your rationale, the US armed forces should adhere to the Nazi standard of rigid and unquestioning obedience no matter how corrupt or evil the leadership. And here I thought we had learned the lessons of history and the Nuremberg trials.
Blind obedience to bad leadership is NOT patriotism!
I guess I part with your opinion that the U.S. are Nazilike and that American leadership is completely evil. Man you need to take a deep breath and maybe a break from the internet before you become the next Unabomer
And you really need to learn to read.
I did NOT make those direct comparisons --- those are words that you in your inability to comprehend the English language put into my mouth. What a liar and/or idiot.
Bravo! About time Obama stood up to someone. Time to show the military it's place...
What an obnoxious troll you are...
Missy, Sorry, I disagreed with your world view. I will henceforth follow your guidance and join the group think.
jesus fucking christ, what a sad cluster of limp little trolls ZH has attracted recently. seems as though all the ZH old guard are leaving in disgust. mscreant right on as usual. one needs to wade through pages and pages of troll shit before one gets to a mscreant, chumba, cogdis, gordon gecko, or cheeky bastard post these days!!
chet, whizbang, ibelieveinmagic; did any of you lame, ignorant little motherfuckers even read the RS piece?? Is it conceivable that this represents the deliberate act of an apolitical and dignified general to signal to his country that the "war" is a complete fucking charade based on a pack of lies? can you pathetic souls not see past the spin? do you troll "muricans" no longer recognize the actions of an honorable man when you see them?
dont you trolls remember the esquire article that lead to admiral william fallons resignation after his "war with iran will not happen on my watch" statement? can you not see that this was also a carefully calibrated act of defiance and self sacrifice by a principled naval officer?
it should be patently clear to even the most myopic ZH fucktard troll from the RS article that the "war" in afghanistan is completely lost. it was lost from the beginning. have any of you trolls any remote idea of the military campaigns that have been vanquished by afghanistan? it seems not. mcchrystal's open contempt for the corrupt, vainglorious and vacillating civilian leadership is real and by deliberately airing it, he communicates the parlous situation to the country at large. sadly a country too fucking stupid and self-absorbed to heed his words and actions.
do you trolls know anything about COIN? the malayan emergency was about the first and last time it "worked." we will exit afghanistan as did the russians, by declaring victory and leaving. hueys lifting off the US embassy roof pad in saigon. any trolls remember that? no, I thought not.
Trolls, look at your glorious leadership and despair; barry, biden, dickie holbrooke, betrayus etc etc......... how can you trolls not be ashamed of yourselves and what your country has become???????????????
so now a shuffling of the deck. a soldier with demonstrable courage, integrity and honesty is replaced by a court sycophant. petreaus never saw combat. he was shot in the chest (AD) by a soldier in the 101st airborne during an exercise in KY. petraeus is a paper general and mcchrystal a soldier's soldier. just look at the wimp-in-chief's expression of chiseled and studied resolve... shoulder to shoulder with petraeus, biden and gates. it makes me want to puke.
ZH trolls; who does the US armed forces officer corps and rank and file support? barry betrayus or stanley mcchrystal? I know for a fact that it is the latter by a country fucking mile. how could it be otherwise? why does their opinion matter trolls? because they are the ones fucking bleeding and dying over there. thats why!
JFC, need to wear my troll boots on ZH. the slime is everywhere. shame, bound to happen I suppose. over and out.
You come out with guns blazing, but unfortunately you fire mostly nerf darts.
A soldier's soldier? A carefully calibrated act of defiance and self sacrifice by a principled naval officer?
Sorry. I don't buy it. A soldier's soldier (your words) would never undermine the efforts of those soldiers that have died, suffered or continue to fight, by offering a rather mindless, spiteful and catty interview to a sophomoric reporter at Rolling Stone. I would expect more maturity and more discretion from a man of his caliber. If not for the stars on his shoulders, then for the men/women fighting for their lives under his command.
Your attempt to characterize McChrystal as some sort of patriotic American hero who stands up to the charlatans in Washington is hollow. We certainly need such a figure, but this episode with him is not it. It reminds me of politics as usual - gutless, catty, low-brow,school-yard, sissy-fighting that continues to distract from the issues, and drives this once-unshakable country further into the ditch. Politics in the United States has morphed into a day-time, soap-box drama where everyone has a deviant, little agenda which they pursue through a series of under-handed, gossipy cat-fights. And there's McCrystal shamefully playing his role in As Washington Turns, giving a spiteful, politicizing, back-biting interview to the National Inquirer.
We desperately need the sort of character that you are trying to construct out of McCrystal, but sadly he is not it.
With that out of the way, I will say that I agree with some parts of your post.
Time to show the military it's place...
Time to show the military it's place...
Do you really want to live in an environment where the military is not subject to civilian authority?
do you *really* think *any* military is afraid of a suit?
this was a PR move, and obama is *reacting*, not *pro-acting*.
who stood up to who?
At least I am happy that we can pretend to be a civilian run society a little longer.
any military has and will always choose to wield their weapons at the level of their collective integrity.
200+ years, the US military could at anytime destroy the political class. they haven't. it is not pretend.
they are us. they understand.
currently, 3/4s of the country is nervous about our current leadership and direction.
they are us.
regardless of their oath, you don't think 3/4s of the military are nervous about the leadership and direction of this country?
you don't think being sent out to fight with half-assed budgets/equipment wouldn't make you wonder about your leader's resolve and support?
Gen. McChrystal just took one for the team. to make that point. it is how a civilian-run military officer says "f-k no, i'm not buying this crap with my soldier's lives anymore."
i am certain, by your comments, that you have never done as much. not even in dodge-ball.
And what is their "collective integrity"?
Sorry, but I no longer believe the military is on "our" side, meaning the side of the fellow citizen. Not after Katrina:
What? Not worth a court martial for these national guards to defy an order that was blatantly unconstitutional? They swore an oath to uphold what? The constitution of what country? What about the cops in the vids? Whose side are they on? They aren't even required by law to protect anyone - they have an exit clause by the scotus whenever they show up an hour later to a 911 call.
So, what "team" are you talking about? Whose signature is on their paychecks? Betcha it doesn't say "Taxpayers". Should we make the same mistake ZH'ers keep ragging on when it comes to the economy, "this time it's different"? I don't think it will be any different at any time in the future, except it will be worse.
witnessing 200 years of successful civil leadership is proof that it's not just 'pretend' and that my concept of 'collective integrity' has merit.
but, the above conversation is about the General - facts vs populism, so i'm not talking out of both my orifices when i assert that *your* point is the most pressing problem we face as a society.
many current laws are not being written in the best interest of the communities, OR in accordance with the US constitution. but, until challenged in court (a court that follows the constitution...), they are still the laws.
this puts the average law-enforcement officer (army, police, fire, nat-guard, etc.) in the most unenviable position of having to uphold laws that are instinctively and patently bad/wrong. and these folks are *not* lawyers, so the ability to rapidly discern between law and 'the right thing' is becoming impossible - not just difficult...
i don't believe this is an accident.
i look at the recent law-enforcement actions and 'management' of the various citizen protesters at both dem/rep conventions (herding of sheep) and realize that our closest protectors are effectively protecting the government, NOT the citizens.
not so long ago i believe we hired police to protect us. now i believe the police are hired to protect the government. which is increasingly *not* us.
look at "http://oathkeepers.org/oath/" for an indication that there are many like-minded folks who see our neighborhood police as likely being more dangerous to us than any threat from Iran or the like.
again, your comment addresses a more important, but different issue. "Ibelieve" indicates that McChrystal was schooled as if he didn't know the game. i say "Ibelieve's" perspective is ignorant and populist, and that the General's 'move' was very intentional in that ongoing game.
please don't read between the lines here. just because i *know* the game of soccer does NOT imply that i've picked a team on the field...
the history of 'good' folks and 'good' laws resulting in generally 'good' armies w/ 200 years of civil rule is relevant. it only works when "they are us".
anymore, i'm not so sure the laws are legal, but pretty sure the folks are good, and your point highlights the trending to a breakdown of some kind. i do not want to pay for confused police who protect the government. i want them to protect my children - possibly from the government. i am also very concerned.
Sometimes the thin blue line is truly the problem:
site bookmarked and appreciated.
scary shit - kinda speaks for itself.
So...you're happy to have Gen "Betray Us" in charge?
You're seeing no contradictions here?
Prodded doubtless by forces above and behind the Oval Office, Obama has ousted General McChrystal in favor of General Petraeus, who now combines the post of CENTCOM theater commander with that of NATO commander in Afghanistan. This is a move deriving from the inherent fecklessness and incompetence of the Obama administration, especially from the imperialist point of view. Recent events have highlighted Obama’s total lack of executive ability, leaving him weakened as he faced the bizarre flap about some barrack-room gripes by McChrystal’s staff collected by a correspondent from Rolling Stone magazine. Because of Obama’s weakness, he felt obliged to react to the scuttlebutt peddled by Rolling Stone, when a stronger president could have dismissed it or ignored it. As Fletcher Pratt once wrote, Abraham Lincoln was capable of laughing an attempted coup d’état out of existence with an off-color joke. Obama is far too weak for that.
As for General McChrystal, he was critically weakened and made vulnerable to ouster by the total failure of his counterinsurgency strategy, with the Marja offensive faltering and the Kandahar offensive indefinitely delayed, even as NATO losses rise exponentially, President Karzai turns towards Tehran and Beijing, and many of the NATO coalition partners prepare to defect.
One effect of the sacking of McChrystal is likely to be the accelerated breakup of the US-led Afghan invasion coalition, which was already in bad shape before this incident. The Netherlands and Canada are leaving, the British and the Poles want to join them, and the Turks can hardly be enthusiastic. Who else will join them in the race for the exit door? NATO Secretary General Rasmussen, anticipating such a result, spoke out yesterday in favor of keeping McChrystal, who works for him as well as for Obama. More countries may now announce their departure even before the November NATO summit in Lisbon, Portugal.
Another of McChrystal’s bosses, Afghan President Karzai, also made clear that he wanted McChrystal to stay. He will now use Obama’s flaunting of his wishes to accelerate his own playing of the China card in economic policy and the Iranian card in cultural and religious affairs. Afghanistan is likely to slip into the Chinese orbit.
In addition to all this, important of the McChrystal ouster will probably be seen in US domestic politics. Obama has now committed the absolutely idiotic blunder of making General Petraeus far greater and far more important than he already was, despite the fact that General Petraeus is his most likely and credible Republican presidential challenger in 2012, and the one most capable of defeating Obama, as postings on this site have already made clear. As outlined here, Petraeus has clearly emerged as the preferred candidate of the entire neocon camp, including William Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, Max Boot, Frank Gaffney, the American Enterprise Institute, the Weekly Standard, and many others. Obama can usefully be compared to the earlier Democratic party Wall Street stooge and puppet, President Harry Truman, who destroyed what was left of his own popularity by firing General MacArthur in a dispute about the limited war policy in Korea in April of 1951. The beneficiary of the public revulsion against Truman was General Eisenhower, who became president in 1952 after Truman had dropped out of contention in despair over his abysmal poll numbers.
Obama has now chosen the tactic guaranteed to concentrate public attention on the ambitious and unprincipled Petraeus, who has all the character weaknesses of a Hindenburg. At the same time, Obama has given Petraeus the totally impossible assignment of winning victory in the Afghanistan quagmire, the graveyard of empires. Petraeus is doomed to fail on the purely military level, and the more he fails the more he will he impelled to pick a political quarrel with Obama about strategy and the conduct of the war as a way of shifting the opprobrium of defeat off his own four-star epaulets and onto the back of the feckless Obama. The most obvious issue to use for this purpose is Obama’s timetable, established in the West Point speech last December, of beginning the departure of US forces from Afghanistan in July of 2011, timed of course to coincide with the Iowa straw poll and the beginning of the 2012 presidential primary campaigns.
Petraeus’ obvious option will be to break with Obama during the late spring or early summer of 2011 over Obama’s intent to protect his own vulnerable left flank in the Democratic Party base by initiating an Afghan pullout, which Petraeus and his neocon backers have already branded as Obama’s cut and run policy. Petraeus will be able to wave the bloody shirt of the US Afghanistan dead, condemning Obama for making their sacrifices vain for his own self-serving political purposes. Petraeus will be able to claim that he is reluctantly leaving his military post because the appeaser and weakling Obama has tied his hands to the point that he has no other alternative but to take the issue to the voters in the primaries and in the presidential election itself. Ironically, the worse the military situation in Afghanistan becomes, the better this strategy would work.
Unless something changes very soon, we may soon witness here in the United States the classic process of the disintegration of a form of government which often occurs when a weak civilian regime decides to place a major bet on the ability of a charismatic military commander to save them politically by winning a foreign war in the way that the civilians and their previous military appointees had been unable to do. Historically speaking, the tendency is for the charismatic military commander to return home and seized power, ousting the civilians who had tried to benefit from his victories.
One obvious example is the career of Napoleon Bonaparte, who came back from Egypt to seize power in France just as Petraeus may figuratively come back from Afghanistan to seize power in Washington. Napoleon, who had already covered himself in glory with his Italian campaign (just as Petraeus is widely viewed as the victor of Iraq), lost most of his army in Egypt. But this did not prevent him from returning to France and staging his coup d’état of the Eighteenth Brumaire of the Year VIII of the revolution, corresponding to November 9, 1799. In taking power, Napoleon swept aside such civilian politicians of the weak and financially bankrupt Directory as Sieyès, Barras, and even the devious Talleyrand. Napoleon soon set up a new form of government, the Consulate, with himself as first Consul, and then first Consul for life. Later he proclaimed himself Emperor. When might Petraeus stage his own Eighteenth Brumaire, either by resigning and declaring himself a presidential candidate, or in some other way? Within the next 12 months or so, we would expect.
Another example comes from the death agony of the Roman Republic. With Rome being ruled by a three-man triumvirate, Julius Caesar was able to outclass his two rivals, Pompey and Crassus, by conquering Gaul. He soon felt strong enough to bring his victorious army back across the Alps to Rome. The point of no return in this bid for power occurred when his forces crossed the Rubicon River in Romagna on January 10 of 49 B.C. Soon Julius Caesar was exercising virtually total power in Rome. Petraeus is likely to cross the Rubicon in about a year or less, this time around.
A final instance of the dynamic we may now be facing comes from the history of the German Empire in World War I. As that conflict dragged on into its fifth year with ghastly losses, the civilian governments in Berlin and even the Emperor counted for less and less, and the supreme command of the German army counted for more and more. Military power was in the hands of a two-man tandem, with Field Marshal Hindenburg, the victor in the great battle of Tannenberg in 1914, as the popular public face, but with more and more real power been gathered into the hands of the protofascist General Ludendorff, the virtual dictator of the German war economy. Soon Hindenburg and Ludendorff, operating out of their headquarters in Spa, Belgium, were incomparably more powerful than such weak figures in Berlin as Count Hertling, the Chancellor from November 1917 to September 1918, or Prince of Baden, who was Chancellor in October 1918, just before the final collapse. Hertling, like Obama, was a professor. In November 1918, with German armies reeling and the home front in revolution, Hindenburg-Ludendorff told the German Emperor Kaiser Wilhelm II that it was time for him to abdicate and go into exile so that an armistice with the allies could be signed and thus preserve the German army and above all its officer corps. Within a couple of years, Field Marshal von Hindenburg had become the President of Germany under the Weimar Republic. He did not turn out to be a good president. This time around, CENTCOM headquarters in Tampa, Florida may eclipse Washington just as Spa gave orders to Berlin in 1918. The CENTCOM website department “From the Commander” already looks like a campaign website for Petraeus. When, one wonders, will Petraeus inform Obama that it is time for him to abdicate?
As for McChrystal, he should be answering for war crimes disguised as special operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and not a pillorying in the media because his remarks supposedly amounted to lèse majesté against the bungling imposter in the White House and his gaggle of cronies.
As someone said the other day, Man you write fast. (Pretty good too.)
Re the Napoleon reference: "Emperor Petraeus I" has a certain ring to it.
Double standard imposed by Obama.
Obama bowed and apologized all over the world about the USA and now he trashed and fired a pedigree patriot for trashing him.
Obama is a childish, thin-skinned little prick.
What a jackass.
Winning Af/Pak = Bombing Pak with Predator drones+Guarding Poppy fields+making the war last as long as possible so defense contractors line their pockets as we move into the New World Order.
Barry is "winning".
yo, Red Neckerson:
don't forget beer, hollow points and (Mc)Crystal Palin...............
Hey! That's what McChrystal said. Look where that got him!
All politicians are lying wankers. Barack and Sarah are no exception.
Not all, geez.
Only 99.7% of politicians are liars and thieves (I'm not sure what a "wanker" is, so I have to reserve judgement on that).
"I'm not sure what a "wanker" is"
it's just another form of self interest
Hmmm. So if he let his generals be insubordinate, you would respect him more. Interesting take....
To give McChrystal a dressing-down but keep him on for the sake of the mission would be the act of a strong leader.
When you're sitting in the big chair, you can show us how it's done.
The POTUS is also the Commander-in-Chief of the US Armed Forces.
Yep, GOD help them....they need all they can get.
They essentialy are Leaderless.(Except for the real commanders in the field).
And with these last few POTUSes, god help us.
Why would any combat general respect Bama?
Please already, STOP with this "POTUS" and "SCOTUS" nonsense! God, I hate those "words"! Why can't people just say "president" and "Supreme Court"? Is that too much work? Or is the the US Treasurer going to become the "TOTUS", and the Secretary of Defense going to become the "SDOTUS", and the retired Surgeon General going to become the "SGROTUS"?
if i read it right, TOTUS is already taken with 'Teleprompter of the United States'
Oh, I thought he was actually the MOTUS ---- you know, Messiah of the United States.
Or he could equally be the CHOOTUS ---- The Chosen One of the United States.
GBTTAPOTUS also works --- George Bush's Third Term as President of the United States.
Any or all of these work.
something has got to work for SCROTUS, say, scumbag communist revolutionary of the united states...
or if i were willing to devolve a bit, i might suggest something like supreme c-nt rag of the united states, etc.
but that's pretty base. so i won't suggest that.
I thought the acronym for the Supremes was SCROTUS?
Is it possible in this day and age to have a recall vote? That is, for the number one office.
and more, Obama is an illegal alien illegitimate "p"resident Marxist America hating asshole.
Will he be retiring to Elba?
Tips: tips [ at ] zerohedge.com
General: info [ at ] zerohedge.com
Legal: legal [ at ] zerohedge.com
Advertising: ads [ at ] zerohedge.com
Abuse/Complaints: abuse [ at ] zerohedge.com
Advertise With Us
Make sure to read our "How To [Read/Tip Off] Zero Hedge Without Attracting The Interest Of [Human Resources/The Treasury/Black Helicopters]" Guide
How to report offensive comments
Notice on Racial Discrimination.