Post User Polls

Should Gen. Stanley McChrystal be fired?

The top U.S. general in Afghanistan was headed to Washington early Tuesday for an impromptu White House meeting, after apologizing for an upcoming magazine article that portrays him and his staff as flippant and dismissive of top Obama administration officials involved in Afghanistan policy. Read the full article.

By Jodi Westrick  |  June 22, 2010; 8:44 AM ET  | Category:  National Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati  
Previous: Borders or Clyde's? | Next: Which Nationals player is most deserving of an All-Star spot?

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



McCrystal must be the dumbest general who ever lived. An interview with "Rolling Stone?" Where will he appear next: nude in "Hustler"?

An alternative to firing him would be to assign him effective immediately to the worst job in the worst location that the Pentagon has available. Get him out of sight -- but still under the control of the military.

Posted by: smallchief1 | June 22, 2010 8:58 AM

MacArthur set a poor example. Civilian control over the military is a necessity, and something that must be reinstated and enforced. Otherwise we'll be nothing but another banana Republic.

Posted by: AMviennaVA | June 22, 2010 9:01 AM

Gen McChrystal should not have said these openly. He made a serious mistake. However, he might have said the truth.

Posted by: cchi1 | June 22, 2010 9:07 AM

Of course the General should NOT be fired, what should be done is to FIRE President " paper tiger " Obama, that would cure a GREAT deal of our problems!!!

Posted by: yojoe | June 22, 2010 9:15 AM

He MUST be fired. His attitude cannot be tolerated on the part of a general in our military. There is no room for tolerance here -- to permit a general to behave like this, and evidently also to encourage such behavior on the part of his top aides, is a threat to our constitution and to our democracy.

In nearly every nation throughout history, there would be no need for any poll on whether or not a dangerous weasel like McCrystal should be fired or not. The only question would be about if he would be permitted to commit suicide rather than face the dishonor of an execution.

Fortunately for McCrystal we are more enlightened now (well, maybe), but a simple firing is not enough in this case. He needs to be fired and his reputation absolutely eviscerated to the point where he can never be permitted to hold any position of trust again. His behavior is absolutely intolerable, and to chalk it up to a "lapse in judgment," as he has tried to do, merely demonstrates that he is unable to exercise any judgment at all.

Posted by: FergusonFoont | June 22, 2010 9:17 AM

Someone has to speak out someyimes..especially when the Commander in Chief doesn't know jack crap..

Posted by: corebanks1940 | June 22, 2010 9:23 AM

McCrystal violated the UCMJ. Sepuku.

Posted by: m1kem1lls | June 22, 2010 9:31 AM

President Obama should dismiss General MacChrystal. One of the cornerstones of our democracy is the civilian control of the military. This principle has served us well throughout our history.

In April 1951 President Truman dismissed General Douglas MacArthur for a similar transgression as that committed by MacChrystal. He was fired, not for his opinions, but his disrespect for the Office of the President. MacArthur was much more well-known and popular than MacChrystal; and demonstrated success on the battlefield. MacChrystal has not been able to defeat that band of Medieval tribes, the Taliban, in Afghanistan given all of the vast resources that have been put at his disposal.

In addition, it appears that he has either encouraged or turned a blind eye to the practice of United States employed contractors paying members of the Taliban for "security services" in Afghanistan. This latter practice is a sufficient reason to fire him.

Posted by: richardwhetstone | June 22, 2010 9:35 AM

Truman is reported to have said to MacArthur something similar to this: "I don't give a damn about what you think of Harry Truman. I care about what you think of the Presidency of the United States." Some of our commenters apparently have a strong dislike for Barrack Obama. They should care about the Presidency since someday one of theirs will occupy the seat. The military must not be allowed to diminish the civilian control of the miilitary, no matter who sits in the post. The last President gave far too much deference to the military and we still suffer from it. If course, the general must go.

Posted by: Gondola1 | June 22, 2010 9:36 AM

Since McChrystal took command in June, he has met Karzai more than 45 times, mostly one-on-one, including a regular Sunday morning chat in the presidential palace. In an effort to present Karzai as commander in chief, McChrystal has flown him across the country on five "battlefield circulations."

McChrystal has done more than his predecessors, including Eikenberry, to minimize civilian casualties, such as restricting the use of air power and night raids. He has regularly apologized to Karzai for civilian deaths and shown him video and slide presentations to explain how such mistakes occur.

"He was the first military man to really show that he respected and would respond to Karzai's agenda, civilian casualties, of course, being the biggest issue," one senior NATO official said. "In a sense, Karzai said, 'Here's a soldier that finally I can deal with.' "

Posted by: corebanks1940 | June 22, 2010 9:44 AM

The stupidity of the general public amazes me. You people take for granted every day your freedom of speach. This General is making sure that you have the freedom to be as stupid as you want, and with the number of comments here - he is doing an excellent job. If you would take a look around the world you will see why America has been the greatest nation EVER. The man who sits in the Presidents seat is doing everything he can to take that away from US.

Posted by: kimberlybrown | June 22, 2010 10:05 AM

There is a UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) article against such comments about your superiors or the Commander in Chief. McChrystal knows that. He should not be fired. He should be Court Marshalled, after he resigns himself.

Posted by: --free1 | June 22, 2010 10:21 AM

Blame this entire affair on Israel and the Jews....

Posted by: capitalGM | June 22, 2010 10:25 AM

Regardless of anyone's opinion of the Commander in Chief and the administration e should be Court Marshalled.

Posted by: dcperspective | June 22, 2010 10:26 AM

No, General McChrystal should not be fired. He should do the honorable thing and resign.

Posted by: L-D-M | June 22, 2010 10:29 AM

If McChrystal had any class, he would have already resigned.

Posted by: Jayne | June 22, 2010 10:29 AM

To all those saying that Gen McChrystal shouldn't be fired: I would like you to say unflattering things about your Boss in this section and please sign your name and give your position within your company.

[silence]

Come on, you're only expressing your opinion. Everyone knows your Boss is an idiot so why not let your opinions fly?

[more silence]

Exactly, President Obama is McChrystal's boss and this is not the first time that McChrystal has acted in this fashion. And come on, McChrystal is not stupid. He knew he was making those comments in front of a reporter but he had gotten away in the past with bucking the Chain of Command that he grew over arrogant in his belief that this time there would be no consequences. If President Obama doesn't make an example of McChrystal then he will lose all respect of the military.

Posted by: dre7861 | June 22, 2010 10:32 AM

He hasn't resigned already? What in the world is he waiting for?

Posted by: AHappyWarrior | June 22, 2010 10:36 AM

His letter of resignation is already typed and just awaiting final signature. You can bet your bottom dollar on that. As an earlier poster so rightfully noted: quoted Harry Truman to MacArthur, "You don't have to respect Harry Truman but you darn sure will respect the Presidency". To the other poster saying we should keep the General and fire Obama. Not in this country bubba, we fire generals and don't re-elect Presidents.

Posted by: army164 | June 22, 2010 10:39 AM

Of course the General and his staff were flippant. Not an unusual reacation when you know your big scheme is not working and the media ignore how badly things are going.

Posted by: CitizenWhy | June 22, 2010 10:39 AM

Thanks ARMY164 for saying it exactly right.

Posted by: AHappyWarrior | June 22, 2010 10:46 AM

The nation would be probably be bettter off if Mr. Obama acknowledged that HE is unqualified to serve, and resigned. But that would put "Bumbling" Biden in the White House. The theme of this entire Administration must be "bring on the clowns".

Posted by: mncwva | June 22, 2010 10:47 AM


We fire generals and impeach presidents.

Barry the incompetent boob Obama may or may not be impeached for his inept bungling. The crime is malfeasance.

Posted by: screwjob16 | June 22, 2010 10:49 AM

The general should resign and the president (such as he is) should look in the mirror without love in his eyes.

Posted by: larrygubas | June 22, 2010 10:53 AM

He should be JAILED! He is breaking morale and causing discord in wartime operations and degrades the effectiveness of American policy. If he can't execute his duties with full faith and confidence, he should go back to civilian life, vote, or run for office.
People follow the leadership of the General and are not allowed to voice their individual opinions. The General is bound by the same rules. This is not a time for a Beer Summit, Mr.Obama.

Posted by: ben4 | June 22, 2010 10:58 AM

The guy from the battlefield calling it all FUBAR and SNAFU is the one to side with and keep trust in.

Obama = No Confidence

Posted by: dottydo | June 22, 2010 11:02 AM

Someone please give screwjob16 a lesson on Constitutional Law. Impeachment requires treason, bribery, or a high crime or misdemeanor. Making policy choices you don't like isn't impeachable, moron.

Posted by: uh_huhh | June 22, 2010 11:04 AM

BEN4,
Why are we at war in a quagmire, as a completely broke Nation (now that even China has removed affiliation with the dollar)?
What happened to all the anger at Bush for the war?

Posted by: dottydo | June 22, 2010 11:07 AM

What could General McCrystal have possibly been thinking? Was he drunk? Most likely drunk with power. McCrystal is already history before I hit the submit button below.

Posted by: ashafer_usa | June 22, 2010 11:09 AM

McChrystal was Obama's handpicked General....and even he thinks the Bammer is a clown. Obama is making Jimmy Carter's Presidency look good.

Posted by: Realist201 | June 22, 2010 11:11 AM

Of course the general should be fired. Not only has he violated the the principle of civilian control of the military, but his championing of the Afghan war is a major blunder that will go down in history as such. Two of recent history's greatest generals, Eisenhower and De Gaulle, had the good sense to get their countries out of unwinnable conflicts, Korea and Algeria. They were presidents by then, and they rose above the "can do" military mentality. After he fires McChrystal, Obama should finish the job, get right with history, and end the war in Afghanistan.

Posted by: towenmann | June 22, 2010 11:12 AM

Stupid Tea Bagger General.

McChrystal: "Um dur dee dur, surge good, surge worked! We need more surges. Surges can fix everything. Fox News would love it if we had some more surges. Yee haw!!"

Posted by: miknugget | June 22, 2010 11:12 AM

Right--He should not have said what he said--. He apologized! That said the Truth Hurts---"Remember ",
You can't handle the truth", can you.

Turbo Tax Tim apologized,Clinton Apologized, Blumenthal apologized, Salazar apologized, Obama apologized for "Police acted stupidly", Perhaps McCrystal should follow the President's "apology" and state perhaps he should also "recalibrate his words"

Bottom Line-- they need him more than he needs them....over to the White House

Posted by: passonfirstdown | June 22, 2010 11:16 AM

He should resign, but firing would be better. He has disgraced the uniform. Court marshal is an alternative but would not help us recover civilian command and control. Why are we paying millions of dollars in protection money to Afghan tribal leaders? Because the generals have a blank check. It is time to pull the plug on the general and the war. Vice President Biden's policy advice was dead on.

Posted by: Retiree1 | June 22, 2010 11:17 AM

Anyone old enough to remember when Nixon was too big to fail, but when the Generals threw water on him he melted?
Nixon was at least not involved in any sedition against the USA or breaking apart a USA State into Aztlan refusing to defend it.

MThe General ought to walk in and cuff up sedition, instead of empowering any enemies Foreign or Domestic.
Who, after all, is under Supreme Court mandates to quit funding named terrorist organizations or talking to them?

The Feds...that is who.

Posted by: dottydo | June 22, 2010 11:25 AM


Obama came into office before his time (at least a decade too early), a 47 year old community organizer pretending to be Commander-in-Chief, inexperienced in management, an absentee legislator in the Illinois State Senate, no leadership abilities while in the U.S. Senate, possessing a naive, dangerous ideology; elected by a coalition of uneducated ethnics who can't name the three branches of government and elitest white liberals who are famously anti-military and who were enamored with appearing non-racist by voting for this president. They also foisted this man on the military - the one segment of our society whose commitment is transparently evident every day all over the world.

With this Potemkin presidency, surrounded in the White House by unpragmatic, liberal, anti-military academicians as tutors, it is no wonder that a sincere military salute of this President is a struggle for our military servicemen and women.

How's that hopey, changey suff working out for us now?

It is Obama who should be fired, along with Biden. But that will come with the 2012 election.

Posted by: radbwana | June 22, 2010 11:46 AM

What's the difference between George McClellan, Douglas MacArthur, and Stanley McChrystal? Answer: Nothing.

All three were arrogant, overly cautious, demanding more troops than necessary, self-centered, surrounded by fawning sycophants, derisive of field intelligence, and generally dismissive of their Commander in Chief.

American military history is full of generals who ignored sound military advice, formulated their own strategies, viewed field situations contrary to reality, and deemed themselves immune to committing mistakes:

President Lincoln, Secretary of War Stanton, and the Army Chief of Staff ordered McClellan to attack Robert E. Lee time and time again when McClellan had vastly superior numbers and munitions. McClellan refused, choosing to play it safe and stand pat or move like a snail, allowing Lee to outmaneuver and defeat him on most occasions. Even when McClellan won, he failed to capitalize on his victory and let Lee escape to fight another day. The "Little Napoleon" was cashiered for his arrogance and incompetence.

MacArthur lost Bataan and Corregidor when he stubbornly stayed put and allowed the enemy to use terrain and tactics to surround and defeat American and Filipino forces. Fulfilling a rashly made and prideful boast "I shall return," he then insisted on taking the Philippines back when every other commander urged him to bypass it and close in on Japan in order to win the war sooner. His strategy caused deaths of a million Filipinos and the destruction of Manila by the Japanese, and prolonged the advance on Japan by at least 6 months, giving the Japanese Army time to reinforce Iwo Jima, Saipan, Okinawa and the home islands. Despite his victory at Inchon, Korea, 7 years later, he wanted to go to war with China and urged President Truman to use nuclear weapons! His arrogance towards his Commander In Chief caused him to lose his job.

McChrystal's strategies are not working in Afghanistan. He is falling on the old and discredited military philosophy that you hold territory instead of attacking the enemy. Has he not read The Art of War? Does he not remember Vietnam?

Commanding generals in the field owe their position to the man who put them there: the President. McChrystal should join the ranks of his "Mac" brethren and resign or be subject to dismissal.

Posted by: lenagabe1 | June 22, 2010 11:50 AM


The General should feel obligated to share his concerns with his boss behind closed doors. Period.

If a "conservative" tells you otherwise, then what kind of "conservative" are they?

Posted by: tony_in_Durham_NC | June 22, 2010 11:50 AM

If McChrystal and his staff feel comfortable publicly using contemptuous words against the President and the Vice President, I fear this indicates a MAJOR cultural problem in the US military.

It is imperative that McChrystal be sacked. A message needs to be sent, not only to today's generals, but more importantly, to the more junior officers who will be tomorrow's generals: in America, we hold SACRED the concept of a civilian-controlled military.

Posted by: kcx7 | June 22, 2010 11:58 AM

As the general said himself, he has lived by the principles of professional integrity and personal honor. If this is true, then resignation is his only choice.

Posted by: Palmer | June 22, 2010 12:21 PM

You people are hypocritical. Whatever happened to freedom of speech. It is quite obvious that this plan to get troops out of Afghanistan by 2011 would not work based on the president's plan. Their quite a difference of opinion. He is just expressing his frustration with the president's plan. I laugh when you think bureaucrats make the wisest decisions especially when it comes to war. It is quite obvious Obama is far from being a great leader. Firing or keeping him does not change the fact that this plan is failing.

Posted by: mfg1968 | June 22, 2010 12:47 PM

The truth hurts sometimes, tough deal with it. I give him credit for saying how he feels. Freedom of speech America. Get over it Obama and stop acting like a child playing in the sand box. You are useless and have been to the American people since you have been in office! Stop bowing to dicators and take care of the "Legal" US citizens. Leave this guy alone, don't you have other things to worry about like...the oil spill, the economy, the homeless families that are US citzens, the threat on our country we got this morning from the cartel in Mexico. Just like to to ignore the important stuff and stay on this junk!

Posted by: bailey50 | June 22, 2010 12:50 PM

Don't jump on the "it's the truth" bandwagon. We know McC disagreed with civilian officials and my not like them personally, but it doesn't mean he or his aids are correct. This is really the same story as the French team airing their dirty laundry at World Cup. Don't hold McC up as a shining light to Obama's policies, it isn't that simple.

Posted by: cadam72 | June 22, 2010 12:57 PM

yojoe,

Yes, because if Obama were fired the Iraq War, Afghan War, oil spill, and economy would magically fix themselves.

Citizens crave a third party because they don't think Democrats are fixing the country fast enough and they don't want to give the keys back to the Republicans. Unfortunately, the Tea Baggers are not the answer - they're merely fringe Republicans in disguise.

Posted by: pathfinder12 | June 22, 2010 1:14 PM

It's very simple. The military have no freedom of speech when it comes to criticism of the Commander-in-Chief! At the very least, McChrystal and his subordinants is guilty of Insubordination. He should offer his resignation.
As for all of you conservatives who are hypercritical of the President, weren't you the ones who were crying that we should support our President during this time of war during the Bush years? HYPOCRITES!

Posted by: cabterp | June 22, 2010 1:23 PM

If any general had said of AWOL Bush or 5 Deferments Cheney half of what this guy said, he would not only be fired, but court martialed and sent to Gitmo. This is not his first offense against Obama, but it should be his last, he needs to be fired, and his failed strategy abandoned immediately.

Posted by: pblotto | June 22, 2010 1:48 PM

It always amazes me when I read this many ignorant remarks. You Obama haters must have amnesia. The worst administration in history, Bush and company, about destroyed the military. He sent them on phony wars with the wrong equipment. Sent many of them on 4 or 5 deployments. He fired anyone that didn't agree with Cheney and Runsfeld. And both of them were idiots.

And of course the general should be fired.

Posted by: COLEBRACKETT | June 22, 2010 2:10 PM

A strategy that can't survive the departure of one officer is no strategy at all. And if that's what we are dealing with, then the only option left is total immediate withdrawal. The ROI on this commitment has been negative from the beginning, to the point now where the people who are supposed to be in charge are cracking and acting foolishly.

Posted by: Godfather_of_Goals | June 22, 2010 2:19 PM

If a Sargent were to make the same mistaken comments to a general, what do you think would have happened to that poor soul?

Posted by: bproulx45 | June 22, 2010 2:45 PM

INSUBORDINATION???

Quite contrare...RESPECT can't be demanded nor forced. IT HAS TO BE EARNED! A Commander-in-Chief without the respect and support of the military is an impotent president!

Posted by: american17 | June 22, 2010 3:06 PM

If Bush was still in charge, all you lefties would be calling McChrystal a brave truth-telling whisteblower. Hell, you'd want to give him the Medal of Honor.

But with Obama in charge? Oh, the handwringing over disrespect for the office of the Presidency!

Hypocrites.

Posted by: diesel_skins_ | June 22, 2010 3:32 PM

Yes, he should be fired. There must be something with Generals - Truman had MacArthur, Eisenhower had Patton and Lincoln had Grant. The Generals were all good, but they let courtesty, their egos, etc. get in the way.
He has every right to tell the President what he thinks in private and say what he wants in private about others.
But, he couldn't tell the truth about Pat Tillman and tried to cover it up and wasn't above trying to lie and now he openly makes fun of his Commander and leaders (and I doubt if he would allow anyone under him to criticize him), he gives an interview and shows no respect for anyone and is disrestful in a foreign country when he is there respresening his Country.
The fact that you can not trust him to tell the truth and the examples of poor judgment make you wonder if you can trust the decisions he is making in the war that might be jeopardizing our troops. He has to go. His attitude can not be tolerated and he can't be trusted.

Posted by: llbrock1 | June 22, 2010 3:40 PM

Does anyone notice a pattern here of "Clintonites" doing everything in their power to undermine the administration - James Carville on BP, Lanny Davis, and now McChrystal. McChrystal should face a court martial for giving "aid and comfort" to the enemy by undermining our civilian leadership. I don't care what political affiliation you are, our military commanders have zero business undermining our military leadership. How can he command the respect of the troops serving under him if he can't respect his superiors??

Posted by: george_w_bush0 | June 22, 2010 3:49 PM

It's one thing to have your own opinion of the people in the White House and and State Department.

It's another thing to broadcast those opinions - to the troops, the public, the enemy.

Let me lay one more charge at McChrystal's door: Giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

Does anyone doubt that Taliban leaders are enjoying this scandal immensely and telling their members that this shows that the enemy is divided?

Making a public show of disrespect for the commander in chief - it demonstrates a fatal lack of judgment.

Posted by: j3hess | June 22, 2010 3:51 PM

Obumba, Biden, Pelosi, and Reid should all be fired!!! Not MacArthur....I mean, McCrystal!!!!

Posted by: WildBill1 | June 22, 2010 5:26 PM

The Rolling Stones article is very informative. General McCrystal has forgotten more about the art of war than POTUS will ever know. While I agree for the most part with Mc Crystal, it is a shame that this got published. He unfortuantely should resign or be replaced - but since I think POTUS is totally incompetent (and I can say that since I am no longer in the military), the US will be the worst for it.

Unlike the majority of the yoyo posters, I put in 32 years on active duty. I have a lot more respect for someone who speaks his or her mind than someone who is a syncophant. But in this case, I do have to agree (sadly) that he probably must go.

Posted by: usna1974 | June 22, 2010 5:31 PM

Man, the conservatives just don't get it or don't care.
Which is worse?

Regardless of where you stand politically, General McCrystal's actions was nothing less than a Court Marshall able offense and I think he should be prosecuted. American first, Political affiliation second.

Instead of doing interviews which shows he is out of control, maybe he should have spent his time working on his job. Who does this guy think he is? Unemployed, I hope. What a arrogant ass.

Posted by: BHDCTN | June 22, 2010 5:44 PM

For a top Military General like McCrystal to call to task his own bosses is something that is not done without consequences. I don't know anywhere that you can in public put down your boss and not expect to be fired or severely put in your place. General McCrystal should have put an immediate stop to his staff comments and set the example of not talking in public like an undisciplined buffoon. That his staff officers were not put on notice by General McCrystal that behavior and disrespect of their superior officers appointed above them will never be tolerated period is a serious lack of judgment on his part. In the military you take an oath to follow all orders of the officers appointed over you without question unless that order is unlawful order. The military works for a civilian government and takes orders from that civilian government and the President is the Commander in Chief of the Military. General McCrystal not only showed bad judgment he showed the greatest lack of Military bearing and his staff also is guilty of the same offence. I do respect General McCrystal and I think he is a great commander but he has lost his way and needs to be make very aware of just where he stands and who his commander is and that respect of rank is always required and warranted. There is no question he should be fired for his actions along with most of his staff officers for the same behavior. He may get a pass on this one because of his upcoming campaign and the major offensive that is coming but he should not be forgiven for his short sightedness nor should he. There is always a price to pay for your actions and this is something General McCrystal should already know and understand without question. That payment may not come right away but it will come. In the military you can have your own opinion and you can voice that opinion to trusted friends but to voice that in public where anyone can hear it is just plain dumb. Let General McCrystal finish what he started for the upcoming campaign hopefully stabilize the situation there but General McCrystal should understand his days as an active Military Commander are going to be short lived. His carrier is over.

Posted by: Concerned5 | June 22, 2010 6:21 PM

McCrystal should have done these comments face to face with Obama in private and not leaking them to a magazine such as Rolling Stones, so that whatever happens in the locker room, stays in the locker room.

Remember, bosses don't mind being called out once in a while, but they don't tolerate publicity, in fact, nobody will tolerate being berated in public, am I correct?

Posted by: eaglestrk01 | June 22, 2010 6:36 PM

Unlike the majority of the yoyo posters, I put in 32 years on active duty.

POSTED BY: USNA1974 | JUNE 22, 2010 5:31 PM
____________
Thank you for your long service in the defense of this great country.

Posted by: WildBill1 | June 22, 2010 6:50 PM

Something that ought to be investigated...

For months, years? Karzai has been complaining about what the US is doing in Afghanistan. Who more revevant to that than McChrystal.

Now McChrystal's head is on the chopping block and Karzai is jumping up and down about how wonderful McChrystal is.

Previously, stories were breaking about how the US was paying Warlords for security services. Previously stories were breaking about Karzai's coziness with certain Warlords.

Is there a 1+1+1=3 situation going on here?

Posted by: ethanquern | June 22, 2010 7:20 PM

Sounds like McChrystal is always under the control of bush and cheney.

Posted by: pas3 | June 22, 2010 7:54 PM

To all who think Obama is the problem rather than McChrystal:

I've got to ask you, if Obama let us into a brand-new war--say, Iran---what would you do? Would you continue in your "I never met a war I didn't like" mode, and support him? or;

would you let hatred of Obama take precedence over all, even love of country, and become peace-niks just so you could keep opposing Obama?

I'd like some honest answers from the Obama-haters.

Posted by: dread3eye | June 22, 2010 7:55 PM

What next, is this general and his aides going to give another exclusive interview to TMZ? He is a disgrace. He should be fired if his resignation is not promptly tendered. Bush led this country into the most disastrous war since Vietnam and not one of these so called general said a peep. Obama is trying to manage a war that Bush and his goons and thugs badly botched and this scumbag general and his thug aides are disparaging in an article to Rolling Stones? It's just despicable and ridiculous.

For one, Biden has it right. Pull out our conventional forces. This should be a special and black-ops affair. Most of the enemies and extremists are in Pakistan. Afghanistan is nothing but a series of fiefdoms with hopelessly anachronistic people.

Posted by: jabreal00 | June 22, 2010 8:02 PM

McChrystal's behaviour requires more than a firing; he needs to be court martialed. This is a matter of national security. We have troops in Afghanistan and this clown McChrystal is running around acting like Glen Beck.

Posted by: WPL22 | June 22, 2010 8:13 PM

To all who think Obama is the problem rather than McChrystal:

I've got to ask you, if Obama let us into a brand-new war--say, Iran---what would you do? Would you continue in your "I never met a war I didn't like" mode, and support him? or;

would you let hatred of Obama take precedence over all, even love of country, and become peace-niks just so you could keep opposing Obama?

I'd like some honest answers from the Obama-haters.

POSTED BY: DREAD3EYE | JUNE 22, 2010 7:55 PM
______________
Why would the United States attack the peaceful, loving country of Iran? Unless of course you're on a crusade to destroy another Muslim country as you steal its oil? Of course, libtards would support Obama on such a quest, but chastise Bush for doing the same thing....

Posted by: WildBill1 | June 22, 2010 9:21 PM

McChrystal is an embarrassment to the uniform - a national dis-grace.

Posted by: george_w_bush0 | June 22, 2010 9:29 PM

McChrystal should be canned and I hope the President gives him a true tongue-lashing. The jerk should be waterboarded for being a class-A jerk.

But instead of letting him go, he should be sent to Battle Company to fight the Taliban in the Korengal Valley in Afghanistan. Then let's see what he has to say about it.

Posted by: missgrundy | June 22, 2010 9:31 PM

STANLEY MCCHRYSTAL = BENEDICT ARNOLD

Posted by: rasterfreeart | June 22, 2010 9:43 PM

Possibly true, Wildbill1. But you still haven't answered the question. What would the Obama-haters do? THAT is what I'm after here.

Posted by: dread3eye | June 22, 2010 10:28 PM

SMALLCHIEF1:

FYI your comment about Rolling Stone: Google it. You'll get back a lot of this: "Rolling Stone has a provocative history covering politics and government that dates back to the Vietnam War and Hunter S. Thompson’s irreverent trips on the presidential campaign trail." See -- you learn something every day.

As to punishing McCrystal by putting him in the "worst job" in the Army: it's too late for that, he already has the worst job.

Posted by: pyellman | June 22, 2010 11:00 PM

This isn't about Obama, it is about McCrystal using poor judgment and not showing respect. Truman said it with Mac Arthur - he didn't care of MacArthur agreed, liked or respected him, but he needed to respect the Office of the President of the US.
This story was not leaked, McCrystal gave an interview and allowed himself to be taped.
But besides that,
* He lied and tried to cover up Pat Tillman's death - so he isn't above lying so how can you trust what he says.
* He took away fast foods from the troops and they certainly don't have a lot of perks over there and it isn't that their main meal is fast foods, it is when they get a pass on base and can't get what they want to eat because the General does not like fast foods or even like to eat 3 meals a day.
* He was insubordinate prior to this - so this isn't his lst offense.
* He allowed people under him to show disrespect to leaders of our country - that is not leadership.

Posted by: llbrock1 | June 23, 2010 12:00 AM

They are all INCAPABLE.

Nobody in the military nor the President or his civilian staff raised concern about the Bibles being burned in Afghanistan.

In other words, they should all FIRE themselves coz nobody is going to fix the mess in Afghanistan.

They are all INCAPABLE.

***

What Harry Truman did to McArthur was a BIG mistake. The mistake would be paid by people of the world a few years from now.

Posted by: spidermean2 | June 23, 2010 12:52 AM

Opium poppies continue to grow in Afghanistan. This is an IDIOTIC WAR.

Posted by: spidermean2 | June 23, 2010 12:59 AM

When US troops would rather kill themselves than serve under Obama in Afgansitan , the General has to tell the nincapoop that his war, his way, is over.

Mistreatment of the miltary sounds like Hitler supporters doesn't it?

Posted by: dottydo | June 23, 2010 1:36 AM

Obama should get down on his knees and thank the General for being willing to serve his band of incompetent goons for this long.

Posted by: shukov | June 23, 2010 2:01 AM

In most instantces the President should not pay attention to polls when making decisions but this is one instance where he should.

If he backs down and lets tis guy get away with the comments he made then he will lose respect not only in this country but throughout the world.

Posted by: WESHS49 | June 23, 2010 5:12 AM

Send him to train at Fort Bragg. And then replace him and his staff.

Posted by: piemcj | June 23, 2010 7:10 AM

After reading the comments posted here, the ones calling our President names are like 5-year-old children and are an embarrassment to Americans everywhere.

I'd like to apologize to anyone who is not an American reading these comments! Those that disrespect our President with such vitriol do not represent us all - only the ill-educated ones who are gullible enough to believe the Limbaughs and Becks (entertainers who make tens of millions to stir up anger and controversy). We desperately need a better public education system in this country!

Posted by: fjamidon | June 23, 2010 8:00 AM

The General's FUBAR should cost him his job. McCarther thought he could bad mouth Truman, this General is no McCarther.

Posted by: johnturkal1 | June 23, 2010 8:29 AM

President Obama should dump General McChrystal and dump Afghanistan. Afghanistan bankrupted the Soviet Union and Afghanistan will bankrupt the United States. Instead, the United States should join arms with Israel to protect ourselves from Iran. Iran represents a true risk to the United States and the Middle East. Afghanistan doesn't, never has, and probably never will.

Posted by: bloommarko4 | June 23, 2010 9:10 AM

Not only firing, but as everyone else I want to see this ugly guy to face UCMJ for his action against those high ranking officials. Our military justice have zero tollerance against such action and he doesn't deserve any of those ribbons he is wearing and that rank.

Posted by: tesf29 | June 23, 2010 9:14 AM

McChrystal violated the Uniform Code of Conduct and needs to be court-martialled and not given a pass by being fired.

McChrystal is clearly not fit to command and should face trial. He is a disgrace to the uniform he wears. I think justice deserves nothing less than him being busted down to private McChrystal and less than honourably discharged.

Posted by: skramsv | June 23, 2010 9:46 AM

McChrystal could and should have resigned rather than let his views come out as they did. However, his analysis of the Obama administration should wake up the American people to the fact that their president is not up to the job. 2012 cannot come soon enough.

Posted by: pgpollak1 | June 23, 2010 9:48 AM

MacArthur? McChrystal?

McGenerals, apparently.

Posted by: markiejoe | June 23, 2010 9:50 AM

"If Bush was still in charge, all you lefties would be calling McChrystal a brave truth-telling whisteblower. Hell, you'd want to give him the Medal of Honor." No, I'd have wanted him to resign and THEN blast the Bush administration.

Posted by: newageblues | June 23, 2010 10:01 AM

Yes, McChrystal should be fired. Barack Obama is the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces and will be respected as such.

Posted by: biograph19851 | June 23, 2010 10:15 AM

The proper solution, which will satisfy exactly nobody [including me] is to keep a severely chastened General McChrystal on, subject to a Court Martial [note spelling] for severe violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Depending out the outcome of the Court Martial, either replace the General or keep him on, permanently reined in.

Posted by: thrh | June 23, 2010 10:15 AM

McChrystal has been given tens of thousands of soldiers and whatever material he has requested. With all he has at his command he is still losing the war. On top of that comes this crap. Cashier the buffoon and let him go to work for Blackwater and see how much they like insubordination.

Posted by: ThomasFiore | June 23, 2010 10:19 AM

Who are the approximate 30% of respondents who believe he shouldn't be fired?

Easy. The avid viewers of Fox and the steady listeners to Limbaugh and Savage. All of the above live in an alterante universe where idealogy and fielty to neo conservatism trumps any degree of common sense or any appreciation for the concept of civilian control over our military.

Posted by: bobfbell | June 23, 2010 10:21 AM

Civilian control of the military is a bedrock principle of government in the United States. Ad hominem comments such as those of General McChrystal and his senior staff contribute nothing to intelligent, reasoned discussion, but do undermine that principle. Whether particular comments are made by the General or his staff, it is clear that the command climate was such as to encourage and accept such comments, thus teaching all involved the wrong lessons regarding subordination of the military to civilian authority. The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) is quite specific in this case:

ART. 88. CONTEMPT TOWARD OFFICIALS

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.

If there is to be responsibility, then the UCMJ must be applied in this case. The general should not just be fired, but he and his staff should be court-martialed in accordance with the UCMJ.

None within the United States should be above the law.

Posted by: Delphi1 | June 23, 2010 10:33 AM

The general took an oath as a military officer to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. That document identifies the elected President of the United States as the commander-in-chief. This incident is not just about a gaffe or insubordination or broader issues of civil-military relations or civilian control of the US armed forces. This is a Constitutional issue and represents a violation of General McChrystal's sworn oath. He broke his solemn word and grossly failed his responsibilities as a military commander. He must go.

Posted by: Jimbojay | June 23, 2010 10:37 AM

FIRE THEM.

Sounds like McChrystal and his senior staff have latched on to the lies and smears of Limbaugh, Beck, and the like.

Thier words are total disrespect for the Commander in Chief and the civilian staff that was elected by the people! They have insulted the US public.

Fire them, no retirement pay, no rank.

And the sooner the better

Posted by: JJH1 | June 23, 2010 10:41 AM

FIRE his insubordinate a-- NOW!
'Nuff said.

Posted by: mybandy | June 23, 2010 10:51 AM

Bush was loved by the military.

Obama has dickered around on the golf course, partying it up, leaving the oil spill without a leader, the war without a leader, our domestic issues without a leader, and our border security without a leader...

General McChrystal is the one who has been fighting this war and he is the one who deserves our loyalty as a patriot - for standing behind our military.

Obama acts like a petulant teenager and pretending to be president. It's as if Obama thought that the job was simply candy and lollipops.

Posted by: joesmithdefend | June 23, 2010 10:55 AM

Put a letter of reprimand in the general's service record but let him continue to lead in Afghanistan. And fire his staff who anonymously made derogatory comments about civilian officials to Rolling Stone magazine. No military can run that way and they must never become senior commanders. That will send the appropriate message.

Posted by: sr31 | June 23, 2010 10:55 AM

Fire them all and let the GAYS take over the military.

Opium poppies keep on growing in Afghanistan but the Bibles get burned.

This is becoming an IDIOTIC war run by idiots.

Posted by: spidermean2 | June 23, 2010 10:56 AM

Simple yes answer. The general has violated the UCMJ. End of story.

It is entertaining, however, to read the fact free bile here from right wingers who revile the president so much that they think an insubordinate military is wholly appropriate.

Posted by: CardFan | June 23, 2010 10:57 AM

Read the entire Rolling Stone article before you comment. The General is a Bushie who's primary interest appears to be to continue and expand the armed conflict in Afghanistan for as long as possible. His own troops don't even like him. He has neither the knowledge nor the temperament to occupy his present position. Obama should accept his resignation. Now.

Posted by: Catch1 | June 23, 2010 10:59 AM

Bush was loved by the military.
Posted by: joesmithdefend | June 23, 2010 10:55 AM

Uhmmm... sorry Joe Smith but you're WRONG. I have 2 children in the military and they tell me that Bush was nearly universally loathed. You're suffering from wishful thinking.

Posted by: CardFan | June 23, 2010 11:00 AM

God forbid anyone criticize Obama. If Obama can't accept harsh criticism then he should resign. He has no problem dishing it out but can't take it. He spends more time throwing parties with rock stars and actors at the White House (at taxpayers expense) then he does working.

Posted by: Uriel_Flies | June 23, 2010 11:07 AM

Don't fire him for what he said, fire him because he is about as good a general as General Hooker from the Civil War.

And when they nickname prostitutes after you, than you did a **** job.

Posted by: alex35332 | June 23, 2010 11:09 AM

I think McChrystal is a great general but a stupid soldier. He knows his comments will cause his dismissal and I am sure he went to the meeting with his resignation in hand.
It is too bad but it is inevitable.
The war will go on - no man is indispensable!!

Posted by: thornegp2626 | June 23, 2010 11:10 AM

It is pretty interesting to see the results of this poll. 27% so far think he did the right thing and shouldn't be fired.

Ironically GWB had a 27% approval rate the day he left office. Good to see the hard core 27 percenters "all dems are bad, republicans can do no wrong"" folks are still here.

Posted by: Nosh1 | June 23, 2010 11:12 AM

It is not obvious what good firing McChrystal will do. What Obama should do is put him under adult supervision with a clear message that his job is hanging by a very thin thread. Any more public comments by him or his stuff will be cause for instant dismissal. McChrystal is carrying on a military strategy that was approved by the White House so he is not guilty of disobeying orders, just of having a big mouth
and disrespect. If the president feels that somebody else is better qualified to carry on the fight in Afghanistan then by all means he should replace him, otherwise he will be just shooting himself in the foot. There is a precedent,
during WWII Patton was guilty of a number of offenses that would have led to the dismissal of a less capable general. However, it was recognized by Roosevelt and Eisenhower that he was a very capable fighter and it was beneficial to the war effort to keep him on.

Posted by: serban1 | June 23, 2010 11:15 AM

He has already resigned, maybe a few days ago. The Rolling Stone piece was a plant by the government to cover for Obama's bungling. If he had intended to comment on the President, he would have done so in a legitimate manner, not in a dopers newspaper.

Posted by: ldsunwind | June 23, 2010 11:16 AM

JEEZZZ! Even the rank and file amongst the Klan knows better than this. When's the last time you heard mid level leaders of the KKK openly criticize the Grand Wizard? This was dumb and unprofessional. If he had a problem he should have asked for a session with the leadership or the Prez, not whine like a bunch of Tea babies!

Posted by: minco_007 | June 23, 2010 11:16 AM

He shouldn't be allowed to resign -- Mr. Obama should bust his arrogant ass to Major and THEN fire him.

Posted by: jhmlucas | June 23, 2010 11:20 AM

If President Obama wants to be Commander In Chief, he has to have the following of his generals. If the generals can't respect his command, they should be dismissed--war or not. After-all, The "general" knows the drill.

Posted by: janecolby | June 23, 2010 11:22 AM

He should be reassigned to Detroit. That will teach him a lesson!

Posted by: keepwastingmoney | June 23, 2010 11:28 AM

No he shouldn't be fired for telling the truth. If the administration would back our troops this wouldn't be an issue. You can only ask for help so much before things start going sour. This administration is a bunch of numbskulls. If they can't handle the heat then they need to get out of the kitchen.

Posted by: confusedwithgovernment | June 23, 2010 11:28 AM

I think McChrystal is a master in making things happen his way. He wants to be fired this way and at the same time wants to prove an important point - to announce the stupidity of Obama and his staff.

He might be a brilliant man like McArthur.

Posted by: spidermean2 | June 23, 2010 11:30 AM

No he shouldn't be fired for telling the truth. If the administration would back our troops this wouldn't be an issue. You can only ask for help so much before things start going sour. This administration is a bunch of numbskulls. If they can't handle the heat then they need to get out of the kitchen.

Posted by: confusedwithgovernment | June 23, 2010 11:31 AM

McChrystal knew what he was doing. He couldn't possibly be so stupid as to not know the trouble he was making for himself and President Obama. If he has so much to say, he should be a man and say it directly to President Obama. Fire him!

Posted by: shejoy | June 23, 2010 11:35 AM

More press, about press.

Non-story.

Take anyone out of their element and they usually fumble. Soldier off the battlefield, fish out of water, doctor in a lawyer's office, athlete or artist in an accountant's office, etc.,

Few milieu demand more contrary skills than military and mass media/marketing.

Force on the battlefield and finesse with words and ideas in the media, are wholly different mindsets.

The surprising error was that the General didn't recognize the change in terrain, that his toungue was trained in mountain warfare, and he had stepped into a swap.

Reminds me of Jon Stewart at the Oscars. Consistently brilliant, insightful, and funny, night after night on The Daily Show, on the Hollywood super star stage, he floundered and was un-characteristically un-funny.

Who knew, change of milieu, could be so unforgiving?

Posted by: nduh | June 23, 2010 11:37 AM

McCrystal told no truth. It's so representative of the republicans to define vile name calling as the truth. McCrystal is guilty of cowardly, school-yard behavior and can not be trusted to lead our country's troops.

He has committed grievous crimes and should be forced to pay the ultimate price. He has embarrassed our country.

Posted by: m1kem1lls | June 23, 2010 11:42 AM

It doesn't matter what you might think of the President or McChrystal. The fact of the matter is Obama is Commander in Chief and the military, especially the high officers must not criticize or openly show disrespect for anyone in the administration.
If a subordinate of McChrystal said what he did that person would be court marshaled--no questions. An egregious act of very poor judgement.
Fired? yes!

Posted by: angelofil | June 23, 2010 11:47 AM

He should be put on KP for the rest of his career.

Posted by: msmart2u | June 23, 2010 11:51 AM

After reading of these articles, you can tell that the ones with negative comments must have not been in the military before. The President is the "Commander-in-Chief" and General McChrystal works for him and UCMJ action should be brought again General McChrystal. This was not a civilian infraction, this was military infraction and I think a lot of people are missing this serious point. And to the slam the office of the President, his Vice President and his administration was just plain stupid. History has a tendency of repeating itself if you look back when President Truman was in office and he had General MacArthur.

Posted by: ARMYSFC | June 23, 2010 11:51 AM

McCrystal should go. He broke cardinal rules both as a soldier and a representative of our country. He also lost his effectiveness because of the irresponsible article. He certainly is not indispensable. We are in real trouble if we think he can't be replaced.

Posted by: voiceofreason24 | June 23, 2010 11:51 AM

For all the posters who see this as a freedom of speech issue: do you think for a second that GEN McChrystal would tolerate such "freedom of speech" from his subordinates? As a boss, would you understand and support employees who publicly criticize you and your policies? OK, I thought not.

Posted by: veejay24 | June 23, 2010 11:51 AM

HUBRIS plain and simple on the Genral's part to think that he can say anything he wantsto anyone and not suffer the consequences. Anyone who thinks that he is so indispensible that he can't be replaced, becomes useless and dangerous to his country.

Posted by: eaglet | June 23, 2010 11:54 AM


I'm sure McChrystal is probably wondering to himself right now:
"What does a guy have to do to get fired around here?"

Military Commanders don't make derrogatory remarks about the President AND the Vice President with the expectancy that they're going to keep their jobs afterwards.

McChrystal -- You're fired.


Posted by: lindalovejones | June 23, 2010 12:06 PM

should the general be fired, not sure, is he being a scapgoat for the true person that SHOULD be fired, President obama

Posted by: ursofakingdumb1 | June 23, 2010 12:07 PM

McChrystal should have been fired years ago when he participated in the Tillman cover-up. His ego far exceeds his ability to lead in an effective manner. In fact, this seeming grandiosity, self-righteousness and disdain for chain-of-command authority might be symptomatic of a deeper psychological disorder or possibly substance abuse. Maybe it's battle fatigue. Whatever the reason, McChrystal should be relieved of command for the sake of the lives of others.

Posted by: joy2 | June 23, 2010 12:12 PM

I am pisst of to the height of pisttivity. Stop it just stop it. You all know that Bush would have fired him in a jack second. Is the color of a persons skin that important to you that you cannot follow your commader and chief. He could have talked behind closed dorrs. Why show the international people how we treat our commander in chief. Bush did a lot of awful things also but the color of his skin did not make you dis him so again I see that color is an issue for a lot of people. Please lord forgive them cause they know what they do. Sad America Sad.

Posted by: beeps24 | June 23, 2010 12:17 PM

The General's staff only expressed what many of us think, this White House is incompetent in military operations. I have served in our military and understand the chain of command. It was poor judgment to even talk to this reporter but not a reason to remove this combat Gen. from his command. Maybe Obama and his stooges (I mean staff) should lead our troops into a fire fight. How many of them would follow him? I would not, would you? Of course that is not going to happen. it's a sad day when the civilian leadership of our military has no respect from the troops.

Posted by: LDW1933 | June 23, 2010 12:25 PM

Remove him from command. Spare him court martial, but fire the little martinet. And get our troops out of that awful little country.

Posted by: Noacoler | June 23, 2010 12:26 PM

As a US Marine veteran, the conduct of McCrystal and his fellow officers was completely unacceptable. Under no circumstances should he have permitted such a toxic environment in his chain of command. In order to maintain sound leadership for all troops under his command, vocal political expressions should always excluded. They have no place on the battlefield. The mission is more important. Allowing this toxic atmosphere and permitting a journalist to record it for public consumption reflects very poor judgment to say the least.

As a political scholar I have researched the policies in Afghanistan myself. The military and political policies in that nation are without question linked and depend on each other. Future military commanders must realize this and put their missions first and allow US and other foreign diplomats do their job.

In summary, he cross the line and has lost credibility. I see no problem for him to remain as a mission adviser, but he can no longer command and hold the respect of both the troops and the public.

Troops know this. The day they entered boot camp they know who their Commander in Chief is: The President of the United States of America. Anyone who attempts to usurp or ignore that authority has lost touch with reality.

End of story.

Posted by: ringlingj | June 23, 2010 12:32 PM

President Obama should bring forth his inner Lincoln and retain the general. Yet, where is General Grant. We need him! But it is clear Afghanistan poses extreme difficulties -- to which there is no military solution.

Posted by: scottaiken35 | June 23, 2010 12:33 PM

That the General and the command staff is dismissive of the political amateurs trying to run a war is nothing new. A reading of George Washington's notes and letters shows it quite clearly. Douglas McArthur being another notable example. The reason that he should and probably will be fired is the incredible stupidity of doing so in the presence of an outside reporter.

Even the densest middle manager in the private sector knows you don't show public contempt for corporate officers. That paradigm is even stronger in the military.

Contempt for Biden, the Dan Quayle of our generation, understandable, but public expression by a military officer is still inappropriate.

Posted by: rwashbu | June 23, 2010 12:33 PM

I cannot believe it!! The president is even dithering over this decision! God help us!

Posted by: wheeljc | June 23, 2010 12:34 PM

It really is simple: if McChrystal is saying he had a lapse in judgement, so we really want someone with that kind of spin in charge of a war? Seriously? "I'm sorry Afghan village. My decision to bomb was a lapse in judgement." No one who makes these kinds of judgement lapses should be running a war.

Posted by: gburgmd | June 23, 2010 12:38 PM

This is the US domestic business, since i am a Chinese. But i don't think that The Gen. should be fired. He is a great General and a great soldier, as i have seen in the interview of CBS'S 60 minuter, i feel strongly what a great man the General is.
It would be quite a pity if the Gen. is fired by the White House.
Good luck, Gen.

Posted by: tonygxchen | June 23, 2010 12:40 PM

It doesn't matter if what he said is true based on his feelings or your feelings or whatnot. What matters is that he said it in public with a member of the "press" present.
That is unconscionable. It is insubordination. There is no freedom of speech in the military. There is no freedom of speech at work.
I happen to agree, somewhat, with what him and his team were quoted as stating, BUT I also believe that he should step down or be reassigned and maybe lose a star over this.

When you are in his position, you are to respect the President, whomever that person may be. You don't openly question your superiors, you just don't. If you ever served then you would know that and know that he deserves whatever happens to him next.

Posted by: Krazijoe | June 23, 2010 12:44 PM

I'm probably one who would take his side and not Obama's, but the principle is that the general works for the President and not the other way around. Presidents work policy, Generals fight battles. The general has his say of course, but it's not his place to argue in public. You can still like the guy but may be necessary to fire him to enforce thid concept of constitutional clarity.

Posted by: jhtlag1 | June 23, 2010 12:47 PM

kimberlybrown is apparently as stupid as she accuses the public of being. Nobody takes our freedoms for granted - neither you nor any member of the tea party nation hold exclusive rights to that knowledge. But what you apparently do not understand is that "this general" simply and clearly crossed the line, ignoring military law that he should have learned at West Point.

Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice is explicit: “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.”

Further proof of your ignorance lies in your final sentence: "The man who sits in the Presidents seat is doing everything he can to take that away from US." The President is doing no such thing. Pry yourself away from those tools at Faux News who want you to believe that the President is evil and try to learn more about the real world around you.

Posted by: borntorun45 | June 23, 2010 12:56 PM

If Obama is such an outstanding Commander in Chief why did he adopt the Afghanistan adventure as his War so readily?

As one noted when the Big O was talking over his next move with his advisor Rahm E. whether to "win in Afghanistan" i.e. sharply escalate the U.S. commitment of men, materiel, and money or simply declare the situation a disaster from start to finish with a very adverse cost/benefits calculus, unless the U.S. military had a means to defeat the IEDs supplied by Iran etc. don't escalate.

Obviously, there was no solution then and none in sight now. No, generals and presidents egos asserted themselves with visions of victory beyond all their predecessors since Alexander.

The upshot, a bleeding, weakened Uncle Sam who looks more the fool the longer this thing continues.

Stop this Damn War now. We have nation rebuilding at home Pres. O. but apparently this has escaped your notice. Where's the beef hell, Americans ask where are the jobs you and Biden promised on taking your oaths of office?

P.S. Those here who compare this little brouhaha with Truman's experience with McArthur who was also determined to win the Korean UN Police action and so saw no problem with inciting the Chicoms entry into Korea when he deliberately ordered UN forces (aka GIs) to the Yalu River. This was directly contrary to White House orders.

Was MacArthur worried about a land war in Asia with China? Not a bit of it. He proposed to just nuke 'em into oblivion. And this sort of continuing feud and behavior with Mr. Truman had been going on for years.

In contrast, in the present case reporters from Rolling Stone likely ordered drinks for the house a few times and after the troops were in a relaxed mood expressed their real thoughts about this nonsense.

McChrystal is simply without answers and so as always in such case commanders ascribe the problem not to strategy so much as lack of support from home--especially the pantywaist pols.

In sum, obviously those who read/know history are also just as likely to be doomed to repeat it as those who failed to read history.

Posted by: AmericanInterestsFirstandLast | June 23, 2010 1:12 PM

If McChrystal is so effective in the Afghanistan war he should be left there all by himself to fight that war. That is a ridiculous proposition: fire the loud mouth ass and replace with someone who has common sense and try to replicate what ever his success were in Afghanistan.

Posted by: ere591 | June 23, 2010 1:14 PM

He violated the UMCJ - he needs to go. Worse, he tolerated and encouraged an atmosphere of disrespect and insubordination among his chain of command. We are not a banana republic, in spite of the best efforts of Bush/Cheney to make it so.

We shouldn't have to wait for Obama to fire him - he should have tendered his resignation immediately. The end.

Posted by: lcrider1 | June 23, 2010 1:17 PM

Whether he is right or wrong, he is wrong. You do not slap the face of 'he who signs the pay cheque'. Mr Obama, and his administration, cannot be made to appear weak, and the only alternative is to dismiss McChrystal and repair any wounds the man has left behind.

Posted by: blainebeaubien | June 23, 2010 1:26 PM

An open-ended war without a defensible front. Military strategies hampered by political agendas. Disagreement between top military and administration officials that may put the field soldier at risk.

I'm getting that 1968 feeling back in the pit of my stomach.

Posted by: FutureView2010 | June 23, 2010 1:31 PM

Well an inspiration. In view of the bulk of comments, all here seem to agree that it is a cardinal sin to question one's superior whether the CinC or squad commander, as an unforgivable crime against the code of conduct, blah, blah and made subject to a court martial and dismiss the service.

Maybe those who want to get the hell out of Afghanistan and Iraq for that matter, should just hire one man or woman and supply a recording device to make a dossier on anyone in the military who dares to engage in any question at all of orders from a superior--who obviously need not be limited to the CinC.

A rule is a rule is a rule and equal justice must be meted out to all. Right? No more bitching by the troops? That will be the day.

Posted by: AmericanInterestsFirstandLast | June 23, 2010 1:40 PM

President Obama needed to set a precedent but this is a great loss to our military. We shouldn't ignore the message McChrystal is sending. There is a reason that an intelligent, strategic man went to Rolling Stone knowing the risk. I don't believe in disrespecting our country leadership and his superiors, but McChrystal was willing to take the hit for a reason

Posted by: Jamie621 | June 23, 2010 1:48 PM

On second thought if we really want to end the war, let's reintroduce the draft and impose, for openers, a 15 percent surcharge on income taxes each year.

Americans apparently are great for wars where they are for the most part not terribly discomforted and able to show support for our troops with decals and flags and yellow ribbons and such.

Hell, we are not even able to defend our own borders from an invasion while our State Guardsmen are fighting and dying for some totally thankless task in a veritable hellhole.

At least no more of these cowardly supplementals launched by Bush and also adopted by Obama to obscure the budgetary cost of these adventures from the American people.

But nevermind--just reintroduce the draft (the fattest of chances) and watch our vaunted citizen support vanish like dew with the morning sun. Not me. Not my boy.

In the meantime, forty or fifty something Guardsmen are serving their fourth or fifth tours in these sandfly, disease, IED infested "theaters" apparently picked because one in particular was picked as the least hospitable and amenable situated land for U.S. intervention in the world.

Go figure.

Posted by: AmericanInterestsFirstandLast | June 23, 2010 1:55 PM

I LOVE kimberlybrown's comment.

If the civilians took their idiotic heads out of Obama, they would realize that the ONLY reason why they can be unequivocably stupid is because of people like McChrystal who risk their lives every day for their ungrateful souls.

As for Obama, Forest Gump said it best - "stupid is as stupid does".

Perhaps a few more civilians should take a trip out there and see what's it's really like for the men and women who fight to preserve our freedoms. Then perhaps they would understand why B.O taking 9 months to augment the troops is NOT a display of military leadership.

Posted by: calla_ash | June 23, 2010 2:56 PM

This is what happens when people at war have a detached feeling about the Bible. After the U.S Army burned the Bibles in Afghanistan, Im sure a worse case scenario is yet to come.

All those who have had a hand in deciding the burning of the Bible in Afghanistan should be named so America will know whom to avoid when decisions concerning the war is needed.

Im interested if McChrystal, Petraeus, Gates or Obama was part of that chain of command or not.

The worse is yet to come.

Posted by: spidermean2 | June 23, 2010 7:10 PM

Where the Bible is not permitted to be read, stupidity reigns supreme.

If the U.S military is part of any effort restricting Bible distribution, the best strategy to win this war is to GO HOME!

Let the place self-destruct otherwise you'll blow away with it.

Posted by: spidermean2 | June 23, 2010 7:24 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company