Switch out in generals: Prudent or no? "Change in personel, but not in policy for Afghanistan"

  • HndsmKansan

    Posts: 16311

    Jun 23, 2010 6:21 PM GMT
    So McChrystal is gone. Was this prudent based on the "Rolling Stone" article in question?

    I think it was.. it was poor judgement by McChrystal to have granted
    such an interview. Lets hope we have better judgement by Petraeus.
    He certainly has a good track record. We'll see.


    From Politico:

    "President Barack Obama announced his choice of Gen. David Petraeus to replace Gen. Stanley McChrystal as the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, saying he made the decision with regret but “with the certainly that it’s the right thing for the mission in Afghanistan, for our military and for our country.” He said he made the decision not out of a sense of “personal insult” over comments by McChrystal and his aides published in Rolling Stone, but said, “The conduct does not meet the standards that should be set by a commanding general.”
  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    Jun 23, 2010 6:48 PM GMT
    this war..conflict..police action,,,whatever the hell you want to call it..is going nowhere because it had no direction or set goal to begin with.

    WHY are American troops STILL loosing thir lives in the sand dunes?







    WHY????





    icon_mad.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 23, 2010 7:01 PM GMT
    I was really let down by the article. I expected something epic. Instead it was a few remarks reported second hand that are critical of a few appointees. I'm not saying he was out of line, but for all the breathless excitement in the media, I expected a lot more.

    The most incendiary part about it was the title.
  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    Jun 23, 2010 7:31 PM GMT
    [quote][cite]southbeach1500 said... maybe McChrystal wanted out... and this was the easiest way.[/quote] if i was the leader of that no-win war; i'd want "out" also! icon_eek.gif
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Jun 24, 2010 8:10 AM GMT
    You can switch.
    You can change.
    But, you can't switch out or change out.

    McChrystal is out because military men are not allowed to criticize their superiors.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 24, 2010 8:37 AM GMT
    The comments made in the article were totally inappropriate, even if they were grounded in some facts. McChrystal and his crew are understandably pissed off about a lot of things - mainly a lack of resources and a severe lack of direction in this war - but that doesn't make it prudent to trash talk your superiors and NATO allies. It's terrible PR which, like it or not, is important and it sets a bad example for subordinates down the line.

    McChrystal has a history of this stuff as well. I think he finally crossed the line here and Obama was right to sack the guy.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 24, 2010 8:54 AM GMT
    Imagine the Outrage by the left if the top commander in Iraq made these comments when Bush was in office. The left would not call for him to be fired like many did with this, they would instead be applauding him and using it as an excuse to leave Iraq.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 24, 2010 9:12 AM GMT

    Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 24, 2010 11:45 AM GMT
    sportsguy933 saidImagine the Outrage by the left if the top commander in Iraq made these comments when Bush was in office. The left would not call for him to be fired like many did with this, they would instead be applauding him and using it as an excuse to leave Iraq.


    LOL. Bush fired anyone who disagreed with the strategy for Iraq or Afghanistan regardless of whether or not they were right.

    This was classic insubordination and the third time that MahCrystal did so.
  • cowboyathlete

    Posts: 1346

    Jun 24, 2010 11:47 AM GMT
    Webster666 saidYou can switch.
    You can change.
    But, you can't switch out or change out.

    McChrystal is out because military men are not allowed to criticize their superiors.
    That is absolutely the case. Right wing nut jobs ignore this fact. My brother, who recently retired as a lieutenant colonel in the Army, would concur.
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Jun 26, 2010 3:48 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidSo why is "Betray Us" suddenly being praised by the Democrats?


    He's a known quantity who will skate through Congressional confirmation.
    Anyone else, the Republicans would have stonewalled his confirmation for as long as possible, for no good reason, other than to stand in the way of anything and everything that our Democratic President wants.
  • mustangd

    Posts: 434

    Jun 26, 2010 2:44 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Webster666 saidHe's a known quantity who will skate through Congressional confirmation.
    Anyone else, the Republicans would have stonewalled his confirmation for as long as possible, for no good reason, other than to stand in the way of anything and everything that our Democratic President wants.

    But why, now that the President is a Democrat, is the good General now acceptable to these same Democrats who labelled him a traitor when our President was a Republican?


    because this war, is now the longest in american history. this war is a bottonmless pit, if it ever had a chance of a successful outcome, it was at the beginning. had we smashed the taliban, AND gotten bin laden at tora bora, built some hospitals and schools, and left, we would've at least achieved some of our goals. but, our former republican president decided we could do afghanistan on the cheap, so we could do iraq as well. this doomed any hope of a short war in afghanistan. now we are faced with the question of what to do, any successes we have are balanced with failures. to leave now, would only invite the return of the taliban guided by bin laden, and prove once again to both the afghan people and the world, that the U.S. is not as powerful or committed to finishing something we were eager to start. so, the current democratic preisdent, as with so many other carryovers from the former republican president, is saddled with a disaster, and the current administration is trying to make the best of it while trying its own strategy, which appears to be killing senior taliban. possibly the plan we should've adopted from the beginning. bush doctrine was kick the hornets' nest and occupy with no plans beyond that. obama doctrine appears to be cut the head of the snake off, while dealing with a war that was already LONG underway. so to answer this question, gen. petraeus is a known commodity, and one who the afghan government is familiar with, as we are in mid-offensive in the kandahar region, he is the logical choice for a change of command in mid-stream.
    while there are other reasons i fault our current president, i feel he is waging this war with more smarts than our former president had. the democratic campaign promise of withdrawal was an empty one, bush had cemented that, and there is the lesson learned. as colin powell quoted, like the pottery barn, if you break it, you bought it.
    bush broke many things, obama has to pay for them, and eventually we will all have to pay for this time in u.s. history. lets not forget who first entered the pottery barn like a bull in a china shop in the first place....