Aa
US general in Afghan war at risk of losing his job
28 mins ago
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama rebuked his Afghanistan war commander for "poor judgment" Tuesday and considered whether to fire him in the most extraordinary airing of military-civilian tensions since Harry Truman stripped Gen. Douglas MacArthur of his command a half century ago.
The White House summoned Gen. Stanley McChrystal to Washington to explain disparaging comments about his commander in chief and Obama's top aides. The meeting set for Wednesday was a last-ditch moment for the general once considered the war's brightest hope.
If not insubordination, the remarks in a forthcoming Rolling Stone magazine article were at least an indirect challenge to civilian management of the war in Washington by its top military commander.
"I think it's clear that the article in which he and his team appeared showed a poor — showed poor judgment," the president said, surrounded by members of his Cabinet at the close of their meeting. "But I also want to make sure that I talk to him directly before I make any final decisions."
A senior U.S. military official in Afghanistan told The Associated Press the general has been given no indication that he'll be fired — but no assurance he won't be. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to describe internal discussions between Washington and the general's office in Kabul.
The eruption comes as the war and public support for it are at a tipping point, a perilous time to change military leadership. A majority of Americans now say the war is probably not worth fighting, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said that public dissatisfaction means the U.S.-led international coalition must show progress this year.
A crucial military push to pacify the Taliban heartland in southern Afghanistan is going more slowly that McChrystal had planned, and showing fewer solid results. Marines in Helmand Province are in near-daily firefights, months after a push there was supposed to clear out the bulk of Taliban fighters.
McChrystal has spent the past several weeks arguing that the U.S.-led military effort is gaining momentum against the Taliban, while Gates argued for time to show that McChrystal's many changes in strategy and tactics can succeed.
As support for the general drained in Washington, the showdown was set to take place in two parts — as part of Obama's regular monthly war meeting, in which McChrystal usually participates by videoconference, and a separate discussion with Obama in the Oval Office.
Several names circulated among Pentagon and Capitol Hill aides as potential successors. Military officials, speaking on condition of anonymity ahead of the White House meeting, said the administration has not reached out to possible successors, but might do so on Wednesday.
"We all serve at the pleasure of the president," said Gen. James Mattis, one of those mentioned. "I have a pretty full plate here," in his current job as Joint Forces Command chief, Mattis told AP.
Other names include Lt. Gen. John Allen, the No. 2 at U.S. Central Command; Lt. Gen. David Rodriguez, McChrystal's No. 2 in Afghanistan; Gen. Martin Dempsey, commander of the Army Training and Doctrine Command; and Adm. James Stavridis, the top NATO commander in Europe.
Wisconsin Democrat Rep. David Obey, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, called for McChrystal to resign. Sen. John McCain, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee that approved McChrystal for the job, was among three prominent Republican senators to criticize the general and say a decision about his future should rest with Obama.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said: "I couldn't believe Gen. McChrystal, being the good soldier I think he is, at least in this article not being a very good soldier."
McChrystal publicly apologized Tuesday for using "poor judgment" in the magazine interviews. He then left Afghanistan for the meeting in Washington.
There has been no similar public contretemps between a president and a top wartime commander since Truman relieved MacArthur of his Far East command in 1951. MacArthur bid farewell in an address to Congress in which he quoted a line from a ballad: "Old soldiers never die; they just fade away."
McChrystal will also meet separately with Gates, who issued a stern scolding to McChrystal on Tuesday that contains no endorsement for him to remain in his job. Gates hand-picked McChrystal to take over the war last year, calling him a driven visionary with the guts and smarts to turn the war around. Obama fired the previous commander at Gates' recommendation.
Military leaders rarely challenge their commander in chief publicly and when they do, consequences tend to be more severe than a scolding.
In the article, McChrystal did not criticize Obama directly but called the period last fall when Obama was deciding whether to approve more troops "painful" and said the president was handing him an "unsellable" position.
McChrystal also said he was "betrayed" by Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, the man the White House chose to be his diplomatic partner in Afghanistan. He accused Eikenberry of raising doubts about the reliability of Afghan President Hamid Karzai only to give himself cover in case the U.S. effort failed.
And he was quoted joking that he doesn't recognize Vice President Joe Biden's name.
McChrystal has a history of drawing criticism, despite his military achievements.
Obama called him on the carpet last fall for speaking too bluntly about his desire for more troops.
___
Associated Press writers Julie Pace, Pauline Jelinek, Kimberly Dozier, Laurie Kellman, Matthew Lee and Anne Flaherty contributed to this story from Washington. Deb Riechmann contributed from Kabul.
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama rebuked his Afghanistan war commander for "poor judgment" Tuesday and considered whether to fire him in the most extraordinary airing of military-civilian tensions since Harry Truman stripped Gen. Douglas MacArthur of his command a half century ago.
The White House summoned Gen. Stanley McChrystal to Washington to explain disparaging comments about his commander in chief and Obama's top aides. The meeting set for Wednesday was a last-ditch moment for the general once considered the war's brightest hope.
If not insubordination, the remarks in a forthcoming Rolling Stone magazine article were at least an indirect challenge to civilian management of the war in Washington by its top military commander.
"I think it's clear that the article in which he and his team appeared showed a poor — showed poor judgment," the president said, surrounded by members of his Cabinet at the close of their meeting. "But I also want to make sure that I talk to him directly before I make any final decisions."
A senior U.S. military official in Afghanistan told The Associated Press the general has been given no indication that he'll be fired — but no assurance he won't be. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to describe internal discussions between Washington and the general's office in Kabul.
The eruption comes as the war and public support for it are at a tipping point, a perilous time to change military leadership. A majority of Americans now say the war is probably not worth fighting, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said that public dissatisfaction means the U.S.-led international coalition must show progress this year.
A crucial military push to pacify the Taliban heartland in southern Afghanistan is going more slowly that McChrystal had planned, and showing fewer solid results. Marines in Helmand Province are in near-daily firefights, months after a push there was supposed to clear out the bulk of Taliban fighters.
McChrystal has spent the past several weeks arguing that the U.S.-led military effort is gaining momentum against the Taliban, while Gates argued for time to show that McChrystal's many changes in strategy and tactics can succeed.
As support for the general drained in Washington, the showdown was set to take place in two parts — as part of Obama's regular monthly war meeting, in which McChrystal usually participates by videoconference, and a separate discussion with Obama in the Oval Office.
Several names circulated among Pentagon and Capitol Hill aides as potential successors. Military officials, speaking on condition of anonymity ahead of the White House meeting, said the administration has not reached out to possible successors, but might do so on Wednesday.
"We all serve at the pleasure of the president," said Gen. James Mattis, one of those mentioned. "I have a pretty full plate here," in his current job as Joint Forces Command chief, Mattis told AP.
Other names include Lt. Gen. John Allen, the No. 2 at U.S. Central Command; Lt. Gen. David Rodriguez, McChrystal's No. 2 in Afghanistan; Gen. Martin Dempsey, commander of the Army Training and Doctrine Command; and Adm. James Stavridis, the top NATO commander in Europe.
Wisconsin Democrat Rep. David Obey, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, called for McChrystal to resign. Sen. John McCain, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee that approved McChrystal for the job, was among three prominent Republican senators to criticize the general and say a decision about his future should rest with Obama.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said: "I couldn't believe Gen. McChrystal, being the good soldier I think he is, at least in this article not being a very good soldier."
McChrystal publicly apologized Tuesday for using "poor judgment" in the magazine interviews. He then left Afghanistan for the meeting in Washington.
There has been no similar public contretemps between a president and a top wartime commander since Truman relieved MacArthur of his Far East command in 1951. MacArthur bid farewell in an address to Congress in which he quoted a line from a ballad: "Old soldiers never die; they just fade away."
McChrystal will also meet separately with Gates, who issued a stern scolding to McChrystal on Tuesday that contains no endorsement for him to remain in his job. Gates hand-picked McChrystal to take over the war last year, calling him a driven visionary with the guts and smarts to turn the war around. Obama fired the previous commander at Gates' recommendation.
Military leaders rarely challenge their commander in chief publicly and when they do, consequences tend to be more severe than a scolding.
In the article, McChrystal did not criticize Obama directly but called the period last fall when Obama was deciding whether to approve more troops "painful" and said the president was handing him an "unsellable" position.
McChrystal also said he was "betrayed" by Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, the man the White House chose to be his diplomatic partner in Afghanistan. He accused Eikenberry of raising doubts about the reliability of Afghan President Hamid Karzai only to give himself cover in case the U.S. effort failed.
And he was quoted joking that he doesn't recognize Vice President Joe Biden's name.
McChrystal has a history of drawing criticism, despite his military achievements.
Obama called him on the carpet last fall for speaking too bluntly about his desire for more troops.
___
Associated Press writers Julie Pace, Pauline Jelinek, Kimberly Dozier, Laurie Kellman, Matthew Lee and Anne Flaherty contributed to this story from Washington. Deb Riechmann contributed from Kabul.
But didn't McChrystal request 40,000 troops needed ASAP and 3 months later receive only 30,000? And as the administration considers this to be a "legal problem" and they give notice before searching homes and businesses, I doubt they troops will be allowed to do their jobs as armed forces in the manner in which they were trained.
Oh I agree with you there , no doubt , I also think that the rules of engagent that are so restrictive will be one of the Generals first chats' with OBama and maybe more troops ....
I have nothing against Petreaus. He has a good record. I just don't like the way Obama handled it. An article in Rolling Stone offending his sensibilities gets an immediate and harsh response. The biggest ecological disaster in our history has been going on for more than 2 months and he has little to nothing to help in the cleanup. In fact, many feel he has hindered it.
I wonder what the media would say if George W Bush were president now on how he was handling the Gulf and Gen. McChrystal. Anyone want to touch that one with a ten foot pole????
I wonder what the media would say if George W Bush were president now on how he was handling the Gulf and Gen. McChrystal. Anyone want to touch that one with a ten foot pole????
I like the fact that General Petreaus has taken over, remember the Iraqi Surge ,he pulled it off and it was highly effective ,he was in theatre ,in combat in Iraq the whole time ....
exactly ....watch the other hand....
"Never let a good crisis go to waste" Rahm Emanuel
Weleelllll I can give a good guess but maybe not here right now ....I was discussin this today and no one really knows ...except maybe you want it to last a while .....just my opinion ....
You know what is amazing to me? An article comes out in Rolling Stone magazine. Admittedly, these guys should not have said this to a reporter but they did. It's an issue but certainly not the issue that the Gulf oil spill is. The Gulf spill is the worst ecological disaster we've head. And President Obama is still doing more to get in the way than he is helping the cleanup. It took him forever to even comment on it. 2 months to talk to the president of BP. Still hasn't put a moratorium of the Jones Act. And is in general not doing nearly what needs to be done. Bobby Jindal should be in charge of this. He'd get it cleaned up. But Obama's procrastination has cost the Gulf coast dearly. And he's still just giving it all lip service. Why?????
Good thread guys I agree with all of you this was a shame ,McChrystal didnt say much the aids did. Caregiver you spoke the word' ego there is no doubt about that , I would also like to add the word fear ..I wish McChrystal hadnt alologised so profusely .
Good Point!! That would have been productive. Not divisive. I don't think Obama is real popular among the troops as it is. This ought to clench the deal!
Personally, I think it was a bad political move for Obama.
I will be the first to say, what the General did was wrong. He knows he can’t publicly criticize the Commander in Chief.
Instead of fueling the fire of his non-supporters (including the soldiers) and possibly loosing more support. he passed up an opportunity to turn it into a positive.
He could have had another “Beer Fest” with The General, then put on a “Dog and Pony Show” for the Media, have the General give a lame apology to Obama, and move on.
It would all be forgotten in a few weeks.
I see it as a missed opportunity.
I will be the first to say, what the General did was wrong. He knows he can’t publicly criticize the Commander in Chief.
Instead of fueling the fire of his non-supporters (including the soldiers) and possibly loosing more support. he passed up an opportunity to turn it into a positive.
He could have had another “Beer Fest” with The General, then put on a “Dog and Pony Show” for the Media, have the General give a lame apology to Obama, and move on.
It would all be forgotten in a few weeks.
I see it as a missed opportunity.
A reprimand may have been in order. A written one. However, to fire a very successful general whom the Afghans liked and trusted was a mistake. All it proves is that Obama is very thin skinned. In my opinion, it shows a distinct lack of judgment and leadership. Perhaps he should have examined the comments in a more objective manner and make and attempt to address the criticisms. Unless of course, he cannot take criticism!
caregiver: I thoroughly agree with you about Patton. If Ike hadn't been so darned caught up in keeping Monty happy, the war may have ended much sooner. The great Monty did a fabulous job of Market Garden, didn't he?? Even the Germans couldn't understand why Patton wasn't leading the DDay invasion. He should have. Why in the world did they not figure out what the hedgerows were like?? And why would Ike think Monty could take Caen in 10 days? Oh well. I better shut up now!
caregiver: I thoroughly agree with you about Patton. If Ike hadn't been so darned caught up in keeping Monty happy, the war may have ended much sooner. The great Monty did a fabulous job of Market Garden, didn't he?? Even the Germans couldn't understand why Patton wasn't leading the DDay invasion. He should have. Why in the world did they not figure out what the hedgerows were like?? And why would Ike think Monty could take Caen in 10 days? Oh well. I better shut up now!
Yes, there have been other great men relieved of their posts that still went down in the history books for sure. However, I do believe (could be wrong), that those were based on differences in policy tho. This fellow was dissing the whole team that should be seen as strength and unity. This is simply insubordination at its best and it had to be dealt with. Regardless of the good this general has done. I wonder if the rest of the fellows he was with will go down as well. hmmm, something to keep a look at. I also think patraeus is a good replacement. I understand he agreed to take a demotion to do this and will now be away from his family as well. Just sad all around...
The mark of a competent military commander-in-chief should be one thing.
The success of the mission and the acomplishment of that mission with the fewest casualties.
I read the interview in the Rolling Stone magazine. If nothing else our commander-in-chief should have relieved the individuals who were criticized.
General Patton was similarly relieved, and that too was (in my opinion) a mistake that cost many lives and prolonged victory.
My two cents.
:)
The success of the mission and the acomplishment of that mission with the fewest casualties.
I read the interview in the Rolling Stone magazine. If nothing else our commander-in-chief should have relieved the individuals who were criticized.
General Patton was similarly relieved, and that too was (in my opinion) a mistake that cost many lives and prolonged victory.
My two cents.
:)
I dont think it had anything to do with ego. I really dont. I think this was the only decision that could be made given the circumstances. If someone under this generals authority had done such a thing he would have been fired as well. It has to go across the board. I think this general was not up to handling the press with all he has been thru and my heart goes out to him. I dont think his actions should have been overlooked, especially since there had been other things that were forgiven.
General McChrystal is being relieved.
This decision will undoubtedly result in an additional casualty count. Young soldiers who will come home maimed or dead. McChrystal is someone I admire greatly. He is the right man, in the right place, at the right time.
There was nothing in that interview that would warrant his reassignment. He spoke the truth.
But the ego of the "One" has been bruised. His "feelings" have been hurt.
This is a sad day for the armed forces.
This decision will undoubtedly result in an additional casualty count. Young soldiers who will come home maimed or dead. McChrystal is someone I admire greatly. He is the right man, in the right place, at the right time.
There was nothing in that interview that would warrant his reassignment. He spoke the truth.
But the ego of the "One" has been bruised. His "feelings" have been hurt.
This is a sad day for the armed forces.
The interview showed that McChrystal actually made a couple of remarks. Most notably about the 10 minute photo op. His staff did the rest. But he is responsible for his staff.
Some of our greatest military leader in US history have been controversial. Think of Patton, MacArthur, Grant, Sherman et al. Generals shouldn't have to worry about the politics of the day. They should be allowed to do what they do best. Conduct a war. And McChrystal is very good. It's too bad he's gone.
Some of our greatest military leader in US history have been controversial. Think of Patton, MacArthur, Grant, Sherman et al. Generals shouldn't have to worry about the politics of the day. They should be allowed to do what they do best. Conduct a war. And McChrystal is very good. It's too bad he's gone.
He is out. Petrais is in. I think the correct decision has been made. No one wins here. It is sad for all.
I think he has good reason and I am sure he knows what he is doing we shall all see no doubt...there is a lot more to this story than we know .........I would like the Military to stand up and be counted ...
I was just watching a story on this. Evidently it is his 3rd time of being called on the carpet with this kind of thing. He is on his way to the White House and is prepared to offer a resignation.
I am guessing that Obama will not fire him, altho I think it would be deemed appropriate by any means. Nothin I have heard I am just guessing. If you want a good read go read the article. lol
I am guessing that Obama will not fire him, altho I think it would be deemed appropriate by any means. Nothin I have heard I am just guessing. If you want a good read go read the article. lol
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.
You are reading content posted in the Current Events . . . Group
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
