Obama Relieves McChrystal of Command

[SB Shock]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/06/23/general.mcchrystal.obama.apology/index.html?hpt=T2

McChrystal downfall was he was a warrior and not a politician (and not having control of his aides). But lets face it - what McChrystal crew said is pretty much what anybody in the military is thinking. Truth hurts sometimes (but there is better ways of going public than rolling stone magazine).

Though I think McChrystal made a fundamental mistake in tightening ROE and limited air power.

I did find this statement by Obama ironic - debate is welcome but not division. Funny how that didn't apply when he was just a senator.

I've just told my national security team that now is the time for all of us to come together. Doing so is not an option, but an obligation. I welcome debate among my team, but I won't tolerate division. All of us have personal interests; all of us have opinions. Our politics often fuels conflict, but we have to renew our sense of common purpose and meet our responsibilities to one another, and to our troops who are in harm's way, and to our country.

The selecting of Petraeus will make the pinko-communists in this country a little uncomfortable.

[WuDrWu]

I know I look for everything bad in the President, but it seems narcissistic (as usual) for him to make a big public statement about this action......I would think this would mostly happen behind closed doors, BUT


"Nobody be dissin' the Prez or I'll kick your ass in my media".


Our country continues on its path of weakness, imho. A great military General was fired today for something that had little to do with the military.


Yes it was a mistake, no doubt about that. I am a little bit curious why he was talking at all to a rolling stoned reporter. Any chance he was set up or even told to meet with this pothead?

[ABC]

McChrystal actually said very little in the entire article.

This is no way near the McArthur-Truman situation.

Oh well.

Obama continues to stub his toe.

I don't wish ill on the President of the U.S., but he continues to make mistake after mistake and his party is going to pay an enourmous price for it in November.

[ISASO]

You know King Obama would love to fire everyone who says anything bad about him, the most thin-skinned President in U.S. History.

Debate but no Division? Translated, it means that you can have your opinion and your say but in the end you have to adopt his opinion and never say anything bad about him or he will unleash some Chicago-style pain on you.

O, how He would love to shut up Fox News and every one of us who doesn't cow to His Omniscient Power.

This Presidency is relentlessly providing the fodder for another Orwell novel.

Man, I hope the Ministry of Truth doesn't read this and fire me as an American Citizen.

[BOBB]

The military serve under civilian command. Not the other way around, like say Turkey or Pakistan. Regardless of politics the Presdident had no choice but to fire McChrystal. Say what you will about the man's politics-no matter how uninformed-but this was a no-brainer all the way.

[Maggie]

This was hard decision. While I think President Obama could have refused to accept McChrystal’s resignation – as others have pointed out McChrystal, himself, did not disparage the President or the President’s policies, in fact, McChrystal was faithfully excuting those policies (there is no evidence to suggest otherwise). This move would not have made President Obama look weak as some have suggested - ABC is correct that this is not a McArthur-Truman situation.

That said the more I thought about it, I have no problem with the decision President Obama made and the Petraeus move was obviously a mitigating factor. Obama’s speech (if you take the time to read it – was one of his best to date), despite the customarily excessive use of “I,” “me,” and “my,” was workmanlike and wise in its emphasis on continuity of strategy. (Side note: but sacking McChrystal and reassigning Petraeus merely controls damage. If President Obama wants to use this opportunity to actually enhance our Afghanistan policy, he will also replace Holbrooke and Eikenberry. Those two clowns have made a mess of things over there).

In any event, the more I read the Rolling Stone hit piece, the more disturbed I became. There is much talk to the effect that it was only McChrystal’s staff, and not the general himself, who said things to a reporter that were insubordinate (even though the staff comments reflect very poorly on McChrystal himself). But McChrystal is reported as deprecating the vice and he apparently described to subordinates a meeting with his commander-in-chief in a way that reduces Obama to a fool. Does anyone really think that if some major gave the same sort of interview about the McChrystal, and such an officer’s subordinates told the press the same sorts of things McChrystal would have tolerated it? That major would be redeployed to Alaska.

And there are other “issues”: McChrystal’s derision of a dinner with a French diplomat, the entire notion of letting off steam to a leftwing reporter in Paris during a war, even the revelation of whom McChrystal voted for (i.e., Obama – it was inappropriate to disclose to a reporter his past voting record). Once you digest all the ramifications of this, I think you will see this is not a partisan issue, but one of judgment and deference for the chain of command.

I think conservatives are making a big mistake citing all sorts of legitimate reasons for McChrystal to have expressed frustration. Look I agree with almost all of them, but they are not the issue, which remains judgment, the chain of command, civilian/military relations, and the very wisdom of palling around Paris with a loose-cannon reporter.

President Obama made a solid decision – I just hope he takes the time to reflect on the entire situation and re-thinks some of his policy (i.e. the arbitrary withdrawal deadline, Holbrooke, Eikenberry, etc.).

[SB Shock]

The military serve under civilian command. Not the other way around, like say Turkey or Pakistan.

So was McChrystal wanting to change that? I keep hearing this talking point thrown around, but I don't believe there was ever any action from McChrystal where he disobeyed or didn't carry out the Presidents orders to the fullest extent.

BTW, both those countries (at least today) the military are under civilian control.

Regardless of politics the Presdident had no choice but to fire McChrystal. Say what you will about the man's politics-no matter how uninformed-but this was a no-brainer all the way.

It probably shouldn't have stopped there - there are some other that need to go also

[pogo]

This was hard decision. While I think President Obama could have refused to accept McChrystal’s resignation – as others have pointed out McChrystal, himself, did not disparage the President or the President’s policies, in fact, McChrystal was faithfully excuting those policies (there is no evidence to suggest otherwise). This move would not have made President Obama look weak as some have suggested - ABC is correct that this is not a McArthur-Truman situation.

That said the more I thought about it, I have no problem with the decision President Obama made and the Petraeus move was obviously a mitigating factor. Obama’s speech (if you take the time to read it – was one of his best to date), despite the customarily excessive use of “I,” “me,” and “my,” was workmanlike and wise in its emphasis on continuity of strategy. (Side note: but sacking McChrystal and reassigning Petraeus merely controls damage. If President Obama wants to use this opportunity to actually enhance our Afghanistan policy, he will also replace Holbrooke and Eikenberry. Those two clowns have made a mess of things over there).

In any event, the more I read the Rolling Stone hit piece, the more disturbed I became. There is much talk to the effect that it was only McChrystal’s staff, and not the general himself, who said things to a reporter that were insubordinate (even though the staff comments reflect very poorly on McChrystal himself). But McChrystal is reported as deprecating the vice and he apparently described to subordinates a meeting with his commander-in-chief in a way that reduces Obama to a fool. Does anyone really think that if some major gave the same sort of interview about the McChrystal, and such an officer’s subordinates told the press the same sorts of things McChrystal would have tolerated it? That major would be redeployed to Alaska.

And there are other “issues”: McChrystal’s derision of a dinner with a French diplomat, the entire notion of letting off steam to a leftwing reporter in Paris during a war, even the revelation of whom McChrystal voted for (i.e., Obama – it was inappropriate to disclose to a reporter his past voting record). Once you digest all the ramifications of this, I think you will see this is not a partisan issue, but one of judgment and deference for the chain of command.

I think conservatives are making a big mistake citing all sorts of legitimate reasons for McChrystal to have expressed frustration. Look I agree with almost all of them, but they are not the issue, which remains judgment, the chain of command, civilian/military relations, and the very wisdom of palling around Paris with a loose-cannon reporter.

President Obama made a solid decision – I just hope he takes the time to reflect on the entire situation and re-thinks some of his policy (i.e. the arbitrary withdrawal deadline, Holbrooke, Eikenberry, etc.).

As always thoughtful and concise. Thank you.