The open disdain and personal ridicule of the President and his advisors by General Stanley McChrystal and his subordinates in the new issue of Rolling Stone leaves only two acceptable options: Either General McChrystal resigns or is fired.
If he has any honor, he'll step down.
I know something about this. In 2006, I worked with two Generals, appearing in national television ads critical of President Bush and his strategy in Iraq. Or, should I say, retired Generals. Major Generals Paul D. Eaton and John Batiste each made the painful decision to leave the military they loved so they could speak out. To that point, they had held their tongues.
Why?
Because the order and efficacy of our Armed Forces falls apart without respect for the chain of command. Whether it's a grunt respecting his company commander, or a General respecting the Commander in Chief, every single thing is predicated on the integrity of the chain of command. As soon as someone -- especially someone as high up as General McChrystal -- violates that respect, every single person under him begins to not only question the orders they've been given from above, but is given the signal that it's OK to openly disagree or mock his or her superior.
And violate that respect General McChystal and his subordinates have. Among other things, the Rolling Stone story reports first-hand that:
Anyone of lower rank would be immediately dismissed if he or she said of their superiors what General McChrystal said, or what he allowed members of his team to say.
This, of course, isn't the first time that the General has been in trouble. Following a very public campaign for his preferred strategy in Afghanistan, which included a 60 Minutes interview that challenged the President, McChrystal landed in some hot water with the President, and was told to cool it. Frankly, McChrystal got off easy.
When General Eric Shinseki testified to Congress about his opinion on the force levels needed to invade Iraq, countering the strategy laid out by President Bush and Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, he was forced into retirement. Shinseki, unlike McChrystal, was asked his opinion, under oath, in front of Congress. There's a difference between that professional conversation, and personal attacks on your superiors. Shinseki didn't lead a public campaign to air his views, either. At any rate, McChrystal was given a second shot, where Shinseki was not.
Whether he continued his insubordination purposely, or stupidly and unintentionally, isn't an issue. The issue, here, is that it happened. Again.
I cannot fault McChrystal for believing in his strategy. That's what you want out of a General - someone who gives the President strong advice, and believes what he says. But what cannot be allowed to stand is when he believes in his strategy more than the command structure and order of the Armed Forces, and his duty to uphold it.
It's clear, now, that General McChrystal is unable or unwilling to work within the chain of command, and set an example for all those who serve under him. That is why I say, if he has any honor, he'll offer up his resignation. And, if he doesn't, the President must fire him.
Follow Jon Soltz on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jonsoltz
So what else should we talk about now.
by the way. I served. Bush deserted.
He is an eagle among turkeys.
You would of course say "NO WAY"! That's how it should be with this Bozo! Reduce his rank to PFC and send him on patrol. Then we will see what he is really made of. I'd bet he resigns rather than fights! I also bet all his pampered 'yes' men do the same. Gutless wonders!
the above makes as much sense as you do. Go kiss Sarah's a$$.
By the way, Sarah thinks you guys are idiots for buying her bull$hit. She laughs at you all the way to the bank.
And it will be over in 2012. No democratic president has been reelected since Roosevelt except Bill Clinton and he reduced spending, balanced the budget and eliminated the welfare program as we knew it.
I don't know if some people think that General McChrystal would allow his subordinates to bad-mouth him or his staff in an open article, but [President] Obama's skin should be paper thin where it comes to something like this.
McChrystal was put into place to do complete a horrible task; lead our countrys' efforts at war. He has done just that, and who else will? Replacing him with a head nodder will not end our conflict.
While it's obvious he needs a refresher course on etiquette and diplomacy, he wasn't sent to Afghanistan to make pretty comments. War isn't pretty. War isn't about appeasing political dissenters. McChrystal's candor can be restrained; the rapport he has established with his troops cannot be underestimated. I trust in President Obam's judgement.
And let that smug reporter make daily updates form the war zone's hot spots. He'll soon learn to disparage his his own circle of admirers instead of our countrys' finest while they represent us doing an incredibly brave and daunting task.
It was unrealistic and coarse to berate the loss of civilian lives as part of his critique. Every single war, each and every conflict has loss of life. McChrystal didn't invent that. He's not asking for that. And his efforts are implemented with the full consent of the White House. To slip in a dig at the general demoralizes the entire rank and file. Their efforts must not be belittled.
You know better, Jon.
Gen Dempsey is the Best!
What's the strategy: Trip up and quiet down? Loose lips sink ships that would drown at dock.
demote and fire him. or demote and give him an office someplace.