Gen McChrystal's relief

[Zaphod]

So, contrary to your above statement, you ARE shoooting the messenger.

You mean the reporter? No. Not this time, anyway.

I have already said in the other thread that the officer(s) in question here were foolish to have allowed their opinions to get into the public arena, and if relieved, they would deserve to be so. This includes McChrystal.

 

[Christcorp]

Oh gosh....here we go with the (Ch) Air Force Alphabet soup dialog....

Huked on fonix werkd fur us!!!

 

[sprog]

Oh gosh....here we go with the (Ch) Air Force Alphabet soup dialog....

In missiles, there is an entire language of acronyms. You can have a whole conversation with a conehead without using English.

 

[Mongo]

I have already said in the other thread that the officer(s) in question here were foolish to have allowed their opinions to get into the public arena, and if relieved, they would deserve to be so. This includes McChrystal.

If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, does it make a noise? To me, and I think also to Adm Mullen, it makes absolutely no difference whether or not the reporter heard the discussion or not, but that the comments were allowed to happen in the first place is the problem. To both you and Christcorp, your sole problem seems to be that the comments were made in front of a reporter.

To me, and again, I think, to Adm Mullen, the atmosphere of the comments themselves precluded effective leadership, not the indiscretion of who happened to overhear.

The reporting thereof was immaterial.

sprog, I think if we went on a search of the entire military to find a working environment that was the most atypical of the entire spectrum, we would chose a missle silo in North Dakota. Heck, after a few months you'all probably start using those homophobic Freudian names for each other like they do at some of the military colleges. More like a home life than a working environment. Definitely no way close to a command center of a war effort, which is the situation here.

 

[sprog]

sprog, I think if we went on a search of the entire military to find a working environment that was the most atypical of the entire spectrum, we would chose a missle silo in North Dakota. Heck, after a few months you'all probably start using those homophobic Freudian names for each other like they do at some of the military colleges. More like a home life than a working environment. Definitely no way close to a command center of a war effort, which is the situation here.

What, in your opinion, is a "typical" military work environment? Seems to me that defining one would be hard...there are five branches and tons of unique duties in all of them.

Also, I'm confused about the "homophobic Freudian names" remark. Which military college are you thinking about?

 

[flieger83]

In missiles, there is an entire language of acronyms. You can have a whole conversation with a conehead without using English.

You mean like the coneheads at RDR that went home one day with a bagful of acronyms?

Documents with printing on them like: TS/SCI, SIOP/ESI/NOFORN/WNINTEL and so on? It made for interesting discussions, er, testimony later on.

Steve
USAFA ALO
USAFA '83
(a bunch of years on SIOP alert in the frozen North)

 

[Christcorp]

I think where the differences in opinions is coming from is that some here are describing the behavior that they interpret as "Suppose" to happen, albeit unrealistic. While others are describing behavior that is "Actually" happening, and more realistic.

You can't just tell your military personnel that they can't discuss politics, religion, sex, discontent, disparaging remarks of the chain of command, etc... That is unrealistic, unenforceable, and totally against human nature. However, you can dictate that such conversations will not happen "On duty" in uniform, or in an environment where such comments could be interpreted as the opinion of the military in general. And this is very enforceable. This is the way I was taught and directed growing up in my military career. And this is where General McChrystal messed up. He allowed such opinions to be recorded "Outside of the Family" and used against the military. And before you ask, and define the parameters further, I'll say that there is nothing wrong if McChrystal had such discussions with his staff or peers. Yes, as a General, he is in a position where his opinions can influence those in his command. It is his responsibility to ensure that any of his personal comments do not have a negative impact on the moral and/or performance of his command. And yes, this is quite doable. However, if the general can't do this, then most definitely he needs to refrain from making any personal comments or opinions.

 

[sprog]

You mean like the coneheads at RDR that went home one day with a bagful of acronyms?

Documents with printing on them like: TS/SCI, SIOP/ESI/NOFORN/WNINTEL and so on? It made for interesting discussions, er, testimony later on.

Steve
USAFA ALO
USAFA '83
(a bunch of years on SIOP alert in the frozen North)

This conehead always handled acronyms like that with extreme care. This conehead did not want to end up making little rocks from bigger ones. I must apologize for the lack of discretion on the part of my conehead brother. There was probably a Star Trek (Next Generation) marathon coming on, and he needed to get back home quickly.

Tater tots will encourage a conehead to behave.

 

[flieger83]

This conehead always handled acronyms like that with extreme care. This conehead did not want to end up making little rocks from bigger ones. I must apologize for the lack of discretion on the part of my conehead brother. There was probably a Star Trek (Next Generation) marathon coming on, and he needed to get back home quickly.

Tater tots will encourage a conehead to behave.

VERY good!

Correct time frame!

Steve
USAFA ALO
USAFA '83

 

[Zaphod]

I think where the differences in opinions is coming from is that some here are describing the behavior that they interpret as "Suppose" to happen, albeit unrealistic. While others are describing behavior that is "Actually" happening, and more realistic.

You can't just tell your military personnel that they can't discuss politics, religion, sex, discontent, disparaging remarks of the chain of command, etc... That is unrealistic, unenforceable, and totally against human nature. However, you can dictate that such conversations will not happen "On duty" in uniform, or in an environment where such comments could be interpreted as the opinion of the military in general. And this is very enforceable. This is the way I was taught and directed growing up in my military career. And this is where General McChrystal messed up. He allowed such opinions to be recorded "Outside of the Family" and used against the military. And before you ask, and define the parameters further, I'll say that there is nothing wrong if McChrystal had such discussions with his staff or peers. Yes, as a General, he is in a position where his opinions can influence those in his command. It is his responsibility to ensure that any of his personal comments do not have a negative impact on the moral and/or performance of his command. And yes, this is quite doable. However, if the general can't do this, then most definitely he needs to refrain from making any personal comments or opinions.

What he said, except for one thing...

If anyone has a conversation like this with a junior member of the organization, then you're asking for trouble. After all, if the CO is badmouthing the President in front of Seaman Jones, then Seaman Jones can hardly be held accountable for badmouthing the Captain, right?

There is a time, place, and decorum for just about anything.

 

[Christcorp]

What he said, except for one thing...

If anyone has a conversation like this with a junior member of the organization, then you're asking for trouble. After all, if the CO is badmouthing the President in front of Seaman Jones, then Seaman Jones can hardly be held accountable for badmouthing the Captain, right?

There is a time, place, and decorum for just about anything.

What he said. +1

But I'd like to add, being we're on a roll here. In a conversation of 2 or more, it pretty difficult to not have someone who is junior in rank among those in the conversation. As such, I've always believed in the "PEER GROUP". It's pretty much been an unofficial norm of "Social Circles". And having these conversations in your "Social Circle" is generally acceptable. Up and down in rank. E.g. 0-1 through 0-3 floating a few 0-4's is considered a social circle of peers. 0-4 through 0-6 is another. 0-7 through 0-10 another. E1-E4 is another. E5-E7 another. E8-E9 another. None of this is official, just an accepted norm. Of course much of this is determined by who is in the conversation. You don't just walk into the club and have these conversations with people you don't know. Also, there are some people in your "Circle" that you know just don't like certain topics of conversation. Then there's those, especially living on the civilian economy, where neighbors in a duplex might be an E-5 and an 0-4. They will tend to have some sort of relation. "And yes, there are plenty of relationships that don't cross the fraternization line". But Zaphod, I agree totally with your premise.

 

[Mongo]

If anyone has a conversation like this with a junior member of the organization, then you're asking for trouble. After all, if the CO is badmouthing the President in front of Seaman Jones, then Seaman Jones can hardly be held accountable for badmouthing the Captain, right?

I would say offhand that Seaman Jones has as much right to badmouth the Captain as the Captain has to badmouth the President. The Captain sets the example for everyone. Actually, he should expect to be badmouthed. He has set a precedence.

 

[Christcorp]

I would say offhand that Seaman Jones has as much right to badmouth the Captain as the Captain has to badmouth the President. The Captain sets the example for everyone. Actually, he should expect to be badmouthed. He has set a precedence.

ummmmmm. That is 100% EXACTLY what Zaphod said. Are you agree with Zaphod, or did he say something you disagree with. You are not making yourself clear.

 

[Zaphod]

I would say offhand that Seaman Jones has as much right to badmouth the Captain as the Captain has to badmouth the President. The Captain sets the example for everyone. Actually, he should expect to be badmouthed. He has set a precedence.

I agree, based on the Captain's example.

However, if Captain Smith bad-mouths the President to a fellow CO while both are sitting in the CO's stateroom, and no one else hears them, when Seaman Jones runs his mouth, he doesn't have a leg to stand on.

As with so many things, it's not a matter of WHAT so much as HOW. It is completely unreasonable to expect that military personnel turn off their emotions and intellect when it comes to politics. Hell, using that kind of thinking one could justify taking away their vote while in uniform! However, it is HOW they express those views that matters. I would also add WHERE.

Regardless, however, if any comment is made that impacts the maintenance of good order and discipline, then the hammer HAS to fall, and hard.

 

[Zaphod]

What he said. +1

But I'd like to add, being we're on a roll here. In a conversation of 2 or more, it pretty difficult to not have someone who is junior in rank among those in the conversation. As such, I've always believed in the "PEER GROUP". It's pretty much been an unofficial norm of "Social Circles". And having these conversations in your "Social Circle" is generally acceptable. Up and down in rank. E.g. 0-1 through 0-3 floating a few 0-4's is considered a social circle of peers. 0-4 through 0-6 is another. 0-7 through 0-10 another. E1-E4 is another. E5-E7 another. E8-E9 another. None of this is official, just an accepted norm. Of course much of this is determined by who is in the conversation. You don't just walk into the club and have these conversations with people you don't know. Also, there are some people in your "Circle" that you know just don't like certain topics of conversation. Then there's those, especially living on the civilian economy, where neighbors in a duplex might be an E-5 and an 0-4. They will tend to have some sort of relation. "And yes, there are plenty of relationships that don't cross the fraternization line". But Zaphod, I agree totally with your premise.

You are right.

For example, Ensigns and LTJG's may not be the same rank, but they may as well be. Even LT's on their first tour fall into that group known as "Junior Officers". Department Heads are another group. CO's and XO's form another grouping, and so on.

 

[Mongo]

But I'd like to add, being we're on a roll here. In a conversation of 2 or more, it pretty difficult to not have someone who is junior in rank among those in the conversation. As such, I've always believed in the "PEER GROUP". It's pretty much been an unofficial norm of "Social Circles". And having these conversations in your "Social Circle" is generally acceptable. Up and down in rank. E.g. 0-1 through 0-3 floating a few 0-4's is considered a social circle of peers. 0-4 through 0-6 is another. 0-7 through 0-10 another. E1-E4 is another. E5-E7 another. E8-E9 another. None of this is official, just an accepted norm. Of course much of this is determined by who is in the conversation. You don't just walk into the club and have these conversations with people you don't know. Also, there are some people in your "Circle" that you know just don't like certain topics of conversation. Then there's those, especially living on the civilian economy, where neighbors in a duplex might be an E-5 and an 0-4. They will tend to have some sort of relation. "And yes, there are plenty of relationships that don't cross the fraternization line". But Zaphod, I agree totally with your premise.

Perhaps this is true in social situations with individuals from outside your command but for individuals of the same organization there is a hierarchy based on job assignments. It would be totally improper for an O-4 Dept Head to complain about the skipper to a more junior O-4 from within his department while it would be perfectly proper for the same junior O-4 to voice concerns to his senior shipmate. Since Dept Heads carry more responsibility, the above scenario would apply between Dept Heads and junior officers of the same rank in another department. The XO im many units is often of the same rank as the Dept Heads. While it is perfectly proper for the dept heads to voice concerns about the skipper (read *****), it is totally out of line for the XO to do the same with the Dept Heads. This situation would apply 24/7 in any social or 'job' situation.

The exact same analogy may be made with General McChrystal and his staff, hence the term "the loneliness of command". It is not proper for him to complain about his superiors to anyone on his staff.

 

[Christcorp]

Mongo; I believe we are in agreement. In my post I made it clear that my "Examples" of "Social Circles" were not in any way "Official" rules. Also, I clearly mentioned "Peer Groups". Department heads, irrelevant of rank, are part of a "Peer Group". The XO is not part of that peer group. My point was that in peer groups and social circles, rank isn't important. A certain peer group or social circle can and usually are made up of a rank ladder within 1 or 2 pay grades of each other. Again, this is not some "Official" written rule or regulation. It's basic sociology 101. And no matter what the official rules are, these "Groups" do and will exist. There is nothing you can do about that, nor should you. This is basic human interaction. It is similar in corporate America, Our School system, e.g. 10th graders don't normally hang out with 7th graders, etc... And the discussions that go on within these groups are normal and very healthy for the organizations. MOST TIMES, *****ing and complaining is simply venting and blowing off steam. Even if it's about their superiors. And after talking (venting) within the group, new and different perspectives are realized and to some extent adopted.

Yes, my first degree was in Behavioral Science (Psychology). I find human science to be very interesting. Especially "groups". But all of this revolves back to the original point that General McChrystal "Spoke outside of his Peer group and social circle". Granted, as a 4 star general, your peer group is smaller, your social circle is smaller, and those in your chain of command that you must be considerate of being impressionable indeed is larger. But this indeed was the general's mistake. "In my opinion, his ONLY mistake". Now some conspiracy theorists might believe that at his rank, he knew "EXACTLY" what he was doing. And as such, maybe his comments and who he said them in front of, was intentional. I definitely can't give an opinion on this either way. But I could definitely see how that could be a possibility. Especially from someone who has expressed concern in the past that he believed the civilian and political portion directly affecting the military portion, needs to be more involved and proactive. But that's a different topic.

Anyway, glad to see that basically we agree. There are many times that people will say similar things, but use different vocabularies and analogies. On a forum, it is difficult to always ensure our exact meaning is conveyed, and that things aren't being read into them. "Hence my reason for being long winded". Anyway, glad to see we are basically on the same page.

 

[Pima]

Newest update...McCrystal is retiring...no shocker there! I am curious to which Fortune 500 company he will now join, or if he is going to write a book and do the 30K speech tour.

 

[MakeItHappen]

But all of this revolves back to the original point that General McChrystal "Spoke outside of his Peer group and social circle". Granted, as a 4 star general, your peer group is smaller, your social circle is smaller, and those in your chain of command that you must be considerate of being impressionable indeed is larger. But this indeed was the general's mistake. "In my opinion, his ONLY mistake".

Very interesting points of view by all on this thread.

Mullen also has a point of view:

Adm. Mullen said he had never before heard McChrystal or his staff members disparage the White House, as they did Vice President Joe Biden, National Security Advisor James Jones and others in the magazine. He added that such dissent from the military threatens the civilian military oversight on which the American military structure was built.

Military officers, Mullen said, ought not criticize the presidents they serve even when they don’t believe their comments will go public.

“We must assure that we are adhering to that in every way — publicly, privately, formally, informally ... even in private discussions,” "(emphasis added) he said.

Christcorp,

How do you reconcile your position with that of Mullen's?

For me the bottom line is that one should be prepared to take the heat if you broach those topics (politics, religion, sex). I have not found it a hinderance to advancement or getting the job done by steering clear. I'm sure we all can point to personal examples of implosion by the other path taken.

 

[flieger83]

I'm not sure why anyone would have to reconcile themselves with Admiral Mullen's position.

It is HIS position. Not mine, not yours, not anyone else's, just his.

Now...it's possible that my position might be different and that's fine. I also know the potential/possible ramifications if I'm not smart about what I do with any position I have.

I have 27 years as an officer, I think I know "right from wrong" and "smart from stupid" in most situations. The actions of several VERY senior officers during my career...makes me think that they're normal folks: sometimes they just forget themselves.

And then...you face the music. If you can't accept that, then you should really be VERY careful what you do/say.

I'm not "bashful" about my beliefs and/or opinions. I daresay the people I work with are pretty certain where I stand on issues. HOWEVER I make it very clear: there are subjects I simply will not become involved in/with because IMHO they intrude upon my professional position as an officer.

Politics being the biggest one! In that regard, I pride myself on being much like Walter Cronkite and General Colin Powell were: very hard to pin down before they became private citizens. FYI...Cronkite never endorsed, etc., anyone until he stepped down from TV news, hence my "became private citizens" comment.

I think that's the best way for a military professional to handle themselves. BUT, then again, that's MY opinion.

Steve
USAFA ALO
USAFA '83