Gen McChrystal's relief

Status
Not open for further replies.
Oh, and as an aside, this applies in the civilian world, too.

You wanna bad-mouth your boss? Fine. Do it wisely or pay the freight.
 
Actually, I would bet my paycheck that he and I don't lean strongly in different directions. What you quoted him saying, is what he "Had" to say. He knows that he can't tell officers to NEVER discuss such topics in private or informally. That has NEVER been the military's position. The rules are written vague enough to sound decisive, but the position is, and has always been, "Don't let anything you say, bring discredit upon the military or the United States of America". In simple terms: Know when to shut the ph....k up. But that can't be written that way. I doubt very much that Mullen and I disagree. And if I was sitting with him right now, with a beer, and not in front of a reporter, he would smile and say: "You know exactly what it means". Which, "WE DO". You're the one so wrapped up in the "Letter of the Law" that you don't understand the "Spirit of the Law".

Did you expect Mullen to respond differently? I can see the answer now:

"Yes, General McChrystal was wrong because he allowed a reporter hear him express his displeasure with the president's administration. He should have realized that what he said there might be reported, and he should refrained from making such comments until he was in a proper setting".

Yea, I can see that happening. So tell me; did you expect Mullen to say something differently than what he did? Now, jump back to reality for a second. Because Mullen said that officers shouldn't say derogatory comments, even in private and informal settings, do you think he's going to install cameras and microphones in the O-club or base housing. Just to make sure no one makes comments IN PRIVATE or in INFORMAL SETTINGS??? So why make a statement that you know perfectly well can not, under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, be enforced; let alone should it? Why???? Because it was the "Politically Correct" thing to say.

No, General Mullen and I do not see things differently. I'll bet my paycheck on it. I'm just free to say "WHAT REALLY IS" and Mullen has to say things "POLITICIANS WANT TO HEAR".

Fair enough. With your assumptions. I guess your on the same page as Mullen, privately. The message remains then: COVER YOUR ASS. No different from the rest of the non-military world.

"Which, "WE DO". You're the one so wrapped up in the "Letter of the Law" that you don't understand the "Spirit of the Law"."
If you are directing this comment at me, can you elaborate?
 
About to the day forty six years ago, Midshipman Mullen memorized the follwoing. He has been living it ever since. I seriously doubt if his statement about the McChrystal incident was simply Politically Correctness.


The Laws of the Navy
.....................................................
Take heed what you say of your seniors,
Be your words spoken softly or plain,
Let a bird of the air tell the matter,
And so shall ye hear it again.

.................................................

................................................

So it is with the words of the rulers,
And the orders these words shall convey;
Every law is naught beside this one:
Thou shalt not criticise, but Obey.

.................................................

This thread is getting so absurd that I vote to lock it.
 
Last edited:
Oh, and as an aside, this applies in the civilian world, too.

You wanna bad-mouth your boss? Fine. Do it wisely or pay the freight.

Absolutely it does. It's a lesson that is applicable pretty much everywhere (other than maybe professional sports where the star calls the shots and the coach dances). Discretion is generally a key component of success (or atleast a harmonious existence if not success) in every field.
 
Discretion- that is the word I was looking for earlier.....it must be that VMI education :rolleyes: :thumb:

Broken clock. :thumb:

Yes, "discretion" is the best word to describe it.

And tpg, I agree that Mullen was sending a thinly-veiled reminder. We can debate on whether he NEEDED to send it, but a reminder it was.

Heck, I bet he was relieved it was an Army puke rather than one of his squids! :yllol:
 
:worship:
Bottom line- We have a job to do. I will not let anything, especially something as petty as a political conversation, get in the way of us performing that job. I do not care what their opinion or beliefs are. They can discuss them with their wives, family or close friends all they want. But leave it there. DO NOT BRING IT to work.

Some may think this is nothing more than a case of CYA. It is not. It is about maintaining unity in the face of stupidity. If you’re stupid enough to ruin my department’s unity, then I do not want you.

Finally, a winner! :worship:
 
Actually, I don't think it's absurd where this thread has gone. I think it's a very important discussion. Especially for any possible cadets lurking. (Notice, it's only us old-farts making posts).

Anyway, now that the proper word "Discretion" has been recognized, it's important that we understand that is the true meaning of opening your mouth; no matter WHAT the topic is.

If you think that you should NEVER be able to discuss politics, chain of command, vent disagreement, etc... with your peers in private and/or informal settings, then you are naive. That can't happen, won't happen, and is unrealistic.

Not one person here has advocated these types of conversations "AT WORK", so I don't know why some here keep bringing that up as an example. No one here disagrees on that, so why talk about it. We is at question is discretion; especially in the personal, private, and informal settings. And it all boils down to that appropriate word: "Discretion". If you aren't discreet, and you make your comments known to the unintended audience, and those comments affect mission effectiveness, moral, unit cohesiveness, etc... then you should expect the ramifications of such things.

Fortunately, the overwhelming percentage of military members, officer and enlisted, do know how to discretely carry on such conversations. They know when to keep their mouths shut. And that is all that matters in this discussion. To say that individuals shouldn't discuss ever, at all, never, etc... is unrealistic and naive. We tell our troops not to drink and drive, and to not use drugs. However, there are some people that won't follow those standards. That's the reality. But expressing our opinions is exponentially more difficult to control. Human nature is to think for oneself. That doesn't mean that we don't follow orders. of course we do. But we follow orders because we CHOOSE TO. Not because we are forced to. And as long as we are able to think, we are going to express those thoughts from time to time. You can not, under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, stop such behavior. So, you force people to become responsible. Allow them to determine if they want to open their mouths, and in what venue. Let them use discretion. And that is what the rules clearly state.
 
About to the day forty six years ago, Midshipman Mullen memorized the follwoing. He has been living it ever since. I seriously doubt if his statement about the McChrystal incident was simply Politically Correctness.




.................................................

This thread is getting so absurd that I vote to lock it.

I'm a zoomie and I have Admiral Hopwood's poem on my computer and in my home office.

It is SO accurate...and proves to me at least that the SERVICE...really hasn't changed that much.

For those who don't know the poem...it's by Admiral Ronald Hopwood, RN (as in the Royal Navy). He wrote it sometime in the mid/late 1890s while a lieutenant.

It's SOUND WISDOM.

Steve
USAFA ALO
USAFA '83
 
Christcorp said:
Actually, I don't think it's absurd where this thread has gone.

Okay, this is what you said Adm Mullen should have said:
Christcorp said:
"Yes, General McChrystal was wrong because he allowed a reporter hear him express his displeasure with the president's administration. He should have realized that what he said there might be reported, and he should refrained from making such comments until he was in a proper setting".
Do you realize what you are saying here? It's proper but we have to hide it? The 'right' thing to do is something we have to cover up? Trying to explain that would have surely placed the Admiral in an impossible situation. In my entire life I have never been in a situation where hiding the right thing was the proper thing to do. Seaman Jones, if he accidentially overhears, is really going to be confused.

Christcorp said:
Fortunately, the overwhelming percentage of military members, officer and enlisted, do know how to discretely carry on such conversations. They know when to keep their mouths shut.
Again, if it is the proper thing to do, why be discreet. Situational ethics? What is proper in one setting is improper in another? I don't think so. Again, it would be a first.

Christcorp said:
And that is all that matters in this discussion. To say that individuals shouldn't discuss ever, at all, never, etc... is unrealistic and naive. That doesn't mean that we don't follow orders. of course we do. But we follow orders because we CHOOSE TO. Not because we are forced to. And as long as we are able to think, we are going to express those thoughts from time to time. You can not, under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, stop such behavior.
Christcorp, in your career as an enlisted person, you may not have realizeded that an officer responded to a higher calling. There is a 'code' of proper behavior. The fear of being caught does not play into proper behavior and actions but doing it because it is the right thing to do, it is what is expected.

Christcorp said:
Not one person here has advocated these types of conversations "AT WORK", so I don't know why some here keep bringing that up as an example.
First off, this is the setting under which General McChrystal was observed. Another, again a situation which you as an enlisted may not have been familiar with, is the "mandatory" social life of an officer. With this in mind, define 'work'. I would say that it is anytime one looks across the room or table and say the only reason I am in the same place as that particular individual is becasue I am forced to be, is work. Basically 24/7 with anyone in one's organization.
 
Last edited:
Christcorp, in your career as an enlisted person, you may not have realizeded that an officer responded to a higher calling. There is a 'code' of proper behavior

Please expand upon that thought. Are you saying that enlisted personnel are not answering a higher call? I would think the Tillman family would take great offense to that statement, the same for any enlisted soldier family who has sacrificed their life in defense of this country.

Are you also saying there are 2 different codes of proper behavior? One for enlisted and one for officers? I would think the code of proper behavior that any military member adheres to is more based on their values and morals than it is about where their rank is located on their uniform.

The fear of being caught does not play into proper behavior and actions but doing it because it is the right thing to do, it is what is expected.

Silly me I thought that is what was expected of every military member, I didn't realize that enlisted personnel had different motives for their proper behavior. I believe we all agree that this site should teach our future military members, military life. That comment, IMHO, just said to the cadets, enlisted personnel are below officers when it comes to values and morals, thus they are not of the same caliber as officers. I truly hope that you never meant to imply this. As I have stated many times before this is an internet forum and we can easily read into another posters post that was never meant to be implied, but when mis-communication occurs we need to give them the chance to rectify their position.

The military can never be successful without common respect for every rank.

I think it is unrealistic to believe that officers don't discuss their displeasures with the military or the hierarchy. I can't tell you how many times I have heard people beeaach about their commanders in private. We tend to forget that the longer you stay in the military, the more you form lifelong friendships. In the AF, the communities are small. The Strike has 3 bases that you rotate in and out of, enter as an O-2 and you will spend your career with these people. They are your AF brethren, but they are also the ones that you go to the movies with, have Thanksgiving with, and celebrate birthdays with. They are not just your "military" colleague, they are your family. It is not uncommon to talk about work, and that includes what is ticking you off. So to say that they are hiding it to discuss at the proper time, could also mean that you do it in private with your friends. This is not the CIA or Black ops. They are not discussing classified information, they are just friends discussing it in personal surroundings. C'mon let's be real, when Clinton was caught, everyone was discussing his sex life and they did it in the squadron out in the open. Under your theory, nobody should have said BOO! Now if 60 Minutes approached any military member, they all would have followed the proper line and say, "he is my commander in chief, I will follow any order he gives me", end of subject, period, dot. That is the difference, reality is the proper thing McCrystal should have done is kept his personal opinions to himself and his social circle.

If you say that as an AD member you never had forged a lifelong personal friendship with somebody in your squadron, than I feel sorry for you. To this day, 22 yrs after arriving at our 1st station, we are still in contact with people that we met. They are our friends, and we see each other whenever time or availability allows. And yes, we talk about the military, we talk about this administration. We talk about everything. If you agree that you forged these types of friendship, then you have to agree there is a proper time to talk openly and an improper time. To me that was what CC was implying.
 
Last edited:
Mongo, do you even READ what people write, or do you simply skim and PRETEND you know what they've said. I haven't said anything on some of your past comments, but I will no longer debate you until you at least quote me accurately when you disagree. I'll start you off with what I "REALLY SAID". Once you've gone back and actually given people the respect of reading what they said, and not what you wanted to interpret it, then I'll reply with due respect in responding.

If you read my retort with makeithappen, he had mentioned the admiral's public quote. I mentioned that the admiral had to say such a thing. That it was the politically correct statement. And then, where you misquoted me, I mentioned that it was unlikely that the admiral would publicly say the truth. The full quote you TRIED to hold me to, if you read the sentence PRIOR to it, was:

Did you expect Mullen to respond differently? I can see the answer now:

"Yes, General McChrystal was wrong because he allowed a reporter hear him express his displeasure with the president's administration. He should have realized that what he said there might be reported, and he should refrained from making such comments until he was in a proper setting".

In other words, there was no way the general was going to say such a thing. As such, the comments he DID MAKE, were the politically correct comments.

But if you want to continue a discussion, or even a debate, get your facts straight. There are certain posters that I've discussed topics with here that are terrible at this. They continually quote back what they WANT TO HEAR and not what was said. Matter of fact, when I first read this post you made, I swore it was that person doing the posting. You don't want to go there.

I'm out of here. Too old for this childish crap. You've got your opinion, and you can keep it. You can believe I am wrong, all you want. I know for a FACT that I'm not wrong. This isn't a matter of opinion. This is a matter of you wanting to be politically correct, and me being realistic. Both scenarios exist. You can write all the things that you think SHOULD be the way things are, and I'll write the things that ARE the way they are. Yea, I'm done with this baby stuff. Enjoy your day.
 
I think it is unrealistic to believe that officers don't discuss their displeasures with the military or the hierarchy. I can't tell you how many times I have heard people beeaach about their commanders in private. We tend to forget that the longer you stay in the military, the more you form lifelong friendships. In the AF, the communities are small.

In the Navy they can be even smaller. We also have the additional issue that members are thrown together in close quarters for MONTHS at a stretch. Conversations and comments that would be considered "innapropriate" by the letter of the law happen all the time and always will.

However, they MUST (and with good reason) be tempered with discretion (hat tip to Bruno) and with the understanding that under NO conditions can ANY of it be allowed to affect THE MISSION (hat tip to TPG). If either of those two conditions fail (and in my opinion, if one fails, then BOTH have), then it's GAME OVER.

That's been my point from the start and, I believe, CC's. If I've done a lousy job of explaining it, then the fault lies entirely with me.
 
I agree it must be done with discretion, and with the full understanding that it can cause disruption within the command. My point was and is, many of your squadron mates are also your friends in a social setting. I also agree for the Navy you are constantly in more constrained atmospheres than in the AF. We need to understand that logistics of how each branch works is unique to that branch. In the AF when they are TDY, traditionally O-3 and below will room with one other person, they have more flexibility regarding their freedom. An O-4 and above traditionally does not share a room, thus, they can socialize with their inner circle more easily. Additionally, Friday night is about hanging out at the squadron hooch, this is where you will see the social circles occur. It is not uncommon for the DO to be in his office drinking Jack with a few selected members, the bachelors playing 4,5,6 at the bar, the married guys having their one beer and heading home, etc. They all know their circle where they can speak openly about their opinions. They are also smart enough to realize certain topics should never be broached in the squadron.

For example, when we lived in AK, we had a group we camped with every weekend, and the crap would fly fast and furious. However, the squadron would do one camping weekend for the Salmon Derby and because you were now in a social setting that you did not traditionally partake in, you kept the topics to how the fish were running, and have any of you seen my kid?

My very best friend in the world (15 yrs+) is married to Bullet's crew mate from AK. We moved to SJ and this crew mates best man at his wedding was Bullet's CC. Trust me, we went silent on our opinion of him as a commander...discretion. Both of us understood that was waters we should not go in. You don't have to be an officer to understand discretion, enlisted personnel get it too. There is no higher calling as it has been inferred, the only call you need to get is common sense.
 
Last edited:
Mongo, do you even READ what people write, or do you simply skim and PRETEND you know what they've said. I haven't said anything on some of your past comments, but I will no longer debate you until you at least quote me accurately when you disagree..
Actually I do read your posts. Several times usually because the first few times makes no sense and subsequent readings most often offer little more, if any, insight. Also, not sure how I could be accused of misquoting when I simply cut and paste.

The statement to which you question my interpretation seems to support the remainder of your post that if you and Admiral Mullen were together having a beer that he would support your position and tell us that he said what he actually did, just to be politically correct. If I am correct in my assumptions here, this has got to be one of the must absurd arguments I have ever heard. How can you possibly have a clue what his personal beliefs are?
 
Riddle me this... how do you know they are not Admiral Mullen's beliefs?

CC gave his personal hypothesis of how a conversation might go down regarding this scenario. Now you are saying, he has no knowledge of what is going on in Mullen's brain, but you do! Can you give personal proof that you know what Mullen was thinking? Aren't you doing the exact same thing by hypothesizing he would never think what CC has posted?

Tell me how you have a possible clue either? Only Mullen and his inner circle knows what he thinks about the situation. Just because you may believe he would never say that to anyone, does not make another poster's post absurd. To say that it was absurd argument, but then state that you know that Mullen never thought this in his head is not a strong defense.

You and CC have polar opposite opinions, but if you look up the definition of opinion, you will see it defined as:
An opinion is a subjective statement or thought about an issue or topic, and is the result of emotion or interpretation of facts. An opinion may be supported by an argument, although people may draw opposing opinions from the same set of facts. ..

Both should be respected.
 
I am saying that more is expected of an officer.

Pray tell and inform every one how the bar is set lower for the enlisted! Silly me I expected more from an officer than what you just posted.

That has to be the saddest statement you could ever say to anyone who dreams of serving our country.

MY BS flag is up:bsflagsmileyface::bsflagsmileyface:

We all know you were a brown shoe, your DS is a brown shoe, you are a BGO, and you sit here and say more is expected from an officer!:thumbdown::sadwavey::sign_baaa::screwy: :tongue:

I would expect more from an officer who relied on the enlisted to get his helo and Spad ready for a mission. I would expect more from an officer who relied on the enlisted in Life Support to prep his gear.

Shame on you. For our future officers, I hope you never take the opinion that Mongo has just given. You are no better than an enlisted member, and your mission could never be completed without the enlisted. The military is a team effort, never forget that!
 
Last edited:
Now you are saying, he has no knowledge of what is going on in Mullen's brain, but you do! Can you give personal proof that you know what Mullen was thinking? Aren't you doing the exact same thing by hypothesizing he would never think what CC has posted?

No, I am simply taking what the Admiral said at face value, CC is making up his own scenario, libeling the Admiral, to fit his agenda. I have absolutely no information with which to dispute his statement and neither does CC.

Admiral Mullen has been in uniform for 46 years. In my opinion, he deserves my respect to take him at face value. Maybe not yours and obviously not CCs.
 
Where is the libel?

Notice what he placed in bold
Did you expect Mullen to respond differently? I can see the answer now:

He simply stated what did you expect Mullen to say, and gave a hypothetical sarcastic response. He did not say Mullen said it, he did not pretend that he heard Mullen say it, he simply said what did you expect him to say? Please show me where and when he said MULLEN said that, he didn't. He said "DID YOU EXPECT MULLEN TO RESPOND DIFFERENTLY".

Actually if you wanted to accuse libel or slander, it is you who did it by stating in your post that he libeled Mullen. You have told more than 100 people that CC created a lie about Mullen, and that he slandered his reputation. Thus, you slandered CC's name by saying he was spreading lies about Mullen, when all he was doing was creating a hypothetical situation. For all you know CC's boss could fire him because when he googled him, he would see negative posts by you stating that he was libeling Admiral Mullen. BE CAREFUL, VERY CAREFUL on using such strong terms as libel.

You have inferred more to CC's post than he intended. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to get that Mullen would have never said CC's post in public.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top