McChrystal: Bigger force a must for Afghan war

Bush also used the chain of command..GENERAL PETRAEUS. Petraeus said SURGE, Bush ordered it. McCrystal said SURGE and he received silence.

Gates worked for both Bush and Obama and he is now coming out against Obama saying the Afghanistan elections are not an issue regarding our military strategy.

Sometimes leaders fall on their sword, if McCrystal retires it is because he can no longer support the leadership in their direction. It has nothing to do with patriotism, everything to do with honor. For him if he elects to call it a day he is patriotic, he is saying I can't or won't lower my principles or beliefs, and it is best for the nation and our soldiers to have a new military leader who is in lock step with the administration.
 
Pima... +1 Well said.

McChrystal has been following his leaders. He's been doing exactly what he's been ordered to do. And he never mentioned a word to the press, until he was ignored and not spoken to or conferred with by the administration for close to 70 days on ANY matters; and then McChrystal was pretty much forced into making a statement. And I am glad he did.

And JAM, don't even dare talk to me about patriotism. That is "Off Limits". You have no place on that one. Lets not even go there. As for following orders; I have never had problems with following orders. Even those I didn't agree with. And I bet you that General McChrystal doesn't have a problem with following orders either. But if you have a commander; whether it's 2lt, Maj, Colonel, General, or President; and they won't address the situation or make a decision on such a situation; then it's sometimes necessary to go up the chain of command. I am positive that McChrystal was in contact with the Sec of Defense. After that, the chain of command for the president is; "The American People". You have no idea what or who McChrystal spoke with during this process. For all you know, he may have made direct appeals to the SEC of Defense and the president.

And as Pima pointed out, President Bush used the chain of command during his entire time in office. If you want to talk about patriotism or rather being "Unpatriotic"; I suggest you send an email to Obama. He probably needs to read such a letter. mike.....
 
McChrystal gave a recommendation (and stated we are running out of time). The administration has given no indication of a forthcomming decision TWO MONTHS later.
So far, the administration has held 6 meetings, proposed 2 strategies, but accepted neither.

I don't find it too surprising that McChrystal would speak up after several weeks of relative silence. He is deeply concerned that we are running out of time.


We conducted Desert Storm in a shorter time.
Germany took over France and the low countries in a shorter time.
 
What's interesting is, some people conveniently forget how Barry threw out the last guy, and put in his place this guy, as the "be all and know all", in the war that was necessary. Funny how that works, people don't forget unless they have an agenda.
 
JAM:

As is often forgotten in the civilian world the chain of command is a two way street. The higher one gets, the fewer you are responsible to and the more you are responsible for. When a General feels his troops are are being needlessly endangered by lack of action on the part of the president It is his duty morally and militarily to question the policy or in this case lack of policy.

Gen McCrystle followed his chain of command bringing it to the attention of the president, he was ignored and sent away. The next higher step in the chain of command is the group who hired the president, the U.S. citizens! by "shooting off his mouth on 60 minutes" he was following the chain of command to it's next level.

JAM: You are entitled to your opinion (even when it's wrong) the problem isn't with the generals it's with obama.
 
gunner,

You reminded me of a statement that a Wing King's wife said to me...
The higher up you become the more silent it gets
Click to expand...

McCrystal still has his boots on the ground and is many pay grades below Obama. He was/is the General that Obama selected, it is a slap in his face for Obama to now ignore him. It is a slap to every family member with a loved one there to say when they have their elections done, I will make a decision, especially since Gates publicly stated that the elections should have no effect on our surge.

AS far as patriotism it comes in many different shades, and on this site it is offensive to say it is unpatriotic if a soldier who has dedicated decades to defend our right to argue this as being unpatriotic. I for one know the toll that our family paid for Bullet protecting our freedoms. I also would be incredibly proud of him if he was McCrystal and bucked the system. McCrystal put the soldiers ahead of himself and risked the fall out...SERVICE BEFORE SELF is the motto for every branch, McCrystal is a proud example. Let's be clear he did buck the system, but every parent, spouse, child has more faith in him because they know he went out on the ledge for their loved one.
 
Last edited:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/30/AR2009103004081.html?hpid=topnews
This is bordering on incredible. To recap - the President campaigned on a platform that identifies Afghanistan as the "Good War" where we should be focusing rather than Iraq thus demonstrating that he is solid and serious on National Defense despite his opposition to the Bush administrations policies in Iraq.
In March he rolled out a new strategy which committed the US to a renewed and vigorous effort in Afghanistan because: “Today, I'm announcing a comprehensive, new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan... And this marks the conclusion of a careful policy review, led by Bruce, that I ordered as soon as I took office-If the Afghanistan government falls to the Taliban or allows al-Qaida to go unchallenged,” Obama said, “that country will again be a base for terrorists"
In May he relieved Gen Dave McKiernan and replaced him with LTG Stanley McChrystal who as a Special Forces Officer and JSOC Commander was expected to implement a new approach to conducting the aggressive counterinsurgency approach to stabilizing Afghanistan and providing security while increasing the effort to train up a reliable Afghan security apparatus.

In August carrying out the task assigned him- LTG McChrystal reports back to the Pentagon and the President with a grim assessment of the situation and an urgent request for immediate resources need to retrieve a dire situation getting worse rapidly.
In October the administration is frantically searching for a way to avoid paying the bill, seeking desperately to find someone who will recommend less troops and less resources and considering yet another new "strategy". However the people tasked with giving him advice keep giving it to him "In contrast to Iraq, where there was significant dissension on whether to deploy an additional 30,000 troops in 2007, the top brass has been mostly united in the support of McChrystal's call for more troops in Afghanistan.
Both Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top commander in the Middle East, have told the administration that they agree with McChrystal's dire assessment of the security situation and his call for more forces to wrest the initiative back from the Taliban
If these weren't real lives of real US Soldiers fighting real enemies in real countries this would be pathetically comical.


[B]"Obama seeking options on forces
MEETING WITH JOINT CHIEFS[/B]
President looks to send fewer additional troops
By Anne E. Kornblut and Greg Jaffe
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, October 31, 2009
President Obama has asked the Pentagon's top generals to provide him with more options for troop levels in Afghanistan, two U.S. officials said late Friday, with one adding that some of the alternatives would allow Obama to send fewer new troops than the roughly 40,000 requested by his top commander..."[/I]
 
The hardest part about about being in a position of making decisions, is the responsibility it carries. Whether you're an officer, NCO, CEO of a company, politician, etc... you are responsible for your decisions. With the exception of the military, very few people in the position of making decisions has other people's lives in their hands. And this is where I probably have my greatest criticism of Obama and the current administration. Since taking office, he has been reluctant to make decisions. Why? Because he doesn't want to be held responsible. He wants the power and perks, but he doesn't like that many times "THE BUCK STOPS" with him. With health care and other similar venues, those are "Legislative" in nature. If they go well, he can take credit. If they don't, he can blame congress. There's always a way out for him. But when it comes to the military, there is no way out. The buck stops with Obama and he needs to make decisions. He's got the joint chiefs of staff; secretary of defense; area commanders; and other advisors. Unfortunately, he appoints people into certain positions, but won't follow their recommendations.

And the question keeps coming back to "WHY?" Unfortunately, in the case of Obama, the WHY question is answered with another question; "HOW?" He has his agenda. His political agenda. It includes gaining more power and influence over the citizens. He wants a government run health care system. He wants to be respected. He wants to be able to be seen as fixing all our country's problems. He wants to take credit for things that the government has absolutely no control over, such as many economic issues; but continue to not take responsibility for the same issues if they don't go right. So the question is HOW? How can he achieve everything he wants when the military is costing him money. Money that he wants to use for these other things. health care, unemployment, foreclosures, etc.... are all political. He can't be held in the negative for any of this. If he can fix, or appear to fix some of it; he takes credit. If he can't fix or appear to fix any of this, he can pass the blame.

But the military is different. He said the efforts in Iraq were wrong. He said Afghanistan was the "Real" issue. Ok, fine. If I'm an active duty Air Force officer, I'll buy that. I don't have to agree. Fine, then make a damn decision. Help us develop goals. Let us develop missions and plans to reach those goals. Then, support us and give us what we need to achieve those goals. But if Obama takes a stand, he'll have to take responsibility. If more soldiers die in Afghanistan than in Iraq, he will be responsible for that. If he spends "X" billion/trillion on those military efforts, he might not be able to convince the American people to give MORE money for his pet projects, like health care. I personally am glad that the situation has come to pass. 31 years ago, when I took the oath, we had a saying that we lived by. The military has hundreds of sayings and clches. Ours was: "Lead, Follow, or Get out of the Way". Well, Obama now has his chance to show the American public what he's truly made of and where he stands. It does no good to say "I wish" so and so was in charge or similar statements. We have to deal with what's in front of us. And I support the presidency and role of the commander in chief 100%. And I suggest that to all military members. Active, Reserve, and/or Retired. But we don't blindly allow our fellow brothers and sisters to die or go into harms way for political reasons. We've seen in the past what they can do. So; Mr. Obama; what's it going to be? You've got just about ALL your military advisors and officers recommending the same thing. Do you do what's right and follow their advice, or do you continue to find a way to benefit your agendas?
 
If it makes you guys feel better - I personally thing the foot-dragging is ridiculous. I think the run around is due to Joe Biden who I would not trust to run a war.
I did hear this week the Administration was waiting until after the run-off election to announce the decision. Now, that looks like it may not happen next Saturday after all.
I have nothing but the utmost admiration for General Petraeus and General McChrystal.

It is quite true that Bush sidestepped the CoC and developed a relationship with General Petaeus bypassing the Sec of Defense (whom he then fired) and Admiral Fallon who then resigned. This worked.
Obama clearly wants the CoC to be followed. He does not want McChrystal bypassing Sec Gates - which is what happened and why Sec Gates (a REPUBLICAN!) publically dressed down McChrystal.
McChrystal developed a plan based on certain goals. Those goals have been discussed and apparently may be altered. If that is the case a new plan will have to be brought forth.

Sure McChrystal could take his ball and go home, but he is there to follow the orders of the Commander in Chief. General McChrystal is a great patriot. He knows that the mentality of "if I can't have my way then I quit" is poor leadership.
The only way I can see him retiring is if he did it the day before he was fired.
 
JAM:
although biden does add to the foot dragging he is not the commander in chief of the U.S. military the foot dragging is the sole responsibility of obama.

As for obama properly using the COC, the president wanted to see general McChrystal's request before top military officials had reviewed it. The request usually would go to USCENTCOM then to the joint chiefs who would give their suggestions and recommendations to the Sec of Defense to submit to the President. The coc is supposed to be used in both directions.

The rebuke from Mr Gates "in this process it is imperative that all of us taking part in these deliberations civilian and military alike provide our best advice to the president candidly but privately". The Pentagon insists the message was meant for all privy to the policy deliberations, and "is not a rebuke of Stan McChrystal".

Who cares if Gates is a Republican, democrat or Independent this should not be part of a political agenda.
 
Thanks for posting this. I believe that I agree with the basic premise of the article and I kind of think that McChrystal does as well which is why he shot this idea down quickly. Fundamentally- you are called on to give recommendations and then execute- whether your recommendations are accepted or not. I agree that you should resign "if you can't implement the President's policies", but that really implies a fundamental and ethical difference between the officer and the mission given- ie... there is something morally wrong with what you are being ordered to do. What is being discussed here seems to me to be basically a difference of opinion over what the most efficient way to achieve the mission. So- for the Generally to publicly bail out if his preferred course of action is not ordered would be an overtly political act in my opinion and would really be undermining the whole premise of soldiering- that is: we salute and drive on regardless of our personal opinions. It's a slippery slope to advocate that a theater commander publicly resign because he disagrees with a decision by the Cdr in Chief over resources allocated. Would someone advocate a similar course of action farther down? At what level would it stop? Division Command? Battalion Command? How about Squad Leaders? Should they be allowed to "resign" becasue they feel their unit gets the short end of the stick? Of course not.

In my opinion officers resign when they have failed the country morally or professionally- they don't resign because the country has failed them. It's not our call to make- we (the Officer corps) owe them- they don't owe us. (To be clear so nobody gets their knickers in a bunch- I'm not speaking about resignations that have to do with end of service etc..)

I really disagree with how the administration is handling this and frankly am appalled that they can not make a decision in a timely manner. But Gen McChrystal resigning is not in the cards and the folks advocating that course of action really should think thru the implications of what they are suggesting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top