Props for Ottomaton: Should Petreus and McChrystal be Fired by Obama?

To be clear, will you confirm that you are advocating for a military dictatorship where the elected president is subordinate to the military generals? It doesn't sound very American to me, but I guess if you hate democracy maybe that sort of authoritarian/militarist worldview could appeal to you.

What about Truman/MacArthur? Should MacArthur have been allowed to nuke Korea over his president's objections, fire the president instead of the other way around, and maybe start WWIII?

 

Saw this today, the Obama people are pissed off at McChrystal for speaking up too loudly and they are trying to rein him in a bit

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...Stanley-McChrystal-speech-on-Afghanistan.html

 

From this piece though it sounds like McChrystal was asked for his feedback. While he wasn't invited to the conference the article points out that Obama had asked him to participate via teleconference. Also McChrystal states that Obama had asked him to be blunt and nothing in the article indicates that Obama asked him otherwise.

I am curious though for those who feel that Gen. McChrystal is undermining civillian control of the military did you feel the same way when Gen. Shinseki publically contradicted the Whitehouse's view on what it would it take to succeed in Iraq?

 

How are these generals against Obama, Obama ran on focusing on Afghanistan, they are only expressing what its going to take to win. The problem is Obama may not have realized how dire the situation is according to the military.

 

I don't think Obama meant for McChrystal to go the media and be blunt. I can see where Obama has a problem when a General goes straight to the media and basically tells them there is only one way to succeed in Afghanistan, his way, and if the President doesn't give him what he wants soon then the U.S. will fail there.

If I remember correctly, Shinseki spoke to Congress about his feelings regarding the number of troops in Iraq. I don't think he ever went and did interviews contradicting the President while he was an active member of the military.

 

That is a good point that Shinseki spoke to Congress and was asked to but at the same time McChrystal was asked to state his views to the President in a publically reported forum. As for him going to the media do we know for a fact that McChrystal leaked his report?

Whether McChrystal went to the media or not that isn't UnConstitutional as the original post imples. It does go against tradition where generally military officers do not publically comment on things like that unless specifically asked to do so but we have heard from many military officers leak opinions to the press. In fact during the last eight years anonymous opinions regarding how bad things were going in Iraq were leaked by officers actively serving and many retired officers publically criticized the Admin..

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...Stanley-McChrystal-speech-on-Afghanistan.html

"Gen McChrystal shocked and angered presidential advisers with the bluntness of a speech given in London last week...."

It's not about the leaked report. McChrystal has stated publicly what he wants the President to do.

 

Good point.

That said though there is nothing unconstitutional about what he is doing.

 

Shinseki was Chief of Staff before the war (a position inherently involved with planning, not implementation), and not in active service once the war was under way.

If McChrystal wants to retire from the army and publically sulk about how he should have had more troops it would be fine. If he wants to be an active theater commander, he should shut the hell up and do the best with what he's been given. Again, he is doing exactly what MacArthur did in Korea.

 

Agreed although I think the guy is a scumbag for doing it.

 

You're reading too much into what I said. I was referring to the original post, where it seemed that Obama should fire a general simply because that general proposed the need for more troops.
If Obama were to deny military needs solely for the purpose of appeasing anti-war influences, or his image, then he could possibly risk endangering the forces who are in war zones. I'm not saying he is or would do that, but the impression I got from the original post was that Obama should fire a general who would have the nerve to ask for a "surge", which seems to have put Obama in a Bush-like position.

I don't think a general should publicly try to pressure the president, either. The final word is with the president, but he does have to rely on the military info to make his decisions.

 

you just got roasted and this is all you got?

c'mon.

 

Considering it appears that he was likely forced out it shouldn't be a surprise that he wasn't in active service once the war began. Did you think that that was right for the Admin. to ease him out though?

I am curious still about what you thought about the officers who leaked negative opinions about Iraq in the past few years. While these opinions were generally done so anonomously did you feel they should've shut the hell up too?

 

You are free to your opinion but I am curious as I am with Ottomaton if you felt that the officers who leaked negative opinions about Iraq were scumbags too?

 

Absolutely. That having been said, if you have a general who is pissed and you fire him, you should understand that at that point he is no longer duty bound by their oath to the Commander in Chief. IMO, there is probably some of that going on with McCrystal. If they pull him, his voice has power with the more hardline factions. Three and a half years of McCrystal in Washington complaining about Obama would have the Republicans frothing at the bit.

Go back and look at the thread where we were discussing the generals who disagreed with Rumsfeld's "war on the cheap" idea. In it you will see that I stated that the generals were remiss in that if they had doubts, they were duty bound to retire and make their doubts known.

Anybody in an active theater command position should not be leaking anything. But even if they do, leaking is a whole hell of a lot better than publicly giving speeches contradicting their commanders. If a Lieutenant did it in response to orders they didn't like from their Colonel, they’d be brought up on charges under the UCMJ.

 

If they did leak reports that was wrong on their part. To give speeches telling the public that if Obama doesn't do it your way then Afghanistan will fall is a whole new level of scumbaggery.

 

Fair enough and I take your word for it.

Still I suspect the views of many of those criticizing McChrystal are colored regarding their own biases on who is currently in office and what their views of war are.