The Rolling Stone article was not in print until Tuesday, June 22; it was on newsstands Friday (yesterday) June 25. From most sources, it seems apparent that Obama was made aware of the article late in the day Tuesday, and that the following morning McChrystal was in the Oval Office being cashiered.

Here it is:

Rolling Stone [http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/119236]http://www.rollingstone.com/po...cs/news/17390/119236

Now that you all have a chance to read it, see if your opinion of what who said about what and to whom, where and when, in the context of General McChrystal's rank and job description, is the same as it was before.

The dialogue in a 4-page (so far) topic elsewhere at this moment does not include a single link
to the article.

David,

The General has apologized profusely and called nearly everyone in the administration begging for forgiveness so there must have been reason for his chagrin and foot in mouth disease. In fact, he came armed to his dressing down at the White House with resignation in hand. It matters not one wit to me that the Rolling Stone interview was written and presented in a way that would give the General some cover. He knew what he meant and he knew what he said.

I think the General did the right thing by offering up his resignation and the president did the right thing by accepting it because he was going to fire him anyways.

The article has been in the public domain since Tuesday. And, you haven't done your homework.

Sean was the first one to post a link to the RS article here.

Affirmative here Amprof....

I printed out the entire piece (19 pages from Notepad) and it has been the topic here at the manor all weekend as we actually have military brass houseguests....(albeit retired Nuclear Navy). We've been playing cards and discussing it.......because.....we realized we couldn't actually discuss the interview without reading it. I mean, what did McChrystal say and not say?

First of all, it takes a long time to digest it which left less time to discuss as our guests left this morning.

All I can offer, until I finish it myself will be very disappointing to all of you because there was/is -- despite what you may read here at times -- a natural resistance for military people to be partisan, even in the presence of family and friends but apparently not in the presence of Rolling Stone.

There was also an opinion that McChrystal had an "impossible task" along with a general feeling that based upon the article alone, he should not have been "fired" ....that his staff was obviously drunk (no, they weren't joking) And it was The General's Executive Officer they were mouthing because that's who influences and passes stuff on the the staff, the General having little or no contact with staff. Of course there is the matter of the buck stopping and there were other other doubts about McChrystal.

There was a consensus that Patreaus should assume command for a SHORT while (because he is brilliant and might pull something out of his hat) but that essentially the Government of Afghanistan is lost..."We cannot win a guerilla war....anywhere and we should have learned that....and that we are killing people not winning their hearts and minds" -- That with a very sour expression on everyone's face with the suggestion Biden (who they dislike) may have been right after all in his initial suggestions or Afghanistan that everyone poo pooed...

When I tried to provoke more argument about the military/civilian thingy....there's just nothing I can quote.

I was disappointed in the results of this. Perhaps I should have served a few more rounds of gin and tonic as well. I was hoping for something a bit more informative and insightful... Obviously, I'll never be Christiane Amanpour.

Peachy

From the article

quote:

But however strategic they may be, McChrystal's new marching orders have caused an intense backlash among his own troops. Being told to hold their fire, soldiers complain, puts them in greater danger. "Bottom line?" says a former Special Forces operator who has spent years in Iraq and Afghanistan. "I would love to kick McChrystal in the nuts. His rules of engagement put soldiers' lives in even greater danger. Every real soldier will tell you the same thing."

In March, McChrystal traveled to Combat Outpost JFM – a small encampment on the outskirts of Kandahar – to confront such accusations from the troops directly. It was a typically bold move by the general. Only two days earlier, he had received an e-mail from Israel Arroyo, a 25-year-old staff sergeant who asked McChrystal to go on a mission with his unit. "I am writing because it was said you don't care about the troops and have made it harder to defend ourselves," Arroyo wrote.

Within hours, McChrystal responded personally: "I'm saddened by the accusation that I don't care about soldiers, as it is something I suspect any soldier takes both personally and professionally – at least I do. But I know perceptions depend upon your perspective at the time, and I respect that every soldier's view is his own." Then he showed up at Arroyo's outpost and went on a foot patrol with the troops – not some bull**** photo-op stroll through a market, but a real live operation in a dangerous war zone.

Oh what a great guy!

And your point is Dewey?

Basically it appears that McChrystal must take responsibility for a bunch of flap-mouth staffers. He may be the best thing since white bread, but even so, few have much confidence that he can save Afghanistan.

Peachy

Actually, he was a fool for restricting RoEs like he did... but he was courageous in how he would go on patrol to gain support with the very troops that were losing confidence in his COIN method. He's a typical, swaggering special operater who was wearing four stars, a very complex person and as events have proved, may not have been the right man for the job like everyone thought.

Zoot, you're right. I missed the link in the thread you linked to, which was also 4 pages long when I put up my own. I should have looked further. Your "Insubordination" thread was 4 pages long too, if I'm not mistaken, and it does not appear to link to the article either.

The only clearly informed and thoughtful comment I've read today on the RS article is from Peachy, who has taken both the time and interest to do so, and that's in this thread, not the one you referred to.

I hope others have read the original RS article by now.

For what it's worth, I read the whole article as soon as it was available.

It confirmed for me that McChrystal and his staff deserved to lose their jobs, if not for insubordination, then for the fact that they were loose cannons and lone rangers in a situation that requires cooperation among a number of players.

It also presented a compelling case against the COIN strategy - even indicating that McChrystal himself had virtually given up on it.

I presumed that everyone read the article that commented upon it. I didn't link to it because Sean had already done so. That said, we're well beyond the dispatching of McChrystal, and are now on to why we're continuing yet another half-stepping American war. You'd think that at some point we'd learn the stark lessons of the past that we inexplicably forget until it's too late.

Bob Herbert nails it here .

quote:

We’ve been in Afghanistan for nearly a decade already. It’s one of the most corrupt places on the planet and the epicenter of global opium production. Our ostensible ally, President Hamid Karzai, is convinced that the U.S. cannot prevail in the war and is in hot pursuit of his own deal with the enemy Taliban. The American public gave up on the war long ago, and it is not at all clear that President Obama’s heart is really in it.

For us to even consider several more years of fighting and dying in Afghanistan — at a cost of heaven knows how many more billions of American taxpayer dollars — is demented.

Those who are so fascinated with counterinsurgency, from its chief advocate, Gen. David Petraeus, all the way down to the cocktail-hour kibitzers inside the Beltway, seem to have lost sight of a fundamental aspect of warfare: You don’t go to war half-stepping. You go to war to crush the enemy. You do this ferociously and as quickly as possible. If you don’t want to do it, if you have qualms about it, or don’t know how to do it, don’t go to war.

The men who stormed the beaches at Normandy weren’t trying to win the hearts and minds of anyone.

Screw the article. Captain Boots-On-the-Ground likes the decision, and that's good with me.

I want to know when the Tillman investigation commences.

Zoot I agree with you but I question this point from Herbert:

quote:

The men who stormed the beaches at Normandy weren’t trying to win the hearts and minds of anyone.

The men who stormed the beaches at Normandy were not shooting at the French and the French weren't shooting at them.

Peachy

quote:

Originally posted by Avenging Peach:
Zoot I agree with you but I question this point from Herbert:

quote:

The men who stormed the beaches at Normandy weren’t trying to win the hearts and minds of anyone.

The men who stormed the beaches at Normandy were not shooting at the French and the French weren't shooting at them.

Peachy

And yet in the bombardment from the air and sea. a lot of French died. Children and their mothers.

quote:

Originally posted by tenderfootsquest:

quote:

Originally posted by Avenging Peach:
Zoot I agree with you but I question this point from Herbert:

quote:

The men who stormed the beaches at Normandy weren’t trying to win the hearts and minds of anyone.

The men who stormed the beaches at Normandy were not shooting at the French and the French weren't shooting at them.

Peachy

And yet in the bombardment from the air and sea. a lot of French died. Children and their mothers.

That is true. It's considered collateral damage, not warfare. You either miss my point or deliberately try to obscure it.
The French were pretty damn glad to see us...The German's shot back. There was a line in the dirt.

I think any analogy between Normandy and what we are doing in Afghanistan is not useful. We and the British went to Normandy because the Germans had conquered France. We went to Afghanistan because they harbor people who attacked us. Unfortunately the Afghanistanis do not see us as liberators.

And as a post script I don't know of any war in history where the conquerer won the hearts and minds of the conquered.

Peachy

quote:

I presumed that everyone read the article that commented upon it. I didn't link to it because Sean had already done so.

Zoot, you started chattering in "Insubordination" about McChrystal on June 22 at 11:35 a.m. (server time)(http://aantares.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/6076052334/m/772105046), more than a day BEFORE Sean put up his link at 12:50 p.m. June 23 (server time)(See your own link to Sean's). Conversation here was littered with links to various and sundry news stories and blogs, and for the most part still is. Nothing to justify your presumption that anybody here had read the article before commenting on it.

Just for the record, the article was NOT in the public domain on Tuesday, is not in the public domain today, and will not be in the public domain for a considerable time in the future.

That said, issues of competing doctrines of war and their effect on the Afghan mess we've waded into were exposed by the article and deserve serious consideration. The McChrystal affair is a skirmish between factions in military command trying to impose competing strategies on the naivete and inexperience of Obama's inner circle.

The only thing that ever justified military ops in Afghanistan was the once near-certainty that Bin Laden's command structure was there and might have been susceptible to interdiction by highly specialized unconventional forces. None of the rest of it justifies conventional military ops at all. As from the very beginning, lo these many years ago, I take the position that there is zero justification for conventional military ops anywhere in the world at the moment, hasn't been any for decades, and all US troops stationed outside the US (with the exception of military security at embassies) should be repatriated at the earliest possible date.

quote:

Originally posted by Avenging Peach:
Zoot I agree with you but I question this point from Herbert:

quote:

The men who stormed the beaches at Normandy weren’t trying to win the hearts and minds of anyone.

The men who stormed the beaches at Normandy were not shooting at the French and the French weren't shooting at them.

Peachy

Did Herbert say anything at all about the French?? His clear implication is that if you go to war, the very last thing on your mind is winning the hearts and minds of anyone, and I TOTALLY agree with that. That was the last time that the US engaged in a war where that was true, unfortunately.

quote:

I think any analogy between Normandy and what we are doing in Afghanistan is not useful. We and the British went to Normandy because the Germans had conquered France. We went to Afghanistan because they harbor people who attacked us. Unfortunately the Afghanistanis do not see us as liberators.

Herbert didn't compare the two in any analogous way. His point to me is that we've engaged in nation building and hearts and minds warfare since Normandy. We've attempted to foist the "American way" in cultures so completely antithetical to our way of life. I don't believe that Herbert tried to provide an analogy between Normandy and Afghanistan in even the slightest hint of a way.

quote:

And as a post script I don't know of any war in history where the conquerer won the hearts and minds of the conquered.

Exactly, and Herbert's point in spades.

"Chattering", AMprof?? "Littered"??

quote:

Just for the record, the article was NOT in the public domain on Tuesday, is not in the public domain today, and will not be in the public domain for a considerable time in the future.

Oh, really??

http://www.rollingstone.com/po...cs/news/17390/119236

quote:

I take the position that there is zero justification for conventional military ops anywhere in the world at the moment, hasn't been any for decades, and all US troops stationed outside the US (with the exception of military security at embassies) should be repatriated at the earliest possible date.

This I agree with. The rest of it is just...uh...chattering litter.

Wasn't that priceless? "Chattering."

But here's what I don't get -- why doesn't he just agree or disagree with you if he's going to? Or does that depend on whether he thinks you first read the entire article?

Oh wait. I see he may not agree or disagree with you at this point. He just wants you to understand that, in his opinion, you didn't make a "clearly informed and thoughtful comment." Also, he doesn't understand your presumption that everyone who commented on the article read it.

A lotta "meta" stuff, IOW.

Yeah, like it matters that the FULL article wasn't available until it was available. Everyone had staked out their opinion well in advance of the RS article, and it's full disclosure in the public domain didn't change anyone's idea about McChrystal that I'm aware of.

Like I said, I presumed that most here had read it, but until it was available, AMProf somehow believes that we shouldn't have commented on the McChrystal matter until we'd read it?? Talk about coming late to the party.

it doesn't matter does it .. ?? Gen'ruls who run their mouths in public in opposition to stated formal policies have crossed the rubicon .. period .. and NO C-N-C should put up with it ..

and gen'ruls who allow a culture of insubordination and condescension to civilian control of the military to fester within their staff .. are unfit for command on the same principle .. even if they're of Gen'rul Douglas Mc Arthur quality ....

prissy pontificating poltroons notwithstanding ...

Most Approve of Obama Decision to Remove Gen. McChrystal

quote:

Originally posted by AMProf:
The Rolling Stone article was not in print until Tuesday, June 22; it was on newsstands Friday (yesterday) June 25. From most sources, it seems apparent that Obama was made aware of the article late in the day Tuesday, and that the following morning McChrystal was in the Oval Office being cashiered.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? I read the article on Tuesday morning when a friend posted the link on FaceBook at 11am. RS posted it at 10am ET. It was then picked up everywhere. You think Obama learned about it late on Tuesday. Pshaw!

quote:

Did Herbert say anything at all about the French?? His clear implication is that if you go to war, the very last thing on your mind is winning the hearts and minds of anyone, and I TOTALLY agree with that. That was the last time that the US engaged in a war where that was true, unfortunately.

I agreed with Herbert until the last portion.....

quote:

You don’t go to war half-stepping. You go to war to crush the enemy. You do this ferociously and as quickly as possible. If you don’t want to do it, if you have qualms about it, or don’t know how to do it, don’t go to war.

The men who stormed the beaches at Normandy weren’t trying to win the hearts and minds of anyone.

Perhaps I misunderstood him because I wondered if he was suggesting that the war in Afghanistan should be fought with the same military tactics and fervor used in Europe....and yet the enemy is engaging in a guerilla war. I was suggesting that the Afghanistan engagement is more similar to Vietnam than perhaps WWII in Europe.....and as such, far more difficult for us to prevail.

We are in agreement on "nation building."

Peachy

A broad general conclusion about the McChrystal affair seems to be developing among quite a few commentators here and abroad who have by now read and digested the RS piece and poked around a bit in the office politics among the president's advisors that are both implied by and exposed in it.

My take on that is an earlier note.

The hacks and their headline writers continue to play fast and loose with the facts when it comes to what was said, by whom, to whom, and in what context. The freelancer who wrote the RS article took more than the usual care in attribution and context. The many misrepresentations in print and the blogosphere are not on him. There are still conflicting versions being reported of when and how the Oval Office was apprised of the article's existence and when and how its contents were first made generally available for public scrutiny.

The story in and of itself (including its references to past events for which he was NOT relieved) does not, in my opinion, present sufficient reasons for McChrystal's loss of command. The doctrinal politics swirling about the White House and Pentagon are much more likely suspects. He is a target of opportunity for one or more of the factions striving for the endorsement of Obama's naive and inexperienced advisors.

The phrase "public domain" has a very specific meaning in intellectual property law. I used it, knowingly, in that sense with respect to the article.

quote:

He is a target of opportunity for one or more of the factions striving for the endorsement of Obama's naive and inexperienced advisors.

Sad, but true, AMProf.


LadyBug

quote:

Originally posted by LadyBug:

quote:

He is a target of opportunity for one or more of the factions striving for the endorsement of Obama's naive and inexperienced advisors.

Sad, but true, AMProf.


LadyBug

quote:

The phrase "public domain" has a very specific meaning in intellectual property law. I used it, knowingly, in that sense with respect to the article.

You couldn't comprehend that Zoot was speaking in the sense of "publicly available" and not making some sort of a legal determination?
Bwahahahahaha

quote:

In a general context public domain may refer to ideas, information and works that are "publicly available", but in the context of intellectual property law, which includes copyright, patents and trademarks, public domain refers to works, ideas, and information which are intangible to private ownership and/or which are available for use by members of the public.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain

quote:

Originally posted by AMProf:
The Rolling Stone article was not in print until Tuesday, June 22; it was on newsstands Friday (yesterday) June 25. From most sources, it seems apparent that Obama was made aware of the article late in the day Tuesday, and that the following morning McChrystal was in the Oval Office being cashiered.

Here it is:

Rolling Stone [http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/119236]http://www.rollingstone.com/po...cs/news/17390/119236

Now that you all have a chance to read it, see if your opinion of what who said about what and to whom, where and when, in the context of General McChrystal's rank and job description, is the same as it was before.

The dialogue in a 4-page (so far) topic elsewhere at this moment does not include a single link
to the article.

Challenging people to read an article is always an effective argument.
Until after reading the article you find it was a waste of your time.
I read it and found that it was, indeed, a waste of my time as it had nothing to do with with firing a general for insubordination.

quote:

Perhaps I misunderstood him because I wondered if he was suggesting that the war in Afghanistan should be fought with the same military tactics and fervor used in Europe...

If that wasn't Herbert's point, it certainly is mine. Why go to war if we don't have that fervor? History has taught us that anything less doesn't work.

quote:

Originally posted by AMProf:
A broad general conclusion about the McChrystal affair seems to be developing among quite a few commentators here and abroad who have by now read and digested the RS piece and poked around a bit in the office politics among the president's advisors that are both implied by and exposed in it.

My take on that is an earlier note.

The hacks and their headline writers continue to play fast and loose with the facts when it comes to what was said, by whom, to whom, and in what context. The freelancer who wrote the RS article took more than the usual care in attribution and context. The many misrepresentations in print and the blogosphere are not on him. There are still conflicting versions being reported of when and how the Oval Office was apprised of the article's existence and when and how its contents were first made generally available for public scrutiny.

The story in and of itself (including its references to past events for which he was NOT relieved) does not, in my opinion, present sufficient reasons for McChrystal's loss of command. The doctrinal politics swirling about the White House and Pentagon are much more likely suspects. He is a target of opportunity for one or more of the factions striving for the endorsement of Obama's naive and inexperienced advisors.

The phrase "public domain" has a very specific meaning in intellectual property law. I used it, knowingly, in that sense with respect to the article.

Listen, AMProf...after your "performance" on FE the other day, I don't even know why I'm addressing you. That's the most classless thing I've ever read here, and FAR more disgusting than anything you accused Chango of. "Backwoods butt-fuggin' regards — I hope somebody stuffs your banjo up your ass."?? Not only are you a homophobic dweeb, but you're regionally and artistically challenged, as well, considering that Chango plays a ukelele far from the hollers of the Deliverance locale that you so clumsily referenced.

You seem to be oblivious of the FACT that McChrystal submitted his resignation. It was accepted and the rest of us have moved on. You're left to nitpick over semantics and BS, and you want to accuse other posters of poor style?? Please.