Well, on the bright side, at least B.O. took time to have a lengthy one-on-one discussion with his commanding general in Afghanistan. Too bad it took something like this for Obama to find time in his schedule (between visits to the gymn and the golf course to keep buff).
As for “kicking butt” … perhaps B.O. will now be energized to knock heads together and deal with the problems in the Gulf and get this mess cleaned up. We’re seeing too many stories of how the Feds are getting in the way of getting this problem fixed.

I think it’s a little premature to call it the ‘right’ decision – only time will tell. But I certainly think Obama was well within his rights and, given the situiation, I think I’d have canned him too.
There’s an awful lot of talking heads out there disputing your cahracterization of this episode as “insubordination”. And I don’t think it’s a shame at all: it’s a great example to our children and society. Speaking your mind without thinking has consequences.
I’m just fine with Gen. Petraeus.

Abu Ghraib and the looting of Baghdad happened on his watch.

He was also instrumental in the cover up of that football players friendly fire death. I can’t believe he survived that let alone ended up prospering.

Sorry. But I read the article and I can’t find one insubordinate remark by the general himself. I think what is obvious is that this administration is dysfunctional, inexperienced and a perfect example of an administrative amateur hour. The cathartic whining at the top has now cost a valued general in the field for the sake of manufactured PR to prop up a floundering president with an amazing lack of leadership skills. As this administration cascades from one disaster to another it becomes more apparent each day that a political process that would allow the election of such a lackluster chorus line hacks and wannabees that perhaps we would be better off using a lottery. couldn’t be any worse.

Good for the President. He made the right decision.

Too bad it took something like this for Obama to find time in his schedule (between visits to the gymn and the golf course to keep buff).
Well, cleaning up the messes created by Reaganite’s crowd and cronies took up most of his time. Eight years of incompetence can’t be fixed in a year.

Abu Ghraib and the looting of Baghdad happened on his watch.
No they didn’t. The 101st wasn’t responsible for Baghdad during the initial invasion. GEN Petraeus was not MNF-I commander during Abu Ghraib

Absolutely the right thing to do. As Ricks noted, the political class may not understand this, but senior military understand very well. What McChrystal did, and allowed to happen, was indiscrete and stupid. If I had told my CO that I was planning on spending a couple of weeks drinking with a reporter from the Rolling Stone and venting my feelings about the civilian overlords, I would not have walked out of the office alive.
I strongly suspect that this was the result of McChrystal pushing himself too far. The guy has been in the war zone in some function for almost 7 years IIRC. Unity of effort in COIN has been preached since Galula. After the comments about Eikenberry, it would be difficult to achieve unity. Since I suspect Eikenberry was at least somewhat complicit, I would expect him to go also.
Steve

Robert C.
In what parallel universe do you exist? McChrystal was not a team player in the campaign for which he advocated, and received the full support of the Obama administration. He tolerated/encouraged outrageous insubordination in his personal retinue. In short, he did not demonstrate the qualities of leadership that any President would expect.

“No Commander-in-Chief, either Democratic or Republican, can afford to be disrespected publicly like this by a general.”
interesting what an effect a change in administrations can have
“During Bush’s tenure, active duty generals that spoke out against administration policy were portrayed as courageous whistleblowers. Retired generals were treated as ever-wise sages of military policy. None were scrutinized as McChrystal, pictured right, has been in the hours since Rolling Stone released its article.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lachlan-markay/2010/06/22/flashback-media-promoted-military-criticism-president-bush#ixzz0rhkM07IQ
I still think McChrystal screwed up, but I find the umbrage exhibited by the media and bloggers about this episode hilariously when one looks at the adulation they heaped on Shinseki and others during the Bush years

I agree with the decision, and I am also fine with Petraeus.
@peter
“Well, cleaning up the messes created by Reaganite’s crowd and cronies took up most of his time. Eight years of incompetence can’t be fixed in a year.”
Let’s say that I cede you argument that Reaganites created this mess over the course of eight years. From there, I have some questions.
First, how long should it take to clean up? If the Dems have held congress for 3.5 years and Obama 1.5, it seems like we should be further along, if indeed the liberal ideology (or competence, or whatever positive you want to attribute to these people) is the solution. This is especially true given that liberal favor a stronger role for the federal government, and thus could be expected to achieve quicker results.
Second, what has Obama done to clean things up?
Third, wouldn’t our wars in the middle east be the first areas in need of cleanup? If he didn’t have time to take control over Afghanistan, why did he have time to advance a health care reform bill that won’t go into affect for years?
Fourth, Obama criticized Republicans for taking their eye of the ball w/r/t Afghanistan. Isn’t it reasonable to conclude that he is guilty of the same?
Fifth, do you think Obama doesn’t have cronies?

In what parallel universe do you exist?
See: Obama Derangement Syndrome

Oh sure. It’s also George Bush’s fault that Al and Tipper broke up. How lame. The first 100 days were a bust. His six month period of “grace” has come and gone, we’re well into year two and the whiners are still try to pin the tail on the elephant instead of getting someone to steady the damn donkey.
This article by Professor Victor Hanson written at the end of 2008, for RCP was prescient and right on the money.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/12/blame_bush_obama_or_us.html
“We should remember that fact in 2009, when the once-messianic Obama will become all too human, as he is overwhelmed by structural problems of terror, war and money not all of his own making — and the once-demonized but now retired George Bush will seem downright competent.”
Bull’s eye. And don’t mitigate the fact that Obama has tolerated Biden openly lobbying in the background for an opposite strategy than what the President himself sanctioned and allowed the General to pursue. Any second rate business executive knows full well that if he sets up competing camps to a selected policy within his subordinates, that ultimately that policy will suffer and languish. The problem with having a boatload of czars running around is that all of them tend to stand on their egos and get nothing accomplished. Strong presidents don’t really need VP’s tripping over themselves trying to command something that constitutionally they were never intended to command. McChrystal may have paid a price for speaking truth to power but in reality we all will continue to suffer until some real leadership materializes. Don’t hold your breath.

Obama Derangement Syndrome? Yep, a subset of Bush Derangement Syndrome. Thank you Charles Krauthammer. But as a registered Democrat I think it less a ‘syndrome’ than as a result of deliberate ‘food poisoning’ from all the tainted pabulum being dospensed from DC these days.

—-dispensed

When he was Bush’s pick he was …General Betrayus!!!!
Now that he’s Obamas guy, the left can’t fall over themselves hard enough for him. It should come as no surprise that the left has no credibility when it comes to military matters.
I was in the Army for 4 years and treasure the experience and the people, but anything above company level is usually fraught with BS.

One other thing to consider is that McCrystal has also been having rather blunt meetings with the troops where they don’t believe in the stategy and he acknowledged their frustrations. What sounds to me is that this entire episode is Army General Staff CYA and they’re setting up the politicians to take the blame for a failed strategy. What better way to take no blame for a failed strategy then to get fired over disputes/insubordination towards the pols?

Reaganite, no president in the history of the US was able to avoid that sort of criticism. The gym and golf stuff you threw in there is beneath you. That, good sir, was no better than a playground taunt. I’ve come to expect insightful commentary from you up to now. You may not care about my opinion, but I suggest the only thing you accomplished was to damage your own credibility.

This brought to mind a guy I was in school with a long time ago, who was personally brilliant and gung-ho for the military. When I saw him years later, he couldn’t wait to get out. He described military life as the condition of having to endure idiocy from superiors. I was in no position to judge whether or not my friend had made an accurate judgment, but I was startled by how ground down he was by having to live under a system that of necessity valued authority more than competence. Despite his strong conservatism and pro-military feeling, my friend was temperamentally unsuited for military life. I underscore that I’m not criticizing the military here, only pointing out that a quality of contrarianism that is valued in other arenas of life is not valued in the military, and for the most part, cannot be.
I like this addendum a very great deal, because it mirrors my own experience. I had, and have, very strong pro-military feelings myself. Those feelings grew considerably stronger over the course of my own service and have diminished not a whit as a result of my experience.
I will say that there is a time and a place for debate within the military too, as long as that debate is (a) respectful (b) confined to the scope of the unit and (c) cut off once a decision is taken. Indeed, in some cases, soldiers are obliged to voice contrarian views. Examples would include the treatment of prisoners of war or equal opportunity problems.
Taking idiocy from superiors is, alas, a common problem. I have observed that there is a certain segment of the enlisted corps that stays in the military because they really have no other options to pursue, at least not with their current pay and benefits.
Intelligent and competent people, on the other hand, have every reason to get out after an enlistment or two. They can go to college on the GI Bill and they’ll likely end up with a job that pays considerably better with considerably more family time.
All of that being said, there’s not really any way to fix the problem that I can see. What Rod says about the need for discipline is quite true. It’s funny, but I’ve noticed that I tend to doggedly stick to jobs with crappy leadership or don’t pay what I’m worth far too long, probably because I learned that kind of behavior in the Army.

“Strong presidents don’t really need VP’s tripping over themselves trying to command something that constitutionally they were never intended to command. McChrystal may have paid a price for speaking truth to power but in reality we all will continue to suffer until some real leadership materializes. Don’t hold your breath.”
Strong presidents have debates among people with strong opinions, then choose a plan and go with it, adapting as needed. This current situation is not a difference on policy or strategy. It was a general and, mostly, his aides drinking with an unknown reporter and gossiping. Not professional and under UCMJ, probably punishable, though military legal scholars disagree on this point. What it does do is demonstrate poor leadership. There was no truth to power. Did you actually read the article and what was said?
Steve

Very interesting comments which I read very carefully. There seems to be an opinion forming on the board that this was a concerted act by McChrystal. Some believe it was frustration in ROE (rules of engagement), resistance to requests for additional troops, etc. Or, also likely, that the mission is corrosive to the battle readiness of our military in the next decade. (If you were in the military circa 1971, you know that one.) At any rate, contrary to the above article, this is a watershed moment which most likely is a bellwether of complete drawdown from Afghanistan.

Franklin,
The gym/golf imagery is a proxy for a growing sense from all quarters that this guy is too detached, too distant. Bush was a a lot of things — and, yes, he enjoyed “down time” — but at least he spent time with his generals trying to understand what they were doing. And as bad as the response to Katrina was, Bush didn’t let the maritime unions dictate the Federal govt. response to the disaster the way Obama is. And shutting down the offshore oil industry the way Obama is trying to do is a matter of “throwing out the baby with the bathwater” … and will only worsen unemployment and the economy along the Gulf.
Why Obama doesn’t understand these thing — or let the Governors in the Gulf (like Jindal from Louisiana) have the things they need — is beyond my comprehension. Perhaps the cause is that he’s living in a bubble and/or he is simply “in over his head.” Either way, the gym/golf imagery reinforces the perception that he’s out of touch.
Sure, McChrystal goofed big time, but the complaints he aired are sensed by everyone who’s taken even a minute to try to understand what’s happening in the AfPak theatre.

Incorrect. Biden led a selective pack in supporting a counterterrorist policy rather than COIN which was the strategy proposed by the General and supported by Obama. No need to suppose how difficult being second guessed by F-bomb Joe could be, especially via a video conference feed.

Reaganite, thanks for that response.
Without getting into your detailed points, some I would agree with, others I consider arguable or lacking proper context, I would ask you and in general: when was the last time you looked over the shoulders of the people in the driver’s seat for a large bureaucracy? One need not do so in a bureaucracy as large as the Fed to understand two things:
Personal competence can have nothing to do with results.
No matter how urgent the issue or task, there is always someone in the decision chain or chain of command who will act to slow things down.
Sometimes, pithy phrases leave too many questions begging. I’m as guilty as anyone — perhaps more than most — for posting something “short and sweet” that gets lost in the mix because it doesn’t do anything to promote or facilitate any side of the debate. As for Obama, no one can sanely expect him to put his decision processes on camera. Second-guessing is a favorite pasttime in the US, myself included, but when it immediately jumps to conclusions… well, assume in haste, be wrong at leisure. I certainly resemble that remark. Be well, good sir.

You’re wrong, Reaganite. Don’t you remember how Obama took for-freaking-ever to decide on his Afghanistan policy. The criticism of him then was not that he was too aloof, but that he was overthinking it. His people had meeting after meeting with military officers, strategists, etc. — and Obama sided with McChrystal over his own vice president.
I’m not entirely happy with the way Obama has responded to the Gulf oil spill, but he hasn’t shut down the oil industry, or anywhere close to it. He imposed a moratorium on deepwater oil drilling. Huge difference. I know Louisiana doesn’t like it because it hurts the state’s economy, but it makes sense to me that deepwater drilling be temporarily halted until we can figure out what went wrong with the BP rig, and improve the safety on that kind of high-risk drilling. You obviously don’t agree with Obama’s call, and that’s your right, but to write as if a deepwater drilling moratorium is a stupid, clueless act is to allow your ideology to distort reality.

He didn’t kick McCrystal’s butt, Rod. That’s a schoolboy’s way of putting it and thinking of it.

There are VPs who have a lot of responsibility, and there are those who have a rug thrown over them early on. Biden certainly belongs to the latter category. He’d be Obama’s Andrew Johnson, were Obama anything like Lincoln.
His criticisms are irrelevant. He’s a ribbon cutting dandy who likes to talk a lot. There is no comparison between his statements and those of McChrystal.

Sorry. But I read the article and I can’t find one insubordinate remark by the general himself.
A beautiful example of partisan hackery and denial.
For the record, Article 88 (as I recall) of the UCMJ expressly forbids public criticism of the POTUS, the VP, and Secretary level member of the government or any ambassador by any uniformed personnel.

The Prez to Gen. Petraeus: I’m sorry I have to let McChrystal go. And I’m sorry I hired him on your recommendation. So I’m sorry but you’re going to have to go back there and clean up your mess. And I’m sorry that if your theory that what worked in Iraq should also work in Afghanistan is wrong, I’m sorry I’m going to have to let you be the one to oversee our exit strategy. I’m sorry. So go ahead and see how this plays out. Sorry.
Captcha: rodeo on

The Prez to Gen. Petraeus: I’m sorry I have to let McChrystal go. And I’m sorry I hired him on your recommendation. So I’m sorry but you’re going to have to go back there and clean up your mess. And I’m sorry that if your theory that what worked in Iraq should also work in Afghanistan is wrong, I’m sorry I’m going to have to let you be the one to oversee our exit strategy. I’m sorry. So go ahead and see how this plays out. Sorry.
Captcha: rodeo on

The Prez to Gen. Petraeus: I’m sorry I have to let McChrystal go. And I’m sorry I hired him on your recommendation. So I’m sorry but you’re going to have to go back there and clean up your mess. And I’m sorry that if your theory that what worked in Iraq should also work in Afghanistan is wrong, I’m sorry I’m going to have to let you be the one to oversee our exit strategy. I’m sorry. So go ahead and see how this plays out. Sorry.
Captcha: rodeo on

Re: the once-demonized but now retired George Bush will seem downright competent.
I don’t know a soul who agrees with this. And opinion polls show the public continues to hold Bush in very low regard.

Barack Obama now officially “owns” the Afghan Quagmire. He has placed a soldier of his own choosing as chief commander of the operation. And, as the man himself said earlier today, the personnel changed, the policy didn’t.
He is still going to have those ridiculous rules of engagement. He is still on record as having said US occupiers will be out of the country by next year. He is still supporting a policy that will not and cannot work. Look for the withdrawal to go off as scheduled; and when that happens, Karzai (a/k/a Hizzoner Da Mahre of Kabool) is either going to be in bed with the Taliban or in his grave shortly thereafter. It’s going to be an update of Saigon 1975.
To coin a phrase: he broke it, he bought it. He’s going to pay for it, and through the nose, in 2012.
All this McChrystal business did was to give Obama’s political people an excuse to use during the 2012 campaign. Not that it’s likely to work, but it will make for quite a few hours of Solid Viewing Entertainment on The Television Network of Your Choice—and that’s what counts in America21, right ?
Shoot, I wouldn’t be surprised if this entire thing had been orchestrated by Obama’s political staff. I mean, an interview with ROLLING STONE ? The Magazine Most Likely To Trash The Legions ?
Fish, meet barrel. Barrel, meet Fish.
Your servant,
Lord Karth
P.S. Full disclosure: I never supported the original takeover of Afghanistan, nor have I EVER supported either of the Gulf Wars of Conquest. Our current governing elites simply do not know enough about the history, languages and culture of the various peoples of the area to have even the foggiest notion of what they’re doing over there. Everyone involved richly deserves what they’ve got coming to them.

OK, so I see we have some Biden bashing here based on, well it’s not clear. So we’ll just pair it with the Cheney bashing of old which was based on speculation that he was a power hungry and devious puppetmaster calling the shots instead of Bush and directing the Rumsfeld Wolfowitz Feith crowd. Done. Zeroing out the speculation about VP Biden here as equivalent to speculation about Cheney.
Seriously, one can debate whether 30 years in Congress and chairmanship of the Foreign Relations Committee (Biden) better prepares one for the Vice Presidency than being a congressman, a chief of staff, and a Secretary of Defense (Cheney). Or whether a Senate Majority leader position best prepares someone for the Vice Presidency (LBJ). But every situation is different, every partnership works differently – and we do not know how they work. Still, there would be some substance to the debate. Venting personal biases based on whom we vote for? Not so much.
Look at it this way. If we each listed our corporate affiliation and rank/position after our posting names, what would any of us know about each others’ roles and performance at work, for those of us who are part of the workforce? At best, we see products and services sold, not what went into design, creation or manufacture, production. We’d be guessing as blindly about each other — and probably based as much on personal bias, whether we liked a poster or not — as people once guessed about Cheney and now guess about Biden. What do we know about how officials fit in on a team, other than vague familiarity with some of the products and services the organizations provide or sell? Who played what role in producing it and what are the behind the scene dynamics? Unknown and unknowable. Even with journalists trying to ferret out the inside scoop and dribbling out bits and pieces, based on who their sources are.

“The gym/golf imagery is a proxy for a growing sense from all quarters that this guy is too detached, too distant. Bush was a a lot of things — and, yes, he enjoyed “down time” — but at least he spent time with his generals trying to understand what they were doing.”
Your time in the service appears to have lead you to a much different view of how things work than mine, and most others I know. The POTUS is not really supposed to have much direct contact with the field general. You dont really want him interfering with tactics. The POTUS should primarily communicate with the people above, like the SecDef, the CENTCOM leader, NSA and, when appropriate, joint chiefs of staff. The civilian leadership, with input from the military needs to develop strategy, what to do, then get out of the way and let the military figure out the how, with some occasional input from the civilians.
This is a common critique from those with no military experience, but I would expect you to know better. If you were the CENTCOM commander, would you want the CinC routinely bypassing you? What purpose would you then serve?
Steve

The cynic in me thinks that McChrystal did this on purpose. It was just too convenient — using the pot-smoking, rock ‘n’ roll, anti-war magazine to carry your dirty laundry. He got the best of all worlds: he made his points with the American public, many people silently nodded in agreement with his assessment of Biden et al. And then he got out of a bad situation, where he probably felt he was being set up as the fall guy. That said, it put the president in a terrible situation with no good options. Still, the wheels appear to be coming off this presidency rather quickly.

Sure, McChrystal goofed big time, but the complaints he aired
OK, now I’ve read the article. And I don’t see him airing one single substantive complaint. I see him trash talking the administration and encouraging his subordinates to do the same. I mean, what actual “complaint” worth listening to is served by egging an aide on to nickname the VP “Bite Me”?
The only substantive complaint appears to be that the president didn’t spend much time directly with McChrystal, but, as Steve says, there are people in between the POTUS and the field general whose job it is to have that contact with the field general. Other than that, it’s just stuff like not wanting to read Holbrooke’s email, poking fun of the VP, and not wanting to have to sell the war to the French (whom an aide finds “gay”). This is gossip, not whistle blowing.

“Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.” -Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 88

Well, I guess Petraeus will not be running for President in 2012, huh? OK, General P., show us how Afghanistan is just like Iraq. My guess is that our Afghai enemies will take the US money, as the Iraqis did, but they won’t stay bought.

After reading Fareed Zakaria’s take on this, it occurred to me that despite the sniping about “elites,” the way this played out illustrates the gap between most of us and some members of the leadership class.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/06/23/zakaria.mcchrystal.petraeus/index.html?hpt=T2
We’re so wrapped up in our ability to go “oh snap” at each other, most of us couldn’t do what Petraeus is doing. I don’t just mean bringing to bear a combination of practical and intellectual skills or balancing the elements that Zakaria describes. I mean stepping BACK into a role we thought we had left behind for the benefit of the nation and the common good. (Most of us don’t even think in terms of nation anymore, and few in terms of the common good.) Whatever you think of Obama, he got it right when he said in his remarks yesterday that Petraeus is “an extraordinary example of service and patriotism.” I can’t picture any of us posters here coming close to that.

People make the comparison with Bush, Cheney & Co.. If this had happened in the last administration, the media would have angled it differently. They would have portrayed the general as a hard-fighting soldier who spoke straight about a corrupt and incompetent White House. If a serving field commander had openly mocked Cheney in Rolling Stone Magazine, he would have been declared a people’s hero.
President Obama has no military experience whatsoever, and neither did President Clinton. Both entered military service at the top position. Yet around the 2004 election Michael Moore and others were mocking President Bush for only being a lieutenant in the Texas Air National Guard. They are not objective.
President Obama is the elected Commander-in-Chief. I think he should have publicly reprimanded General McChrystal, then left him in the job, after a public repentance and symbolic munching on humble pie, followed by a pat on the back.

Indy, I agree with you than none of us here are up to the measure of a man that Petraeus is. To not only come up with a plan that would work but to transform a plan into action, is an achievement few of us can hope to match. Petraeus is an inspirational leader. I can remember reading his official letter to U.S. troops in Iraq, shortly before I left for my second tour, in which we were overextended, under-resourced, and stop lossed to boot. We were pretty demoralized when they announced that our unit would be serving 15 months over there. Petraeus’ letter led off by acknowledging the measure of effort we would all be called upon to make. Then he stated that he was relying on US, to get the thing done. This letter coming from a man like Petraeus, MEANT something. That deployment will remain in my memory as the year from hell (for personal as well as operational reasons.) But his leadership, and the leadership of my Brigade commanders, and my small unit leadership, motivated us to keep going when we thought we had nothing left to give.
As far as the “ridiculous” rules of engagement which are so decried by some commenters here – they are very similar to the ones that have been in effect in Iraq since very early into the conflict there. They can work.
Robert C – a commander is responsible for ALL the actions of the men and women who serve under him. If your guys are running off at the mouth, it’s YOUR fault. If they are doing an excellent job, you are partially responsible, though a good leader gives credit where credit is due – to the guys on the ground implementing your intentions.
Life in the military can be frustrating. You can’t fire anybody, so incompetence happens. Everyone must compensate for it until it gets to the point where someone is relieved from command and given a less responsible position. That is not done often, so the reality is, a lot of folks in the military spend a lot of time compensating – for leadership gaps, policy gaps, lack of communication gaps, on top of dealing with the enemy, who always gets a vote. Interestingly,
it may be that the military has determined this does not negatively impact overall efficiency, in most cases. It forces people to work as a team and it forces them to give 110%.
Those who get out of the military as soon as they can are NOT always brighter than the average. Some folks leave after one tour because they are brilliant and want to go to college on the free GI Bill. (In my line of work by the way it was acceptable to be smarter than your boss – but your boss would expect more from you!)
Others who don’t make it in the military are sincerely not group-oriented. The military is the most group-oriented structure left in the individualistic West. It’s just not a good fit. Some lack the basic ability to function in a group setting, or on the job at all
- they will do worse outside the military than they ever did in it.
But most are simply incapable of the maturity, discipline, and commitment it takes to keep going the extra mile, and then the mile after that, and then the next one, with no let-up in sight. I know I lack that level of commitment!

“Although it’s difficult to be sure from the article-after all, Hastings isn’t really on the inside-there doesn’t appear to be much self-examination or self-criticism within GEN McChrystal’s inner circle, and anyone who isn’t in complete agreement with GEN McChrystal is deemed to be not just wrong but an enemy. That’s not a staff, it’s a cult.
Even if GEN McChrystal doesn’t have contempt for his civilian leaders (not just his peers), it’s clear that many members of his staff do, and they feel free to give voice to that contempt. So, if those staff attitudes don’t reflect GEN McChrystal’s thinking, they do reflect an atmosphere of tolerance for this sort of disrespect to civilian authority, and GEN McChrystal is responsible for that atmosphere too.
Some of the things that GEN McChrystal’s staff says about the President and the Vice President are, potentially, violations of Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice: “Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.” Toleration of this behavior may not be prosecutable, but it’s surely evidence of the wrong command climate. It is possible to disagree with each other and with the President without resorting to the sort of contemptuous language reflected in the article. In fact, if we can’t disagree with each other professionally without falling out with each other personally, it’s impossible for us to get better at what we do. “As steel sharpens steel, so one man sharpens another” (Proverbs 27:17)”
The above from an Air Force commander in a letter to his officers about the recent events.
Steve

Indy, thanks for posting a link to the interview with Fareed Zakariah. He sums up the truth in a nutshell, as far as the stark differences between Afghanistan and Iraq, and the importance of civil engagement to any kind of an endgame to today’s conflicts.

The only reason McChrystal should be fired is because he voted for Obama (that was in the Rolling Stones article). Voting for Obama shows poor judgment on the part of a general officer.

AnotherBeliever, you are welcome. I admire and respect you. May your path ahead go smoothly and well. Your participation here in the comboxes is invaluable. Steve, I also find your contributions to be valuable.
Tad, I take it you don’t work in public relations or in an advoacy related job.

Sullivan posted an interesting take from someone currently serving in Afghanistan:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/06/fearing-the-ego.html#more

OK, I have read enough. I have been very diplomatic in my comments. Now, like Lord Karth and others, let me write what I think. The time for military success in Afghanistan has come and has left. It should have been undertaken first, not last. 2003 would have been the optimal time. Ground military is on its third and fourth deployment. Recruitment is down and reenlistment is static, at best. It is now time for reassessment. Drawdown in Afghanistan is necessary. And the politicization of the military, created under the Bush Administration for optimal polictal advantage, MUST end. This is a critical juncture for our nation, and it goes beyond some mission, soon forgotten in history, that occurs in Central Asia.

R – you are welcome to your own analysis of the situation, but recruitment is UP since the start of this recession, and re-enlistment is also high – the fact that there are precious few jobs available on the outside is a pretty good incentive to stay in uniform if you have a family to support. Recruiters have upped their standards considerably. They are no longer offering many waivers for criminal or medical. You basically cannot get in with a GED anymore, and your test scores have to be high regardless. The Navy and Air Force are ONLY recruiting for a handful of specialties, and recruits for all services but the Army are waiting up to a year to ship out for Basic Training/Boot Camp.
But you are right, the ground forces are over-deployed. Some men and women who have been in since 2001 are actually on their fourth or fifth year-long deployment as we speak. Most members of the Army and Marine Corps have spent two years over there unless they are new guys who only recently entered the service. How much longer can they keep it up? The ones who can’t hack it will get out. The ones who can will just keep going and going and going for as long as it is asked of them. It is up to civilians to decide when enough is enough, because Soldiers and Marines don’t make that call. But it won’t be for another two years, at least…

AB- When I wrote about recruitment, I assumed someone would point out the “economy effect”. But there is a certain degree of disconnect in your data. If there is a one year waiting period for Army Basic Training, why are people going back for their fourth or fifth deployment? During Viet Nam, you went to Basic, then AIT and you were shipped out. Those RA (Regular Army) with a four year commitment occasionaly went back for a second tour. Is the recruitment/basic training pipeline that small in providing manpower? If so, increase recruitment (assuming your data is correct)and open up more Basic Training facilities. As to my analysis, it is from experience. You can not continue to send people back for redeployment. Combat effectiveness suffers on each additional deployment.