View Full Version : U.S. General Fired for Karzai Remark
And another one down...
Maj. Gen. Peter Fuller, deputy commander of the NATO training mission in Afghanistan, made the remarks in an interview with Politico that was published Thursday.
Fuller told Politico that major players in the Afghan government are "isolated from reality." Fuller reacted angrily to claims from Karzai that Afghanistan would side with Pakistan if it were to go to war with the United States...
The above is just a warmup. The quotes that got him canned are later in the article... MG Fuller, you just spoke the truth and got fired for it.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11/04/us-general-fired-for-verbal-attack-on-karzai/#ixzz1cv7gXXPY
Absolutely loved this line...
"You can teach a man how to fish, or you can give them a fish," Fuller said. "We're giving them fish while they're learning, and they want more fish! [They say,] 'I like swordfish, how come you're giving me cod?' Guess what? Cod's on the menu today."
But, you know, comments like this had to have been thought out. Maybe the end result was the intended result.
BTW...reminded me of this quote...
"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day...Set a man on fire, and hell be warm for the rest of his life."
Maybe the end result was the intended result.
Yup. A frustrated, pissed off, GO that knows he's not going to get his third star and has enough years in to retire who just doesn't give a shit.
I agree, the fish quote was awesome.
Or is most of the MSM not covering this?:confused:
Stay safe.
Or is most of the MSM not covering this?:confused:
Stay safe.
You are right. A Google search of "MG Fuller Fired" returns results of Military.com, ebayrefugee.com, Professional Soldiers.com (we were the #5 listing...three above Michal Yon-online :eek:) and a couple other message boards.
That's pretty darn strange.
Maybe after it was shown that a little known MIL-blogger with a camera was able to get two generals fired...GOs getting sacked are just not newsworthy "sport" anymore.:D
Surgicalcric
11-06-2011, 11:04
Thank you Sir for saying what needs to be said instead of whats popular.
.."These unfortunate comments are neither indicative of our current solid relationship with the government of Afghanistan, its leadership, or our joint commitment to prevail here in Afghanistan", Allen said.
Solid relationship... WTF is he smoking? Solid relationships arent built on telling us you will side with Pakistan if they go to war with us; thats a tenuous relationship at best...
Crip
I like this Officer. :cool:
I have a few rounds for Maj. Gen. Peter Fuller. I applaud him for speaking the Truth when so many will not.
Sir you have my respect and do not change a bit.
greenberetTFS
11-06-2011, 12:10
Yup. A frustrated, pissed off, GO that knows he's not going to get his third star and has enough years in to retire who just doesn't give a shit.[/B]
Agree totally with abc_123............. ;) Well said Sir......:D GUTS!........:lifter
Big Teddy :munchin
Airbornelawyer
11-06-2011, 13:20
.."These unfortunate comments are neither indicative of our current solid relationship with the government of Afghanistan, its leadership, or our joint commitment to prevail here in Afghanistan", Allen said.
Solid relationship... WTF is he smoking? Solid relationships arent built on telling us you will side with Pakistan if they go to war with us; thats a tenuous relationship at best...
Crip
To be charitable, or maybe just contrarian, two other possible interpretations:
1. Allen's view of the "solid relationship" is with the government as a whole, especially the Western-trained ANA which is less dominated by Pushtuns than Karzai's bureaucracy. So he is discounting Karzai's statement and hinting that perhaps Karzai is the one smoking something if he thinks the Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras of the ANA are going to fight on the side of a pro-Taliban Pakistani war effort.
2. Perhaps Karzai is just blowing smoke up the Pakistanis' ass, knowing how paranoid the Pakistanis are. As a Pushtun, Karzai could easily see siding with the US in a war with Pakistan as a way of carving out the Pashto-speaking parts of Pakistan to create a Greater Pushtunistan. He knows this, and he knows the Pakistanis know this, so he tells them what they want to hear.
The Pakistanis have been concerned about the Afghan threat to Pakistani territorial integrity since Pakistan was founded. The Afghan monarchy was Pushtun and favored Greater Pushtunistan, even if not publicly for fear of antagonizing Islamabad. The Soviets, in their pursuit of the Great Game originally between the Russian and British Empires, also sought to piecemeal carve up the region and reach the Indian Ocean. So the Soviets overthrew the Afghan regime, supported Baluch separatists in Pakistan and Iran, and made plans to carve up Afghanistan. The Soviet endgame would have seen the Tajik and Uzbek parts of Afghanistan annexed to the Tajik and Uzbek SSRs, with a predominantly Pushtun rump Afghanistan to annex Pakistan's Pushtun regions, and an "independent" Baluchistan as a proxy state reaching the Indian Ocean.
So during the Afghan-Soviet War, the Pakistanis opposed the Soviets, but they also undermined the royalist mujahideen parties because they were heavily Pushtun-nationalist, as well as the Islamist party of Burhanuddin Rabbani and Ahmad Shah Massoud, because it was heavily Tajik. Instead, the Pakistanis sought an Afghan proxy which would be Pushtun but Islamist rather than ethnic nationalist, and thus not a threat to Pakistan's integrity. They found this first in Gulbuddin Hekmatyar's Hezb-e Islami, but he proved ineffective despite receiving the lion's share of aid to the mujahideen (channeled through the ISI), so they created the Taliban, recruited from the madrasas run by Pakistan's Islamist movements.
Also, as with the Iraqi relationship with Iran, the local leaders know that while the US can up and leave at pretty much any time (and the current administration has made it clear just how much it wants to go home), the Afghans will always be next to the Pakistanis (and the Iraqis will always be next to the Iranians), so manipulating those local relationships will always take priority.
You are right. A Google search of "MG Fuller Fired" returns results of Military.com, ebayrefugee.com, Professional Soldiers.com (we were the #5 listing...three above Michal Yon-online :eek:) and a couple other message boards.
That's pretty darn strange.
Maybe after it was shown that a little known MIL-blogger with a camera was able to get two generals fired...GOs getting sacked are just not newsworthy "sport" anymore.:D
Google "major general peter fuller", "general peter fuller", or just "peter fuller, and you'll get plenty of MSM hits.
ODA CDR (RET)
11-06-2011, 16:28
good men do we have to lose from forced retirement to getting killing by Afghan traitors or road side bombs before we get the hell out of that shit hole.
Google "major general peter fuller", "general peter fuller", or just "peter fuller, and you'll get plenty of MSM hits.Then go below the name and read who's the article linked to....
AL,
Good post however, if I just gave you $11+ BILLION! I'd expect some type of gratitude.
BTW...I hope they gave it to them in a check that they haven't cashed yet because--that SOB would bounce like big breast on a trampoline!:D
Stay safe.
Then go below the name and read who's the article linked to....
AL,
Good post however, if I just gave you $11+ BILLION! I'd expect some type of gratitude.
BTW...I hope they gave it to them in a check that they haven't cashed yet because--that SOB would bounce like big breast on a trampoline!:D
Stay safe.
Hay little ones bounce too........:p
Hay little ones bounce too........:pThey do however, they're only worth a few thousand.....:D
Stay safe.
Buffalobob
11-06-2011, 18:36
A general who bad mouths the host government to the press when he is assigned to be there to work cooperatively with them isn't doing his job. A man who has achieved the rank of general needs to remember what his mission is and not compromise it by running his mouth at the wrong time and place irregardless of whether his opinion is true.
ODA CDR (RET)
11-06-2011, 18:47
I'm fairly certain that a General does not need reminding of what he's supposed to be doing. On the other hand how much shit does a soldier have to eat to be fed up with it. He was ready to move on no doubt.
Roguish Lawyer
11-06-2011, 18:49
Here is the original interview:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/67523.html
AL, where have you been, bud? :)
Peregrino
11-06-2011, 19:17
[QUOTE=ODA CDR (RET);423224]On the other hand how much shit does a soldier have to eat to be fed up with it. QUOTE]
At some point in most lives there comes an epiphany. When you don't like/can't respect the person looking back from the mirror, real men do something about it. Maybe the General reached his limit.
A general who bad mouths the host government to the press when he is assigned to be there to work cooperatively with them isn't doing his job. A man who has achieved the rank of general needs to remember what his mission is and not compromise it by running his mouth at the wrong time and place irregardless of whether his opinion is true.
Is this a joke post? Because you said "irregardless".
The Reaper
11-06-2011, 19:49
I agree. I understand why he did it I just do not agree with it. I wonder if any soldiers will die because of him voicing his opinion in the press.
How exactly would that happen?
I think everyone who wants to kill our guys is already doing everything they can to make that happen.
They know what he said is true.
You want someone to blame for making statements that are getting soldiers killed, look at the occupant at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Telling people you are going to leave by a certain date, win or lose, gets people killed.
Of course, the MSM will never tell you that.
TR
On the other hand how much shit does a soldier have to eat to be fed up with it.
some point in most lives there comes an epiphany. When you don't like/can't respect the person looking back from the mirror, real men do something about it. Maybe the General reached his limit.I felt "exactly" that way under the Clinton and Bone administrations.:D
Stay safe.
The Reaper
11-06-2011, 21:14
It could piss off some village, person etc and spur them into taking action. As a QP you know Psyops is important, this is bad psyops for us.
What if you are wrong? As you know the idea in a UW enviroment is to win over the population not piss them off and undercut the legitimicy of the HN.
I don't disagree what he said was true, just that he should not have said it in a public forum. How does his statement help the war effort? In fact IMHO it is counterproductive to our effort there. If he disagrees so much turn in his retirement paperwork.
I agree the current admin has done the same thing even worse but he is a soldier and I expect more out of my leadership than from some kiss ass politican. Just because the washington folks do it does not mean he should.
We agree on the MSM crowd. The media today is a joke at best and at times crosses the line to treason. Again does not make what he did right. In fact IMHO it falls right into their hands and helps their agenda. I know that was NOT his intentions but he just did not think it through.
So you believe that Afghan villagers disgree that major players in the Afghan government are "isolated from reality" and may run amok and commit violent acts if they learn that an American general used the fish analogy?
Hmm.
TR
Roguish Lawyer
11-06-2011, 21:24
How many Afghan villagers read Politico? :munchin
Airbornelawyer
11-06-2011, 21:39
As others have noted above, I also understand MG Fuller's frustration. I was involved with the Afghans at a time when most Americans probably thought an Afghan was either a dog or a rug. In the struggle against the Soviets, we had to hold our noses and deal with some unsavory characters, including Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and Jalaluddin Haqqani, not to mention non-Afghans like the ISI and various Saudi officials. Also Barney Frank. ;)
But also as others have noted, generals do not make policy and if you publicly attack that policy, however accurate your assessment may be, you have to pay the price.
How many generals, from Patton on down, were fed up with the Roosevelt Administration's toadying to Stalin and seeming blindness to just how bad the Soviets were? How did British officers feel, seeing their concerns about Soviet and Titoist actions in the Balkans dismissed by the American government as merely petty concern with their own empire?
It may not be clear what the direct consequences may be, but one of my fears is the indirect consequences of public criticism. It varies from time to time and administration to administration, but civilian policy makers in the US are generally fairly receptive to the advice of the military leadership on how best to implement the policies they decide on. Often the civilians do not take the advice, which can be very frustrating. When military officers publicly question the policy choices of the civilian leadership, the civilian leadership may feel free to ignore military advice altogether and treat them as merely part of the policy process, and in some cases rivals. Certainly an administration like the current one would love to feel justified in dismissing the advice of the military and treating the military as just another interest group.
AL, where have you been, bud? :)
I have been around, mainly lurking (in real life as well as forum life), but generally too depressed to do much. Of late I have been mainly doing military history research at the US National Archives. I will be in DC later this week at the FedSoc convention.
[T]he legitimacy of the HN.
IMO, Karzai's legitimacy is more imperiled by the rampant corruption in Afghanistan than MG Fuller's heart-felt but ill-considered remarks <<LINK (http://www.transparency.org/content/download/55725/890310/CPI_report_ForWeb.pdf)>>.
My $0.02. YMMV.
alright4u
11-06-2011, 23:33
As others have noted above, I also understand MG Fuller's frustration. I was involved with the Afghans at a time when most Americans probably thought an Afghan was either a dog or a rug. In the struggle against the Soviets, we had to hold our noses and deal with some unsavory characters, including Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and Jalaluddin Haqqani, not to mention non-Afghans like the ISI and various Saudi officials. Also Barney Frank. ;)
But also as others have noted, generals do not make policy and if you publicly attack that policy, however accurate your assessment may be, you have to pay the price.
How many generals, from Patton on down, were fed up with the Roosevelt Administration's toadying to Stalin and seeming blindness to just how bad the Soviets were? How did British officers feel, seeing their concerns about Soviet and Titoist actions in the Balkans dismissed by the American government as merely petty concern with their own empire?
It may not be clear what the direct consequences may be, but one of my fears is the indirect consequences of public criticism. It varies from time to time and administration to administration, but civilian policy makers in the US are generally fairly receptive to the advice of the military leadership on how best to implement the policies they decide on. Often the civilians do not take the advice, which can be very frustrating. When military officers publicly question the policy choices of the civilian leadership, the civilian leadership may feel free to ignore military advice altogether and treat them as merely part of the policy process, and in some cases rivals. Certainly an administration like the current one would love to feel justified in dismissing the advice of the military and treating the military as just another interest group.
I have been around, mainly lurking (in real life as well as forum life), but generally too depressed to do much. Of late I have been mainly doing military history research at the US National Archives. I will be in DC later this week at the FedSoc convention.
We have paid a heavy price in money and blood while this asshole runs his mouth about making peace with the Taliban to being a Pakistani pal in war.
We have seen Obama plan to just high tail it out of Iraq with not a single agreement to protect a single US troop left at the end.
These bastards need nour bombs, not our nation's treasure. We have played their stupid game and Sadr is a pal of Iran. Thanks Hilliary you witch.
When we fight and charge these oil rich nations to do their dirty work-that is war. They are bleeding our coffers to death worse then the bums who refuse to work.
Obama will merely call this racial or some misunderstanding- but; the clown has no damn clue he is spending us into oblivion. He will still try to blame Bush. Bush was on his ranch on vacations. His wife was not shopping all over the damn word for designer clothes with folks out of work.
"What we call corruption they call standard SOP."
Brush Okie, I wish you'd quit badmouthing the Afghanis. Somebody might get hurt.
Buffalobob
11-07-2011, 06:41
Dusty, for your edification concerning the word "irregardless", which I use frequently"
Merriam Webster has this to say
Usage Discussion of IRREGARDLESS
Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.
Wiki has this to say
Irregardless is an informal term commonly used in place of regardless or irrespective, which has caused controversy since it first appeared in the early twentieth century. Most dictionaries list it as "nonstandard" or "incorrect".
You can start a second career as a "usage commentator".
Dusty, for your edification concerning the word "irregardless", which I use frequently"
Merriam Webster has this to say
Wiki has this to say
You can start a second career as a "usage commentator".
Hey, I thought it might be a joke.
Heretofore, I've only seen or heard "irregardless" used by the most ignorantest users; hence my comment.
ZonieDiver
11-07-2011, 07:36
Hey, I thought it might be a joke.
Heretofore, I've only seen or heard "irregardless" used by the most ignorantest users; hence my comment.
It's great to start my day with a fine example of a "Dusty-ism." Thanks for that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ke5Mr5eCF2U
It's great to start my day with a fine example of a "Dusty-ism." Thanks for that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ke5Mr5eCF2U
:D
Hey, he likes to use Wiki as a source; I can rig that site to pronounce "ignorantest" to be the King's English, irrespective to the accuracy and regardless of the veracity.
Badger52
11-07-2011, 13:14
:D
Hey, he likes to use Wiki as a source; I can rig that site to pronounce "ignorantest" to be the King's English, irrespective to the accuracy and regardless of the veracity.You gladden my heart, QP Dusty, as a bulwark against the dumbing down of America. I'm sure that things will be better once everyone gets orientated to your viewpoint.
:)
Karzai could stick to cod, and give back the swordfish so the gourmet guerillas can cook it up in a variety of ways. Given what it has taken to sustain him he just is simply pissing me off at this point. No one ever wants to comment on the fact that a President of a country* ought to also have more presence of mind than to say something like he'd side with the sworn enemy of the people propping his ass up with their blood.
* speaking of Afghanistan here for those who thought I was talking about the current COiC.
DevilSide
11-08-2011, 13:19
It's great to start my day with a fine example of a "Dusty-ism." Thanks for that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ke5Mr5eCF2U
What did he say?
What did he say?
Don't worry, I speak frontier gibberish. What he said was, "Chump ain't won't na hep, chump ain't get nuh."
ZonieDiver
11-08-2011, 13:45
Don't worry, I speak frontier gibberish. What he said was, "Chump ain't won't na hep, chump ain't get nuh."
It's near the end...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qa1rjCZxtxo
Don't worry, I speak frontier gibberish. What he said was, "Chump ain't won't na hep, chump ain't get nuh."
You are by far the funniest person that I have never met.
Fuller IMHO did what needed to be said. Right?? Wrong?? Up to UP!!!?!?!
Maybe not as for a GEN. But whom was going to say anything?? NTM-A (http://ntm-a.com/wordpress2/) is the people who go around ensuring that the ANA is ready to take over in 2014. They said out Train-the-thrainer teams and Intructor evaluation teams to ensure everything is going to plan. Maybe it just took the top man to say this Country can't even frinkin FISH on their own yet, let along take over Bases around the country.
As far as the corruption.. Afghnaistan is nore corrupt than any Western Country out there. They just don't know how to hind it in the paperwork or contructs or personal dealing like Western Governments do. I will agree with Okie that it is just a daily SOP. Everyone does it at the city, state and national levels in the U.S. and Eroupe, just like they do it in Astan. Get off your high horse if you think the West isn't corrupt!! Is that rock nice under it?? :p