Top General In Afghan War: US Envoy Betrayed Me

[sf11b_p]

AP is reporting the General has been relieved and the President has chosen General Petraus as replacement.

[SF18C]

Looks like Stan is out of a job...Dave Petraus is going to run AFG.

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally Posted by Team Sergeant

I like the way you think.....

Stan for Prez.....

Sounds good.

Unelectable, not even close. Given the changes in our culture and the nature of politics today, I don't think we will ever elect another General as President unless we get invaded and the candidate saves the country.

[Richard]

The announcement is being made right now by the POTUS accompanied by VP, SecDef, Chmn JCS, and CINC CENTCOM.

Here's the AP piece:

President Barack Obama sacked Gen. Stanley McChrystal as his top commander in Afghanistan and will replace him with Gen. David Petraeus, head of U.S. Central Command, a senior administration official said.

McChrystal was pushed out over his blistering remarks about administration officials, quoted in a Rolling Stone magazine interview.

After an Oval Office meeting with McChrystal in the morning, Obama huddled with his war advisers and planned to announce his decision on the general's fate to the nation at 1:30 p.m. EDT in the Rose Garden.

The official spoke only on condition of anonymity, because the president's announcement was not yet public. Petraeus has been McChrystal's boss, overseeing the wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq from Central Command. Before that, he led President George W. Bush's surge of troops into Iraq that was credited with turning that war around.

Last week, there was concern about Petraeus when he slumped at the witness table while testifying at a Senate hearing about the war in Afghanistan. He recovered quickly and a spokesman said the general likely was dehydrated and jet-lagged from his travels.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...MPLATE=DEFAULT

And so it goes...

Richard

[Snaquebite]

I'm waiting for the "real" bottom line. O stated he "accepted McChrystal's resignation".

Did McChrystal simply resign or was the resignation asked for and therefore fired? IMHO there's a big difference.

[olhamada]

Originally Posted by Snaquebite

I'm waiting for the "real" bottom line. O stated he "accepted McChrystal's resignation".

Did McChrystal simply resign or was the resignation asked for and therefore fired? IMHO there's a big difference.

The honorable thing to do would be to simply resign - walk in to the Oval Office with resignation in hand. As he is a man of integrity, I bet that's what he did - at least I hope so.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Snaquebite

Did McChrystal simply resign or was the resignation asked for and therefore fired?

No 'simply' over an issue like this one at that level - my bet is SecDef told the GEN he was finished - and to write the resignation and the POTUS would accept it.

And so it goes...

Richard's $.02

[head]

President Obama now has an excuse to extend the July 2011 deadline - a date which General Petraeus has not been supportive of anyways.

This will cause any admin to think twice about appointing Generals with the words "Special Forces" on their shoulders.

I hope one of the first thing General Petraeus does is conduct a review of the ROE restrictions currently in place and how his subcommanders are implementing them.

[Nightfall]

Not a fan of this rag, but in my reading about this, I thought this was kind of funny in the BP light earlier mentioned - sounded like something from The Onion:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sean-c..._b_622135.html


Administration to Try to Stop McCrystal with Junk Shot


As President Obama prepared this morning for his fateful meeting with General William McChrystal, word leaked out of the White House that the Administration will attempt a "junk shot" to stem the catastrophic flow that has been gushing from the General.

The gushing flow coming from General McChrystal, which has apparently been spewing uncapped for years, only came to light this week, in a profile in Rolling Stone Magazine. Experts described the flow as an intense, high-pressure mixture of hubris, vitriol, and opprobrium -- three substances that are common in the environment but that can become explosive when mixed together, especially in volatile regions of international conflict, and also in international diplomatic and political circles. Those experts also said they have never seen a mixture of these substances flowing at such intensity and volume from a United States general in wartime.

And, what is worse, there doesn't seem to be any way to stop it.

"This hole has been gushing for years," one officials said, "and we've tried everything to contain it. Right now, the junk shot is our only hope."

"If this doesn't work," the official added, "this thing could keep spewing to the end of an Obama term."

The procedure, which is modeled on the failed attempt to plug the BP well in the Gulf of Mexico, would involve lowering a large pipe into General McChrystal's throat, and then forcing a combination of thick muds through the pipe, in the hope of counteracting the high-pressure flow that is rising from General McChrystal's gut and forcing its way out of his larynx.

"If that doesn't work," one official said, "we may try to mix in other items, like golf balls, pieces of rubber, maybe a medal of honor or a citation, anything we can get down there, really."


My history isn't the best, but didn't Patton and MacArthor both go down in a similar fashion? I hate it for the guy, but I concur with the earlier comments concerning that pesky protocol thing....

[MtnGoat]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

You know, maybe they let him sit around as an embed till the point where they started to think he was a potted plant or even a buddy?

That is exactly what must have happen!!!!

[echoes]

Originally Posted by SF18C

I worked for Stanley and his professionalism, patriotism and selfless –service are beyond reproach!

Hmmmm… how to say this, I think Stan KNEW/KNOWS exactly what he was doing all along! Stan is very astute to reporters, the press, and the scuttlebutt. His SA is Jedi-like! I think this is a one man exit strategy from a no-win situation combined with red star clusters over the problem area!

But whadda I know???

Sir,

Thank you for your post. It puts all I, as a civilian, need to know about this topic, into perspective.

My simple question is this...Why didn't Our "CIC," listen to the General? He is The General! I do not understand WTH Our non-military serving President thinks he knows more about...THAN THE GENERAL!

Maybe someone here can enlighten me....

Holly

[Utah Bob]

Originally Posted by echoes

Sir,

Thank you for your post. It puts all I, as a civilian, need to know about this topic, into perspective.

My simple question is this...Why didn't Our "CIC," listen to the General? He is The General! I do not understand WTH Our non-military serving President thinks he knows more about...THAN THE GENERAL!

Maybe someone here can enlighten me....

Holly

Presidents, Kings, Dictators, etc. frequently think they know more than their generals where warfare is concerned.
History is full of examples

[Sigaba]

Source is here.

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
June 23, 2010
Statement by the President in the Rose Garden
Rose Garden

1:43 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon. Today I accepted General Stanley McChrystal’s resignation as commander of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan. I did so with considerable regret, but also with certainty that it is the right thing for our mission in Afghanistan, for our military, and for our country.

I'm also pleased to nominate General David Petraeus to take command in Afghanistan, which will allow us to maintain the momentum and leadership that we need to succeed.

I don't make this decision based on any difference in policy with General McChrystal, as we are in full agreement about our strategy. Nor do I make this decision out of any sense of personal insult. Stan McChrystal has always shown great courtesy and carried out my orders faithfully. I've got great admiration for him and for his long record of service in uniform.

Over the last nine years, with America fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, he has earned a reputation as one of our nation’s finest soldiers. That reputation is founded upon his extraordinary dedication, his deep intelligence, and his love of country. I relied on his service, particularly in helping to design and lead our new strategy in Afghanistan. So all Americans should be grateful for General McChrystal’s remarkable career in uniform.

But war is bigger than any one man or woman, whether a private, a general, or a president. And as difficult as it is to lose General McChrystal, I believe that it is the right decision for our national security.

The conduct represented in the recently published article does not meet the standard that should be set by a commanding general. It undermines the civilian control of the military that is at the core of our democratic system. And it erodes the trust that’s necessary for our team to work together to achieve our objectives in Afghanistan.

My multiple responsibilities as Commander-in-Chief led me to this decision. First, I have a responsibility to the extraordinary men and women who are fighting this war, and to the democratic institutions that I've been elected to lead. I've got no greater honor than serving as Commander-in-Chief of our men and women in uniform, and it is my duty to ensure that no diversion complicates the vital mission that they are carrying out.

That includes adherence to a strict code of conduct. The strength and greatness of our military is rooted in the fact that this code applies equally to newly enlisted privates and to the general officer who commands them. That allows us to come together as one. That is part of the reason why America has the finest fighting force in the history of the world.

It is also true that our democracy depends upon institutions that are stronger than individuals. That includes strict adherence to the military chain of command, and respect for civilian control over that chain of command. And that’s why, as Commander-in-Chief, I believe this decision is necessary to hold ourselves accountable to standards that are at the core of our democracy.

Second, I have a responsibility to do what is -- whatever is necessary to succeed in Afghanistan, and in our broader effort to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda. I believe that this mission demands unity of effort across our alliance and across my national security team. And I don’t think that we can sustain that unity of effort and achieve our objectives in Afghanistan without making this change. That, too, has guided my decision.

I’ve just told my national security team that now is the time for all of us to come together. Doing so is not an option, but an obligation. I welcome debate among my team, but I won’t tolerate division. All of us have personal interests; all of us have opinions. Our politics often fuels conflict, but we have to renew our sense of common purpose and meet our responsibilities to one another, and to our troops who are in harm’s way, and to our country.

We need to remember what this is all about. Our nation is at war. We face a very tough fight in Afghanistan. But Americans don’t flinch in the face of difficult truths or difficult tasks. We persist and we persevere. We will not tolerate a safe haven for terrorists who want to destroy Afghan security from within, and launch attacks against innocent men, women, and children in our country and around the world.

So make no mistake: We have a clear goal. We are going to break the Taliban’s momentum. We are going to build Afghan capacity. We are going to relentlessly apply pressure on al Qaeda and its leadership, strengthening the ability of both Afghanistan and Pakistan to do the same.

That’s the strategy that we agreed to last fall; that is the policy that we are carrying out, in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

In that effort, we are honored to be joined by allies and partners who have stood by us and paid the ultimate price through the loss of their young people at war. They are with us because the interests and values that we share, and because this mission is fundamental to the ability of free people to live in peace and security in the 21st century.

General Petraeus and I were able to spend some time this morning discussing the way forward. I’m extraordinarily grateful that he has agreed to serve in this new capacity. It should be clear to everybody, he does so at great personal sacrifice to himself and to his family. And he is setting an extraordinary example of service and patriotism by assuming this difficult post.

Let me say to the American people, this is a change in personnel but it is not a change in policy. General Petraeus fully participated in our review last fall, and he both supported and helped design the strategy that we have in place. In his current post at Central Command, he has worked closely with our forces in Afghanistan. He has worked closely with Congress. He has worked closely with the Afghan and Pakistan governments and with all our partners in the region. He has my full confidence, and I am urging the Senate to confirm him for this new assignment as swiftly as possible.

Let me conclude by saying that it was a difficult decision to come to the conclusion that I’ve made today. Indeed, it saddens me to lose the service of a soldier who I’ve come to respect and admire. But the reasons that led me to this decision are the same principles that have supported the strength of our military and our nation since the founding.

So, once again, I thank General McChrystal for his enormous contributions to the security of this nation and to the success of our mission in Afghanistan. I look forward to working with General Petraeus and my entire national security team to succeed in our mission. And I reaffirm that America stands as one in our support for the men and women who defend it.

Thank you very much.

END
1:51 P.M. EDT

One can only imagine what the president might have said had he found GEN McCrystal's remarks personally insulting.

For comparison. Source is here.

• Harry S. Truman
Statement and Order by the President on Relieving General MacArthur of His Commands.
April 11, 1951

[1.] Statement by the President:

With deep regret I have concluded that General of the Army Douglas MacArthur is unable to give his wholehearted support to the policies of the United States Government and of the United Nations in matters pertaining to his official duties. In view of the specific responsibilities imposed upon me by the Constitution of the United States and the added responsibility which has been entrusted to me by the United Nations, I have decided that I must make a change of command in the Far East. I have, therefore, relieved General MacArthur of his commands and have designated Lt. Gen. Matthew B. Ridgway as his successor.

Full and vigorous debate on matters of national policy is a vital element in the constitutional system of our free democracy. It is fundamental, however, that military commanders must be governed by the policies and directives issued to them in the manner provided by our laws and Constitution. In time of crisis, this consideration is particularly compelling.

General MacArthur's place in history as one of our greatest commanders is fully established. The Nation owes him a debt of gratitude for the distinguished and exceptional service which he has rendered his country in posts of great responsibility. For that reason I repeat my regret at the necessity for the action I feel compelled to take in his case.

[2.] Order by the President to General MacArthur:

I deeply regret that it becomes my duty as President and Commander in Chief of the United States military forces to replace you as Supreme Commander, Allied Powers; Commander in Chief, United Nations Command; Commander in Chief, Far East; and Commanding General, U.S. Army, Far East.

You will turn over your commands, effective at once, to Lt. Gen. Matthew B. Ridgway. You are authorized to have issued such orders as are necessary to complete desired travel to such place as you select.

My reasons for your replacement will be made public concurrently with the delivery to you of the foregoing order, and are contained in the next following message. (See attached Statement by the President.)

[Dozer523]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

Source is here.One can only imagine what the president might have said had he found GEN McCrystal's remarks personally insulting.

You forgot to switch to pink.
Wait for what Robert Gates has to say, remember the guy Stan replaced? (Me neither) same fate awaits Stan.
Except -- his real 15 minutes of fame. Meet the Press, Sunday. Be there, Aloha.

[BrainStorm]

We have a long history of fighting generals who were politically challenged. General McChrystal does not seem to be one of them. I choose to believe that he is being sly like a fox. His endgame is beyond my powers of prediction.