Gen. McChrystal resigns

[moonbat60]

So guys, here we have it. Gen. Stanley McChrystal will put in his resignation for being a little outspoken.

I wonder what will happen next......................

You just gotta love our government. I don't know him in person, but the line that our government follows seems to zig-zag all over the place.

:fal:

Pete

[Lockbar]

He had to go, even if what he said is true.

[Hoot G]

I see a couple of choices;

1. A monumentally stupid idea to allow an anti-war, anti-government, anti-military magazine access to your inner sanctum.

or

2. A last-ditch effort to bring attention to the fact that the President and the State Department is royally screwing up the war.

Since the General isn't stupid, I'm betting that he fell on his sword in an attempt to make public what the President and all his minions have kept under wraps; that we're losing. Not militarily, but politically.


Just like Viet Nam, it's not the soldiers that are losing the war, but the politicians.

[Cava3r4]

If the rules of engagement are McChrystal’s, then he deserves to be fired.
IMHO...your JOB as a soldier is to KILL the enemy....not to GET KILLED by the enemy. What is wrong with these nut cases?
Bob


> http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/m
> cchrystals-real-offense-96873364.html
>
> But the bigger problem with McChrystal’s leadership has always been
> the general’s devotion to unreasonably restrictive rules of engagement
> that are resulting in the unnecessary deaths of American and coalition
> forces. We have had many, many accounts of the rules endangering
> Americans, and the Rolling Stone article
> <http://www.politico.com/static/PPM130_r1109mcchrystal.html> provides
> more evidence. In the story, a soldier at Combat Outpost JFM who had
> earlier met with McChrystal was killed in a house that American
> officers had asked permission to destroy. From the article:
>
> The night before the general is scheduled to visit Sgt. Arroyo’s
> platoon for the memorial, I arrive at Combat Outpost JFM to speak
> with the soldiers he had gone on patrol with. JFM is a small
> encampment, ringed by high
>
> ut the bigger problem with McChrystal’s leadership has always been
> the general’s devotion to unreasonably restrictive rules of
> engagement that are resulting in the unnecessary deaths of
> American and coalition forces. We have had many, many accounts of
> the rules endangering Americans, and the Rolling Stone article
> <http://www.politico.com/static/PPM130_r1109mcchrystal.html>
> provides more evidence. In the story, a soldier at Combat Outpost
> JFM who had earlier met with McChrystal was killed in a house that
> American officers had asked permission to destroy. From the article:
>
> The night before the general is scheduled to visit Sgt.
> Arroyo’s platoon for the memorial, I arrive at Combat Outpost
> JFM to speak with the soldiers he had gone on patrol with. JFM
> is a small encampment, ringed by high blast walls and guard
> towers. Almost all of the soldiers here have been on repeated
> combat tours in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and have seen some
> of the worst fighting of both wars. But they are especially
> angered by Ingram’s death. His commanders had repeatedly
> requested permission to tear down the house where Ingram was
> killed, noting that it was often used as a combat position by
> the Taliban. But due to McChrystal’s new restrictions to avoid
> upsetting civilians, the request had been denied. “These were
> abandoned houses,” fumes Staff Sgt. Kennith Hicks. “Nobody was
> coming back to live in them.”
>
> One soldier shows me the list of new regulations the platoon
> was given. “Patrol only in areas that you are reasonably
> certain that you will not have to defend yourselves with
> lethal force,” the laminated card reads. For a soldier who has
> traveled halfway around the world to fight, that’s like
> telling a cop he should only patrol in areas where he knows he
> won’t have to make arrests. “Does that make any f–king sense?”
> Pfc. Jared Pautsch. “We should just drop a f–king bomb on this
> place. You sit and ask yourself: What are we doing here?”
>
>
>
> Read more at the Washington Examiner:
> http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/mcchrystals-real-offense-96873364.html#ixzz0rb38nQ9A
> blast walls and guard towers. Almost all of the soldiers here have
> been on repeated combat tours in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and
> have seen some of the worst fighting of both wars. But they are
> especially angered by Ingram’s death. His commanders had
> repeatedly requested permission to tear down the house where
> Ingram was killed, noting that it was often used as a combat
> position by the Taliban. But due to McChrystal’s new restrictions
> to avoid upsetting civilians, the request had been denied. “These
> were abandoned houses,” fumes Staff Sgt. Kennith Hicks. “Nobody
> was coming back to live in them.”
>
> One soldier shows me the list of new regulations the platoon was
> given. “Patrol only in areas that you are reasonably certain that
> you will not have to defend yourselves with lethal force,” the
> laminated card reads. For a soldier who has traveled halfway
> around the world to fight, that’s like telling a cop he should
> only patrol in areas where he knows he won’t have to make arrests.
> “Does that make any f–king sense?” Pfc. Jared Pautsch. “We should
> just drop a f–king bomb on this place. You sit and ask yourself:
> What are we doing here?”
>
>
>
> Read more at the Washington Examiner:
> http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/m
> cchrystals-real-offense-96873364.html#ixzz0rb38nQ9A
>

[moonbat60]

If what is said in the article about McChrystal's restrictive rules is true, then he deserved to go.

A general should care more about the troops under his command, other than getting them killed by some stupid rules or policies.

These soldiers are someone's brothers, sisters, husbands, wives, etc and not just manpower that can be expended willy-nilly.

:fal:

Pete

[Deltaten]

I doubt very seriously that he penned the odd ROE's. More likely'n'not he issued them as they were issued to HIM!

AFA "faling on his sword" for a political statement? Then there *must* be a lot more to the stooooory that has yet to be released. Conjecture that he has the "goods" on all the Obamites, and needed to get clear of restrictions on speech....by getting canned doing a little; they release him to do a lot! Hopefully! :D

I doubt he's *that* kinda stupid to do such a thing without a plan:eek:

[Dean P]

The General was fired trying to protect his soldiers from the PC rules.

But the stink will cling to the 0bum.

Don't kid yourself that he did not know what would happen.


We are enjoying the mountains of PA:bow:

[Ricketts]

Originally posted by moonbat60
If what is said in the article about McChrystal's restrictive rules is true, then he deserved to go.

A general should care more about the troops under his command, other than getting them killed by some stupid rules or policies.

These soldiers are someone's brothers, sisters, husbands, wives, etc and not just manpower that can be expended willy-nilly.

:fal:

Pete

I'm not a military but I realize that shit flows down hill. His rules of combat had to be Obama directives.

I think the Gen had enough of his shit and decided to put out a bit of shit himself in a way he knew it would get attention. Hell and be damned his career.

Bet he got his pension and perks to go away.

If that is the way it happened--that man has stones.

[FAL freek]

Originally posted by Ricketts


I'm not a military but I realize that shit flows down hill. His rules of combat had to be Obama directives.

I think the Gen had enough of his shit and decided to put out a bit of shit himself in a way he knew it would get attention. Hell and be damned his career.

Bet he got his pension and perks to go away.

If that is the way it happened--that man has stones. Figured when he was getting recalled to Washington that he knew that this was going to happen. The general believed in completing the mission and couldn't do the mission because of the ROE. He sounded the alarm.

Now Obumbler and his administration will be seen as the reason for no progress and/or failure in Afghanistan. Guess TAO never read about how the Kaiser got the lions share of the blame for losing WW I because the German government abdicated for that exact reason. Obumbler has now lost any hope of ever gaining any of the militarys' support.

[martin35]

Cava3r4 Why the >>>>>>, its distracting and annoying?
A soldier of noble distinction and career acomplishments finishes ignobily in my opinion, that's politicians running wars.

[Deltaten]

A good time to be mountains, Dean. Too damm'd hot down here in the flatlands :D
Welcome..and have fun!

[Dean P]

We have been here a week now near Milton, PA.

Time to head back to Texas & more heat.

Woke up up to 67 degrees this morning, like to have froze.

Ole BIL has a mountain side home, I would give my right x for.

Except in the winter, but he does have some serious snow removel equipment.

[mojo_matic]

I vote Gen. Stanley McChrystal for President

Fire Obama.

[cowbilly]

The ROE is from higher's intent. Obama is the author and his military staff elaborates, he wanted to limit the collateral damage because it made us (him) look bad in the world's eyes. He addressed this in his campaign and said he would clamp down on civilian casualties despite the cost in Soldiers (also their families).

Korea, Vietnam, Iraq/Gulf War I/II and the War on Terrorism are all the result of Politicians with little or no military experience getting involved. There are no rules in war but to win. The faster we understand this the better.

[juanni]

Here is the problem.......

Eliminating/reducing the rules of engagement, which in the short term would reduce US casualties BUT in the long term increases support for the Taliban with the inevitable increase of US casualties. :uhoh:

So what is it going to be?
High US casualties for years and lose support of the US public.
or
Low US casualties, lose the Afghan population to the Taliban and eventually lose the support of the US public for a war we can never seem to win.

Both lead to failure, which should have been considered before we ventured in.




...................juanni

[cowbilly]

Your missing the point. War is simple. The goal is to kill the enemy (Taliban and all their supporters). Eliminate the enemy and those who aid them, that is the purpose of war. It will be ugly, innocents will die but we all will be better off. The Afgans will be too, those that are left.

The only failure we have had is to allow the enemy to shoot at us while we wait for permission to shoot back. Then comes the debate on what we can use to shoot them with, absolute utter nonsense.

Failure is not the only result possible in this effort, we can win. The real question is do the American people have the will to simply back our troops through the effort. The Soldiers who tote the load get tired of hearing "we can't win" and "it's a failure" from non-service types who have no hide involved.

As usual, we are our own worst enemy.

[HughJass]

Funny how Patraeus was called a liar and skewered by the Washington folks but now he's the "answer"? It never ends with these clowns.

[juanni]

Originally posted by cowbilly
Your missing the point. War is simple. The goal is to kill the enemy (Taliban and all their supporters). Eliminate the enemy and those who aid them, that is the purpose of war. It will be ugly, innocents will die but we all will be better off. The Afgans will be too, those that are left.


You are stuck several centuries in the past. The US is not going to line the roads with the impaled or go Pol Pot and stack heads.
That is what it would take, and no one is going down that road in a Turd World shithole half way around the world.

Vlad didn't have to worry about anthrax, dirty bombs, a mall massacre, planes into high rises, sabatoging a oil rig or any of the many things which time and technology has allowed to level the killing field.

And for what?
So 6 or 12 people out of 30 million won't conspire against us and pull another 9/11?
So Afghan women won't have to wear a veil?
So they can enjoy the corrupt leadership, they never wanted?



Originally posted by cowbilly
Failure is not the only result possible in this effort, we can win. The real question is do the American people have the will to simply back our troops through the effort. The Soldiers who tote the load get tired of hearing "we can't win" and "it's a failure" from non-service types who have no hide involved.



9 years, and victory whatever that is supposed to be is no closer.
Please define for us what YOU would consider victory.

As far as having no "hide" in it.
You need to step back and look at the BIG PICTURE.
The US taxpayers are footing the bill and INCREASED hatred and revenge against the US from this military adventure will result in more terrorism against US citizens, not less. And less security and less freedom.
So ask the victims of 9/11 if they had any "hide" in it.



..............juanni

[Jaxxas]

The problem was they didn't agree on the exit strategy! Obama wants to hold to the July 2011 deadline, and Gen. McChrystal wanted a June 2010 exit. Gen. McChrystal won! :] I wouldn't want to work for Obama either!

[Cava3r4]

correct me if I'm wrong,
but when Gen Petrayus was working for Bush weren't all the democrats including obama calling him "Gen Be Tray Us"??
I seem to recall that.
NOW.... his (obama's) move is "brilliant" DUH OH!!

[bykerhd]

That "Betray-us' thing was an ad campaign by Move-On.Org.
Obama's pal Soro's group.
I think Petraeus' appointment is strictly a marriage of convenience.
Petraeus has to know that also. He knows Obama is Soro's boy and that he too will be discarded at the first opportunity.
Or, if he fails to keep Obama's buns sufficiently far from the fire.
Not exactly a confidence inspiring alliance.
Especially with that numb-nuts "Bite-Me", and the rest of the White House and Congressional Lefties, still part of the mix.

[cowbilly]

Juanni, your worried about money, I'm worried about our Soldiers and the good of the nation. We are in it now, we can't go back and undo what is done, so stop trying. The only good answer is to win and get out.

Victory is either "no more enemy" or "unconditional surrender" . Uncondonitional surrender is unlikely. We know who the enemy is. We have the technology to track them down day and night. We know where they are. We have to kill them to acheive victory. The Islamic terrorists hate us no matter what we do and have since 1949. The only way to be their friend is to become one of them or submit to them. You need to read the Koran, it lays out what you are to them if you don't conform. Our national security could not be any worse than it is now, it can only improve (reference borders).

No need to stack heads (the terrorists like to do this). If this outlandish comment is an indication of your thought pattern in terms of how the military functions, you are greatly misinformed. Most "we can't win" types are, that is why they think that way. The military needs to be allowed to function like one and this war will end in our favor.

Your 911 comment is silly. We are fighting because they (Islamic Terrorists) came to our land and killed more than 3,000 citizens (or tax payers if you prefer). We are fighting because they lost their lives. Those citizens did not know their hydes were on the line that morning.

You pay taxes regardless of war. It is no sweat off your brow, you are not suffering or facing hardship. Support the troops, pressure your Reps and Senators to let the Military win. Stop contibuting to the enemy. If they had your posts they would use them against our Soldiers.

I want this to end too, 9 years of " tit for tat' is our politicians fualt. I have tax dollars and hyde in it. All Soldiers stateside pay taxes too. The big picture must include victory, the money is already spent.

[juanni]

Originally posted by cowbilly


No need to stack heads (the terrorists like to do this). If this outlandish comment is an indication of your thought pattern in terms of how the military functions, you are greatly misinformed. Most "we can't win" types are, that is why they think that way. The military needs to be allowed to function like one and this war will end in our favor.



That wasn't directed at you cowbilly, but another poster in this or the other McChrysal thread that suggested that was the answer.

Originally posted by cowbilly

Your 911 comment is silly. We are fighting because they (Islamic Terrorists) came to our land and killed more than $3,000 citizens (or tax payers if you prefer). We are fighting because they lost their lives. Those citizens did not know their hydes were on the line that morning.


A very small number of Afghans partisipated or had knowledge of 9/11, we attacked a whole country of 29 million and are trying to shape it in to something it will never be and wasting lives and treasure to do it.

"Our national debt is our biggest national security threat," said Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, at a "Tribute to the Troops" breakfast sponsored by The Hill on Thursday morning, according to two staffers at the gathering.


...............juanni

[cowbilly]

Osama bin laden, the mastermind of the attack and his minions, were operating in Afganistan. The other 29 million poeple you refer to either supported him, did not care or said nothing out of fear. Progress is being made, we need to kill the enemy, the rest will come around. Afganistan will never be a pure republic or democracy and that was not the plan. Neither a democracy nor a republic can truly exist in a muslim nation.

Money, equipment and personnel were funneled to him through Syria, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemon, Sudan and numerous organizations (Hamas, et al). The head was in Afganistan and we went there to cut it off. All the supply lanes ended in Afganistan, we moved in to cut it off. Like I said, the money is spent, the debt is worse, let us focus and win it then lets get on to better things.

The Amercian people need not get weak in the knees. Our Soldiers can do it, we win every time we are allowed to fight.

By the way, it is beneficial in a strategic sense, to have airbases on either side of Iran, just another part of that bigger picture.

[Jaxxas]

Frankly it's not about whether our soldiers can do it or not, it's about ROE, and the F'd up pols running the war. This war is a losable as Vietnam.

[Fn/form]

McChrystal didn't even say a whole lot--he was directly quoted only a few times. His staffers said a lot, and he joked a lot.

While I agree that McChrystal and his staff were supremely stupid in saying stuff in front of a Rolling Stone bitch, the bitch who wrote the piece isn't a journalist. He's vaginitis maximus. I hope the RS writer gets what he deserves. I guaran-damn-tee that he won't have more access to military figures.

[101ABN327]

Don't cry for McCrystal... He is a liberal hack and Clinton lap dog. He will publish a book in the near future, praising Obonzo and laying blame squarely at the feet of Bush. He's another politicly motivated General Officer that would clearly sell out his Soldiers for personal gain.

[raexcct2]

The White House decision means that General McChrystal, 55, will receive 85 percent of the base pay of a four-star general with 34 years of active service, amounting to an annual pre-tax retirement income of $181,416, according to Pentagon calculations. Had he retired as a three-star, the Pentagon said, General McChrystal would have received an annual pre-tax retirement income of $160,068.

Mentor says McChrystal is Crushed. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/03/us/politics/03mcchrystal.html?_r=2&src=mv)

Hell, for that retirement salary, I'd let Obama fire me. My gross retirement pay (after 25 years, 6 months and 3 days) before taxes, SBP and other deductions is not even 1/6th of his retirement pay.

[juanni]

Yep hit the self eject button, sailing away on a golden parachute and has washed his hands of the Afghan debacle.

And people think he goofed up by having RS tag along. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:



............juanni

[one hand clapping]

Mabey the good general could'nt look into the faces of his troops anymore without "seeing" the faces of the worthless , spineless corporate executives / bankers who stand to make billions after the "insurgents" are put down", floating behind them like spectors durring the pre-op briefings.
How can I keep sending my best teams to fight [ and mabey get killed or maimed] to protect the poppie crops/ herion dealers, securring a pipe line right -of- way and zones for mineral wealth extraction? I know I would NOT be able to keep send our best and brightest young out for BS.
I only fault him for not speaking out more directly to the real issues as to why we are Really there, and so I question his allegence to his troops and our constition vs the new world order.

More synical by the day

One Hand Clapping