General McChrystal Prepared to Resign

If you’ll recall, one of President Obama’s first official acts in office was to fire the General in charge of our mission in Afghanistan, (General David McKiernan) and to personally select General Stanley McChrystal to replace him. Now, as the modified strategy & troop surge into Afghanistan continues to this day, the President is considering firing McChrystal, making necessary for a 3rd different theatre Commander in less than 2 years for this war.

What the President should do is grow some thicker skin, reprimand General McChrystal for his insubordination and then put him back on a plane to complete the vital mission for which he was hand picked to perform.

Officials: Gen. McChrystal Prepared to Resign

Oct. 2: President Obama meets with Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal aboard Air Force One in Copenhagen, Denmark.

General Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. commander and strategist of the Afghan war, is prepared to offer his resignation for mocking and disparaging President Barack Obama and his national security team in a Rolling Stone interview, two military officials said Tuesday.

Obama will meet with McChrystal on Wednesday at the White House where the general is expected to be armed with a letter of resignation.

“I think it’s clear that the article in which he and his team appeared showed a poor — showed poor judgment,” the president said in his first comments on the matter, surrounded by members of his Cabinet at the close of their meeting. “But I also want to make sure that I talk to him directly before I make any final decisions.”

If not insubordination, the remarks in a forthcoming Rolling Stone magazine article were at least an indirect challenge to civilian management of the war in Washington by its top military commander.

Military leaders rarely challenge their commander in chief publicly, and when they do, consequences tend to be more severe than a scolding.

A senior U.S. military official in Afghanistan told The Associated Press the general has been given no indication that he would be fired but no assurance he would not be. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to describe internal discussions between Washington and the general’s office in Kabul.

“I want everybody to keep in mind what our central focus is — and that is success in making sure that Al Qaeda and its affiliates cannot attack the United States and its allies,” Obama said. “And we’ve got young men and women there who are making enormous sacrifices, families back home who are making enormous sacrifices.”

McChrystal will also meet separately with Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who issued a stern scolding to McChrystal on Tuesday that contains no endorsement for him to remain in his job. Gates hand-picked McChrystal to take over the war last year, calling him a driven visionary with the fortitude and intelligence to turn the war around. Obama fired the previous commander at Gates’ recommendation.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said that “all options are on the table” for Obama as he decides how to punish McChrystal, including firing him.

At a White House daily briefing, Gibbs repeatedly declined to say McChrystal’s job was safe.

“The magnitude and greatness of the mistake here are profound,” he said.

In the Rolling Stone article, McChrystal and his staff described the president as unprepared for their first one-on-one encounter.

McChrystal also said he felt betrayed and blind-sided by his diplomatic partner, Ambassador Karl Eikenberry.

It characterized the general as unable to convince some of his own soldiers that his strategy can win the nation’s longest-running war, and dejected that the president didn’t know about his commendable military record.

In Kabul on Tuesday, McChrystal issued a statement saying: “I extend my sincerest apology for this profile. It was a mistake reflecting poor judgment and should never have happened.”

The general was making a flurry of calls and decisions in the wake of the article’s publication. Fox News has learned that he fired the press aide, Duncan Boothby, who booked the interview. McChrystal also called Defense Secretary Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen late Monday to apologize. Mullen told the general he was deeply disappointed, according to a senior military official at the Pentagon. 

Several names circulated among Pentagon and Capitol Hill aides as potential successors. Military officials, speaking on condition of anonymity ahead of the White House meeting, said the administration has not talked to possible successors but might do so on Wednesday.

“We all serve at the pleasure of the president,” said Gen. James Mattis, one of those mentioned. “I have a pretty full plate here” in his current job as Joint Forces Command chief, Mattis told AP.

Other names include Lt. Gen. John Allen, the No. 2 at U.S. Central Command; Lt. Gen. David Rodriguez, McChrystal’s No. 2 in Afghanistan; Gen. Martin Dempsey, commander of the Army Training and Doctrine Command; and Adm. James Stavridis, the top NATO commander in Europe.

McChrystal has since spoken with Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., both of whom were described as attention-seekers by an aide in the article. Kerry said afterward that he has “enormous respect” for the general, while a spokesman for Afghan President Hamid Karzai reportedly said Karzai “strongly supports” McChrystal and his strategy. 

Click for a blow-by-blow on which officials were criticized by McChrystal and his staff. 

The article says that although McChrystal voted for Obama, the two failed to connect from the start. Obama called McChrystal on the carpet last fall for speaking too bluntly about his desire for more troops.

“I found that time painful,” McChrystal said in the article, on newsstands Friday. “I was selling an unsellable position.”

It quoted an adviser to McChrystal dismissing the early meeting with Obama as a “10-minute photo-op.”

“Obama clearly didn’t know anything about him, who he was. The boss was pretty disappointed,” the adviser told the magazine.

Obama agreed to dispatch an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan only after months of study that many in the military found frustrating. The White House’s troop commitment was coupled with a pledge to begin bringing troops home in July 2011, in what counterinsurgency strategists advising McChrystal regarded as an arbitrary deadline.

McChrystal said Tuesday, “I have enormous respect and admiration for President Obama and his national security team, and for the civilian leaders and troops fighting this war and I remain committed to ensuring its successful outcome.”

The profile, titled “The Runaway General,” emerged from several weeks of interviews and travel with McChrystal’s tight circle of aides this spring.

It includes a list of administration figures said to back McChrystal, including Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, and puts Vice President Joe Biden at the top of a list of those who don’t.

The article claims McChrystal has seized control of the war “by never taking his eye off the real enemy: The wimps in the White House.”

Asked by the Rolling Stone reporter about what he now feels of the war strategy advocated by Biden last fall – fewer troops, more drone attacks – McChrystal and his aides reportedly attempted to come up with a good one-liner to dismiss the question. “Are you asking about Vice President Biden?” McChrystal reportedly joked. “Who’s that?”

Biden initially opposed McChrystal’s proposal for additional forces last year. He favored a narrower focus on hunting terrorists.

“Biden?” one aide was quoted as saying. “Did you say: Bite me?”

Another aide reportedly called White House National Security Adviser Jim Jones, a retired four-star general, a “clown” who was “stuck in 1985.”

Some of the strongest criticism, however, was reserved for Richard Holbrooke, Obama’s special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan.

“The boss says he’s like a wounded animal,” one of the general’s aides was quoted as saying. “Holbrooke keeps hearing rumors that he’s going to get fired, so that makes him dangerous.”

If Eikenberry had doubts about the troop buildup, McChrystal said he never expressed them until a leaked internal document threw a wild card into the debate over whether to add more troops last November. In the document, Eikenberry said Afghan President Hamid Karzai was not a reliable partner for the counterinsurgency strategy McChrystal was hired to execute.

McChrystal said he felt “betrayed” and accused the ambassador of giving himself cover.

“Here’s one that covers his flank for the history books,” McChrystal told the magazine. “Now, if we fail, they can say ‘I told you so.”‘

Eikenberry remains in his post in Kabul, and although both men publicly say they are friends, their rift is on full display.

McChrystal and Eikenberry, himself a retired Army general, stood as far apart as the speakers’ platform would allow during a White House news conference last month.

This entry was posted in Afghanistan, current events, military, news, politics. Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to General McChrystal Prepared to Resign

  1. polarbear20 says:

    Good, I hope General McPotty Mouth resigns. And if you want to stick to that streak of calling Obama “thin skinned”, just imagine how this would be handled under Bush. Any of the “under workers” dared to make a comment about Bush or Cheney their ass would be gone. Just go ask our porcelain skinned former president about Gen. George Casey andAdmiral William Fallon. Fallon spoke against Bush’s appetite for war in Iran, shitcanned!!

  2. therealgirlscout says:

    Wow. Isn’t insubordination like this highly frowned upon in the Armed Forces??? do we need this kind of guy in charge of our troops and their morale? Mocking our vice-president to a National magazine, (and inevitably, all the major media)? Seriously? Why, that sounds like Treason!!

  3. mzkatie says:

    Don’t be too hard on him, is the first thought that comes to my mind. I think he knows what he’s doing in Afghanistan, BUT obviously is lacking a little bit of clASS. He really should focus on fighting (winning) this war, not talking shit.

    “..if we fail..” >:o wtf wtf wtf?! That makes me SO mad. I’m sure the troops in Afghanistan want to hear him say that shit.

  4. Hacksaw says:

    I’ll start out by stating that if General McChrystal absolutely had to be replaced, then President Obama could not have selected a better, more suitable or qualified candidate than General David Petraeus. He has proved his worth in Iraq under very difficult conditions, carrying out the unpopular “surge” strategy to a highly successful conclusion, despite being disrespected and called a liar to his face by Democratic Senators (to include our current President, Vice President & Secretary of State) & attacked as dishonest in print by with that shameful “General Betray Us” full page advertisement,

    prompting the Senate to condemn the ad despite the fact that all 49 Republican and 22 Democrat Senators voted in support. Hillary Clinton voted against the amendment, while Barack Obama and Joseph Biden did not vote. (that’s even worse than the numerous non-committal “present” votes that Obama is known for)

    I’ve stated before that General McChrystal should not have been fired over something as trivial as this, and I stand by that. Although General Petraeus is uniquely qualified, it is actually a screwing and pseudo “demotion” for this brilliant soldier because in his current CENTCOM billet, he oversees both the Iraq & Afghanistan missions from his comfortable office at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Florida but now he has to put his “cammies” back on and deploy once again, and fill a lesser billet than he currently holds. He’s not being replaced in his CENTCOM job anytime soon, and 4-star Generals don’t just grow on trees. Each & every one of them represents decades of training, & leadership experience, professional military (and civilian) classroom education, and millions of dollars invested in them by the U.S. taxpayers in the form of their years of ascending salary, billeting & subsistence for them and their families, along with the Worldwide travel & training involved with their various assignments.

    As mentioned before, one of the first things Obama did as President was to summarily fire General David McKiernan as Commander of U.S. Forces in Afghanistan, and select General McChrystal to replace him. Now McChrystal is out and there is some British General in command over there until Petraeus can be confirmed by the Congress & re-deployed, which will take some time. In the middle of a shooting war, all this shake-up & turmoil is not necessary, especially over a magazine article in which General McChrystal did not even make all of the inflammatory comments, most of them were made by unidentified junior Officers but General Stanley McChrystal is now the sacrificial lamb, forced to fall on his sword because our thin skinned President cannot handle the slightest criticism of any kind.

    Good, I hope General McPotty Mouth resigns. And if you want to stick to that streak of calling Obama “thin skinned”, just imagine how this would be handled under Bush. Any of the “under workers” dared to make a comment about Bush or Cheney their ass would be gone. Just go ask our porcelain skinned former president about Gen. George Casey and Admiral William Fallon. Fallon spoke against Bush’s appetite for war in Iran, shitcanned!!

    I don’t get what you’re trying to say with your two “examples”, perhaps you should do a little research before you pop off & embarrass yourself.

    It is the President who decides which General Officers are to be promoted and which very senior billets that they hold, and all this guy has done under Bush’s command was advance in rank & billet. President Bush promoted Casey from Lieutenant General (3 stars) to General (4 stars) in 2003. After his promotion to General, Casey was the Commanding General of the Multi-National Force in Iraq, until he was replaced in that role in 2007 by General David Petraeus. Casey opposed the troop surge and his “punishment” for voicing that opposition was his being promoted to become Chief of Staff of the Army, the most senior person in the entire Army and a billet he still holds to this day so I don’t get how you insinuate that he was somehow “wronged” in any way by President Bush.

    As for Admiral Fallon, in January of 2007, President Bush nominated him to serve as the Commander of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), the billet that General David Petraeus currently holds until he is confirmed by the Senate to replace General McChrystal as the Commander of U.S. Forces, Afghanistan. In his CENTCOM billet, he was actually General Petraeus’ boss but oddly enough, Petraeus ended up succeeding Fallon as CENTCOM commander. Fallon was quoted an article in “Esquire” magazine, claiming that he the only thing standing between the Bush Administration and war with Iran, but I think that “W” has already demonstrated that when he makes up his mind on a policy issue or a decision that is his to make, then he is not swayed so if he had wanted to go to war with Iran at any time, it is highly unlikely that he would’ve been deterred by a subordinate General who he could overrule. Fallon retired in 2008 as a 4 star Admiral, after an impressive 41 years on active duty in the Navy.

    • polarbear20 says:

      I always keep telling myself one day I’m gonna get that “Betray Us” ad framed so I can hang it on my wall. I love it!!

      And yeah, I’m not a happy person right now. President O-Bush-a just replaced an asshole with another asshole. Just goes to show: different party, different person, different color, different time, same stupidity.

      • Hacksaw says:

        Is the notion of our brave troops actually winning a war and returning home safely afterwards that offensive to you?

      • polarbear20 says:

        Nope, I’d love the troops to return home. Key word being RETURN HOME. Like now. Like they should have years ago. Except that’s not gonna happen. McChrystal, Peteraus, they’re all just gonna keep going with this ridiculous, unattainable goal of “winning”, despite the number of lives LOST in the process.

        Right now the best way we can “win” this war is to end it. Start REDUCING the number of people there, no more “surges”. Keep reducing the numbers until we’re out. The USSR could scare Americans shitless during the COld War, but even they couldn’t “win” over there. Nobody’s ever gonna “win” over there, the best thing is just to stay the hell out of it, like we should have all along.

  5. Hacksaw says:

    Wow. Isn’t insubordination like this highly frowned upon in the Armed Forces??? do we need this kind of guy in charge of our troops and their morale? Mocking our vice-president to a National magazine, (and inevitably, all the major media)? Seriously? Why, that sounds like Treason!!

    Insubordination is highly frowned upon, and President Obama is well within his right to relieve General McChrystal. Military officers serve at the pleasure of the President, so Obama could’ve fired this guy because he didn’t like his haircut but that does not mean that he should have. McChrystal definitely errored in even allowing this reporter to roam around his headquarters and spend so much time with his staff, while they were all busy conducting a war but that does not warrant firing him, having the British provide one of their Generals to keep the seat warm and demoting his current CENTCOM commander, sending him back into the field in a lesser role after everything that Petraeus has already endured & achieved in turning our mission in Iraq from a potential defeat, to a decisive victory.

    If you want to talk about treason though, you can start with the 25 Democrat Senators who all voted against condemning the disgusting “General Betray Us” ad in the anti-American publication aka The New York Times….Akaka (D-HI), Bingaman (D-NM), Boxer (D-CA), Brown (D-OH), Byrd (D-WV), Clinton (D-NY), Dodd (D-CT), Durbin (D-IL), Feingold (D-WI), Harkin (D-IA), Inouye (D-HI), Kennedy (D-MA), Kerry (D-MA), Lautenberg (D-NJ), Levin (D-MI), Menendez (D-NJ), Murray (D-WA), Reed (D-RI), Reid (D-NV), Rockefeller (D-WV), Sanders (I-VT), Schumer (D-NY), Stabenow (D-MI), Whitehouse (D-RI), Wyden (D-OR) and the 3 gutless turds who refused to even vote on the amendment: Biden (D-DE), Cantwell (D-WA) & Obama (D-IL)

    Is it just me, or do some of those names seem real familiar for some odd reason? 😉

  6. Princess says:

    actually hack, it’s all the “D”‘s that a familiar. this smells like a set up guys. i wasn’t actually McChrystal saying these things to the magazine, it was people AROUND him.
    and yes, i believe he said these things & mocked the “puss in chief”……….and he probably is justified, especially the comments about obiden………………
    but, now Petreus is back…………the ONE person the crazy loony left DOESN’T want, simply because he will stay the course & we will leave there VICTORIOUS.
    and then maybe, just maybe those nutjob ISLAMIC MUSLIMS will learn their lesson.
    don’t F**K with Americans.

    • polarbear20 says:

      he will stay the course & we will leave there VICTORIOUS.

      Like I said before, we will never be “victorious” until we GET THE FUCK OUT OF THERE!! Until then we’re just gonna keep killing people and spending money for NO REASON!

      and then maybe, just maybe those nutjob ISLAMIC MUSLIMS will learn their lesson.

      They already learned a lesson: Americans lose their collective shit over the smallest things. They don’t have to attack us, we’re doing a good enough job of attacking and destroying ourselves. We already put ourselves in financial ruin because of that war.

      Paranoia is gonna get you!!

  7. hybridtalk1 says:

    I would have tried to “resign” long ago. As soon as I learned that the president wouldn’t name the enemy (apart from Israel, Britan, American workers, BP, and conservatives) I would have left too.

    Obama is a train wreck. Soon America will also be one.

  8. therealgirlscout says:

    No it will not. America’s greatness always shines through, no matter WHO is president.

  9. Princess says:

    Americans lose their collective shit over the smallest things. wow PB, the MURDER of over 3,000 AMERICANS & the destruction of the twin towers is a “small” thing?
    that’s just sick PB, sick
    funny how easily the libs conveniently forget that THEY attacked US.
    Petraus WILL leave there VICTORIOUS……no matter what that PUSS in the oval office wants or promises you libs.
    and then, just maybe he’ll consider a run for the “puss’s” job.

    • polarbear20 says:

      Actually that’s not the small thing I was talking about. Remember, in the REAL WORLD we know Iraq had nothing to do with 911. The small thing was the “notion” that Iraq had “weapons of mass destruction”. What kind of weapons? Biological? Nuclear? Nope, just generic “of mass destruction”. Of course that was bogus.

  10. Hacksaw says:

    September 11th, 2007 when General Petraeus was questioned by the Senate Foriegn Relations Committee about Iraq, and the troop surge. He faced questioning from 5 different Presidential candidates that day, and the Democrats seized the opportunity to grill him, and to try to make themselves seem more thoughtful & “Presidential” – Here are a few highlights:

    “We are now confronted with the question: How do we clean up the mess and make the best out of a situation in which there are no good options, there are bad options and worse options?”

    Are we any closer to a lasting political settlement in Iraq at the national level today than we were when the surge began eight months ago? In my judgment, I must tell you, based on my experience and my observation here, as well as in-country, the answer to the questions is no.”

    “Despite what I view as your rather extraordinary efforts in your testimony both yesterday and today, I think that the reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief.”

    Now they’re all kissing his hairy beanbag because they view him as their only hope to save them from the consequences of their own incompetence in military affairs & strategy, I’s a darned good thing that this guy doesn’t hold a grudge! 😉

  11. Princess says:

    ahhhh PB, come on now…….do you really “believe” that there were no WMD’s there? we KNEW he had them…………..and he moved them to syria or turkey.
    and i guarantee that at some point, we will find them THERE as well.
    and then all you libs & your “heroes” (ie: kerry, gore, oblahblah, clinton, etc.) will go down in history just as they REALLY are………….jackasses. LMAO

  12. Hacksaw says:

    Actually that’s not the small thing I was talking about. Remember, in the REAL WORLD we know Iraq had nothing to do with 911. The small thing was the “notion” that Iraq had “weapons of mass destruction”. What kind of weapons? Biological? Nuclear? Nope, just generic “of mass destruction”. Of course that was bogus.

    Not only did Iraq possess chemical weapons, (mustard gas) Saddam actually used them against people on more than one occasion. Iraq gassed Iranian troops during the 8 year war that was fought between Iran & Iraq, and Saddam also gassed the Iraqi Kurds after a rebellion. Saddam’s 1st cousin Ali Hassan al-Majid, aka “Chemical Ali” was convicted & eventually hanged for his role in that massacre.

    Saddam was also actively pursuing nuclear weapons for Iraq, this is a well known fact that even most liberals will admit. He deceived, played games with and at times outright defied the U.N. weapons inspectors, prompting even Bill Clinton to threaten Iraq with military force if they continued to deny the inspectors the access they were promised as a condition for the ceasation of hostilities at the conclusion of Operation Desert Storm.

    Leading up to Desert Storm, there was a growing sense of worry over the prospect of Iraq gassing our troops, creating mass casualties and numerous deaths. Secretary of State James Baker III traveled overseas and personally spoke to Iraq’s Deputy Prime Minister / Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz, and let him know in no uncertain terms that if Iraq used their gas, we would use our nukes in response. This is probably the only reason that our forces were not gassed during the liberation of Kuwait and their subsequent entry into Iraq.

    In 2003 when we were preparing to invade Iraq for Operation Iraqi Freedom, Saddam was too busy hiding his chemical weapons, as well as some of his fighter jets. His plan was to evade capture while we searched his country, and for us to leave after not finding anything and then he would re-emerge & return to power. Some of his WMD were driven out of Iraq in convoys of military trucks, to places like Syria & Iran. About 30 aircraft (MiG-25 interceptor fighter jets & Su-25 ground attack jets) were wrapped in plastic and simply buried in the sand, (our forces discovered some with the help of an informant, & dug them up) and I suspect that more than a few 55 gallon drums of some pretty nasty chemicals probably were as well. The pictures below are of one of the MiGs being recovered:

    In addition, the U.S. secretly removed 550 tons of “yellowcake” uranium from Iraq & transported it to Canada, in 2008. In case you don’t know, that’s the stuff that get “enriched” and used in nuclear weapons.

  13. Princess says:

    now hack……… KNOW PB doesn’t like it when you give him pictures & stuff. (unless he can color them)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s