McChrystal Did No Wrong

June 22nd, 2010 at 12:48 pm | 90 Comments |

| Print

The Left, and even some authority-loving conservatives, are calling for General Stanley McChrystal’s scalp this morning because of remarks they say are “insubordinate.” But insubordination has a very precise meaning; and it does not involve candidly expressing mild disappointment in your superiors. Yet, that, it seems, is the only thing McChrystal did when speaking with a reporter from Rolling Stone magazine.

“I found that time [meeting with Obama for the first time last fall] painful,” McChrystal reportedly said. “I was selling an unsellable position.”

And when asked about Vice President Biden, the General said with a laugh: “Are you asking about Vice President Biden? Who’s that?”

McChrystal also expressed mild annoyance with Ambassador Richard Holbrooke. Indeed, according to CNN:

At one point on his trip to Paris, McChrystal checks his BlackBerry, according to the article. ‘Oh, not another e-mail from Holbrooke,’ he groans. ‘I don’t even want to open it.’ He clicks on the message and reads the salutation out loud, then stuffs the BlackBerry back in his pocket, not bothering to conceal his annoyance.

And:

Of Eikenberry, who railed against McChrystal’s strategy in Afghanistan in a cable leaked to The New York Times in January, the General said, “‘Here’s one that covers his flank for the history books. Now if we fail, they can say, ‘I told you so.’

Now, all of this may be impolitic, but it is also pretty tame. And it certainly doesn’t show insubordination. Instead, what it shows is a commanding general who is frustrated with a political leadership that is too often non-responsive, uninterested and inept.

To be sure, McChrystal’s aides seem to be far more blunt in their criticism of the civilian leadership. (“Biden?” suggests a top adviser. “Did you say: ‘Bite me?’”) But even here, as CNN notes, “McChrystal does not directly criticize President Barack Obama in the article” [emphasis added].

The sad and lamentable truth is that McChrystal and his aides are right. They spoke the truth. The White House has been far too disengaged from, and uninterested in, the war in Afghanistan. And Holbrooke and Eikenberry have been singularly inept and dysfunctional, thus forcing the military to pick up the slack and bear most of the burden (military and political) in Afghanistan.

What’s more, the White House has leaked like a sieve against the military. Yet, according to the denizens of elite liberal and conservative opinion, the military is supposed to sit back, take this abuse, and not fight back. Good on General McChrystal and his team for fighting back and working to inform the American people about what is really happening in Afghanistan.

Loyalty, after all, is a two-way street: It runs up and down the chain of command. McChrystal has a solemn obligation to the men and women who serve under him — many of whom are being shot at every day, and some of whom are being killed and maimed on the battlefield.

It’s high past time that we Americans developed a more mature and sophisticated understanding of civil-military relations and of the responsibilities and obligations of our military commanders.

Of course, as Commander-in-Chief, President Obama is free to fire General McChrystal. That certainly is his prerogative. But let’s not pretend that firing McChrystal would have anything to do with “insubordination,” because that’s nonsense and rhetorical spin.

General McChrystal, after all, never disobeyed his chain of command; nor has he refused to carry out a lawful order. To the contrary: he has been working 18-to-20 hour days to try and win the war. And to that end, he spoke the truth about Afghanistan. Bully for him. We need more like him.

Recent Posts by John Guardiano



90 Comments so far ↓

  • easton

    Hey Terry, I submitted that one statement, but nada in response. He can’t honestly believe that the Uniform code only applies to statements said against the President alone, can he? I would love to know the rationalization that applies to allowing Biden to be mocked.

    Wait, maybe we should rewrite it: “Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President (unless he is Joe Biden, in which case your subordinates can say bite me in front of you, and you can laugh and mock his questioning style), 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.”

    Look, the guy can’t even mock the Secretary of Transportation (yes, yes, Coast Guard and all that) but if you can’t even joke about (who is the sec. of Transportation again, LaHood? too lazy to google it) but it does go down pretty far all the way to Congress, and there are plenty of horses asses there.
    The point is they have to STFU about politics.

    This applies to both parties. Got that?

  • John Guardiano

    Easton,
    Given the context of that comment — what was said, when it was said, and how it was said — in a casual conversation filled with good cheer, mirth and joking banter — the comment clearly is not contemptuous.

    Moreover, according to Rolling Stone, the General did not “laugh” at that comment. He laughed BEFORE the comment was made.

    Get your facts straight, please, before you unfairly indict a four-star commanding general and his aides.

    Regards,
    John

  • John Guardiano

    Easton,
    When and where did Bill Kristol call for Obama to fire McChrystal for insubordination? You may be right, but I know of no such call by Kristol. Please provide the specific reference or article. Thanks.

    Regards,
    John

  • Nanotek

    – “The peanut gallery here is all sound and fury signifying nothing. Next!” Dismissive asshole of the first order. –

    TerryF98 — pretty close to my reaction when I read that. I like reading articles on FrumForum because I usually come with contrary positions and the quality of the analysis often convinces me recheck my premises and reasoning.

    But this writer’s historic reliance on name calling and meaningless generalities — “The Left, and even some authority-loving conservatives” and “peanut gallery” — in this and past pieces signifies there is little to learn. He’s too predictable … everything conservatives like is politically correct and everything they don’t like is politically incorrect. But at least now I’ve learned to skip over his articles, so I learned something from this piece. Which is too bad because I think he has a first-rate mind capable of far more.

  • jakester

    Reminds me of MacArthur, one of our greatest generals of all time who made some of the worst bloody minded mistakes of all time, then who had the temerity to lecture Truman after Mac almost lost the whole UN Army in North Korea to his egotistical blindness.
    Mr. Guardino,
    that McChrystal’s aide said ““Biden?” suggests a top adviser. “Did you say: ‘Bite me?’” in front of the General during an interview shows nothing but utter disrespect and contempt. These are not shock DJs or TV celebrities. If military men can’t show a little class and respect, then screw them.

  • TerryF98

    Nano.

    There are two people who “write” here who are complete ideological imbeciles. Linnane is one and Gaurdiano is the other. Both are contemptible in my and many others opinion. They are dismissive of anything that does not align 100% with their Neocon worldview. To them black can be white, up can be down and wrong can be quite right as long as it suits their preconceptions.

    Really they are not worth the pixels used to write their nonsense.

  • ottovbvs

    easton // Jun 22, 2010 at 8:01 pm

    “Otto, yeah, except for that one Major General”

    …..Major generals were a dime a dozen in WW 2……..can you imagine stepping out of line with Marshall you’d have been counting tires in Billings Montana for the rest of your career

  • ottovbvs

    John Guardiano // Jun 22, 2010 at 8:51 pm

    “Get your facts straight, please, before you unfairly indict a four-star commanding general and his aides.”

    ………so what has a four star commanding general issued an abject apology for?……spitting on the sidewalk?…….sorry John but after that utterly absurd rationalisation of rule breaking by Kirk on the grounds of the 1st you have zero cred……you had your face ripped off by a peanut gallery of ex service members including a retired general

  • Nanotek

    TerryF98 — thanks for the heads up.

  • msmilack

    Slide
    You wrote: “Msmilack, you have been right on the money on this topic. You cut through so much of the bs with your always objective reasoning. I do not detect a partisan bias in your comments. Quite refreshing.”

    May I just say that is the nicest thing anyone has ever said. I appreciate your comment so much, thank you for taking the time to make it.

  • CentristNYer

    John Guardiano // Jun 22, 2010 at 8:51 pm

    “Given the context of that comment — what was said, when it was said, and how it was said — in a casual conversation filled with good cheer, mirth and joking banter — the comment clearly is not contemptuous.”

    Let’s be honest: would you have been this forgiving of McChrystal’s comments — and parsed his words as carefully — if he had made them against a Republican president?

  • ottovbvs

    medinnus // Jun 23, 2010 at 9:16 am

    …….mind you the thrust of the article is somewhat absurd…..they want to put Obama in uniform……he should take personal command etc etc etc……while also diving down to plug that oil leak perhaps…….these people are so idiotic…..they also propose firing other experienced people like Eikenberry who is entirely blameless in this matter

  • sinz54

    jakester: Reminds me of MacArthur, one of our greatest generals of all time who made some of the worst bloody minded mistakes of all time, then who had the temerity to lecture Truman after Mac almost lost the whole UN Army in North Korea to his egotistical blindness.
    On the other hand, there was the famous “Revolt of the Admirals” in 1947, in which the United States Navy publicly attacked Truman Administration policy on use of nuclear weapons.

    The Truman Administration was counting heavily on the brand-new Strategic Air Command (SAC) to use heavy bombers to deter a Soviet attack. But Navy admirals like Arleigh Burke said that the bombers then available (B-36s) could be shot down easily by Soviet jet fighters. One of the admirals wrote an article for the “Saturday Evening Post” in which he publicly attacked Truman’s reliance on air power alone. On top of that, it claimed that there had been political corruption in both the White House and Congress on the procurement of those bombers–quite a charge coming from an active-duty commander.

    But Truman refused to fire the admirals. In fact, he intervened personally to save Arleigh Burke from dismissal.

    Why did Truman keep Burke but fire MacArthur?

    Probably because unlike Korea, what Burke was advocating had nothing to do with an actual shooting war.

  • easton

    One, the fact that the General didn’t turn towards his subordinate and state “watch it” is pretty clear, and you state it was a jovial, laughing, etc. environment in which such banter was accepted. You stretch the definition of order if you state I am wrong in asserting that McChrystal seemed to have no problem with the statement. Did he laugh? I don’t know, but with everyone in a, as you call it, laughing mood I don’t find the supposition out of line.

    And as I said, I don’t think the General should be fired, this is not the issue for me, what is the issue is the utter senselessness of it, this whole celebrity gossip feel to it. It puts the President in a terrible position, if he does nothing to the General he will be viewed as weak and not willing to enforce the code (or so some Republicans will certainly say) if he fires the General he puts soldiers lives at risk while a new Commander gets up to snuff. In either case Obama, as C I C is weakened, and weakened leadership emboldens the enemy, perhaps there are suicide bombers even as we speak going out while the General is in DC. Even one soldier dying over gossip is too high a price, and you might say he would have gone out, if not today, next month. Maybe you are right, but to deprive a soldier of even a month of life is too high a price.

    And be honest, would you have said the same if the article was about Bush and Cheney, if some subordinate had said “did you say chickenhawk?” instead of Cheney?

    Finally, what peanut gallery, people here all have different takes. I don’t think he should be fired, neither does Otto. I even go so far as to blast Rolling Stone for printing the story since it is bad for our country and find it a tragedy that I have not heard anyone in the media stating just such a position. Have we really descended so far from the days of WW2? Can you for a single moment imagine Ike or Marshall saying such things. Even MacArthur would not have done so, if only for the fact he probably lacked all ability to laugh or be jovial.

  • easton

    By the way, here are some more elements from the peanut gallery (via Weekly Standard):

    Here’s the statement by Senators John McCain (R-AZ), Joe Lieberman (I-CT), and Lindsey Graham (R-SC), which suggests they think Gen. McChrystal ought to offer to resign, and that the president should probably accept the offer:

    “We have the highest respect for General McChrystal and honor his brave service and sacrifice to our nation. General McChrystal’s comments, as reported in Rolling Stone, are inappropriate and inconsistent with the traditional relationship between Commander-in-Chief and the military. The decision concerning General McChrystal’s future is a decision to be made by the President of the United States.”

    Their saying it doesn’t mean they are right, but they are certainly not of the peanut gallery crowd, nor are they easily dismissed a leftist partisans.

  • ottovbvs

    sinz54 // Jun 23, 2010 at 10:10 am

    “Why did Truman keep Burke but fire MacArthur?”

    ……because one was essentially an inter service dispute while the other was a huge policy difference involving a possible nuclear war with China and Russia……….I personally consider MacArthur our best general of WW 2 but he had an ego bigger than Everest…..he kept it in check during FDR’s presidency because FDR’s prestige was much higher than Truman’s and he thought he could get away with bucking Truman because the Republicans were courting him as their presidential candidate in ’52…….he thought wrong…….Truman is imho the second greatest president of the 20th century

  • ottovbvs

    easton // Jun 23, 2010 at 10:24 am

    “Their saying it doesn’t mean they are right, but they are certainly not of the peanut gallery crowd, nor are they easily dismissed a leftist partisans.”

    ……Guardiano is clearly gutless……he’s made a couple of ludicrous assertions about the military over the past couple of days which have provoked a mountain of perfectly reasonable responses quite clearly proving him wrong……he then resorts to peanut gallery comments and promptly disappears

  • Slide

    easton // Jun 23, 2010 at 10:24 am: “I even go so far as to blast Rolling Stone for printing the story since it is bad for our country and find it a tragedy that I have not heard anyone in the media stating just such a position.”

    Because that is an absurd position. To suggest that the media should kill stories that are “bad” for our country is really not understanding their role. They are not cheerleaders which should evaluate every story with an eye towards whether it is good or bad for the country. The truth is the truth. I will opt for as much transparency as possible (obviously short of revealing military tactics, strategy, etc that might aide an enemy).

    No one ultimately KNOWS for certain what will, and will not, be “bad” for our country. Perhaps revealing that McChrystal doesn’t respect the policy and/or policy makers regarding Afghanistan may ultimately be “good” for the country if he is replaced with someone that understands the role of the military. Or if we re-evaluate our Afghanistan policy. You can’t just take a short sighted approach to these things and decide not to report something because of the immediate consequences. It is not the media’s role to cover-up for stupid generals, bureaucrats, politicians or presidents but to expose them to the light of day.

    I applaud Rolling Stone. They revealed a general who created an atmosphere where his staff felt completely at ease with thrashing the civilian leadership of this country. This disloyalty and lack of discipline is the danger to our nation, not that Rolling Stone reported it. God forbid we have a day when reporting the truth has to pass some test as to whether it may be perceived as being good or bad for the country. The truth is always good over the long haul.

  • ottovbvs

    Slide // Jun 23, 2010 at 11:10 am

    “I applaud Rolling Stone. They revealed a general who created an atmosphere where his staff felt completely at ease with thrashing the civilian leadership of this country.”

    …….I agree with you about Rolling Stone but you’re being awfully sanctimonious and unreal about military life…….I can tell you Johnson and McNamara were collecting loads of shit from junior and mid ranking officers in the mid sixties……this is what happens when you put a military in an unwinnable war…..wtf would want to be in Afghanistan so frustrations are inevitable

  • easton

    Slide, I never said kill the story, nor did I say Rolling Stone should not have the right to print it, I still contend that the story would not have been less meaningful later, and that they sure as hell could have leveraged it to get access to Obama or someone in his inner circle. This is not Abu Ghraib or MyLai, this is Backstage Hollywood type gossip. It puts the President in a terrible position, if he does nothing to the General he will be viewed as weak and not willing to enforce the code (or so some Republicans will certainly say) if he fires the General he puts soldiers lives at risk while a new Commander gets up to snuff. In either case Obama, as C I C is weakened, and weakened leadership emboldens the enemy, perhaps there are suicide bombers even as we speak going out while the General is in DC. Even one soldier dying over gossip is too high a price, and you might say he would have gone out, if not today, next month. Maybe you are right, but to deprive a soldier of even a month of life is too high a price.

    I am not out to protect the General. As I said, run with the story later, give Obama the chance to train his successor (if he chose) quietly and over time and then have McChrystal fall on his sword later. It would also give the General the opportunity to redeem himself, and if he did would make a great postscript to the story.

    Is this really so absurd? Leverage a hot story for an even hotter story and an inside scoop at history, or run with it, enjoy the brief splash of publicity and find that Rolling Stone is unlikely to be ever granted insider access to the upper military in our lifetime.

  • Slide

    ottovbvs // Jun 23, 2010 at 11:29 am: “but you’re being awfully sanctimonious and unreal about military life…….I can tell you Johnson and McNamara were collecting loads of shit from junior and mid ranking officers in the mid sixties”

    Sure. Soldiers are going to complain to each other. It would be surprising if they didn’t. All perfectly normal. But that is not what we’re talking about here. What we have here is a general who is obviously allowing his staff to be outwardly contemptuous of their civilian bosses. What organization would tolerate that? What incredibly poor management if nothing else. Even if he didn’t believe in the mission, or the civilian leadership making the decisions, he should not allow that to take place. Period. Add to the fact that he and his staff aired their rather juvenile, locker room, type insults (Bite Me, clown, etc.) to a member of the media really makes me question his judgment. Is he that oblivious to what the ramifications would be?

    Judging by the comments I have seen from military officers of all political persuasions on the news, I don’t think I’m being sanctimonious or unreal at all. Most military professionals are simply aghast at the lack of discipline and unprofessional conduct by the General and his staff. He needs to go.

  • Slide

    I think this oped in the WSJ is reflective of my opinion on the matter:

    Gen. McChrystal’s just-published interview in Rolling Stone magazine is an appalling violation of norms of civilian-military relations. To read it is to wince, repeatedly—at the mockery of the vice president and the president’s special representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan, at the sniping directed toward the U.S. ambassador, at a member of his staff who, when asked whom the general was having dinner with in Paris said, “Some French minister. It’s so [expletive deleted] gay.” The quotes from Gen. McChrystal’s underlings bespeak a staff so clueless, swaggering and out of control that a wholesale purge looks to be indicated.

    There is, however, a more fundamental issue: military deference to civilian authority. It is intolerable for officers to publicly criticize or mock senior political figures, including the vice president or the ambassador (who is, after all, the president’s personal representative to a foreign government). It is intolerable for them to publicly ridicule allies. And quite apart from his own indiscretions, it is the job of a commanding general to set a tone that makes such behavior unacceptable on the part of his subordinates.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704853404575322800914018876.html

  • TerryF98

    “Stanley McChrystal, who admitted to top Obama administration officials that he “compromised the mission” by making disparaging comments in a Rolling Stone interview.”

    Still think he did no wrong Gaurdiano? You are still a fool!

  • LFC

    John Guardiano asked… Easton, When and where did Bill Kristol call for Obama to fire McChrystal for insubordination?

    FYI, I assume Easton was refering to this post at the Weekly Standard by Kristol. The assumed money quote:

    If Stan McChrystal has to go—and he probably does—it will be a sad end to a career of great distinction and a low moment in a lifetime devoted to duty, honor, and country. But the good of the mission and the prospects for victory in Afghanistan may well now demand a new commander of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan.

    Not sure I fully agree with Easton’s take, but thought you might be interested if you hadn’t seen the actual post.

  • ottovbvs

    Slide // Jun 23, 2010 at 12:03 pm

    “Sure. Soldiers are going to complain to each other. ”

    ……In the case I cited from personal experience they weren’t complaining about each other but the president and defsec………I’m not defending McChrystal’s behavior which is egregious……..in my mind it’s whether it’s a firing or kick up the ass offense…….I actually think he’s done although it hasn’t been announced…….your commanding general in our principal war theater does not absent himself from a SC meeting after travelling 5000 miles to be in Washington……to put it another way, when Bill Kristol and the WSJ ed page are calling for your head it’s over

  • easton

    LFC, outside of a few Conservative pundits looking to make political hay out of this I really can’t find anyone noteworthy who is stating what McChrystal has done is in anyway ok, or “did no wrong.”
    As to what Obama should do is way above my pay grade, it is a no win situation the way I see it, but I find it amusing just how large the peanut gallery of people who disapprove of McChrystal is.

  • Slide

    ottovbvs // Jun 23, 2010 at 1:13 pm “……In the case I cited from personal experience they weren’t complaining about each other but the president and defsec………”

    I didn’t say ABOUT each other, I said TO each other. Two soldiers grumbling to each other about the President is not a problem. I’d be shocked if it doesn’t happen ever day. Being a general and allowing your staff to disparage to the civilian leadership of this country to the press is quite another. Dont’ you see that huge difference ottovbvs?????

    BTW, its a done deal. He is gone. Replaced by Petraeus. Excellent decision.

  • easton

    otto, I agree with your original take on it. I know full well you know just how tough the decision for Obama is.

    And it is all so utterly senseless. A general criticizing Rumsfeld for not putting enough troops in Tora Bora getting canned for insubordination I could understand, even respect, but not agree with his actions, but Junior High type, ooohhh I don’t want to open his email?? Senseless. I suppose every top General needs a well coached media handler from now on.

  • ottovbvs

    Slide // Jun 23, 2010 at 2:05 pm

    “I didn’t say ABOUT each other, I said TO each other……..Dont’ you see that huge difference ottovbvs????? ”

    …….don’t be naive…..who do think they complain about for godsake?……and I have made plain I consider his conduct egregious (in fact it’s even more egregious than I thought since I learned from npr that these “aide’s comments” were actually made in his presence which I hadn’t understood) …..at the end of the day as I said for openers it’s the presidents decision and he made it……obviously the Petraeus appointment was set up long before McChrystal went the WH.

  • LFC

    Quote from John Guardiano in the American Spectator…

    As far as loyalty up the chain of command is concerned, a four-star general like McChrystal does not undermine the chain of command when he engages the public dialogue. Quite the contrary: he strengthens the chain of command when he informs and educates the public to which the chain of command is ultimately responsible. That’s because the chain of command and the public both require good, accurate and substantive information upon which to base their decisions.

    So a general can say anything they wish whenever they wish? Are you freaking kidding me? But if that’s true, then a colonel should be able to badmouth his superior in public. Same goes for a major, captain, and on down the line, right? After all by doing so, each of these “strengthens the chain of command when he informs and educates the public to which the chain of command is ultimately responsible.”

    Except that it only counts for McChrystal. The words above reveal a partisan hack.

  • Slide

    ottovbvs // Jun 23, 2010 at 3:13 pm “…….don’t be naive…..”

    naive? what am I naive about? If you want to see naive you should re-look at your comments back when this all first happened.

    ottovbvs // Jun 22, 2010 at 5:36 pm: “Does this rise to the level of a firing offense? ……definitely not….. it rises to the level of a huge kick up the ass offense and that’s what he’s getting……he’s a competent general, which is what he’s paid for, who has committed a PR blunder which isn’t at the top of his priorities.

    A PR blunder? That’s all? I would hold off on calling others naive ottovbvs.

  • Slide

    Quote from John Guardiano in the American Spectator…: “Quite the contrary: he strengthens the chain of command when he informs and educates the public to which the chain of command is ultimately responsible.”

    Yes, it was quite educational to learn that the National Security Adviser is a “clown”. Very illuminating. Oh, and the “bite-me” comment, quite informative. A great service to the public to describe a dinner with an ally as “so f****** gay”. Where would we all be without being so wonderfully educated with the magnificence of the good general and his loyal staff?

  • TerryF98

    I think it’s instructive that Guardiano has basically run away from this thread since his usual dismissive Peanut gallery idiocy.

    I guess there is a follow up in the works when this all turns into Obamas fault.

  • ottovbvs

    Slide // Jun 23, 2010 at 3:24 pm

    “naive? what am I naive about?”

    ……the fact that active service soldiers routinely gripe about Washington

    Slide // Jun 23, 2010 at 3:24 pm

    ottovbvs // Jun 23, 2010 at 3:13 pm “…….don’t be naive…..”

    naive? what am I naive about? If you want to see naive you should re-look at your comments back when this all first happened.

    “A PR blunder? That’s all? I would hold off on calling others naive ottovbvs.”

    ……my personal opinion and you omitted to add my conclusion that it was a decision for the president and whatever his decision was it should be respected!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Slide

    ottovbvs, I have said that I know that active service soldiers routinely gripe about Washington. Why do you insist on claiming that I indicate otherwise?

    I said it here: Slide // Jun 23, 2010 at 12:03 pm “Sure. Soldiers are going to complain to each other. It would be surprising if they didn’t. All perfectly normal.”

    And I said it here again: Slide // Jun 23, 2010 at 2:05 pm : Two soldiers grumbling to each other about the President is not a problem. I’d be shocked if it doesn’t happen ever day.

    You can disagree all you want with my position but please don’t mischaracterize what I say. I am fully aware that soldiers, from time immemorial have complained about the King, the Prime Minister, the President or whomever sent them into combat. Remember, I’m old enough to remember the Viet Nam war. Enough said.

    Of course none of that has anything to do with a GENERAL and the GENERAL’S STAFF ridiculing and insulting the entire civilian leadership to the MEDIA. To the PRESS. To f***** Rolling Stone Magazine. Now, if you don’t see that difference I can’t help you any more.

  • ottovbvs

    Slide // Jun 23, 2010 at 8:32 pm

    “Of course none of that has anything to do with a GENERAL and the GENERAL’S STAFF ridiculing and insulting the entire civilian leadership to the MEDIA. To the PRESS. To f***** Rolling Stone Magazine. Now, if you don’t see that difference I can’t help you any more.”

    ……..Now who is misrepresenting……..I’ve said all along it was an egregious breach of discipline…… it’s just that I wasn’t in full witch hunt mode like you and said quite clearly that although I wouldn’t have fired the guy it was up to the president at the end of the day……..No one is more negative about our prospects in Afghanistan than myself…..it’s unwinnable in my opinion but I don’t like witch hunts particularly of a good soldier with a distinguished career who happens to have f****ed up which is something we all do from time to time…..even you

  • CAPryde

    I get that this thread is already long gone, but I just had to put in my own vote of displeasure on this piece. The headline, about the General doing “no wrong,” is ridiculous. Making fun of people is not an example of speaking “the truth about Afghanistan,” and when you are the boss, you are responsible for what your people say in front of you. That’s why being the boss sometimes stinks.

  • John Guardiano

    Friends, Critics, Peanut Gallery! : )

    I have not disappeared. I simply don’t have the time to engage each and every comment. (Yeah, I gotta work for a living!) But I welcome your thoughts, even when I think you’re wrong and mistaken.

    Regards,
    John

  • Sinan

    Art 88, 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