OK can someone explain this to me please?

[edgray]

Barack Obama sacks Afghan war commander Stanley McChrystal

Obama says McChrystal 'undermined' conflict, but there will be no change in strategy

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/23/barack-obama-stanley-mcchrystal-afghanistan

I know the US President is the Commander in Chief, but has Obama actually served in the military? And to sack the guy over some comments made in a magazine???? What's going on?

 

[porterjack]

this happens when soldiers try to play politician, they lose

they should do what they do best - be soldiers

why top rank soldiers would want to get involved in political arguments escapes me, politicans always fuck up wars

 

[Codrus]

... politicans always fuck up wars

i would say "just be glad that they aren't doing the fighting"...but you and i both know that they wouldn't have the balls

 

[Thornless]

I thought he never served?

 

[BlackCherry]

This actually happened to another high ranking general who did the same bone-headed thing in an Esquire Magazine interview during the Bush Administration.

The reason it's frowned upon is that it makes the government (for lack of a better explanation) appear disorganized and weak. If the top ranking general who is in charge of the war effort goes off half cocked and says our government is incompetant, how is that offensive going to be taken seriously by our allies and those we are trying to "win over" so to speak?

While I don't have a problem with him having an opinion and for feeling the way that he does, he should wise up and think about the consequences of spouting off to a global publication. If his overall objective is to "win" this war, he's not going to do it by undermining the government publicly whether he agrees to the methods or not. This is a decorated, experienced officer and he should know better if for no other reason than it's strategically stupid to do something like that.

 

[Tim]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/23/barack-obama-stanley-mcchrystal-afghanistan

I know the US President is the Commander in Chief, but has Obama actually served in the military? And to sack the guy over some comments made in a magazine???? What's going on?

No, Obama has never served in the US military.

But the president of the United States is the commander in chief. That means he is the one that controls and runs the military.

Our military is under civilian control

 

[hart]

My question, what the hell was the guy thinking giving an interview to Rolling Stones magazine, did he think it didn't matter what he said because no high muck a mucks read it?

You don't have to agree with what your bosses policies are, but you go and tell the public you don't and in the same interview disrespect others senior to you, you can't expect it not to get noticed and acted upon

 

[Haus]

if you get caught bad mouthing a company you work for on a social network you'll most likely get canned

He bad mouthed to a magazine

Hell years ago a Coke Employee got fired for drinking a pepsi LOL

 

[Accountable]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/23/barack-obama-stanley-mcchrystal-afghanistan

I know the US President is the Commander in Chief, but has Obama actually served in the military? And to sack the guy over some comments made in a magazine???? What's going on?

It's not relevant whether the President has previously served. He is the Commander-in-Chief now.

The military's a different animal than the rest of society. From the lowest grunt all the way to the top general, everybody has a boss and that boss' order is to be obeyed without question. Any doubt, question, or discussion can happen before the decision is made or after the operation is complete, but once the order is given the only option is to salute smartly and carry it out. Loyalty is as important as water and ammunition. If the lower rank troops suspect dissent higher up the chain of command, then there is the very real danger that they will buck the system when they personally disagree with an order they receive. When that happens people die.

If the Commander-In-Chief had allowed someone in his direct chain of command to show disloyalty without comment, there is the very real danger that people would die unnecessarily as a result.

This is why we should never, ever, go to war without very firm and clear knowledge of who the enemy is, why we are fighting him, and what will we define as a "win".

 

[retro]

It was insubordination by McChrystal in my view, but I also think that it was carefully planned on his part. He knew exactly what he was doing, and most likely figured that this would have far more exposure than if he did it after retiring.

I see what he was trying to do, but being publicly insubordinate to the Commander In Chief runs him the risk of a court martial and dishonorable discharge. But he probably knew the risks before he did it. He probably got off easy all things considered, he was removed from his post, and will probably be allowed to retire honorably with full benefits.

 

[edgray]

thanks for explaining that guys. It's just different over here so I found it strange the leader of the country being able to meddle in the military so directly. I don't think PM's have that kind of power.

Personally I really don't think someone who hasn't worked their way up through the military should be able to do that tho, what the guy did wasn't smart, but I don't think he would intentionally jeopardise his mission, he knows a lot more about what they're up against, so I don't understand why the president, who is Commander in Chief solely because he's president, not because of any military know-how, should be able to make that. Just my tuppence.

 

[Accountable]

That's the beauty of checks and balances. This is probably the only one the federal gov't still uses, even though they're all still in place.

 

[edgray]

checks and balances?

 

[BlackCherry]

It's not relevant whether the President has previously served. He is the Commander-in-Chief now.

The military's a different animal than the rest of society. From the lowest grunt all the way to the top general, everybody has a boss and that boss' order is to be obeyed without question. Any doubt, question, or discussion can happen before the decision is made or after the operation is complete, but once the order is given the only option is to salute smartly and carry it out. Loyalty is as important as water and ammunition. If the lower rank troops suspect dissent higher up the chain of command, then there is the very real danger that they will buck the system when they personally disagree with an order they receive. When that happens people die.

If the Commander-In-Chief had allowed someone in his direct chain of command to show disloyalty without comment, there is the very real danger that people would die unnecessarily as a result.

This is why we should never, ever, go to war without very firm and clear knowledge of who the enemy is, why we are fighting him, and what will we define as a "win".

That was what I was getting at but you explained it much more eloquently than I did! :thumbup

 

[Accountable]

Our Constitution was set up so that the federal gov't wouldn't gain too much power over the individual states (that part's fucked now) and that no single branch would gain too much power over the other two.

F'rinstance, if the Constitution were followed, the President is the overall supreme commander of the military, but he can't declare war. Only congress (Senate and House of Representatives) can do that. Also, the President can call for any program he wants, but the House of Representatives holds the purse strings, and decides how much of the budget will be spent on the various programs.

When there's a disagreement, the Supreme Court is to interpret the law & decide who is right or even if the law follows the constitution at all.

Even the hiring is not decided by the same people. The President is elected by an electoral college manned by reps of each state. The House of Representatives are chosen by popular election. The Senators were originally chosen by their state's legislature, but that's changed to popular election, too. The Supreme Court is nominated by the President, with approval from the Senate.

It's designed to be complicated and cumbersome because the Founders knew that so much power in the hands of mere humans is too much to resist and stay honest.

 

[Accountable]

That was what I was getting at but you explained it much more eloquently than I did! :thumbup

Thanks!

 

[edgray]

Our Constitution was set up so that the federal gov't wouldn't gain too much power over the individual states (that part's fucked now) and that no single branch would gain too much power over the other two.

F'rinstance, if the Constitution were followed, the President is the overall supreme commander of the military, but he can't declare war. Only congress (Senate and House of Representatives) can do that. Also, the President can call for any program he wants, but the House of Representatives holds the purse strings, and decides how much of the budget will be spent on the various programs.

When there's a disagreement, the Supreme Court is to interpret the law & decide who is right or even if the law follows the constitution at all.

Even the hiring is not decided by the same people. The President is elected by an electoral college manned by reps of each state. The House of Representatives are chosen by popular election. The Senators were originally chosen by their state's legislature, but that's changed to popular election, too. The Supreme Court is nominated by the President, with approval from the Senate.

It's designed to be complicated and cumbersome because the Founders knew that so much power in the hands of mere humans is too much to resist and stay honest.

do you think it's worked though? no offense, but I would never call the US govt a pillar of honesty, and recent US presidents seem to have been pretty happy to abuse their power...

edit: forgot to say that you guys have a VERY complicated system! Does the Average Joe understand how it all works?

 

[Accountable]

do you think it's worked though? no offense, but I would never call the US govt a pillar of honesty, and recent US presidents seem to have been pretty happy to abuse their power...

Oh hell no it hasn't worked. See, the thing people forget, sometimes willfully, is that the Founders KNEW the power would be abused. It's just too tempting. They set up as many barriers as they could, hoping that each branch would jealously hold their power and wield it against the other two to keep them in check. Regardless of how economically and militarily successful we've become, the system fell apart many times. It could be argued that the system's flaws are what's allowed us to become economic and military superpowers.

Remember, the goal was never to become the biggest, most powerful empire in a world of 18th century empires. The original goal was holding the government in check so that every citizen would have a chance to enjoy the fruits of his own labor, without paying a fealty to some bureaucrat sitting on his arse eating caviar.

 

[edgray]

Oh hell no it hasn't worked. See, the thing people forget, sometimes willfully, is that the Founders KNEW the power would be abused. It's just too tempting. They set up as many barriers as they could, hoping that each branch would jealously hold their power and wield it against the other two to keep them in check. Regardless of how economically and militarily successful we've become, the system fell apart many times. It could be argued that the system's flaws are what's allowed us to become economic and military superpowers.

Remember, the goal was never to become the biggest, most powerful empire in a world of 18th century empires. The original goal was holding the government in check so that every citizen would have a chance to enjoy the fruits of his own labor, without paying a fealty to some bureaucrat sitting on his arse eating caviar.

It reminds me a little of Tony Blair, he increased a PMs power significantly whilst he was in power... as they say, power corrupts...

 

[Minor Axis]

In the military, discussion and disagreements take place behind the scenes. Once you go public and demean the chain of command, including your boss, your days are numbered. I'd say this is true of any organization.