Civilian control of the military, and McChrystal

[Perd Hapley]

On the radio today, I kept hearing about this McChrystal situation, and that civilian control of the military was somehow at stake in the whole controversy.  Even a stodgy old Senator like Kit Bond was saying so. 

I can't see how a general mouthing off to the President compromises civilian government.  What gives?

[roo_ster]

On the radio today, I kept hearing about this McChrystal situation, and that civilian control of the military was somehow at stake in the whole controversy.  Even a stodgy old Senator like Kit Bond was saying so. 

I can't see how a general mouthing off to the President compromises civilian government.  What gives?

Ignorant knuckleheads mouthing off.  Even MacArthur's lobbying of Congress did not brush up against that issue.

[AZRedhawk44]

Aren't Generals and Admirals appointed/commissioned by Congress, and then given direction by the President/CinC?  As another form of checks and balances?  So that the President doesn't have complete authority over the military command structure... similar to how Justices are nominated by the President, but confirmed by the Senate?

[French G.]

An example of the limits of federalism and common sense. Two bit cop shows that your intellectual better that you suck up to is just another race baiting idiot and you have to have a beer with the guy because you can't fire him.

One of your most important generals says you're an idiot and you fire him because you can.

McChrystal says "Hey, what is this, no beer?"

[longeyes]

The concept of "civilian control" when the civilians in charge lack honor is risible.

[Waitone]

Didn't Obama say at West Point in some areas his power is unlimited?

[RileyCA]

Obama, as POTUS, is CIC of the armed forces.  He is McChrystal's superior.  He shouldn't tolerate insubordination any more than McC would from his subordinates.   Oh, and if you don't like the fact that Obama is the duly elected POTUS, you shouldn't have run McCain.  So STFU and get politically active. This is (still) a democracy (sort of.  it's becoming more and more of a corportocracy though).

[Boomhauer]

you shouldn't have run McCain.  So STFU and get politically active

Do you think we wanted to run McCain? McCain was the last person we wanted as our candidate.

[Perd Hapley]

Don't feed you-know-who.

[Ron]

Don't feed you-know-who.

Reply# 6 is right on the money (IMHO) regardless of who posted it, just saying.

[roo_ster]

Obama, as POTUS, is CIC of the armed forces.  He is McChrystal's superior.  He shouldn't tolerate insubordination any more than McC would from his subordinates.   Oh, and if you don't like the fact that Obama is the duly elected POTUS, you shouldn't have run McCain.  So STFU and get politically active. This is (still) a democracy (sort of.  it's becoming more and more of a corportocracy though).

First, the Rolling Stone mag showed no evidence of insubordination by McChrystal.

Second, you can keep your STFU and stuff it in the bottle of cold ethyl you just killed, RileyCA.  

[Ron]

First, the Rolling Stone mag showed no evidence of insubordination by McChrystal.

Second, you can keep your STFU and stuff it in the bottle of cold ethyl you just killed, RileyCA.  

It really wasn't insubordination, but the article was detrimental to the mission.

My suspicion is that there is a a lot of backstory to this little public flare up.

[Perd Hapley]

Reply# 6 is right on the money (IMHO) regardless of who posted it, just saying.

But it doesn't answer the question.  If McChrystal's statements amount to insubordination, how would this touch the issue of civilian control of the military? 

[RileyCA]

Quote from: RileyCA on Today at 06:32:21 PM
Obama, as POTUS, is CIC of the armed forces.  He is McChrystal's superior.  He shouldn't tolerate insubordination any more than McC would from his subordinates.   Oh, and if you don't like the fact that Obama is the duly elected POTUS, you shouldn't have run McCain.  So STFU and get politically active. This is (still) a democracy (sort of.  it's becoming more and more of a corportocracy though).


First, the Rolling Stone mag showed no evidence of insubordination by McChrystal

First, a number of prominent Congressmen and Senators, both Republican and Democrat, disagree with you, as well as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.  So you're in the fringe minority. .

Second, you ad hominem attacks dilute any credibility you may hoped to have.

[Ron]

But it doesn't answer the question.  If McChrystal's statements amount to insubordination, how would this touch the issue of civilian control of the military? 

That is why I'm thinking this is a public boiling over of a behind the scenes power struggle.

[RileyCA]

If McChrystal's statements amount to insubordination, how would this touch the issue of civilian control of the military?  

Uh, because McC (and his staff's) remarks were intended to disparage the WhiteHouse (all civilians AFAIK)

[Ron]

First, a number of prominent Congressmen and Senators, both Republican and Democrat, disagree with you, as well as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.  So you're in the fringe minority. .

Second, you ad hominem attacks dilute any credibility you may hoped to have.

What from the article amounted to insubordination?

I don't see it either.

[Perd Hapley]

I sure am glad we have someone here to ascertain roo_ster's credibility, and to answer my questions without answering them.   

[Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas]

The biggest WTF moment for me was that Rolling Stone ran either the full article or all the quotes in the article by McChrystal for fact-checking purposes. He had no problems with any of them.   

[French G.]

I personally think McChrystal made his exit as loud as possible so as to showcase the utter incompetents above him. He had to know how the article would look if he did in fact see copy of it. Kinda like "You can't fire me, I quit!"

On the trolll drift, McCain may be a Rino, and I once penned a blog post titled "John McCain is the Devil" for things like his campaign finance reform and such.

That said, I voted for him, I believe he is, unlike the alternative, an American and has a sense ofhonor. I'd vote for him again. Way better than the alternative.

[wmenorr67]

There was nothing wrong with what McChrystal said.  It was how and where he said it that got him in trouble.  Plus letting his staff make comments also didn't help him any either.  That being said I agree with alot of what he said.  How many on this board are guilty of complaining that his/her boss doesn't know anything about them or know what the hell they are doing and wonder why they are in charge.  Unfortunately McChrystal's boss can't be fired until 2012.  But I am also disappointed in the fact that Petraeus didn't jump in sooner being the CENTCOM CDR.  But then again McChrystal already more than likely has most of his memoirs ready for publication and speaking engagements lined up to supliment his retirement from the Army.

[longeyes]

Something tells me that McChrystal's naivete' regarding Rolling Stone is an analog to our naive strategy in dealing with Islamoterrorism.  Misguided trust based on faulty perceptions.

[roo_ster]

The biggest WTF moment for me was that Rolling Stone ran either the full article or all the quotes in the article by McChrystal for fact-checking purposes. He had no problems with any of them.   

Rolling Stone is deceiving by not providing the whole truth. 

They ran SOME questions by McC & his staff, "fact checking" the freelance reporter.  None of those questions got at the tasty bits that got McC fired, but more along the lines of, "Gee, is McC really as awesome as the author suggests?"  I exaggerate, but the "fact checking" was part of RS's plan to keep McC & Co. from getting antsy and to serve their purpose of denigrating the war effort and torpedoing its probability of success(1).




(1) Personally, I am not too positive on the chances of success in a country where rising to Haiti-like levels of development and civil society would be an improvement.  I think that the facts are stark enough that hoodwinking the .mil leadership and writing propaganda pieces is not necessary.  But, the fact remains that McC got punked by dope-smoking goofballs from Rolling Stone.   That doesn't inspire confidence WRT his interaction with the Taliban or ANY of the squirrelly leaders in that part of the world.

[Hutch]

I dislike Obama, all he stands for politically and ideologically.  That said, if "everyone knows" (true or not) that McC dissed him, Barry had to fire him.   Period.  Unless and until any President starts making Fuhrer-like illegal orders, what the POTUS says, goes.  If Congress has to intervene and impeach or impede by blocking funds, so be it.  Until then, the military should be on a short, short leash, held by the duly elected President, whomever that may be.

[tyme]

There was nothing wrong with what McChrystal said.  It was how and where he said it that got him in trouble.  Plus letting his staff make comments also didn't help him any either.

The plot thickens.  Allegedly RS wasn't as clear on on- and off-the-record demarcations as they were supposed to be.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/06/military-says-rolling-stone-broke-ground-rules.html