• Welcome to the new NAXJA Forum! If your password does not work, please use "Forgot your password?" link on the log-in page. Please feel free to reach out to [email protected] if we can provide any assistance.

Gen. Stanley McChrystal

YELLAHEEP

NAXJA Forum User
I'm pretty disappointed that he recanted everything he said. Sucks that a man of his prestige, power, respect and intelligence wouldn't stand behind what he said about Obama and the war staff.

Seriously...... why would he have said it in the first place? The only reason it rolled off his tongue in that interview was because he genuinely felt that way. Sure, coulda been a little embellished on his part, frustration can tend to do that, but nevertheless, if things were going well according to Gen. Stanley McChrystal - he'd have said just that and wouldn't have said what he said.

Some excerpts:

The interview describes McChrystal, 55, as "disappointed" in his first Oval Office meeting with Obama. The article says that although McChrystal voted for Obama, the two failed to connect from the start.
McChrystal's first meeting with Obama:

According to sources familiar with the meeting, "McChrystal thought Obama looked "uncomfortable and intimidated" by the roomful of military brass.


McChrystal's first one-on-one meeting with Obama:

It was a 10-minute photo op," says an adviser to McChrystal. "Obama clearly didn't know anything about him, who he was. Here's the guy who's going to run his XXXXing war, but he didn't seem very engaged. The Boss was pretty disappointed."

Now, the General is looking a bit like a wet noodle. I don't give a damn if the Commander in Chief is pissed off. Maybe Obama should lend some merit to the General's feelings - which are no doubt based upon his experience.




Obama: Listen to those you've entrusted. Don't make it personal.


“Remember what these guys have been doing for the last eight, nine years,” one official said. “They have been on multiple, repeated, lengthy deployments. They have lost friends. These guys have been going nonstop. It’s exhausting. It’s taxing. It doesn’t excuse what was said. But people need to remember what these guys have been doing."




I can't imagine those comments would be considered treasonous. I'd hate to see him serving time for any of this. But if the General loses his job, I sure hope he'll get back on track with his feelings on the war and hit the talk show circuit .......and bolster his lost retirement funds.
 
Last edited:
Indeed. Yes, a general officer is a bit of a political position, and as such needs to be careful what he says, but exactly how far does that go? Should he always praise Obama? Maybe just tell the press no comment when asked about him.
 
Indeed. Yes, a general officer is a bit of a political position, and as such needs to be careful what he says, but exactly how far does that go? Should he always praise Obama? Maybe just tell the press no comment when asked about him.

Ask MacArthur, we been here before with MacArthur and Truman, the general lost and Truman fired him.
 
He admitted voting for obama. He's part of the problem. If he was stupid enough to think that obama would do better in Afghanistan than McCain, then he deserves to get shit canned.

He's a politician himself, nothing more. :conceited
 
He admitted voting for obama. He's part of the problem. If he was stupid enough to think that obama would do better in Afghanistan than McCain, then he deserves to get shit canned.

He's a politician himself, nothing more. :conceited

That is a fact concerning any O5 and higher.
 
A General at his level is suppose to questions orders/policy he receives about the campaign he is running, but not to Rolling Stone Magazine. If General McChrystal had issues he should have brought them up in a different setting. One of the most basic rules of the military is the Chain of Command. He has other Generals that he should discuss these matters with, Gen Petraeus and ADM Mullen, and as a Commander at his level he probably has a hotline right to the CINC.


Maybe my old soldier mentality is outdated but you do not go running at the mouth to news agencys when something doesn't go your way. If he was retired and wrote a book and gave a thousand and one interviews thats fine, but while serving things are done a certain way, IMO.


He's a politician himself, nothing more.

Sorry but there is so much more on that man's plate, as a Combatant Commander. Every day he approves missions that place the lives of my brothers and sister in harm's way. To label him as simply as another politician that only cares about himself and his future is ignorant.

Do you have any idea what it's like to have to send a soldier forward knowing that they might not return from that mission?
 
A General at his level is suppose to questions orders/policy he receives about the campaign he is running, but not to Rolling Stone Magazine. If General McChrystal had issues he should have brought them up in a different setting. One of the most basic rules of the military is the Chain of Command. He has other Generals that he should discuss these matters with, Gen Petraeus and ADM Mullen, and as a Commander at his level he probably has a hotline right to the CINC.


Maybe my old soldier mentality is outdated but you do not go running at the mouth to news agencys when something doesn't go your way. If he was retired and wrote a book and gave a thousand and one interviews thats fine, but while serving things are done a certain way, IMO.
Well said.
 
If General McChrystal had issues he should have brought them up in a different setting. One of the most basic rules of the military is the Chain of Command. He has other Generals that he should discuss these matters with, Gen Petraeus and ADM Mullen, and as a Commander at his level he probably has a hotline right to the CINC.


Can any of us say that he hadn't already/previously? The deepest frustration comes from having tried and failed...... and in this situation, I'd imagine his frustration comes from his having to be critical of what the war situation requires, vs. what he's being provided - or not provided.

Personally, they should scold him for his chain of command transgression and let the man get back to work....... then put some sincere effort in looking into what's frustrating their top war General...... that is, if they even give a shit.
 
Everybody knows that there's a time and a place to air one's deepest, most
intimate political secrets, and it's certainly not Rolling Stone. It's Tiger Beat!!!

barack-obama_0.jpg



Obama was selected to be a one-term candidate from the beginning........

Who is waiting in the wings?
That drill baby drill chick.... you know... McCains Nurse
mcain-palin-nurse.jpg
 
link to the actual article?

This is what his "advisor" said and from "sources"

for all we know the "advisor" could be the Generals E-2 driver.
 
Do you have any idea what it's like to have to send a soldier forward knowing that they might not return from that mission?

yes I do, but the General is still a politico, one loses touch with reality at that level, hell, even E8 and E9 tend to insulate themselves from reality.

that being said, the General in question will not lose his retirement benefits, and I'm quite sure there are any number of agencies and corporations waiting to scoop him up
 
A General at his level is suppose to questions orders/policy he receives about the campaign he is running, but not to Rolling Stone Magazine. If General McChrystal had issues he should have brought them up in a different setting. One of the most basic rules of the military is the Chain of Command. He has other Generals that he should discuss these matters with, Gen Petraeus and ADM Mullen, and as a Commander at his level he probably has a hotline right to the CINC.

Maybe my old soldier mentality is outdated but you do not go running at the mouth to news agencys when something doesn't go your way. If he was retired and wrote a book and gave a thousand and one interviews thats fine, but while serving things are done a certain way, IMO.

Sorry but there is so much more on that man's plate, as a Combatant Commander. Every day he approves missions that place the lives of my brothers and sister in harm's way. To label him as simply as another politician that only cares about himself and his future is ignorant.

Do you have any idea what it's like to have to send a soldier forward knowing that they might not return from that mission?

I agree that any beef that McChrystal has with Obama should have been handled face to face and in private. If he wanted to be vocal to the public, he should have resigned first and then expressed openly why he was resigning, not the other way around.
 
I agree that any beef that McChrystal has with Obama should have been handled face to face and in private. If he wanted to be vocal to the public, he should have resigned first and then expressed openly why he was resigning, not the other way around.

Yup, just like a stupid order, you take and do it then come back and frag his ass later.
 
Back
Top