General Stanley McChrystal might get fired

[Kuya]

Pabst, you seem like an idiot, so don't reply to me again unless i give you permision.

Neosutra seemed to have been saying that Afghans would agree that idiots who behave inappropriately with US or NATO troops deserve to get shot up, so then i posted an article covering an Afghan protest over a passenger bus allegedly rushing at a military convoy (the civilians claim otherwise). It would appear then, that Afghans might not agree with Neosutra's sentiment.

[Rhinox]

I love you Kuya.


no homo

[Pabst]

Pabst, you seem like an idiot, so don't reply to me again unless i give you permision.

can't see it

[Zoolander]

People getting pissed when fellow citizens are killed? What a novel concept.

As previously stated, reasoning and excuses are irrelevant; all that matters is the end result of dead civilians killed by the hands of military personnel that are supposed to be protecting them. We view military and civilian lives and casualties differently, why would it be any different in Afghanistan.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

permision

i see what you did, and I love every letter of it

[Kryssan]

Late to the party, but on the issue of speaking out in the military, I respectfully disagree. Especially in my community, it is quite often that even an E-3 can tell an O-6+ that they're wrong without consequence. The important feature of this is being respectful about it, and it doesn't hurt to also be right. Digging into the past with a few of my favourite military commanders, General William Mitchell and Field Marshall Erwin Rommel were both disliked by quite a few of their colleagues and superiors. The fact that they got shit done however helped offset their rather polar personalities.


Current military snafus like this are generated by people who don't understand how to deliver information, not that information was delivered. Sometimes its important that someone says something.

[Jimmyus]

I realize you will probably respond to this post by cherry picking 4-5 other articles from the New York Times and then calling me a fool, but I think the argument you are trying to make with that one article is lackluster, Kuya. Are you implying that all vehicles should be able to freely speed towards an armed guard post without being stopped? Or, perhaps that we are somehow violating rights by making it easier for troops to defend themselves in what is an uncertain, hostile environment?

What Neosutra is saying is not that they should be able to fire on civilian vehicles without the need for confirmation; on the contrary, his post suggests that some level of confirmation and approval is both useful and necessary, but that the amount of said approval has perhaps become bloated. This is perhaps (somewhat) analogous to a judge having to get a warrant to issue a warrant from someone even further removed from the situation, when the decision-making power should have been kept in-loop of the context. That is NOT the same as saying we shouldn't have warrants, and in the military's case is NOT the same as saying a soldier should have individual prerogative on the acquisition and confirmation of viable targets.

I suppose your main argument comes from the last sentence. What would be your solution, then? You make no valid alternative, except what I am assuming will be an unnecessary 'we shouldn't be there in the first place!!!' one. Should we perhaps tell troops never to fire on vehicles they have requested and been granted permission to assail? A more moderate and probably useful argument would be that, since these bases are causing problems in populated areas, a removal of the bases to a less populous area would be ideal. Except, that comes with its own score of issues that need a great deal of elaboration.

It seems then that if firing on helpless civilians is the issue, then the ideal solution would be configuring bases in such a way that vehicles within proximity that weren't authorized would have their tires punctured. This, of course, would require a more streamlined chain-of-command authorization procedure, which leads us back to the original problem, which was taken on a tangent.

[Rhyis.]

Guys doing it wrong. You retire, write a book insulting everybody that isn't you, make a bunch of money.

[Kuya]

Kuya. Are you implying that all vehicles should be able to freely speed towards an armed guard post without being stopped? Or, perhaps that we are somehow violating rights by making it easier for troops to defend themselves in what is an uncertain, hostile environment?

No and no; not reading the rest of your post.

[bluefan]

Guys doing it wrong. You retire, write a book insulting everybody that isn't you, make a bunch of money.

^

[Acturus]

Late to the party, but on the issue of speaking out in the military, I respectfully disagree. Especially in my community, it is quite often that even an E-3 can tell an O-6+ that they're wrong without consequence. The important feature of this is being respectful about it, and it doesn't hurt to also be right.

Well certainly. We'd all like to believe that our superiors are logical, rational human beings that can take criticism. While that doesn't happen, that is arguably what -should- happen in any hierarchy.

However, there's a big difference between talking to your boss about the wrong shit he's done, and talking about your boss about the wrong shit he's done.

Especially when you decide to talk about your boss to an international mass-media publication.

[Cephius]

It's also slightly different when your boss is the god damn President.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

I thought it was just that it was done in public.

[Rhinox]

You endorsing Insubordination swampy?


btw Media is hyping this shit up and forgetting the fact that Bush routinely fired Generals for Insubordination and other things.

http://www.thedailybackground.com/20...t-i-was-fired/

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Bu...ddle_0104.html

and then he went on to fire the guy that replaced the guy that replaced the guy.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...721491,00.html

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Disagreeing isn't insubordination. It's when you do it in public that you cross the line.

The only distinction I see, that anyone who disagrees with the firing can make, is that he wasn't talking in public about how Obama's strategy was wrong. Mecllelan, McArthur, and Fallon were all attempting to undermine the President's strategy. He just made fun of underlings and the President. Not saying it's right, just pointing out that there is that distinction.

[Cephius]

Disagreeing isn't insubordination. It's when you do it in public that you cross the line.

Insubordination is insubordination regardless of venue, don't try to define insubordination as "disagreement in public" because it's not. He crossed the line with his comments, the fact it was in a public magazine just exacerbated the issue.

The only distinction I see, that anyone who disagrees with the firing can make, is that he wasn't talking in public about how Obama's strategy was wrong. Mecllelan, McArthur, and Fallon were all attempting to undermine the President's strategy. He just made fun of underlings and the President. Not saying it's right, just pointing out that there is that distinction.

Isn't personally insulting the President of the United States and his staff worse than insulting his strategy? (And, again, for all intents and purposes the COIN strategy in Afghanistan was McChrystal's strategy)

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Let me rephrase.

Disagreeing isn't insubordination. It's when you disagree in public that you cross the line between doing something that will get you fired, or not fired, not disagreeing in public, neither of which crosses the line b/w disagreement and insubordination.

And I don't know if its worse, nor care to know. In my opinion they're both fire-able offenses. In someone else's though, there may be a distinction.

Edit: Relevant and too funny. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op...-97055489.html

[FNH]

Are you Serious?

lol

[eunhye]

http://weaselzippers.us/wp-content/u...l-BetrayUs.jpg

[Rhinox]

doing it wrong. At least get the meme right.


you're suppose to mention how Obama refused to condemn the ad.