McChrystal fired.

[kandrathe]

The lesson? When anyone in the press ask to tag along or interview you or your staff, you say no.

[Kevin]

The lesson? When anyone in the press ask to tag along or interview you or your staff, you say no.

Or you don't make private remarks around them because they will be made public. People in the military question the President all the time (in my experience from my time serving) and they question command too, but they still follow and carry out the orders given, once given to the best of their ability. I wouldn't want a military that didn't question command decisions, when it's an appropriate time to question them. In the heat of battle you follow the plan, you follow the orders, you carry out the mission (as the plans will get fubar, but you do the mission based on the goals of the plan).

During a planning meeting? During downtime? In private? Sure you can question the leadership them and I think it's healthy to do so. Heck you are trained to follow lawful orders, and that is stressed. You are trained to pay attention to the orders and reject them if they aren't lawful, as a human being you are going to question them in general based on that. But a soldier also understands that they often don't have the whole plan in front of them and do do what you are told.

So I figured he would likely be fired over this. But there was a part of me that said, "Doesn't that show exactly what our country stand for that the military can speak out against the president while at the same time following his orders?" But I would have been very surprised had he not been relieved of command.

[Concillian]

The lesson? When anyone in the press ask to tag along or interview you or your staff, you say no.

Indeed. Along the same vein, do not talk to the police.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sg...r_embedded

It's a law professor lecture. An hour long, but interesting if you have the time. You never know what someone is going to latch on to... especially the press.

[kandrathe]

Good lecture. I finished the first 30 minutes. I'll watch the remainder after my sons little league quarter final game.

When I have first hand knowledge to compare a news report with, things are mostly reported accurately. But, a few times times, things were distorted waaaaaay out of context, or the story was very different from the questions that were asked. One time, I watched a local reporter question about 30 students at the U of M on a recent controversial change at the university, and when the news played, the two students who had the minority view were the ones shown.

McChrystal should have known better. But, let's suppose he might have been the best guy for the job given his success in Iraq(not that Petraeus can't get the job done). Now, due to this article, his career is over, and the war effort and lives of thousands of people in Afghanistan are at risk. The article revealed real chaos in the fractured team, at risk of getting Afghanistan ready for a US troop exit. From what I've read, much of the inflammatory material is only attributed to McChrystal by his aids. So, its not even his words, just that he allowed this guy access to his support staff on some booze fueled outing in Paris.

I just have to ask; If this is a war, and we are serious about winning it, then why does the US military allow a civilian this kind of access, why wouldn't the writer realize he was ending the career of the guy who gave him the story, and why wouldn't the editor think about the effect this might have on our ability to win the war?

[--Pete]

Hi,

I just have to ask; If this is a war, . . .

It's not. It started out as an attempt to use the military for a job that they are not trained for (anti-terrorism), and transitioned to another job they are not trained for (state building). It is unfair to the troops, to their leaders and to the country -- a lesson we should have learned by now.

. . and we are serious about winning it, . . .

What does "winning it" even mean? You win a war by defeating your enemy, not by capturing a terrorist, nor by establishing a stable government. Not that those aren't good goals, they're just not goals a military is designed to achieve. The problem is that some jackass proclaimed a *WAR* on blah, blah, blah and the sheep just went along.

. . . then why does the US military allow a civilian this kind of access, . . .

Because the politics dominate, and the granting of a star is an induction into politics.

. . . why wouldn't the writer realize he was ending the career of the guy who gave him the story, . . .

What makes you think he didn't realize it? Could it not be that he just didn't give a damn?

. . . and why wouldn't the editor think about the effect this might have on our ability to win the war?

It's called the free market (and First Amendment). Winning or losing the war doesn't matter, selling newspapers does. The one is just good for the country, but the other is good for the editor.

--Pete

[Jester]

Never judge a book by it cover or the book will judge you. That is what Mr. McChrystal did, he should have never made that interview. Now he is being judge by the remarks he made.

I'm confused. You're saying he was too quick to judge? Or that we shouldn't judge him by his remarks? Or that he's rightfully being judged by his remarks?

I'm not sure how "never judge a book by its cover" fits in here.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

I'm not sure how "never judge a book by its cover" fits in here.

... you don't spit into the wind, you don't pull the mask off an 'ole Lone Ranger, and you don't mess around with Barry Obama.

But, crymomma is wrong. According to dutch researchers Stokman and Piters, there is a 77% chance of correctly judging a book by it's cover. Seems like good odds to me.

[Occhidiangela]

If I may be so bold ... it appears from the RS article that the General and his senior staff permitted considerable loose talk in a mocking and derogatory tone regarding the Vice President of the United States. You may wish to refer to UCMJ article 88 and see why he was obliged, as were his senior staff, not to permit this.

It appears that the General put the president in a position where the president had to fire him, or put up with civilian officials being openly mocked by officers serving. The facts may be other than reported by Rolling Stone, but this isn't the first time someone got relieved for loose talk.

Pete made a very important point: the general had a star, hell, he had four, and if he didn't grok how words and politics play into his assignment, then he had no business being in that assignment.

All said and done, this sucks, as I had a stong positive reaction to General McChrystal. (He was in charge of the JSOTF when I was over in the hot and nasty part of the world. I have mostly good things to say about how that was run, a certain Task Force excepted).

Short answer: Self inflicted wound.

[kandrathe]

Pete made a very important point: the general had a star, hell, he had four, and if he didn't grok how words and politics play into his assignment, then he had no business being in that assignment.

But...

General has got to be the hardest job in the world then. First, you need to be a good soldier, then leader, then tactician, then strategist, then psychologist, then logician, then nation builder, then politician, then PR specialist, etc. Then, when you exemplify all this talent, and you and/or your staff allegedly let's their guard down "off the record", whack, you're done. How many of the Whitehouse staff, or our Congress are that squeaky clean?

But, you are correct in as much as I would have told the Rolling Stone guy to stay away, and my staff to avoid all contact, and say nothing. It seems that we have a higher standard for "General" than we do for CIC, or VP, though.

[Jester]

It seems that we have a higher standard for "General" than we do for CIC, or VP, though.

That's because you don't get to vote the Generals out of their command - so if they're not 100% in line, you're setting yourself up for some Latin-America-in-the-70s-style fun times.

Tough gig, but if they wanted it easy, they probably wouldn't have joined the military.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

General has got to be the hardest job in the world then.

Pretty damned close. You don't put the lives of tens of thousands of men in someone you pick with a pin.

First, you need to be a good soldier, then leader, then tactician, then strategist, then psychologist, then logician, then nation builder, then politician, then PR specialist, etc.

That pretty much ended with Napoleon. Clausewitz, a contemporary of Boney wrote some words about how to run an army. It included the minor concept of 'staff'. The first two on your list, yeah. The rest is what subordinates are for.

Then, when you exemplify all this talent, and you and/or your staff allegedly let's their guard down "off the record", whack, you're done.

There's little room for stupidity in a profession whose primary purpose is to kill. If after twenty plus years, his guard isn't nailed up permanently, then he should be kicked.

How many of the Whitehouse staff, or our Congress are that squeaky clean?

That bar is so low, you need a shovel to find it.

It seems that we have a higher standard for "General" than we do for CIC, or VP, though.

Damn straight, and a good thing too. And most of them live up to it.

--Pete

[Taelas]

See, I'm not sure they do need to be "good soldiers", at least not modern generals. What's a good soldier? A person who's trained to kill, and who knows when to employ said skills and when not to, amongst other things. What need does a general have for that? Better that they are trained in leadership, in tactics and strategy, than in a skill rank-and-file grunts are expected to have. That's just a waste of time and effort. The managing director of a car company doesn't need to know how to put together an engine; he has employees for that.

[--Pete]

Hi,

See, I'm not sure they do need to be "good soldiers", at least not modern generals. What's a good soldier? A person who's trained to kill, and who knows when to employ said skills and when not to, amongst other things. What need does a general have for that? Better that they are trained in leadership, in tactics and strategy, than in a skill rank-and-file grunts are expected to have. That's just a waste of time and effort.

You know, those stars would hurt like hell if they had them on their shoulders when they were born. Most general rank officers got their military start at one of the academies. They do indeed get their training in all you mention, and more. When they graduate, they start at the lowest rank in their service. In the Air Force, most become pilots, particularly fighter pilots. In the Army, most go to one of the combat branches. I never could understand what the Navy did other than give Marines a ride

They are going to go through six ranks before they get a star. At each level, being a good soldier means doing the tasks appropriate to that level with a high degree of efficiency. And at each level, it's up or out. If an officer hits his Peter Principle level, he's got a (very) few chances to straighten up. If he gets passed over for promotion more than some set number of times, he becomes a civilian.

By the time a person gets a star, they have had to prove their competence a great many times in a great many things. And that is what being a good soldier means. Now, I can't speak for sailors

The managing director of a car company doesn't need to know how to put together an engine; he has employees for that.

If the managing director did know how to put together an engine, we might have better cars. It is one of the modern fictions that there is such a thing as a 'manager' in the abstract.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

See, I'm not sure they do need to be "good soldiers", at least not modern generals. What's a good soldier? A person who's trained to kill, and who knows when to employ said skills and when not to, amongst other things. What need does a general have for that? Better that they are trained in leadership, in tactics and strategy, than in a skill rank-and-file grunts are expected to have. That's just a waste of time and effort. The managing director of a car company doesn't need to know how to put together an engine; he has employees for that.

I sort of put them in an order, that would be expected during their evolution from OCS, from leading a squad on up. At some point, they need to prove themselves at least competent with small units, then later moving armies around. Then, when they get to the highest levels, they need to mingle seamlessly with the DC elite, and not get smudged.

[Jester]

I never could understand what the Navy did other than give Marines a ride

Winston Churchill apocryphally thought of a few (three) things, but I suppose that would be the wrong navy.

-Jester

(Afterthought: might have only been two *other* things.)

[Occhidiangela]

See, I'm not sure they do need to be "good soldiers", at least not modern generals. What's a good soldier? A person who's trained to kill, and who knows when to employ said skills and when not to, amongst other things. What need does a general have for that? Better that they are trained in leadership, in tactics and strategy, than in a skill rank-and-file grunts are expected to have. That's just a waste of time and effort. The managing director of a car company doesn't need to know how to put together an engine; he has employees for that.

It is ignorance like this that ends in Task Force Smith. And Kasserine Pass. And what happened to the 106th in the Ardennes.

Occhi

[kandrathe]

The managing director of a car company doesn't need to know how to put together an engine; he has employees for that.

If the managing director did know how to put together an engine, we might have better cars. It is one of the modern fictions that there is such a thing as a 'manager' in the abstract.

From my own experience... When I have been in the trenches myself and then managed the work; I certainly know how hard it is, what the challenges are, how long it will take, when things get off track, and finally what a job well done looks like. The people I lead have more confidence in my leadership, and my decisions when I have already walked in their shoes and can speak to them with on their terms.