View Single Post
Old 06-23-2010, 03:59 PM   #165
dreadgeek
Power Femme

How Do You Identify?:
Cinnamon spiced, caramel colored, power-femme
Preferred Pronoun?:
She
Relationship Status:
Married to a wonderful horse girl
 
dreadgeek's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Lat: 45.60 Lon: -122.60
Posts: 1,733
Thanks: 1,132
Thanked 6,844 Times in 1,493 Posts
Rep Power: 21474852
dreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputation
Member Photo Albums
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabine Gallais View Post
The whole McChrystal thing is a sham. All of this is a media distraction--of which we’ve all become painfully aware and accustomed to. McChrystal is being sacrificed, i.e., thrown under the bus, in order to create yet another diversion. These guys are all in the pockets of corporate, drug war and military interests. This whole thing is a charade. It’s all smoke and mirrors. The fact is that Afghanistan is all about the gas pipeline that runs from Turkmenistan through that country. And of course, it’s also about the drug trade. This disinformation campaign is as useful as the war itself. Are folks paying attention to what's behind the curtain of lies dropped before us by the media?
It MAY be a media distraction but the McChrystal thing is far from a sham. The man subverted the chain of command. Ultimately, every flag officer (generals and admirals) serve at the pleasure of the Defense Secretary. It is a cornerstone of our military that soldiers answer to the civilian leadership not the other way around. Not only did McChrystal subvert the authority of the President with his comments this is not the first time he has done so. He has, at least two other times in the last 18 months, stated that he either disagreed with the policy OR stated policy himself!

Now, here on BFP that may not mean much. In most academic and policy circles that probably means even less. But to a 24 year old soldier, serving his third or fourth overseas tour in 6 years, standing post in some forsaken part of Afghanistan it matters quite a deal that the chain of command is intact. We ask our soldiers to go and do horrible and unthinkable things. Horrible, unthinkable things that 99% of us will never even work up the ovaries to volunteer to do! They are trained to do a job that every sane person hopes they will never have to do. However, when they DO have to do that job--horrible as it might be--they will do so believing that their orders are legitimate and follow a clear chain of command. That chain of command starts at the POTUS and continues down through the SecDef and then through the flag officers and so on.

Now, I will admit I was not a general. I wasn't an officer, I was a lowly sergeant. However, my job was not to make national policy. It wasn't the job of my commanding officer to make national policy. It wasn't the job of HIS commanding officer to do so either and on up the chain. Policy is set by the civilians and soldiers carry out the policy. That is the way it works in every liberal democracy and it is why, whatever else has happened, we have never had any serious danger of falling into a military dictatorship. McChrystal's job is to define doctrine and strategy in pursuit of whatever policy the civilian leadership has defined. If the policy is ill-considered, it is his duty, as a flag officer, to tell the civilian leadership "with all due respect, this is probably a really, really bad idea". It is *not* his job to end-run around the civilian leadership, go to the press and say that he is not onboard the policy as defined.

What's more what he did was galactically stupid. If you or I talk to some reporter from Rolling Stone it's probably not safe to assume that it's off the record. If, however, you are a four-star general, commander of a major operation of the U.S. military, ANY conversation with ANY reporter should be assumed to be on-the-record and your responses should reflect that. This guy got sloppy and started shooting his mouth off.

As far as the hidden interests--being aware of those issues (which I am) is not mutually exclusive to understanding that McChrystal stepped WAY out of line. He would have cashiered his adjunct or any other member of his staff if THEY had, for instance, given an interview to Stars and Stripes where they had done the same because it would subvert his command.

The facts you mention--and I don't dispute any of them--will still obtain whether McChrystal kept his job or Petraeus steps in or someone else. We have no legitimate national interest in Afghanistan at this point and should adjust our policy accordingly.

Cheers
Aj
__________________
Proud member of the reality-based community.

"People on the side of The People always ended up disappointed, in any case. They found that The People tended not to be grateful or appreciative or forward-thinking or obedient. The People tended to be small-minded and conservative and not very clever and were even distrustful of cleverness. And so, the children of the revolution were faced with the age-old problem: it wasn’t that you had the wrong kind of government, which was obvious, but that you had the wrong kind of people. As soon as you saw people as things to be measured, they didn’t measure up." (Terry Pratchett)

Last edited by dreadgeek; 06-23-2010 at 08:08 PM. Reason: corrected grammar in last paragraph of next to last sentence
dreadgeek is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to dreadgeek For This Useful Post: