MSNBC is reporting it. Thoughts?

I think it is sad because he's obviously been a good soldier but I think it had to happen. He's probably lucky to have survived the Tillman debacle and I think anyone who would publically make those statements about there boss would be relieved of thier duties.

I think it is sad because he's obviously been a good soldier but I think it had to happen. He's probably lucky to have survived the Tillman debacle and I think anyone who would publically make those statements about there boss would be relieved of thier duties.

 

Seems Petreus (?) is replacing him.

President Obama would have been justified in accepting or declining his resignation. I respect his decision.

I think it's the right decision.

Seems Petreus (?) is replacing him.

 

I believe Petreus would select his replacement along with the Joint Cheifs & President. General Petreus is his boss. However, I see the CNN report saying he will take over Command in Afghanistan. It would be a step down from his current position as CENTCOM Commander???

I believe Petreus would select his replacement along with the Joint Cheifs & President. General Petreus is his boss. However, I see the CNN report saying he will take over Command in Afghanistan. It would be a step down from his current position as CENTCOM Commander???

His staff said he could do both jobs but will be stepping down from CENCOM.

Seems Petreus (?) is replacing him.

 

Didn't the "left" have a problem with him when GHW Bush was in charge? "Petreus Betrayus" was the charge. I find total irony how Obama's Presidency has gone.

That unfortunately was the right choice. It may cause a temporary set back in progress, but in the long run it will be best for our efforts in Afghanistan. McChrystal had burnt the bridge and any capital he had with the Pres, the VP and others, and he was not going to be able to work effectively in the future.

 

The long and the short of it is that some officers are just not cut out to handle the situations required of such a high profile and political position. McChrystal was obviously a super military man, and he may have been totally accurate in all his criticisms. But there is a way to deal with those criticisms and a way not to handle the criticisms. Perhaps he addressed his criticisms to the President previously in private but nothing was done. When you see progress not happening the way you want and your soldiers getting killed (perhaps due to decision made by politicians against your advise) I'm sure you get very, very frustrated. For some, it's just a matter of time before you lash out. Nonetheless, he shouldn't have done what he did and it's best for all in the long run that the change be made.

That unfortunately was the right choice. It may cause a temporary set back in progress, but in the long run it will be best for our efforts in Afghanistan. McChrystal had burnt the bridge and any capital he had with the Pres, the VP and others, and he was not going to be able to work effectively in the future.

 

The long and the short of it is that some officers are just not cut out to handle the situations required of such a high profile and political position. McChrystal was obviously a super military man, and he may have been totally accurate in all his criticisms. But there is a way to deal with those criticisms and a way not to handle the criticisms. Perhaps he addressed his criticisms to the President previously in private but nothing was done. When you see progress not happening the way you want and your soldiers getting killed (perhaps due to decision made by politicians against your advise) I'm sure you get very, very frustrated. For some, it's just a matter of time before you lash out. Nonetheless, he shouldn't have done what he did and it's best for all in the long run that the change be made.

 

Agree with everything you've said here.

That unfortunately was the right choice. It may cause a temporary set back in progress, but in the long run it will be best for our efforts in Afghanistan. McChrystal had burnt the bridge and any capital he had with the Pres, the VP and others, and he was not going to be able to work effectively in the future.

 

The long and the short of it is that some officers are just not cut out to handle the situations required of such a high profile and political position. McChrystal was obviously a super military man, and he may have been totally accurate in all his criticisms. But there is a way to deal with those criticisms and a way not to handle the criticisms. Perhaps he addressed his criticisms to the President previously in private but nothing was done. When you see progress not happening the way you want and your soldiers getting killed (perhaps due to decision made by politicians against your advise) I'm sure you get very, very frustrated. For some, it's just a matter of time before you lash out. Nonetheless, he shouldn't have done what he did and it's best for all in the long run that the change be made.

 

A very accurate assessment. :thumb:

That unfortunately was the right choice. It may cause a temporary set back in progress, but in the long run it will be best for our efforts in Afghanistan. McChrystal had burnt the bridge and any capital he had with the Pres, the VP and others, and he was not going to be able to work effectively in the future.

 

The long and the short of it is that some officers are just not cut out to handle the situations required of such a high profile and political position. McChrystal was obviously a super military man, and he may have been totally accurate in all his criticisms. But there is a way to deal with those criticisms and a way not to handle the criticisms. Perhaps he addressed his criticisms to the President previously in private but nothing was done. When you see progress not happening the way you want and your soldiers getting killed (perhaps due to decision made by politicians against your advise) I'm sure you get very, very frustrated. For some, it's just a matter of time before you lash out. Nonetheless, he shouldn't have done what he did and it's best for all in the long run that the change be made.

Well said, LN. I hope Obama and McChrystal learn from this and, with any luck, better themselves.

How in the world did the military let this happen? I'm a RS subscriber and their political writers are rough on both sides of the aisle. They're anti-war.

 

Isn't there someone in the military whose job it is to work with the press and make decisions as to who gets interviews and who doesn't? Who thought this was a good idea?

I watched an interview of Michael Hastings last night on CNN. He struck me as being anti-war and somewhat glad that McChrystal resigned. Of course he might just be glad that he is the middle of his thirty seconds of fame. I think the vast majority of headline grabbing comments from McChrystal and his staff occurred while in Paris and in Hasting's words while "they were getting hammered". Bad choice by McChrystal to have a reporter around while they let loose and he obviously took full responsibility.

 

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/06/22/rolling-stone-author-discusses-general-mcchrystal-interview.html

Politico's account of what happened:

 

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38962.html