"Obama should fire generals who spoke out on Afghan surge"

[Boota]

In my opinion, military service has no bearing on why I would vote for a President. That is why we have the JCS and all of his advisors. It's a much bigger job than just handling military decisions. I have to go with whose decisions and reasoning I respect most from what I know when I cast my vote. It's a matter of trusting that their judgments concerning the military will be weighed and made in a reasonable manner like everything else. I have no problems with anything Obama has done militarily to this point. I fully expected a surge, even though he said he wanted to get us out of Afghanistan. President Obama knows things that candidate Obama didn't. And a lot of this is also that Obama was given a shovel to fill in the hole that Bush dug for eight years with a backhoe.

A good example of a candidates speaking on things he can't know is when Reagan attacked Carter for being weak on the military when he cancelled the B1 bomber program before it got off the ground. Reagan railed on him and Carter couldn't say why he had really cancelled the program because it was top secret. Carter killed the B1 because it was obsolete before it was done when they brought him the Stealth. He just couldn't talk about the "invisible" airplanes.

I agree that the generals should always be able to speak their mind to the President on military matters. And I agree with Sgt. W that it should be done behind closed doors and through the chain of command.

 

[Loring2]

Correct

I know just how you feel Sgt W. If the president has worn the uniform and done his duty he has probably been tempered by the experience. I do draw the line at GWB however, oh not because he served with the Air National Guard in a time of war, but because he didn't fulfill his duty and deserted his duty.

But I think Dick Chaney is a perfect example of the negative of your argument. All hell fire and go get em, but when he was called it was, "Oh I'm going to school and married and oh I have a kid coming, don't draft me." Fucken pussy.

Jimmy Carter was a sub sailor and didn't start many wars.

Old daft Ronnie was "in the Big one" but all he did was stay in Hollywood and look sincere.

George H.W. Bush did his duty and got shot down for the effort. He did let the Generals fight the '91 War and pulled out just a bit too early, but better early than too late like his idiot son.

Even Tricky Dick was in the Navy for a while, like LBJ. I think because of the uniform. The Navy has classy uniforms and if you want to gain attention in Washington DC you just can't beat a Navy uniform. It got Dick elected after the war.

So I agree with you but realize that some will 'see the elephant' but not all.

You bring up some not only interesting but important points about the POTUS.
Hardly any were interested in getting shot at in more dire times. The real exceptions of course were Washington, Grant, JFK, Carter and Bush I. There were others who served but who were not shooters. The five I mention were, shooters that is.

A good layman's guess is that about 20 % of all soldiers are shooters. The rest serve their shooting brothers as cooks, corpsmen and in general support.

This does not imply cowardice on the 80%. Cowardice has nothing to do with it nor for that matter does heroism.

Being under direct fire is a fearful thing and anyone who has experienced it has experienced fear. Any person who says they did not experience fear at some point in this process is either lieing or is suffering from Alzheimers.

OK, ready for incoming fire

 

[voluptuary_manque]

You bring up some not only interesting but important points about the POTUS.
Hardly any were interested in getting shot at in more dire times. The real exceptions of course were Washington, Grant, JFK, Carter and Bush I. There were others who served but who were not shooters. The five I mention were, shooters that is.

A good layman's guess is that about 20 % of all soldiers are shooters. The rest serve their shooting brothers as cooks, corpsmen and in general support.

This does not imply cowardice on the 80%. Cowardice has nothing to do with it nor for that matter does heroism.

Being under direct fire is a fearful thing and anyone who has experienced it has experienced fear. Any person who says they did not experience fear at some point in this process is either lieing or is suffering from Alzheimers.

OK, ready for incoming fire

In my SpecOps days I always differentiated between the Ops and the Planners. I was a Planner and considered a pretty good one. The Ops guys were my heroes and there was no way I could have done what they did. All I could do was try and make sure they were taken care of when they came back to report the results of my planning. Shower, check! Clean uni, check! Hot meal, check! Now, about this debriefing . . .

 

[rgraham666]

Loring? You forgot Harry Truman who served in an artillery regiment in WWI and Andrew Jackson.

Which, may show that military experience may not be such a good indicator of competency as President. Truman was a pretty good President and Jackson bit, in my opinion.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

In my opinion, military service has no bearing on why I would vote for a President. That is why we have the JCS and all of his advisors. It's a much bigger job than just handling military decisions. I have to go with whose decisions and reasoning I respect most from what I know when I cast my vote. It's a matter of trusting that their judgments concerning the military will be weighed and made in a reasonable manner like everything else. I have no problems with anything Obama has done militarily to this point. I fully expected a surge, even though he said he wanted to get us out of Afghanistan. President Obama knows things that candidate Obama didn't. And a lot of this is also that Obama was given a shovel to fill in the hole that Bush dug for eight years with a backhoe.

A good example of a candidates speaking on things he can't know is when Reagan attacked Carter for being weak on the military when he cancelled the B1 bomber program before it got off the ground. Reagan railed on him and Carter couldn't say why he had really cancelled the program because it was top secret. Carter killed the B1 because it was obsolete before it was done when they brought him the Stealth. He just couldn't talk about the "invisible" airplanes.

I agree that the generals should always be able to speak their mind to the President on military matters. And I agree with Sgt. W that it should be done behind closed doors and through the chain of command.

You likely think fornicating has no relevance in writing porn, too.

 

[Loring2]

Thanks for the help

In my SpecOps days I always differentiated between the Ops and the Planners. I was a Planner and considered a pretty good one. The Ops guys were my heroes and there was no way I could have done what they did. All I could do was try and make sure they were taken care of when they came back to report the results of my planning. Shower, check! Clean uni, check! Hot meal, check! Now, about this debriefing . . .

Precisely you did what you could. Thanks and you said it well. Somebody has to keep the wheels on. Some did't have time.

 

[Loring2]

Thanks for the memory edit

Loring? You forgot Harry Truman who served in an artillery regiment in WWI and Andrew Jackson.

Which, may show that military experience may not be such a good indicator of competency as President. Truman was a pretty good President and Jackson bit, in my opinion.

... and you've made my point and Truman puts a large exclamation mark on it.

An artillery Captain, a tactical command rank and he did not interfere with MacArthur during the Korean War until he replaced him. That was a POTUS doing exactly what is was elected to do and he did it against public opinion and on his own terms. I remember.

Jackson stood even more alone and in a sense is an epic character in history however it was in fact Truman who affected me personally. I was in Korea then with the rank of Captain USAF flying North American F-86 fighters.

I'm just an 80 year old man now who works most days and one who never applied for the permanent and ultimate rank of Hero. Those poor bastards are all dead now.

I try to forget but that's impossible.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

A couple of points.

First, those men worked their way up the officer ranks to become Generals because they show good operational sense and because they showed themselves to be excellent military stratagists and tacticions.

Secondly, the UCMJ has a section that says anyone in the military has the right to refuse an order that is either STUPID or illegal.

That said, the Generals are still citizens of the United States where the Constitution guarantees them the right to speak out. We call that "free speech," remember?

Who is the military EXPERT? The Generals or the kid how lived on drugs and alcohol instead of any military experience at all?

Frankly, in my opinion, Obama isn't qualified to direct a snowball fight.

 

[Guest]

deleted

 

[Liar]

Secondly, the UCMJ has a section that says anyone in the military has the right to refuse an order that is either STUPID or illegal.

That said, the Generals are still citizens of the United States where the Constitution guarantees them the right to speak out. We call that "free speech," remember?

Who is the military EXPERT? The Generals or the kid how lived on drugs and alcohol instead of any military experience at all?

Frankly, in my opinion, Obama isn't qualified to direct a snowball fight.

That may well be. But as sgt_wiklund pointed out, it's unprofessional and irresponsible of them to crap on their commander in cheif in public. It undermines not only the office of the president, but by proxy the whole military. Yeah yeah, freedom of speech, that's nice and all. But just because you are legally allowed to make your opinion heard to the public, doesn't mean you always should.

Oh, and do you really think "the kid how lived on drugs and alcohol" sat down in the Oval Office and grew up the surge plan on a napkin or something, all by himself? Of course not. He had the assistance of other military EXPERTS in doing so. Your irrational Obamaphobia is embarrassing.

 

[Boota]

You likely think fornicating has no relevance in writing porn, too.

Well, I had been celibate for twelve years when I wrote my first one, so I guess that would be correct as well.

 

[Guest]

A couple of points.

First, those men worked their way up the officer ranks to become Generals because they show good operational sense and because they showed themselves to be excellent military stratagists and tacticions.

Secondly, the UCMJ has a section that says anyone in the military has the right to refuse an order that is either STUPID or illegal.

That said, the Generals are still citizens of the United States where the Constitution guarantees them the right to speak out. We call that "free speech," remember?

Who is the military EXPERT? The Generals or the kid how lived on drugs and alcohol instead of any military experience at all?

Frankly, in my opinion, Obama isn't qualified to direct a snowball fight.

Opinions on Obama aside, Jenny is mostly right here.

Yes, the UCMJ has a section that covers illegal, illicit and immoral orders. Though I am not sure it fully applies in this case.

Yes as informed by Loring2, the Generals have the right to say what they want. BUT, free speech is not a military right. It's one of those contractual gray areas. Our contract says "no" but it is extremely hard to enforce, as the provision in the contract was written before the internet and cable television and satellite and all that. Besides, much of the free speech that civilians love to tout is taken away from us because of security issues. The B1 and the stealth are a great example of this. People all over the military have security clearances and have their speech restricted. Also, there are provisions inthe UCMJ for disrespect (punishable) sexual harassment, verbal assault and refusal to follow an order (all "free speech" but still punishable under military law) But Generals know better in that respect and that doesn't often happen. Plus, their speeches are pre-written and reviewed.

Yes, they are excellent strategists and tacticians. The president is not. But the President isn't directing individual troop movements (not yet), and is responsible for the goal and the overarching plan. The generals are responsible for implementing it. Obama is neither directing a war nor a snowball fight. He has people to make those mistakes for him. He projects the bigger picture and signs the orders.

as far as the General speaking out, as Loring2 has corrected me on, they can say what they want. Whether they should becomes simply a matter of opinion.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Oh, and do you really think "the kid how lived on drugs and alcohol" sat down in the Oval Office and grew up the surge plan on a napkin or something, all by himself? Of course not. He had the assistance of other military EXPERTS in doing so. Your irrational Obamaphobia is embarrassing.

No. He had the input of Rhom Emanuel and the leftovers from the Bush Administration - people like David Axelrod, John Brennen and Virginia Canter.

Now there's group who should be behind bars.

 

[Loring2]

Right on Jenny

A couple of points.

First, those men worked their way up the officer ranks to become Generals because they show good operational sense and because they showed themselves to be excellent military stratagists and tacticions.

Secondly, the UCMJ has a section that says anyone in the military has the right to refuse an order that is either STUPID or illegal.

That said, the Generals are still citizens of the United States where the Constitution guarantees them the right to speak out. We call that "free speech," remember?

Who is the military EXPERT? The Generals or the kid how lived on drugs and alcohol instead of any military experience at all?

Frankly, in my opinion, Obama isn't qualified to direct a snowball fight.

You know your UCMJ Jenny and Obama would try to talk his way out of the snowball fight but you're still right.
Generals do have the right to talk, even be political .. it's just a code of honor they observe. As someone else pointed out these Generals came through the ranks and earned what they have.

 

[Edward Teach]

Using the Military is a political decision and should be made by elected officials. Whether or not you think President Obama is qualified to make such decisions is irrelevant. The fact is, he was elected by a majority of the American people and a majority of the Electorial College. He has the job.

A general's job is to carry out his orders. If he disagrees with them he can resign his command.

An officer who speaks out publicly against his Commander-in-Chief should be fired. Period.

 

[JackLuis]

I think Obama ought to put Rhom Emanuel in as Ambassador to Afghanistan. He can civilize the Afghans, if anyone can. In fact he could do it alone, I'll bet.

SO we could save a lot of money and bring the troops home. Brilliant!

Lets start a "Draft Rhom" movement. With his tender lips he could solve our delimma.

Draft Rhom, Draft Rhom, Draft Rhom!"

 

[voluptuary_manque]

and it would get him out of the country. Not a bad idea, not bad at all.

 

[JackLuis]

With any luck at all he might not come back.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

You know your UCMJ Jenny and Obama would try to talk his way out of the snowball fight but you're still right.
Generals do have the right to talk, even be political .. it's just a code of honor they observe. As someone else pointed out these Generals came through the ranks and earned what they have.

Code of Honor or not, it's not the President who will be in the firing line. If the military says, "This is STUPID!" the General not only have the right to speak up but a duty to do so.

The military is sworn to guard the country against its enemies, not against a "Commander in Chief" who doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground.

And "SURG.E What an interesting word. I said this when Bush called the surge in Iraq. A Surge indicates something going in, then moving out again rather like an ocian wave. Did the Surge ever return in the 3 to 6 months promised in Iraq?

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Code of Honor or not, it's not the President who will be in the firing line. If the military says, "This is STUPID!" the General not only have the right to speak up but a duty to do so.

The military is sworn to guard the country against its enemies, not against a "Commander in Chief" who doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground.

And "SURG.E What an interesting word. I said this when Bush called the surge in Iraq. A Surge indicates something going in, then moving out again rather like an ocian wave. Did the Surge ever return in the 3 to 6 months promised in Iraq?

Yes, troop levels in Iraq are down. They're all going to Afghanistan.

 

[JackLuis]

I think Obama is letting the Generals run the war. He's probably hoping that McCrystal can do in Afghanistan what Patreaus did in Iraq. Different country, different culture and two centuries of development, I don't know if he can pull it off.

McCrystal has done his time in SF and Commanded the 75 Rangers, so he's seen the elephant and been around the block. I trust him to do his job for the troops.

I trust the Army a whole lot more than I trust the Cabinet and the thundering heard of dumbasses in Congress.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

I think Obama is letting the Generals run the war. He's probably hoping that McCrystal can do in Afghanistan what Patreaus did in Iraq. Different country, different culture and two centuries of development, I don't know if he can pull it off.

McCrystal has done his time in SF and Commanded the 75 Rangers, so he's seen the elephant and been around the block. I trust him to do his job for the troops.

I trust the Army a whole lot more than I trust the Cabinet and the thundering heard of dumbasses in Congress.

It worked for Desert Storm. Otherwise, why have professional commanders?

 

[JackLuis]

It worked for Desert Storm. Otherwise, why have professional commanders?

Because if it doesn't work you have a fall guy. That's politics.

 

[Loring2]

Right on

I think Obama is letting the Generals run the war. He's probably hoping that McCrystal can do in Afghanistan what Patreaus did in Iraq. Different country, different culture and two centuries of development, I don't know if he can pull it off.

McCrystal has done his time in SF and Commanded the 75 Rangers, so he's seen the elephant and been around the block. I trust him to do his job for the troops.

I trust the Army a whole lot more than I trust the Cabinet and the thundering heard of dumbasses in Congress.

The big problem that McCrystal has is of course that Afghanistan doesn't exist for all practical purposes. I was there once, about 50 years ago and all I can say is that from what I know, they have the right man in McCrystal because the entire operation will be a series of SOs. This place makes Iraq look like the suburbs of Chicago.

My only quarrel with this whole situation is that the POTUS politicized it and then denied the requested troop count. Bad political decision.

Oh well .. as I've said before, we can always walk out but that's bad politically too.

Can't win for losing

 

[Liar]

No. He had the input of Rhom Emanuel and the leftovers from the Bush Administration - people like David Axelrod, John Brennen and Virginia Canter.

Ah. I see. You are Obama's secretary. Since you obviously know everyone he meets, talks to and asks for advice from.

Do you have anything to back that up or are you just pulling conclusions out of your personal pool of distrust?


Anyway, the point of all this wasn't whather McChrystal or Obama was right. It was whether it's appropriate and professional of the general et al to take their objections to the barricades. I say it's not. So much of the counter insurgence doctrine they are trying to work with is perception, and the hole they just blew in that is big enough to drive a Humvee through.