home

President Obama: No Decision On McChrystal Until Meeting

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Obama Administration
Posted on Tue Jun 22, 2010 at 06:15:39 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

< McChrystal's Contempt | World Cup: USA v. Algeria Preview >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    President Obama: No Decision On McChrystal Until Meeting | 50 comments (50 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I don't think it's terribly important (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by observed on Tue Jun 22, 2010 at 07:42:55 PM EST
    who is in charge of the disaster in Afghanistan, because no one can make it better.
    McC antipathy doesn't help (none / 0) (#14)
    by waldenpond on Tue Jun 22, 2010 at 07:52:46 PM EST
    It makes it worse.  It's supposed to be a team effort.  When you have someone off the rails like he is, it's damaging.  His troops didn't support him when he went to talk to them and non-motivated troops won't perform as well.

    He's polluted the military with his disdainful attitude towards those he is required to have strong working relationships with.

    Better hang in there.. O is committed and from the article they want more troops.  Obama would never deny or he'd look 'weak'  Will O accept Mcs resignation....it doesn't seem his style to risk shaking things up.

    Parent

    General McChrystal's (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jun 22, 2010 at 07:48:38 PM EST
    words are more than poor judgment, they are insubordinate and an affront to the constitution.  He needs to go or the presidency will be adversely affected.   The president will not win by trying to satisfy  Republicans, whatever he does, it will be wrong with them--they have both play books ready to go.

    Commenting in McChrystal's defense (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 22, 2010 at 10:08:12 PM EST
    on the local news: Michael O'Hanlon!

    That settles it, fire his @ss.

    (Just kidding. . .kinda).

    Oh Jesus that's bad luck! (none / 0) (#22)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 22, 2010 at 10:13:03 PM EST
    McChrystal can go ahead and throw his shaving mirror to floor right now and run to the closet and grab his umbrella and just go for it indoors.

    Parent
    I'm waiting to hear what Cheney says. (none / 0) (#24)
    by observed on Tue Jun 22, 2010 at 10:55:07 PM EST


    Parent
    Beltway wisdom (none / 0) (#34)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jun 23, 2010 at 08:15:16 AM EST
    Gergen was on CNN last night saying the same thing. Of course, he's horrified by what McC has done, but then he's just as horrified at the idea of canning him.

    These people don't want anybody to shake anything up.  Way too scary.  Plus, then they temporarily are unable to pontificate about what's going to happen next.  That's even scarier for them.

    Parent

    It doesn't sound like he will fire him. (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by mexboy on Wed Jun 23, 2010 at 01:45:47 AM EST
    That tag at the end of the conference where he says he will do what's best for the war in Afghanistan and the soldiers sounds like a flash-forward.

    The Commander and Chief should not allow any subordination, period.

    Very troubling wrinkles showing up (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 23, 2010 at 11:21:38 AM EST
    Last night I discovered that Michael Yon claims that the McChrystal crew tried to plant a smear story with him about Eikenberry in April.  Something very big came along in Afghanistan too and really shook up Michael Yon a few months ago.  I hadn't heard anything about this, and he has really been given rough treatment from Mil bloggers about what he said during that time in his dispatches.

    This morning the Rolling Stone reporter claims that he felt like the McChrystal crew was trying to "shake things up" with this press story and that this has nothing to do with unfortunate on the record statements.  So if this wasn't some unfortunate faux pas of down time venting soldiers not specifying what was on the record and off the record, and this was an attempt to outside influence and pressure McChrystal's command........dare I say the word treason?  It will never be formally put in that fashion, but I know what my heart tells me.

    I have to take into consideration that General McChrystal was brilliant enough to enforce a strict law that no soldiers working in the black sites in Iraq could use their real names.....and only a fake first name was used, never a more "defining" last name.....and in doing this he made it absolutley impossible for us to effectively investigate and corroborate what was done by whom to whom in those blacked out prison sites.  Is there really anything that General McChrystal isn't capable of when crossing the lines none of us are supposed to cross?  Is there anything he isn't fully prepared to cover up before he even does it when it breaks all the rules?

    And Karzai is making demands (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 23, 2010 at 11:34:51 AM EST
    about McChrystal staying on.  WTF is this?  I'll tell you what I think it is.  McChrystal will have a long term commitment in Afghanistan whether you want it or the President wants it right now. He has built a very strong relationship with Karzai to do that.  If Karzai has a strong close relationship with our Commander and claims that he needs him.....you can't fire this guy without experiencing HUGE fallout over diplomatic failure and going into a country and then betraying its leadership!  Guess who is really cornered today?  It isn't McChrystal, it is our President!  Now I understand what Yon was talking about, if McChrystal is not fired Michael Yon says that he is going to start calling General McChrystal President McChrystal.  I can't believe I'm seeing this all go down right before my eyes.

    Parent
    Hmmmm... (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 23, 2010 at 11:44:36 AM EST
    I understand the dilemma, although I do not believe that the WH holds Karzai in such high esteem. In a way Karzai's statement would be further cause for firing McChrystal, imo.

    Parent
    There is the personal opinion of Karzai (none / 0) (#44)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 23, 2010 at 11:55:32 AM EST
    that each of us is entitled to, and then there is reality.  The only recognized government in Afghanistan is Karzai, and it is in McChrystal's back pocket.  Doesn't matter how much "esteem" the WH has for Karzai.  

    Parent
    OK (none / 0) (#45)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 23, 2010 at 12:10:29 PM EST
    So shall we call McChrystal POTUS and Karzai Veep then?

    Parent
    In Any Case (none / 0) (#46)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 23, 2010 at 12:12:09 PM EST
    We will know what is up in less than 20 minutes. Obama will make an announcement at 1:30 PM.

    Parent
    If he fires him he's Gutsy (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 23, 2010 at 12:17:18 PM EST
    at this point.  I don't know if any one person should have as much power as General McChrystal has right now, but Obama is comfortable with such things.  And McChrystal has figured out how to get rid of Eikenberry and how to get Holbrooke in line with him whether he wants to be or not.

    Parent
    FIRED! (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 23, 2010 at 12:22:47 PM EST


    Parent
    If True (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 23, 2010 at 12:26:06 PM EST
    Good on Obama.  We don't need two presidents, imo

    Parent
    Obama hasn't earned the military's respect (1.00 / 3) (#23)
    by hilts on Tue Jun 22, 2010 at 10:47:21 PM EST
    Obama has acted like a stumbling, bumbling, clueless buffoon since he took office. He's unworthy of the respect ususally accorded to a commander in chief.  Obama governs with his tail between his legs and is a hopeless, useless coward.

    Wrong room (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by NYShooter on Tue Jun 22, 2010 at 11:25:56 PM EST
    Mensa applications; down the hall.

    Parent
    I was sad (none / 0) (#27)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 22, 2010 at 11:40:44 PM EST
    And now I'm not :)

    Parent
    I think he wants to fire him in person. (none / 0) (#1)
    by masslib on Tue Jun 22, 2010 at 06:45:13 PM EST
    Can't say I blame him.

    Yep (none / 0) (#2)
    by MKS on Tue Jun 22, 2010 at 06:47:07 PM EST
    Listening to him:  controlled fury.....That more than anything tells me McChrystal is out....

    Interesting that Hillary was seated next to him and was supportively nodding....No doubt her views will be important in all this....

     

    Parent

    Prolly because McChrystal singled (none / 0) (#3)
    by masslib on Tue Jun 22, 2010 at 06:53:33 PM EST
    her out as supportive.

    Just a guess.

    Parent

    Yes, in the article.... (none / 0) (#8)
    by MKS on Tue Jun 22, 2010 at 07:16:12 PM EST
    She supported McChrystal in the policy debate, so he said something nice about her in the article.

    Talking at length to a young reporter on the record like that....Very bad idea.....

    Parent

    For what it's worth... (none / 0) (#4)
    by Tony on Tue Jun 22, 2010 at 06:54:17 PM EST
    Marc Ambinder is reporting that Obama's advisors, including Biden, are counseling him not to fire McChrystal.

    Biden continues to be a massive fool then. (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by tigercourse on Tue Jun 22, 2010 at 08:34:33 PM EST
    You cannot let Generals get away with this behavior in regards to civilian leadership.

    Parent
    Biden should (none / 0) (#41)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed Jun 23, 2010 at 11:28:51 AM EST
    also be told to keep a lid on his opinions running contrary to President's

    Parent
    Of course they are (none / 0) (#6)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 22, 2010 at 07:08:29 PM EST
    If he keeps his powder dry. . .

    (I assume others have made the same comment. I've not been reading them this afternoon).

    Parent

    I don't think he's getting fired (none / 0) (#5)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 22, 2010 at 07:01:17 PM EST
    Obama looks chapped, Hillary looks unhappy and shocked around the edges.  I'm not certain he's getting fired though.  He probably should get fired, but....well....we let Wall Street off and bailed out a ton of white collar crooks, what's one idiot General who's too big to fail?

    BTW, is it good politics to fire him? (none / 0) (#7)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 22, 2010 at 07:09:26 PM EST
    I actually don't know FWIW.

    Yes, I suspect so -- and it's good politics (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Cream City on Tue Jun 22, 2010 at 07:29:53 PM EST
    not to fire him.  Rock and hard place, huh?

    Perhaps the delay in the decision is due to public opinion poll results still pending overnight. :-)

    I bet McChrystal isn't the only one who only gets a few hours of sleep tonight.  It's a tough call, but then, that's when the tough get going.  I wonder if the books on the president's bedside might be a bio of Truman.  Or Lincoln, but the Truman context is somewhat more apt . . . although each one of these calls has its own context.  However, Truman at the time had more of a rep of being a wimp, and his handling of the situation bolstered his image as a tough guy.  Obama, according to polls, is having a somewhat similar image problem, so it may be good politics.

    What the heck, it's still going to be about the economy, come November.

    Parent

    Agreed (none / 0) (#12)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 22, 2010 at 07:43:47 PM EST
    Why is it, BTW, that Obama is the second President in a row to get Truman comparisons?

    I think I fall into that myself because I still haven't quite accepted that Obama is much of a politician.

    Parent

    Obama is quite a politician (none / 0) (#31)
    by Saul on Wed Jun 23, 2010 at 12:48:34 AM EST
    When running for President, he alienated himself as not being politics as usual.  He wanted to show how  divorce he was from being a regular politician.

    However, his accomplishments like health care and other bills were only accomplished by him forgetting what he ran against and becoming the regular politician he ran against. He was able to get on major piece of legislation passed.  Only Johnson and FDR were able to pass major pieces of legislation and they were master politicians.  So now Obama is part of this exclusive league.

    After November there will be no more hoping the republicans are with him in any future bills.  He learned how to be a regular politician.  The thing he hated most of becoming.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#32)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 23, 2010 at 12:54:10 AM EST
    If you believed all that you are a "regular" voter.  

    Parent
    That was a sales pitch (none / 0) (#35)
    by Yman on Wed Jun 23, 2010 at 08:27:28 AM EST
    Nothing more, nothing less.

    Parent
    I would have to say that military (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 22, 2010 at 08:53:34 PM EST
    structure will not say otherwise.  Unfortunately everything that was revealed in the article is flooring in a sense of functioning military social structure.  You can gripe in private, vent in order to carry on, but you don't publicly in front of the whole world lose your appearance of absolute cohesion and respect.  The strength of a military has a great deal to do with perception too, and all officers have had it preached to them from on high.  If Obama chooses to forgive and forget after publicly making a big deal out of this he is a benevolent sovereign, but I don't know how you make a big enough deal out of it and then sell it that he can be forgiven.  Maybe it really can't be done, even if others would like to figure out how to do this.

    Parent
    I bet Carter would have fired him (none / 0) (#10)
    by observed on Tue Jun 22, 2010 at 07:41:20 PM EST
    already. What a wuss, O!

    Well (none / 0) (#16)
    by Left of the Left on Tue Jun 22, 2010 at 08:43:21 PM EST
    He shouldve fired him after his speech. He definitely should fire him now.

    I think he'll stay on.

    Obama I think will suprise us (none / 0) (#18)
    by Saul on Tue Jun 22, 2010 at 09:19:26 PM EST
    The consensus floating around is heck yeah fire him or accept his resignation.  

    That's letting McCrystal off to easy.  Obama just might say go back and do what I want and behave or fear being demoted. That is your punishment.

    Either you are with me on my plan in Afag. or not.

     BTW I just noticed the coincidence  something about subordinate generals  whose last name starts  with letters Mc  (McArthur)

    Its not about (none / 0) (#19)
    by Left of the Left on Tue Jun 22, 2010 at 09:36:19 PM EST
    sticking to McCrystal.

    BTW, firing someone is worse than telling them "You undermined my post for the second time, now get back to work 'cause next time you'll really be sorry.

    Maybe it's all in the delivery, but I doubt it.

    Parent

    Rumors are that McCrystal is indispensable (none / 0) (#25)
    by Saul on Tue Jun 22, 2010 at 11:05:44 PM EST
    at the present time.  Although there is this dispute between Mc and Obama  Obama needs Mc really bad because of his expertise.  Plus they were on  a verge of a big campaign in Afg and bringing in another general would at mid stream would not be the best choice.  

    I was a regular army officer as opposed to reserve officer commission during the Vietnam war and I resigned my commission.  However the Army has the right not to accept your resignation if you are regular army so they could have told me sorry you got to stay in.  Obama does not have to accept Mc resignation.  He can threatened him with a demotion. So Obama holds all the cards against Mc.  Play ball or else.

    I feel being demoted to Colonel or lower from 4 stars is worst than being fired.  

    Parent

    I would figure that also (none / 0) (#28)
    by Left of the Left on Tue Jun 22, 2010 at 11:42:41 PM EST
    but you said to leave him be and only threaten him with demotion. I think its beyond threats. Never in the military though.

    Parent
    Prez between rock & hard place (none / 0) (#38)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed Jun 23, 2010 at 10:19:06 AM EST
    DId anyone hear KO's editorial - put resignation letter in top drawer and send McC back to Afghan

    According to article, McC has lost trust of at least some troops and is claimed to have indicated Coin can't work.  Now what???

    Parent

    McChrystal Claims (none / 0) (#39)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 23, 2010 at 10:24:48 AM EST
    The general claims that he never said he wanted to resign.

    Meeting took place already, it lasted 30 minutes.

    Parent

    GOP reax: 'Mocking the CinC? Thats OUR job!' (none / 0) (#20)
    by RonK Seattle on Tue Jun 22, 2010 at 09:49:04 PM EST


    So there's this freight train out of control (none / 0) (#36)
    by Rojas on Wed Jun 23, 2010 at 08:50:26 AM EST
    and heading to the station... and the CIC wants to have a photo op.
    And the guys are of the opinion Biden is an ass...
    nothing to see here

    Parent
    My husband says that he cannot fathom (none / 0) (#29)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 23, 2010 at 12:20:06 AM EST
    Obama firing McChrystal right now.  He can't envision it and he says that McChrystal will survive this.  I don't know how this works though.

    Do you and your husband still (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by observed on Wed Jun 23, 2010 at 12:27:25 AM EST
    think there is a viable "mission" in Afghanistan?


    Parent
    If the commitment is long term (none / 0) (#37)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 23, 2010 at 10:13:39 AM EST
    Short term commitment though, no

    Parent
    Too much money if it's long term. (none / 0) (#50)
    by observed on Wed Jun 23, 2010 at 01:17:55 PM EST


    Parent
    President Obama: No Decision On McChrystal Until Meeting | 50 comments (50 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment