-Why- was General McChrystal dismissed?

[Vessol]

Skip the fake reasons of the interview and all that media hogwash. You and I both know that you always take what the media says with a grain of salt. And whenever it has to do with some political position being resigned, there is always a massive reasoning behind it. It was classic in the USSR for disgraced generals whom are fall men to just "resign" after some "scandal".

The fact that this is happening so recently after the admission of the failed "surge" in Afghanistan and the recently reveled "vast resources and then this?
That is no mere councidence.

Nor is it coincidence that the recent NeoCon love-interest, General Petraeus is now taking over McChrystal's old position.

Are we going to oversee a hyping of operations in Afghanistan? Hyping of the vast wealth to be found there as an excuse for our occupation? Will General Petraeus become a "here" to the RINOs and win their potential votes in 2012?

There is always something behind every story. Call it a conspiracy if you wish.

 

[Juan McCain]

Rolling Stone interview comments . . .

MSNBC published article :
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37847841/ns/us_news-military/

 

[Promontorium]

The valid reason, and the reason I haven't heard anyone cite; Article 88 of the UCMJ "Contempt toward officials"

"Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct."

 

[AuH20]

I wonder if McChrystal will ever open up about the narco- trafficking and opium fields, that NATO told us to not to disturb. Hmmm. I bet McChrystal will be kept on a short leash.

 

[Vessol]

@Juan McCain
@Promontorium

People don't seem to be reading my post..

 

[Juan McCain]

People don't seem to be reading my post..

I could be wrong, but I just don't see it that way at all . . .

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/06/23/what-the-taliban-thinks-of-mcchrystal-s-ouster.html

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

 

[cindy25]

Republicans won't criticize Petraeus; it gives Obama cover

 

[TinCanToNA]

The valid reason, and the reason I haven't heard anyone cite; Article 88 of the UCMJ "Contempt toward officials"

"Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct."

No, not a chance. A UCMJ violation must be proven in some formal setting, either a "mast" or, in the case of a commanding general, via courts martial. That is not what happened.

General McChrystal is very smart and comes from an Army special forces background. Hence, he knows 'stuff' and has done 'stuff.' There is absolutely no chance in hell that he let "slip" some words in front of reporters that he didn't want made public. In absolute fairness to Gen. McChrystal, this is very likely his version of falling on his sword. He was put in an impossible situation of upholding policies he knew would very likely fail (probably especially ROE) and had to deal with the civilian side of things outside the White House that were also hostile towards what he thought would be successful, and has now created an out for himself and we are all talking about Afghanistan again. Sounds to me like he did the right thing.

I cannot see any connection between the mineral discovery and his resignation. I believe the events leading up to his resignation were set in motion by him, and on purpose.

 

[TNforPaul45]

I wonder if McChrystal will ever open up about the narco- trafficking and opium fields, that NATO told us to not to disturb. Hmmm. I bet McChrystal will be kept on a short leash.

No, because he knows that he would have a "massive stroke" and be found dead in his home if he ever even hinted at doing so.

 

[Vessol]

The fact that General Patraeus is a regular attendee of Bilderberg meetings for the past two years goes to show that this was no idle appointment.

 

[Aratus]

the strategy debrief included veep joe biden.
didst mcchrystal bail rather than inform biden?

 

[free1]

I wonder if McChrystal will ever open up about the narco- trafficking and opium fields, that NATO told us to not to disturb. Hmmm. I bet McChrystal will be kept on a short leash.

Lose his pension?

NO WAY!

 

[Promontorium]

@Juan McCain
@Promontorium

People don't seem to be reading my post..

I read you. I just cite reality, not delving into weird conspiracy theories.

 

[Promontorium]

No, not a chance. A UCMJ violation must be proven in some formal setting, either a "mast" or, in the case of a commanding general, via courts martial. That is not what happened.

General McChrystal is very smart and comes from an Army special forces background. Hence, he knows 'stuff' and has done 'stuff.' There is absolutely no chance in hell that he let "slip" some words in front of reporters that he didn't want made public. In absolute fairness to Gen. McChrystal, this is very likely his version of falling on his sword. He was put in an impossible situation of upholding policies he knew would very likely fail (probably especially ROE) and had to deal with the civilian side of things outside the White House that were also hostile towards what he thought would be successful, and has now created an out for himself and we are all talking about Afghanistan again. Sounds to me like he did the right thing.

I cannot see any connection between the mineral discovery and his resignation. I believe the events leading up to his resignation were set in motion by him, and on purpose.

A UCMJ violation does allow for a court martial, but if you know anything about how high ranking officers are treated when they violate the UCMJ, you wouldn't hilariously say I was wrong.

If he went to court martial, his career would be over, regardless of the outcome. Consistently higher ups choose early retirement.



2. You really think this is how he wished to go out? It's not a violation of article 88 if he held an official meeting and rebuked the president there. If you think he intended for one of his employees to drunkenly make stupid remarks, then you must not think highly of him.

If this was an ideological intentional act, he would have demanded a trial, and his opportunity to make valid, reasoned arguments.

This was a pathetic end. Not a glorious or even intelligent way out, if he intended to say nothing but "bite me" he could have just quit in the first place.

I can tell you're reaching to find a conspiracy because none of you have a theory, yet you are so certain the valid, literal, clear cut article 88 is somehow not enough. I can assure you, the UCMJ has ended many good careers before, and will continue to do so.

 

[sevin]

Here's a possible reason. From the article:

Despite the tragedies and miscues, McChrystal has issued some of the strictest directives to avoid civilian casualties that the U.S. military has ever encountered in a war zone. It's "insurgent math," as he calls it – for every innocent person you kill, you create 10 new enemies. He has ordered convoys to curtail their reckless driving, put restrictions on the use of air power and severely limited night raids. He regularly apologizes to Hamid Karzai when civilians are killed, and berates commanders responsible for civilian deaths. "For a while," says one U.S. official, "the most dangerous place to be in Afghanistan was in front of McChrystal after a 'civ cas' incident."

He didn't do things the American way. TPTB seem to want to create new enemies.