4 ms·

> McChrystal ... got thrown out for showing distain for the same wasteful, corrupt system that everyone else gripes about. OT: IIRC he resigned after he and hi

> McChrystal ... got thrown out for showing distain for the same wasteful, corrupt system that everyone else gripes about. OT: IIRC he resigned after he and his staff openly mocked to a journalist the President, VP and others in the chain of command, and their comments were published in Rolling Stone. That's not an effort to end corruption, it's insubordination, apparently widespread in his staff under his leadership, which itself is a form of corruption. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/119236 http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/119236

ethbro 11y ago
From the article (which is partially reproduced and fleshed out with additional chapters in the book) a lot of the mocking seemed to concern involvement: "Their first one-on-one meeting took place in the Oval Office four months later, after McChrystal got the Afghanistan job, and it didn't go much better. 'It was a 10-minute photo op,' says an adviser to McChrystal. 'Obama clearly didn't know anything about him, who he was. Here's the guy who's going to run his fucking war, but he didn't seem very engaged. The Boss [McChrystal] was pretty disappointed.'" And for what it's worth, when you're dealing with things like this: "In February, the day before the doomed offensive in Marja, McChrystal even drove over to the president's palace to get him to sign off on what would be the largest military operation of the year. Karzai's staff, however, insisted that the president was sleeping off a cold and could not be disturbed. After several hours of haggling, McChrystal finally enlisted the aid of Afghanistan's defense minister, who persuaded Karzai's people to wake the president from his nap." Then I'd probably be in a less than charitable mood concerning the entire enterprise. To repeat, they had to argue with the staff of the president of the country whose insurgency we were fighting that being involved in starting a long-planned and massive offensive was more important than a nap. (And that's not getting into the comments about drug use) Biden was exactly right, the entire thing was a cluster%^@# and a terrible idea to invest more in. But in the absence of a resolute US president who tells the military "No, you can't send in more troops"? Well, the military's going to do what it does: fight. And press for more fighting. PS: The amount of backstabbing between different military cliques, Congress, different cliques in the State Department, and the Executive staff was also mind boggling.
- hackuser 11y ago
  > I'd probably be in a less than charitable mood concerning the entire enterprise. I don't blame him for his mood but I do for his actions. He's a general running a major operation; millions of lives and the welfare of nations depend on him; those are the responsibilities and stakes. He can't undermine the enterprise because he feels like complaining to a reporter.

ethbro 11y ago

From the article (which is partially reproduced and fleshed out with additional chapters in the book) a lot of the mocking seemed to concern involvement: "Their first one-on-one meeting took place in the Oval Office four months later, after McChrystal got the Afghanistan job, and it didn't go much better. 'It was a 10-minute photo op,' says an adviser to McChrystal. 'Obama clearly didn't know anything about him, who he was. Here's the guy who's going to run his fucking war, but he didn't seem very engaged. The Boss [McChrystal] was pretty disappointed.'" And for what it's worth, when you're dealing with things like this: "In February, the day before the doomed offensive in Marja, McChrystal even drove over to the president's palace to get him to sign off on what would be the largest military operation of the year. Karzai's staff, however, insisted that the president was sleeping off a cold and could not be disturbed. After several hours of haggling, McChrystal finally enlisted the aid of Afghanistan's defense minister, who persuaded Karzai's people to wake the president from his nap." Then I'd probably be in a less than charitable mood concerning the entire enterprise. To repeat, they had to argue with the staff of the president of the country whose insurgency we were fighting that being involved in starting a long-planned and massive offensive was more important than a nap. (And that's not getting into the comments about drug use) Biden was exactly right, the entire thing was a cluster%^@# and a terrible idea to invest more in. But in the absence of a resolute US president who tells the military "No, you can't send in more troops"? Well, the military's going to do what it does: fight. And press for more fighting. PS: The amount of backstabbing between different military cliques, Congress, different cliques in the State Department, and the Executive staff was also mind boggling.

hackuser 11y ago
> I'd probably be in a less than charitable mood concerning the entire enterprise. I don't blame him for his mood but I do for his actions. He's a general running a major operation; millions of lives and the welfare of nations depend on him; those are the responsibilities and stakes. He can't undermine the enterprise because he feels like complaining to a reporter.