Gen. McChrystal fired for insubordination!

[Ab-Titchaz]

McChrystal anataka kuwa McArthur?

Obama better pull a Truman. Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it.

Love that comment....I remember McArthur's issue during the WWII and this one might play out like
that. Obama made a good move now lets wait and see.

 

[Herbalist Dr MziziMkavu]

Obama relieves McChrystal of command

Gen. David Petraeus named to take over troubled Afghan war

President Barack Obama and Gen. David Petraeus walk to the White House Rose Garden on Wednesday to make a statement after meeting with Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who was ousted as commander of forces in Afghanistan. Patraeus was nominated to assume McChrystal's command.

WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama sacked his loose-lipped Afghanistan commander Wednesday, a seismic shift for the U.S. military order in wartime, and chose the familiar, admired and tightly disciplined Gen. David Petraeus to replace him. Petraeus, architect of the Iraq war turnaround, was once again to take hands-on leadership of a troubled war effort. Obama said bluntly that Gen. Stanley McChrystal's scornful remarks about administration officials represent conduct that "undermines the civilian control of the military that is at the core of our democratic system." He ousted the commander after a face-to-face meeting in the Oval Office and named Petraeus, the Central Command chief who was McChrystal's direct boss, to step in.
In a statement expressing praise for McChrystal yet certainty he had to go, Obama said he did not make the decision over any disagreement in policy or "out of any sense of personal insult." Flanked by Vice President Joe Biden, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in the Rose Garden, he said: "War is bigger than any one man or woman, whether a private, a general, or a president."

He urged the Senate to confirm Petraeus swiftly and emphasized the Afghanistan strategy he announced in December was not shifting with McChrystal's departure. 'Not a change in policy'
"This is a change in personnel but it is not a change in policy," Obama said.
Indeed, as Obama was speaking, McChrystal released a statement saying that he resigned out of "a desire to see the mission succeed."

"I strongly support the president's strategy in Afghanistan," McChrystal said.
Obama hit several grace notes about McChrystal and his service after their Oval Office meeting, saying that he made the decision to sack him "with considerable regret." And yet, he said the job in Afghanistan cannot be done now under McChrystal's leadership, asserting that the critical remarks from the general and his inner circle in the Rolling Stone magazine article displayed conduct that doesn't live up to the standards for a command-level officer.

[/CENTER]

June 23: President Obama says his decision to replace Gen. Stanley McChrystal was a difficult one based on eroded trust, not personal insult. NBCs Brian Williams, Chuck Todd and David Gregory report
NBC News

Obama seemed to suggest that McChrystal's military career is over, saying the nation should be grateful "for his remarkable career in uniform" as if that has drawn to a close.
McChrystal left the White House after the meeting and returned to his military quarters at Washington's Fort McNair. A senior military official said there is no immediate decision about whether he would retire from the Army, which has been his entire career. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly.
Petraeus, who attended a formal Afghanistan war meeting at the White House on Wednesday, has had overarching responsibility for the wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq as head of Central Command. He was to vacate the Central Command post after his expected confirmation, giving Obama another key opening to fill. The Afghanistan job is actually a step down from his current post but one that filled Obama's pre-eminent need.

British Prime Minister David Cameron said Wednesday said that the British deputy commander of NATO-led forces in Afghanistan, Lt. Gen. Nick Parker, has assumed command "pending Gen. Petraeus's confirmation by Congress."
Petraeus: Reputation for discipline

Petraeus is the nation's best-known military man, having risen to prominence as the commander who turned around the Iraq war in 2007, applying a counterinsurgency strategy that has been adapted for Afghanistan.
He has a reputation for rigorous discipline. He keeps a punishing pace spending more than 300 days on the road last year. He briefly collapsed during Senate testimony last week, apparently from dehydration. It was a rare glimpse of weakness for a man known as among the military's most driven.
In the hearing last week, Petraeus told Congress he would recommend delaying the pullout of U.S. forces from Afghanistan beginning in July 2011 if need be, saying security and political conditions in Afghanistan must be ready to handle a U.S. drawdown.

That does not mean Petraeus is opposed to bringing some troops home, and he said repeatedly that he supports Obama's revamped Afghanistan strategy. Petraeus' caution is rooted in the fact that the uniformed military and counterinsurgency specialists in particular have always been uncomfortable with rigid parameters.

Video

June 23: President Barack Obama relieves Gen. Stanley McChrystal of his command over all U.S. military forces in Afghanistan.
Andrea Mitchell Reports

With Washington abuzz, there had been a complete lockdown on information about the morning's developments until just before Obama spoke. By pairing the decision on McChrystal's departure with the name of his replacement, Obama is seeking to move on as quickly as possible from the firestorm.

In the magazine article, McChrystal called the period last fall when the president was deciding whether to approve more troops "painful" and said the president appeared ready to hand him an "unsellable" position. McChrystal also said he was "betrayed" by Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, the man the White House chose to be his diplomatic partner in Afghanistan.
He accused Eikenberry of raising doubts about Karzai only to give himself cover in case the U.S. effort failed. "Now, if we fail, they can say 'I told you so,'" McChrystal told the magazine. And he was quoted mocking Vice President Joe Biden.
Challenge to leadership

If not insubordination, the remarks as well as even sharper commentary about Obama and his White House from several in McChrystal's inner circle were at the least an extraordinary challenge from a military leader. The capital had not seen a similar public contretemps between a president and a top wartime commander since Harry Truman stripped Gen. Douglas MacArthur of his command more than a half-century ago after disagreements over Korean war strategy.
Notably, neither McChrystal nor his team questioned the accuracy of the story or the quotes in it. McChrystal issued an apology.

Despite McChrystal's military achievements, he has a history of making waves and this was not his first brush with Obama's anger. Last fall as Obama was weighing how to adjust Afghanistan policy, McChrystal spoke bluntly and publicly about his desire for more troops earning a scolding from the president, who felt the general was trying to box him into a corner.
Waheed Omar, spokesman for Afghan President Hamid Karzai, said Petraeus "will also be a trusted partner." Karzai had been a lonely voice in speaking out in support of McChrystal. But Omar said of Petraeus: "He is the most informed person and the most obvious choice for this job."

Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman told reporters Wednesday that McChrystal's comments in the magazine "unmasked harmful divisions between military and civilian leadership." He also called the change in military commanders a "potential turning point" for the war.

 

[Hukumuzuku]

Dude had it coming. Dude's inflated ego finally caught up with him, and he had to pay the price. At end of the day its all about choices and consequences. There's no way he could have gotten away with what he said. That's how things go down in America. Peace, liberty and justice for all!

 

[Zak Malang]

General McChrystal and the militarisation of US politics

* America has settled into being a nation perpetually at war. In this climate it's no surprise generals sometimes get out of control

By Simon Tisdall, The Guardian

Barack Obama is not the self-styled 'warrior-president' that his predecessor was. Photograph: Shawn Thew/EPA

Barack Obama has a problem with America's generals that is unlikely to be solved quickly or easily, whatever the outcome of the Stanley McChrystal affair. The disrespectful behaviour of the US commander in Afghanistan and his aides was symptomatic of a more deeply rooted, potentially dangerous malaise, analysts suggest. This week's events might thus be termed a very American coup.

One reason for Obama's difficulty lies in his own inexperience. As a greenhorn commander-in-chief and a Democrat to boot, Washington watchers say Obama has had scant opportunity to win the military's respect, let alone its affection. His unease with his violent inheritance in Afghanistan and Iraq is evident.

Another reason appears to be the willingness of American conservatives of all stripes, in an increasingly polarised society, to buy into the "wimps in the White House" narrative peddled by General McChrystal's army staffers. It echoed rightwing criticism that Obama, who has never served, is personally unfit to lead.

It is not a big step from there to outright accusations of cowardice. "The ugly truth is that no one in the Obama White House wanted this Afghan surge," wrote New York Times columnist Tom Friedman on Tuesday. "The only reason they proceeded was because no one knew how to get out of it – or had the courage to pull the plug."

But perhaps the main reason why Obama's problem with the generals is bigger than McChrystal is the continuing impact of the post-9/11 legacy. George Bush defined the US as a nation perpetually at war. The Pentagon produced a theory to suit: the Long War doctrine postulating unending conflict against ill-defined but ubiquitous enemies. Unquestioning patriotism became an official ideology to which all were expected to subscribe.

According Andrew Bacevich, an author, America's armed forces wield growing political and social influence in an increasingly militarised society. Defence spending now approaches a trillion dollars a year, dwarfing the money allocated to diplomacy and foreign aid. Public figures, such as Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the joint chiefs, carry enormous clout on Capitol Hill. General David Petraeus, an Iraq war hero who heads the Orwellian sounding Central Command, is tipped as a future Republican presidential nominee.

The US is nothing like Turkey where, until recently at least, civilian governments lived in constant fear of a military coup. Nor is Washington some west African capital, where presidents come and go at the flick of a Kalashnikov safety catch. But the speed with which American commentators, reacting to McChrystal's mutinous behaviour, moved to stress the need to control the generals indicated uneasiness about current trends.

"The most important issues at hand in the furore [over McChrystal] is the central one in a democracy: civilian control over the military," said Jonathan Alter, of Newsweek. "As upset as certain military officers have been with the Obama White House, as much as they like McChrystal's can-do spirit, this was a seriously can't-do moment. No one can quite believe McChrystal would be so stupid ..."

Author Eliot Cohen, writing in the Wall Street Journal, also stressed military deference to civilian authority. "It is intolerable for officers to publicly criticise or mock senior political figures [and] allies ... It is the job of a commanding officer to set a tone that makes such behaviour unacceptable."

Slate columnist Fred Kaplan resurrected some unsettling historical examples of American generals over-reaching, while offering reassurance that the same thing was not happening again. "This is not MacArthur versus Truman [President Harry Truman fired General Douglas MacArthur, at the time the wildly popular US commander in Korea, for defying orders to refrain from attacking China]," he said.

"It's not even Fallon versus Bush [President George Bush fired Admiral William 'Fox' Fallon, head of US Central Command, for publicly advocating a speedier pullout from Iraq than Bush had already ordered]. In fact, nowhere in the [Rolling Stone] article is McChrystal or any of his aides quoted as disagreeing with Obama's policy on Afghanistan." Kaplan's latter point is unsurprising, given that McChrystal wrote the policy.

Whatever misgivings he may harbour about his uppity generals, Obama remains largely at their mercy while he perpetuates the idea of the US as a nation at war and pursues the war in Afghanistan. The Pentagon is already resisting this December's White House policy review and next July's "deadline" for the start of an Afghan troop withdrawal. Petraeus, meanwhile, last week refused to rule out the deployment of yet more troops – a potential second Afghan surge.

Obama may not like the situation but he should not be surprised by it. In Bacevich's 2005 book, The New American Militarism, the historian and former long-serving army officer and Vietnam veteran, focused on how Americans have increasingly found themselves in thrall to military power and the idea of global military supremacy.

In the context of what he called the "normalisation of war", Bacevich argued that unchallenged, expanding American military superiority encouraged the use of force, accustomed "the collective mindset of the officer corps" to ideas of dominance, glorified warfare and the warrior and advanced the concept of "the moral superiority of the soldier" over the civilian.

In the Bush years, Bacevich said, this trend also led to representations of the US president as a sort of supreme warlord, "culminating in George Bush styling himself as the nation's first fully-fledged warrior-president". Given these militaristic trends, it's little wonder the generals sometimes get out of control. And if warrior-president is what McChrystal wants from Obama, it's not surprising he's "disappointed".

 

[Tindikali]

...I remember McArthur's issue during the WWII .

Enhe, tupe habari za nyakati hizo za WWII zilikuwaje Mzee.

Ulikuwa unaishi maeneo gani enzi hizo babu?

Na mizinga ilikuwa inasikika kutoka nyumbani kwako Mzee wetu?

 

[Nyaralego]

Enhe, tupe habari za nyakati hizo za WWII zilikuwaje Mzee.

Ulikuwa unaishi maeneo gani enzi hizo babu?

Na mizinga ilikuwa inasikika kutoka nyumbani kwako Mzee wetu?

Maybe ABT alisoma Historia ya WWII. it does not mean that he had to be there to know what happened enzi hizo. Why the sacrasm?
In this day of the internet and google you can look up this information on Gen. McArthur.

 

[Ab-Titchaz]

Enhe, tupe habari za nyakati hizo za WWII zilikuwaje Mzee.

Ulikuwa unaishi maeneo gani enzi hizo babu?

Na mizinga ilikuwa inasikika kutoka nyumbani kwako Mzee wetu?

​

Mkuu Tindikali,

Nakushauri utumie google kufaidi historia ya huyu bwana.

kama unaweza pia wasiliana na jamaa wa History Channel na uwaomba wakuuzie
kanda za WW II na historia ya huyu bwana. Nikianza kuandika humu sitomaliza leo.
It took me whole year, chuo kikuu, kumsoma huyu bwana na vitaa kuu ya pili.

Swadaktaa.
​

 

[bona]

kosa ni obama yeye analeta siasa kwa kutokutaka kuongeza majeshi kua ataonekana anakuza vita wakati yeye amejitambulisha kua hataki vita lakini ukweli kwenye ground ndio uo kua more troop are needed au basi atoe majeshi mara moja! kwa hiyo uyu jamaa yeye alitaka awe straight kua hali si shwari anaitaji more troop hadi akadelay planned operations nyingi ku protest kutokuongezewa troop! obama lazima akubali kushinda vita you need troops or acha kupigana! you cant be at the same time in two places! obama chagua moja

 

[Ndahani]

Traditionist Like MacArthur the game with Tullman was ok. He believed in war and in any war he took victory as a serious issue. During Korea war, he was given instruction not to blow out of propotion the scale of war when USA soldiers interfered. In his mind Gen MacArthur took a point to fight the notherners because he wanted to defeat communism.It costed him because Tullman wanted a diplomatic approach to avoid causing another big war during the time when world still had the memories of second world war.
I Think Gen.McCrystal has made a mistake in judgement about what could be the reaction by Obama's administration. The error of traditional soldiers who believe in fighting large scale wars, causing unspeakable damages is over.

 

[jmushi1]

Kuna tofauti kubwa sana kati ya Mc Arthur na Mc crystal,Mc Arthur yeye alikuwa na different policies alltogether na ndio maana issue yake ili mount to subordination,kwanza yeye alitaka kwenda na kuivamia China wakati wa vita ile ya Korea kama sikosei,hivyo yeye na Truman kuwa against each other policieswise where as Mc Crystal na Obama wote walikuwa wanakubaliana na policy,utofauti uliibuka kati ya Mc Crystal na Biden,Obama alitaka wajadiliane na si kupigana vijembe kwenye rolling stone etc.

 

[Zak Malang]

From Great Man to Great Screwup: Behind the McChrystal Uproar

By Norman Solomon


When the wheels are coming off, it doesn't do much good to change the driver.

Whatever the name of the commanding general in Afghanistan, the US war effort will continue its carnage and futility.

Between the lines, some news accounts are implying as much. Hours before Gen. Stanley McChrystal's meeting with President Obama on Wednesday, The New York Times reported, "the firestorm was fueled by increasing doubts - even in the military - that Afghanistan can be won and by crumbling public support for the nine-year war as American casualties rise."

It now does McChrystal little good that news media have trumpeted everything from his Spartan personal habits (scarcely eats or sleeps) to his physical stamina (runs a lot) to his steel-trap alloy of military smarts and scholarship (reads history). Any individual is expendable.

For months, the McChrystal star had been slipping. A few days before the Rolling Stone piece caused a sudden plunge from war-making grace, Time magazine's conventional-wisdom weathervane Joe Klein was notably down on McChrystal's results: "Six months after Barack Obama announced his new Afghan strategy in a speech at West Point, the policy seems stymied."

Now, words like "stymied" and "stalemate" are often applied to the Afghanistan war. But that hardly means the US military is anywhere near withdrawal.

Walter Cronkite used the word "stalemate" in his famous February 1968 declaration to CBS viewers that the Vietnam War couldn't be won. "We have been too often disappointed by the optimism of the American leaders both in Vietnam and Washington to have faith any longer in the silver linings they find in the darkest clouds," he said. And: "It seems now more certain than ever that the bloody experience of Vietnam is to end in a stalemate."

Yet, the US war on Vietnam continued for another five years, inflicting more unspeakable horrors on a vast scale.

Like thousands of other US activists, I've been warning against escalation of the Afghanistan war for a long time. Opposition has grown, but today the situation isn't much different than what I described in an article on December 9, 2008: "Bedrock faith in the Pentagon's massive capacity for inflicting violence is implicit in the nostrums from anointed foreign-policy experts. The echo chamber is echoing: the Afghanistan war is worth the cost that others will pay."

The latest events reflect unwritten rules for top military commanders: Escalating a terrible war is fine. Just don't say anything mean about your boss.
But the most profound aspects of Rolling Stone's article "The Runaway General" have little to do with the general.

The takeaway is - or should be - that the US war in Afghanistan is an insoluble disaster, while the military rationales that propel it are insatiable. "Instead of beginning to withdraw troops next year, as Obama promised, the military hopes to ramp up its counterinsurgency campaign even further," the article points out. And "counterinsurgency has succeeded only in creating a never-ending demand for the primary product supplied by the military: perpetual war."

There was something plaintive and grimly pathetic about the last words of The New York Times editorial that arrived on desks just hours before the general's White House meeting with the commander in chief: "Whatever President Obama decides to do about General McChrystal, he needs to get hold of his Afghanistan policy right now."

As with their counterparts at media outlets across the United States, members of the Times editorial board are clinging to the counterinsurgency dream.

But none of such pro-war hand wringing makes as much sense as a simple red-white-and-blue bumper sticker that says: "These colors don't run ... the world."

Fierce controversy has focused on terminating a runaway general. But the crying need is to terminate a runaway war.

Source: truthout.org