Local Soldiers Support General McChrystal's Comments

Source: KHOG Northwest Arkansas

SALLISAW, Okla. --
Two local soldiers who fought overseas said they're disappointed that Gen. Stanley McChrystal will no longer be the top commander in Afghanistan.

...

"I am not at all surprised by the comments by his entourage or by himself," said Sgt. Troy Horn, a member of the U.S. Army who served in the first Gulf War.

Horn said he isn't phased by McChrystal's comments in part because of the general's background.

"That caliber of soldier that comes from the special operations command and from the special forces, they are a different breed from every other soldier and officer that serves," Horn said. "I think he was straight in line, said what needed to be said (and) somebody didn't like it, so he's packing."

...

Michael Wilson served as a combat medic in Iraq with Operation Iraqi Freedom. He stands by McChrystal, but understands why some took offense to the remarks made in the article.

"In my opinion... that kind of a forum, it might have been a little out of place, but it was still his opinion," Wilson said.

Lt. Col. Steve Russell commanded soldiers who helped capture Saddam Hussein in 2003. He said McChrystal is respected by both civilians and those in the military.

"Gen. McChrystal is a warrior. He commands a lot of respect from anyone who's ever know him," Russell said. "But he serves at the pleasure of the president and that needs to be understood as well."

Read more: http://www.4029tv.com/mostpopular/24013312/detail.html

"...he isn't phased by McChrystal's comments..."

If writers don't know how a word is spelled, they should use one they do know. Irks the !@#$ out of me.

That's some cross section they have in that article. :sarcasm:

:P

this once fair land. The hell with having civilian control of the 'greatest military machine' the world has ever seen.

there was nothing wrong with his statements?

more suitable for Latest Breaking Gossip

wannabe Kurtz guys that just love that shit.

Truman had to do the same with MacArthur, another grandstanding 'stellar' grunt with a yearn for political advancement and backstabbing his boss.

ran against Lincoln for the presidency. McChrystal no doubt will try to run against Obama -- and get nowhere.

McChrystal has not succeeded in Iraq. Things are not going well there. And McChrystal has sided with Karzai who is a sleaze if there ever was one.

McChrystal had to know when he gave the interview that he was hurting himself. If he can't control his mouth when with a reporter, how can he control his troops in the long run?

A lot of folks make a practice of grumbling about the boss in the workplace. And then when the boss learns about the grumbling -- we all know what happens. And it happened here. No big deal.

McChrystal showed bad judgment. That's just what happened.

And Obama handled the situation extremely well.

as an ex Navy person, you as a soldier never bad mouth your superior officer. It is very disrespectful and he did not show the restrain that is taught in the service. He was a rouge and needed to go after that. Obama did the right thing!

I don't think Obama really had a choice. Dissident, right-wing elements in the military are mutinous enough. Allowing this grotesque insubordination would only enbolden them.

I'm sick to death of the lionized and glorified military that eagerly follows right-wing warmongers but digs in its heels behind Constitutionally-mandated civilian leadership that occasionally seeks diplomatic solutions.

Notice that anyone in the military who opposed Bush was fired immediately.

The military is overwhelmingly Republican and Born Again.

However, and at the risk of starting a racial profiling slippery slope, 99% of the minorities I served with were not Republicans.
I'd think a broader sample might have brought mixed results.
Then again, drinking beer on a bus might just be the same as a Friday afternoon after work is done.
I doubt many conversations are filled with love for the boss in such settings, either.
Part of life. Out of context, careless reporting, careless words.

and don't they serve at the pleasure of the president?

did the reporter ask the soldiers to comment on THAT? it's pretty clear.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/10/A/II/47/X/888

Also, from FireDogLake:

McChrystal and Article 88 of the UCMJ, Contempt toward Officials
By: Hugh Tuesday June 22, 2010 1:00 pm

http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/56176

Everybody agrees that he is.

The question is not whether McChrystal's comments were right or wrong. He expressed his opinion and he certainly told the truth about his opinion. Whether his opinion is right or wrong would be hard for anyone to determine.

The problem is that the Constitution establishes a chain of command. McChrystal publicly and disrespectfully, in the pages of the Rolling Stone, challenged the authority of the president who under the Constitution is above McChrystal in that chain of command.

If a soldier or officer serving under McChrystal publicly and disrespectfully, in the pages of the Rolling Stone, challenged McChrystal's descisions and authority, then McChrystal would have the authority and probably would necessarily in order to maintain the discipline of the troops, court-martial that soldier or officer.

McChrystal is lucky he is not being court-martialed.

This reminds me of a situation in the Civil War. General McClellan was the leader of the Union Army. He was loved by his troops and trained them well. But he did not carry out the commands of President Lincoln, and President Lincoln fired him.

Abraham Lincoln now wanted McClellan to go on the offensive against the Confederate Army. However, McClellan refused to move, complaining that he needed fresh horses. Radical Republicans now began to openly question McClellan's loyalty. "Could the commander be loyal who had opposed all previous forward movements, and only made this advance after the enemy had been evacuated" wrote George W. Julian. Whereas William P. Fessenden came to the conclusion that McClellan was "utterly unfit for his position".

Frustrated by McClellan unwillingness to attack, Abraham Lincoln recalled him to to Washington with the words: "My dear McClellan: If you don't want to use the Army I should like to borrow it for a while." On 7th November Lincoln removed McClellan from all commands and replaced him with Ambrose Burnside.

In 1864 stories began to circulate that McClellan was seeking the presidential nomination of the Democratic Party. Worried by the prospect of competing with the former head of the Union Army, it is claimed that Lincoln offered McClellan a new command in Virginia. McClellan refused and accepted the nomination. In an attempt to obtain unity, Lincoln named a Southern Democrat, Andrew Johnson of Tennessee, as his running mate.

During the campaign McClellan declared the war a "failure" and urged "immediate efforts for a cessation of hostilities, with a view to an ultimate convention of the states, or other peaceable means, to the end that peace may be restored on the basis of the federal Union of the States". However, McClellan added that this could happen when "our adversaries are willing to negotiate upon the basis of reunion." McClellan made it clear that he disliked slavery because it weakened the country but he opposed "forcible abolition as an object of the war or a necessary condition of peace and reunion."

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USACWmcclellan.htm

Let's remember, in addition to everything else, the War in Afghanistan is not going much better than the Civil War was when McClellan was leading the troops.

McChrystal has to work as part of a team, and since he doesn't seem to like a lot of his teammates, seems the best thing for him to do is to quit the team. The list of people he badmouthed is really long. He is very much like McClellan -- blaming his lack of success on lack of proper support and everyone but himself. Sounds like a megalomaniac whiner to me -- no matter how much his troops like him. McClellan's troops adored him.

always had some prima donna general who wanted to run his own show. He mentioned Custer and Patton and, of course, Douglas MacArthur. But McClellan was that exact type also as you so correctly note. The Mexican War had two pompous commanders: Winfield Scott and Zachary Taylor who had a pronounced aversion to working together. So it goes, I guess. At least our country doesn't have the habit of whacking megalomaniac officers ( or incompetent ones ) as the 18th Century British and French did and as Stalin did to the Red Army field marshalls (who were really quite competent) in 1937.

and the Great Purges. I daresay few of my fellow citizens have any notions of what those were.

hearing about them as I was growing up. It was just sort of vague allegations.

of the USSR.

the president should have fired McChrystal the first time he made a statement against civilian leaders.