Why was General McChrystal fired?

Hastings writes that “McChrystal has issued some of the strictest directives to avoid civilian casualties that the US military has ever encountered in a war zone.” He continues: “But however strategic they may be, McChrystal’s new marching orders have caused an intense backlash among his own troops. Being told to hold their fire, soldiers complain, puts them in greater danger. ‘Bottom line?’ says a former Special Forces operator who has spent years in Iraq and Afghanistan, ‘I would love to kick McChrystal in the nuts. His rules of engagement put soldiers’ lives in even greater danger. Every real soldier will tell you the same thing...’”

Whether this view is really widely held among soldiers is not clear. But it appears that this argument is gaining support within the Washington policy-making elite and within the media. Hastings indicates his own standpoint—and, more broadly, that of many of McChrystal’s establishment critics—when he declares: “When it comes to Afghanistan, history is not on McChrystal’s side. The only foreign invader to have any success here was Genghis Khan—and he wasn’t hampered by things like human rights, economic development and press scrutiny...”

The New York Times weighed in on Wednesday... The article makes the case for the US to “take the gloves off” and dramatically escalate its assault on the Afghan population... In its lead editorial published on Thursday, entitled “Afghanistan After McChrystal,” the Times demands a “serious assessment now of the military and civilian strategies.” It then writes, in chilling language: “Until the insurgents are genuinely bloodied they will keep insisting on a full restoration of their repressive power. Reports that some State Department officials are also advocating a swift deal with the Taliban are worrisome..."

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/jun2010/pers-j25.shtml

Can we have a moment of reality, please?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8624573&mesg_id=8624573


but i don't think that's why mcchrystal got canned

Ain't no mystery why he's history.

and how the parties involved are at each other's throats

The general's job is to see that soldier's die for the right reasons not the wrong ones. Whatever his faults and they are many (some which I believe disqualify him from command in their own right) McChrystal did do a good job all round in performing his duties. The biggest complaint against him from the ranks boiled down to resentment at not being allowed to whack back for the sake of whacking back.

McChrystal's unforgivable sin was breaking his oath to uphold the Presidency. On a practical level, having gone on record bad mouthing the Predident, he would lose all credibility prosecuting (as he must under military law) the same behaviour in any soldier down to the lowliest grunt in the Afghan theatre. On a fundamental level he is foresworn and in another time would be an object of ultimate contempt and a walking corpse. In a just society, he would be prosecuted under the same law as the grunt.


What's about to come could well become a nightmare and I very much fear it will, but McChrystal could not be allowed to go unpunished, or retain his command once he said what he did.

He could have gone on record with valid objections/greivances to the president or congress.

Or he could have resigned his commission and put up a political challenge.

to make the opposing soldiers die.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/the-last-post-mcchrystals-bleak-outlook-2011730.html

Fifty-four U.S. soldiers killed in June, so far. That's a lot of soldioers to sacrifice for a war that's going nowhere.