I think it goes without saying that I am no fan of President Obama however he did the right thing here. An active field General cannot take his grievances with an administration to the media. Our military structure(or any for that matter) is such that undermining the authority of your superiors is a counterproductive and often times dangerous course. The comments his aides were quoted as saying in the interview are even worse and may indicate the Generals inability to control his subordinates. President Obama was left with no choice but to fire Gen. McChrystal and I am glad he showed the leadership in doing so. That's about all the credit I can give him for now, I'm starting to feel nauseous.
"I think it goes without saying that I am no fan of President Obama"
"That's about all the credit I can give him for now, I'm starting to feel nauseous."
The above statements need clarification. Why would anyone feel the necessity of ensuring readers would understand the dislike he feels for President Obama while failing to let the reader know the background issues eliciting that dislike? Come on, Jeff. Give us a clue---what are the issues you're so in disagreement with? In other words: WHY do you dislike President Obama so much you feel nauseous? Can you discuss issues, please?
Military Officers may not criticize the President publicly, those are the rules and they all understand them. The Generals who criticized President Bush at least had the good sense to wait until after they resigned to do so.
The President, any President, absolutely must fire Flag Officers who publicly criticize him/her. It is the only way to maintain the Chain of Command.
Rita, those statements are based on the too numerous to list comments I have made on The Batavian in the past. Regular contributors know exactly where I am coming from.
I can list a myriad of issues on which I take issue with President Obama but will refain on this post since it is not the topic of the poll question.
None of the military leaders have any confidence in Obama or any of his appointed civilian staff to command a war toward victory. Gen. McChrystal just spoke the truth and said they were a bunch of clowns and it got published. I particularly like the Vice President Joe "Bite Me" nickname.
Our military could end the wars in Iraq, Afganistan, and Pakistan before dark tonight but the boneheads in Washington won't let them.
The war could be over in a day or two, the effects would be seen forever. All it would take is another Hiroshima, and a Nagasaki or two.
I'll pass, instead I suggest that Obama begin a drawndown of troops immediately, and get totally out by the end of the year. Iraq too, starting tomorrow. Shut the war machine down. Bush fired it up and Obama ran on shutting it down. I want to see him shut it down now but I'll never vote for a worse option than the one I already have. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki
"Military Officers may not criticize the President publicly, those are the rules and they all understand them."
Anyone can criticize the President publicly. Since military officers do so with the understanding that they risk losing their jobs, maybe the General thought the disclosure was worth the risk.
I think both the President and the General did what they needed to do and neither fault, nor second guess, either one for their decision.
JoAnne, I think Chris was speaking from military rule. Words have great power on the global stage and when officers publicly undermine the Commander-in-Chief, it undermines the nations security. The President was just in firing him, this was not a "free speech" issue
It is a free speech issue. The general has every right to speak his mind. Our rights are derived from a higher authority, not from man. They supersede any document or any border. Like any right, you exercise it and you may suffer the consequences. But that's your right.
Howard, you served, you know full well that when you enter into a military contract you give up certain areas of your rights to free speech as well as some of your rights to assemble and hold elected office.
Members of the military do so willingly with the understanding that serving their country is more important than exercising their personal whim. Unit cohesion (in this case regarding the entirety of the military and its command structure) is at risk when individuals within the chain of command shirk their responsibility to their superiors.
The reasons for this are based in reality and steeped in tradition extending back thousands of years. If the General was intent on criticizing his superior, he had the option to resign first. Criticizing your superiors publicly while you hold command is not acceptable behavior for military officers of any rank, but for a flag officer to do so is unconscionable and flies in the face of everything that the stars on his shoulders stand for.
The UCMJ specifically bars officers from doing this but does not mention enlisted personnel. This speaks directly to the level of responsibility military officers accept when they receive their commission.
It's not free when it has specific penalties. Free speech is just that free of consequence. You are correct when you say that our rights come from a higher authority but a right is not a freedom if exercising it comes with punishable consequences. McChrystal the civilian has the free right to say anything he wants about the administrations war policies, McChrystal the General does not.
I am a veteran, a patriot, nobody despises obama and what he stands for more than I, and I agree with everything McChrystal is quoted as saying.
That being said, on this one, I don't think obama went far enough. Not only should have McChrystal been relieved of his command, Courts Martial proceedings should have begun immediately.
The military exists to defend our way of life, including our citizens' right to free speech. However: no member of the military is granted that right while serving.
When I was the Navy, Richard Nixon was president and Elmo Zumwalt served as his Chief of Naval Operations. We all hated them both, as well as their policies. And nothing was ever said - public discussion never even occurred to us - as it shouldn't have. In fact, anyone, civilian or military, would have faced unbridled wrath if such sentiments were expressed. That's just the way it was and should be now. One NEVER questions an order, nor the person who issued it. That is the ONLY way a military force can be successful.
McChrystal should be tried on violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, his commission revoked, and immediately discharged under less than honorable conditions.
Chris, when you enter the military you agree not fully exercise certain rights. You don't give them up. You can give up your rights no more than you can give up breathing, and when you stop breathing, only then do you give up any rights. So long as you are alive on this plant, no matter what nation, no matter who your boss, you have certain inalienable rights.
There are, of course, limits on free speech depending on circumstances.
For example, you don't have unlimited free speech on The Batavian. We impose certain limitations for the sake of the community and the business. It's my right as the business owner to determine those limits and determine the consequences for violating those limits.
Jeff, all speech has consequences.
Gen. McChrystal had an inalienable right to say whatever he wanted to say. That doesn't mean that he didn't violate some limits on his speech that he agreed to by embarking on a career in the military.
And I agree with Bob, Courts Martial would not be out of order.
My only very narrow point is that nobody ever gives up the right to free speech. It's impossible to give up your right to free speech. Even in Iran or North Korea or China, you still have a right to free speech. It's just not necessarily wise to exercise that right in those countries.
888. ART. 88. 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.
ART. 88. 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.
Go to the link below and in the search function for the pdf file type in
This is from the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
Howard you should be familiar with this article, not just because of your prior service but because of your profession.
General McChrystal used very poor judgment in allowing the interview in the first place. The fact that his staff made the comments they did to the journalist shows a lack of professional control in his staff.
The military is successful when order is present. When order is absent the military will ultimately fail.
Mr. Obama did the right thing by relieving General McChrystal of his command.
As far as what happens to General McChrystal now, you can go to the following link:
Jeremiah, I never said he didn't violate regulation or that he shouldn't be punished. I said nobody ever gives up their right to free speech. It's impossible.
When I was in Korea, my boss had two items placed on the corner of his desk. The first was a Disney coloring book with a box of crayons set on top of it, the other was a copy of the UCMJ. There was a sign taped to the front of the desk that said 'Choose One.'
He was the best boss I had during my time in the Air Force.
Well, if we're speaking in the context of this conversation then the answer is that a new President trashing an old one doesn't affect the chain of command.
John gave you the answer. The UCMJ is a set of laws separate from local, state and federal statutes. Only members of the military and certain military-employed civilians fall under its jurisdiction.
A philosophical point that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Which is why I say you're arguing just to argue, you're mixing the metaphysics with the material simply to make a point that doesn't need to be made.
Howard, you were making unrelated arguments just to prove a philosophical point. By doing so you watered down the reality of what was being discussed. I felt the need to point that out to people who may have thought you were giving McChrystal an excuse for his illegal actions.
Chris, if you re-read the thread, my original point was in direct response to something another poster said. To accuse me of going off on a tangent is unfounded.
Further, McChrystal is welcome to any excuse he wants. I believe he has the right, though not necessarily the legal privileged to speak his mind.
This country is better off because men like McChrystal will sometimes speak their minds. There is nothing wrong with McChrystal speaking out against policies he objects to. That doesn't mean he shouldn't be fired.
Unfortunately, McChrystal isn't the best example of this principle because his remarks were unguarded and off-the-cuff and not intended to achieve any political purpose. But I pray to God that if a U.S. Military general ever felt the need to speak out against the President's policy for well founded reasons, I would hope he would.
"Further, McChrystal is welcome to any excuse he wants. I believe he has the right, though not necessarily the legal privileged to speak his mind.
This country is better off because men like McChrystal will sometimes speak their minds. There is nothing wrong with McChrystal speaking out against policies he objects to. That doesn't mean he shouldn't be fired.
Unfortunately, McChrystal isn't the best example of this principle because his remarks were unguarded and off-the-cuff and not intended to achieve any political purpose. But I pray to God that if a U.S. Military general ever felt the need to speak out against the President's policy for well founded reasons, I would hope he would".
I'll give you that General McChrystal has the inherent right to say what ever he chooses to. Because as you say every person has this right.
However, members of the military, and especially officers are held to a different standard than are their civilian counter parts. The General should not be surprised by the actions of the President. Neither should the public at large be surprised by what has transpired.
Is this a freedom of speech issue in the sense of a constitutional right to freedom of speech? Not in my opinion. This is no different than a manager at Mcdonalds getting fired for talking trash about the CEO of Mcdonalds.
Howard writes " But I pray to God that if a U.S. Military general ever felt the need to speak out against the President's policy for well founded reasons, I would hope he would"....just not to Rolling Stone.
There you go again Howard, and you're still pretty wrong here.
Unless an officer is asked to do something that is illegal, it is NEVER a good thing for him/her to say anything in public but 'Yes, Sir, how soon?'
Showing contempt or mistrust for your superiors tells the people under your command that they may do the same thing to you. It endangers the mission and promotes insubordination.
You know these things Howard, but for some reason you're choosing to ignore them.
Jeff, I think you get what I'm saying. If the break is serious enough to warrant violating UCMJ, then the speech should be at the appropriate time and place.
chris again i have to disagree. General made joke obama just isnt man enough to understand that. the president can still mantain his chain of command. How many times have you or anyone joked about your boss or even a good friend? as long as he follows his orders and carries out his duties there is no mistrust. General McChrystal now has the right to file an article 138 of the uniform code of military conduct against the president because he was relived of command for unjust reasons. It was a simple joke it was a highly decorated well trusted man expressing his opinion which is why we have a president isnt it? protect our rights as americans. He assigned petreus the job but now CENTCOM is still short a leader. 4 stars do not grow on trees and good ones are like a soul mate. once in a lifetime. McChrystal doesnt care he was demoted even if hes forced into retirement he did his job better then most and believe it or not his policies in afghanistan saved alot of american lives. Obama is the worst thing to happen to the armed forces cut spending cut pay and try and make us a socialist government? how does a man run the country but still find time to write a book and golf 3 times a week? i ask you this whos really running this country?
I do not understand if what he did was wrong then why no Court martial...Because i don't think he did anything wrong..And now he is replace with General Petraeus...The same Gen. that all the Democrats claim was no good when Bush was in charge..Remember the Move on Dot Org ad..General Betray Us....Now its the smartest move Obama did..according to all the Democratic talking heads...Obama even criticized General Petraeus surge plan for Iraq,said it wouldn't work..What happened to all the outrage about the war and all the americans that were dying every day...When Bush was in thats all you ever heard about..With this guy Obama no one says a word...
Jonathan, once McChrystal made it known he was not on the same page with the Commander-in-Chief, he had no place in the chain of commend.
If you don't support the policies of your commander, you have three choices:
-- Shut up and carry them out anyway;
-- If you think the discrepancies are serious enough, speak out (but be willing to suffer the consequences);
-- resign (which you should do anyway if you're going to speak out).
McChrystal chose a pretty chicken-shit alternative; make snide remarks with a reporter in the room. If he really felt that out of step with Obama's policy, he should have manned up, resigned and then spoke his mind.
His conduct could be considered, at the least, insubordination, which is certainly grounds for a courts martial.
Again, I defend Gen. McChrystal's right to criticize the Obama Administration, but that doesn't mean he did it the right way, or that he should not face appropriate consequences.
wow pedro thank you for tryin to tell me something but if you read the article it says "commissioned office" in the army a commissioned officer is an 01 thru an 03 then 04 thru 05 is a field grade officer 06 thru 010 is a GENERAL OFFICER there for the article does not apply. and if you want to get technical the president is the commander in cheif correct? and he is never off duty. so does that mean the president is punishable under article 112? mccrystal has the backing of every real soldier i know. if the man cant handle critics then he needs to grow up. I've had plenty of officers ive delt with i couldnt stand and like mccrystal i make jokes but when given an order soldiers follow its what we do jokes are jokes
You need to go ask your s-1 officer or your Co or Xo for a definition of what a commissioned officer is. Especially as it applies to who is subject to the UCMJ. because according to your definition no "field grade officer" or "General officer" is subject to the UCMJ.
All the argument about the UCMJ and freedom of speech aside, I can't understand what the hell Gen. McChrystal was thinking when he allowed a reporter unfettered access like that. He had to know that the reporter would publish the controversial stuff and that there would be outcry. He didn't get to be a 4 star General by being naive or dumb. He either has suffered some sort of breakdown or has become very detached from reality, in either case not fit to be in that position. That was basically MacArthur's problem, he became detached from reality. Or in other words, Gen. McChrystal you are living in your................
I think it goes without
I think it goes without saying that I am no fan of President Obama however he did the right thing here. An active field General cannot take his grievances with an administration to the media. Our military structure(or any for that matter) is such that undermining the authority of your superiors is a counterproductive and often times dangerous course. The comments his aides were quoted as saying in the interview are even worse and may indicate the Generals inability to control his subordinates. President Obama was left with no choice but to fire Gen. McChrystal and I am glad he showed the leadership in doing so. That's about all the credit I can give him for now, I'm starting to feel nauseous.
Quoting Jeff Allen: "I think
Quoting Jeff Allen:
"I think it goes without saying that I am no fan of President Obama"
"That's about all the credit I can give him for now, I'm starting to feel nauseous."
The above statements need clarification. Why would anyone feel the necessity of ensuring readers would understand the dislike he feels for President Obama while failing to let the reader know the background issues eliciting that dislike? Come on, Jeff. Give us a clue---what are the issues you're so in disagreement with? In other words: WHY do you dislike President Obama so much you feel nauseous? Can you discuss issues, please?
The conversation probably
The conversation probably went something like this:
Obama: "you hurt my feelings..you dare talk bad about me and my "perfect" administration?"
McChrystal: "I'm sorry I was only speaking the truth!"
Obama: (stamping foot on the ground twice like a spoiled 1st grader) "you're fired!!"
McChrystal: "Thank you Mr. President..you were making me look like an idiot with your poor decisions anyways!"
This whole story sounds like
This whole story sounds like the prequel to "A Few Good Men".
Obama: "I want the truth!"
McChrystal: "Mr. President, you can't handle the truth!"
Military Officers may not
Military Officers may not criticize the President publicly, those are the rules and they all understand them. The Generals who criticized President Bush at least had the good sense to wait until after they resigned to do so.
The President, any President, absolutely must fire Flag Officers who publicly criticize him/her. It is the only way to maintain the Chain of Command.
Rita, those statements are
Rita, those statements are based on the too numerous to list comments I have made on The Batavian in the past. Regular contributors know exactly where I am coming from.
I can list a myriad of issues on which I take issue with President Obama but will refain on this post since it is not the topic of the poll question.
None of the military leaders
None of the military leaders have any confidence in Obama or any of his appointed civilian staff to command a war toward victory. Gen. McChrystal just spoke the truth and said they were a bunch of clowns and it got published. I particularly like the Vice President Joe "Bite Me" nickname.
Our military could end the wars in Iraq, Afganistan, and Pakistan before dark tonight but the boneheads in Washington won't let them.
The war could be over in a
The war could be over in a day or two, the effects would be seen forever. All it would take is another Hiroshima, and a Nagasaki or two.
I'll pass, instead I suggest that Obama begin a drawndown of troops immediately, and get totally out by the end of the year. Iraq too, starting tomorrow. Shut the war machine down. Bush fired it up and Obama ran on shutting it down. I want to see him shut it down now but I'll never vote for a worse option than the one I already have.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki
Chris said: "Military
Chris said:
"Military Officers may not criticize the President publicly, those are the rules and they all understand them."
Anyone can criticize the President publicly. Since military officers do so with the understanding that they risk losing their jobs, maybe the General thought the disclosure was worth the risk.
I think both the President and the General did what they needed to do and neither fault, nor second guess, either one for their decision.
JoAnne, I think Chris was
JoAnne, I think Chris was speaking from military rule. Words have great power on the global stage and when officers publicly undermine the Commander-in-Chief, it undermines the nations security. The President was just in firing him, this was not a "free speech" issue
Jeff, I agree and as I stated
Jeff, I agree and as I stated in my post, I'm not going to second guess either one for their actions.
Amen Sam!
Amen Sam!
It is a free speech issue.
It is a free speech issue. The general has every right to speak his mind. Our rights are derived from a higher authority, not from man. They supersede any document or any border. Like any right, you exercise it and you may suffer the consequences. But that's your right.
Howard, you served, you know
Howard, you served, you know full well that when you enter into a military contract you give up certain areas of your rights to free speech as well as some of your rights to assemble and hold elected office.
Members of the military do so willingly with the understanding that serving their country is more important than exercising their personal whim. Unit cohesion (in this case regarding the entirety of the military and its command structure) is at risk when individuals within the chain of command shirk their responsibility to their superiors.
The reasons for this are based in reality and steeped in tradition extending back thousands of years. If the General was intent on criticizing his superior, he had the option to resign first. Criticizing your superiors publicly while you hold command is not acceptable behavior for military officers of any rank, but for a flag officer to do so is unconscionable and flies in the face of everything that the stars on his shoulders stand for.
The UCMJ specifically bars officers from doing this but does not mention enlisted personnel. This speaks directly to the level of responsibility military officers accept when they receive their commission.
It's not free when it has
It's not free when it has specific penalties. Free speech is just that free of consequence. You are correct when you say that our rights come from a higher authority but a right is not a freedom if exercising it comes with punishable consequences. McChrystal the civilian has the free right to say anything he wants about the administrations war policies, McChrystal the General does not.
I am a veteran, a patriot,
I am a veteran, a patriot, nobody despises obama and what he stands for more than I, and I agree with everything McChrystal is quoted as saying.
That being said, on this one, I don't think obama went far enough. Not only should have McChrystal been relieved of his command, Courts Martial proceedings should have begun immediately.
The military exists to defend our way of life, including our citizens' right to free speech. However: no member of the military is granted that right while serving.
When I was the Navy, Richard Nixon was president and Elmo Zumwalt served as his Chief of Naval Operations. We all hated them both, as well as their policies. And nothing was ever said - public discussion never even occurred to us - as it shouldn't have. In fact, anyone, civilian or military, would have faced unbridled wrath if such sentiments were expressed. That's just the way it was and should be now. One NEVER questions an order, nor the person who issued it. That is the ONLY way a military force can be successful.
McChrystal should be tried on violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, his commission revoked, and immediately discharged under less than honorable conditions.
Chris, when you enter the
Chris, when you enter the military you agree not fully exercise certain rights. You don't give them up. You can give up your rights no more than you can give up breathing, and when you stop breathing, only then do you give up any rights. So long as you are alive on this plant, no matter what nation, no matter who your boss, you have certain inalienable rights.
There are, of course, limits on free speech depending on circumstances.
For example, you don't have unlimited free speech on The Batavian. We impose certain limitations for the sake of the community and the business. It's my right as the business owner to determine those limits and determine the consequences for violating those limits.
Jeff, all speech has consequences.
Gen. McChrystal had an inalienable right to say whatever he wanted to say. That doesn't mean that he didn't violate some limits on his speech that he agreed to by embarking on a career in the military.
And I agree with Bob, Courts Martial would not be out of order.
My only very narrow point is that nobody ever gives up the right to free speech. It's impossible to give up your right to free speech. Even in Iran or North Korea or China, you still have a right to free speech. It's just not necessarily wise to exercise that right in those countries.
One NEVER questions an order,
One NEVER questions an order, nor the person who issued it. That is the ONLY way a military force can be successful.
Nuremburg ???????
888. ART. 88. CONTEMPT TOWARD
888. ART. 88. 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.
ART. 88. CONTEMPT TOWARD
ART. 88. 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.
Go to the link below and in the search function for the pdf file type in
Article 88—Contempt toward officials
http://www.jag.navy.mil/documents/mcm2008.pdf
This is from the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
Howard you should be familiar with this article, not just because of your prior service but because of your profession.
General McChrystal used very poor judgment in allowing the interview in the first place. The fact that his staff made the comments they did to the journalist shows a lack of professional control in his staff.
The military is successful when order is present. When order is absent the military will ultimately fail.
Mr. Obama did the right thing by relieving General McChrystal of his command.
As far as what happens to General McChrystal now, you can go to the following link:
http://www.usmilitarylawyer.com/military-legal-discharges.asp
Jeremiah, I never said he
Jeremiah, I never said he didn't violate regulation or that he shouldn't be punished. I said nobody ever gives up their right to free speech. It's impossible.
Howard, you're arguing just
Howard, you're arguing just to argue. Answer your own poll question, do you think the General should have been fired or no?
Jeremiah and Bob, When I was
Jeremiah and Bob,
When I was in Korea, my boss had two items placed on the corner of his desk. The first was a Disney coloring book with a box of crayons set on top of it, the other was a copy of the UCMJ. There was a sign taped to the front of the desk that said 'Choose One.'
He was the best boss I had during my time in the Air Force.
How come its allright when
How come its allright when one President trashes another..
Obama loves to trash Bush every chance he gets...
Well, if we're speaking in
Well, if we're speaking in the context of this conversation then the answer is that a new President trashing an old one doesn't affect the chain of command.
Chris..What about when a
Chris..What about when a congress person trashes a sitting President.If he was so wrong then why no court martial.
Mark, Congress does not come
Mark,
Congress does not come under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
Chris, my answer should be
Chris, my answer should be clear. The President had no choice but to fire him.
And I'm not just arguing to argue Chris. It's critical distinction.
John gave you the answer.
John gave you the answer. The UCMJ is a set of laws separate from local, state and federal statutes. Only members of the military and certain military-employed civilians fall under its jurisdiction.
No, Howard, it's semantic
No, Howard, it's semantic blather.
No, Chris, it's a
No, Chris, it's a philosophical point central to the founding of this country.
A philosophical point that
A philosophical point that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Which is why I say you're arguing just to argue, you're mixing the metaphysics with the material simply to make a point that doesn't need to be made.
Who's arguing just to argue,
Who's arguing just to argue, Chris?
Howard, you were making
Howard, you were making unrelated arguments just to prove a philosophical point. By doing so you watered down the reality of what was being discussed. I felt the need to point that out to people who may have thought you were giving McChrystal an excuse for his illegal actions.
Also, I know you are but what am I. :)
You're rubber I'm glue,
You're rubber I'm glue, whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you.
Chris, if you re-read the
Chris, if you re-read the thread, my original point was in direct response to something another poster said. To accuse me of going off on a tangent is unfounded.
Further, McChrystal is welcome to any excuse he wants. I believe he has the right, though not necessarily the legal privileged to speak his mind.
This country is better off because men like McChrystal will sometimes speak their minds. There is nothing wrong with McChrystal speaking out against policies he objects to. That doesn't mean he shouldn't be fired.
Unfortunately, McChrystal isn't the best example of this principle because his remarks were unguarded and off-the-cuff and not intended to achieve any political purpose. But I pray to God that if a U.S. Military general ever felt the need to speak out against the President's policy for well founded reasons, I would hope he would.
I agree 100% with you
I agree 100% with you Howard.
"Further, McChrystal is welcome to any excuse he wants. I believe he has the right, though not necessarily the legal privileged to speak his mind.
This country is better off because men like McChrystal will sometimes speak their minds. There is nothing wrong with McChrystal speaking out against policies he objects to. That doesn't mean he shouldn't be fired.
Unfortunately, McChrystal isn't the best example of this principle because his remarks were unguarded and off-the-cuff and not intended to achieve any political purpose. But I pray to God that if a U.S. Military general ever felt the need to speak out against the President's policy for well founded reasons, I would hope he would".
McChrystal didn't speak about
McChrystal didn't speak about the policy, in fact he helped write the policy. His comments were about the civilian leadership.
Howard, I'll give you that
Howard,
I'll give you that General McChrystal has the inherent right to say what ever he chooses to. Because as you say every person has this right.
However, members of the military, and especially officers are held to a different standard than are their civilian counter parts. The General should not be surprised by the actions of the President. Neither should the public at large be surprised by what has transpired.
Is this a freedom of speech issue in the sense of a constitutional right to freedom of speech? Not in my opinion. This is no different than a manager at Mcdonalds getting fired for talking trash about the CEO of Mcdonalds.
Howard writes " But I pray to
Howard writes " But I pray to God that if a U.S. Military general ever felt the need to speak out against the President's policy for well founded reasons, I would hope he would"....just not to Rolling Stone.
There you go again Howard,
There you go again Howard, and you're still pretty wrong here.
Unless an officer is asked to do something that is illegal, it is NEVER a good thing for him/her to say anything in public but 'Yes, Sir, how soon?'
Showing contempt or mistrust for your superiors tells the people under your command that they may do the same thing to you. It endangers the mission and promotes insubordination.
You know these things Howard, but for some reason you're choosing to ignore them.
Chris, I'm ignoring nothing.
Chris, I'm ignoring nothing. You're ignoring what I'm saying.
Jeff, I think you get what
Jeff, I think you get what I'm saying. If the break is serious enough to warrant violating UCMJ, then the speech should be at the appropriate time and place.
chris again i have to
chris again i have to disagree. General made joke obama just isnt man enough to understand that. the president can still mantain his chain of command. How many times have you or anyone joked about your boss or even a good friend? as long as he follows his orders and carries out his duties there is no mistrust. General McChrystal now has the right to file an article 138 of the uniform code of military conduct against the president because he was relived of command for unjust reasons. It was a simple joke it was a highly decorated well trusted man expressing his opinion which is why we have a president isnt it? protect our rights as americans. He assigned petreus the job but now CENTCOM is still short a leader. 4 stars do not grow on trees and good ones are like a soul mate. once in a lifetime. McChrystal doesnt care he was demoted even if hes forced into retirement he did his job better then most and believe it or not his policies in afghanistan saved alot of american lives. Obama is the worst thing to happen to the armed forces cut spending cut pay and try and make us a socialist government? how does a man run the country but still find time to write a book and golf 3 times a week? i ask you this whos really running this country?
I do not understand if what
I do not understand if what he did was wrong then why no Court martial...Because i don't think he did anything wrong..And now he is replace with General Petraeus...The same Gen. that all the Democrats claim was no good when Bush was in charge..Remember the Move on Dot Org ad..General Betray Us....Now its the smartest move Obama did..according to all the Democratic talking heads...Obama even criticized General Petraeus surge plan for Iraq,said it wouldn't work..What happened to all the outrage about the war and all the americans that were dying every day...When Bush was in thats all you ever heard about..With this guy Obama no one says a word...
Mark, For the same reason
Mark,
For the same reason Truman did not court martial MAcArthur. Personal choice.
McChrystal knew he screwed up and while he would have been fired, he resigned. He keeps his pension this way.
mccrystal can not be court
mccrystal can not be court martialed he violated no law or article undr the ucmj
Jonathan, once McChrystal
Jonathan, once McChrystal made it known he was not on the same page with the Commander-in-Chief, he had no place in the chain of commend.
If you don't support the policies of your commander, you have three choices:
-- Shut up and carry them out anyway;
-- If you think the discrepancies are serious enough, speak out (but be willing to suffer the consequences);
-- resign (which you should do anyway if you're going to speak out).
McChrystal chose a pretty chicken-shit alternative; make snide remarks with a reporter in the room. If he really felt that out of step with Obama's policy, he should have manned up, resigned and then spoke his mind.
His conduct could be considered, at the least, insubordination, which is certainly grounds for a courts martial.
Again, I defend Gen. McChrystal's right to criticize the Obama Administration, but that doesn't mean he did it the right way, or that he should not face appropriate consequences.
Jonathan, You better do some
Jonathan,
You better do some reading on the UCMJ. Specifically Article 88—Contempt toward officials.
wow pedro thank you for tryin
wow pedro thank you for tryin to tell me something but if you read the article it says "commissioned office" in the army a commissioned officer is an 01 thru an 03 then 04 thru 05 is a field grade officer 06 thru 010 is a GENERAL OFFICER there for the article does not apply. and if you want to get technical the president is the commander in cheif correct? and he is never off duty. so does that mean the president is punishable under article 112? mccrystal has the backing of every real soldier i know. if the man cant handle critics then he needs to grow up. I've had plenty of officers ive delt with i couldnt stand and like mccrystal i make jokes but when given an order soldiers follow its what we do jokes are jokes
Jonathan, You need to go
Jonathan,
You need to go ask your s-1 officer or your Co or Xo for a definition of what a commissioned officer is. Especially as it applies to who is subject to the UCMJ. because according to your definition no "field grade officer" or "General officer" is subject to the UCMJ.
All the argument about the
All the argument about the UCMJ and freedom of speech aside, I can't understand what the hell Gen. McChrystal was thinking when he allowed a reporter unfettered access like that. He had to know that the reporter would publish the controversial stuff and that there would be outcry. He didn't get to be a 4 star General by being naive or dumb. He either has suffered some sort of breakdown or has become very detached from reality, in either case not fit to be in that position. That was basically MacArthur's problem, he became detached from reality. Or in other words, Gen. McChrystal you are living in your................
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/n7t7cGwN7_0&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/n7t7cGwN7_0&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>