• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Say what you think...and get canned. General gets the hook.

The end result can't be surprising after the comments he made. He isn't some anonymous poster ranting on an Internet forum. You can't make comments such as that, as a high ranking military officer, and expect to still have a role the next day. The validity of what he said doesn't matter even though I fully agree.

Not the first and likely won't be the last to meet the same end. General McChrystal became well aware of that last year after his comments on Karzai.
 
Probably the next general the US govt puts in that position will end up getting fired for the same kind of thing. I'm betting that it's incredibly frustrating working with the Afghan leadership.

I'm all for telling them we'll fuck them in the ass if they start harboring Al Qaeda again, but otherwise they're on their own and good luck with Pakistan.
 
At the end of the century Afghanistan will be no different or less hostile if we pull out tomorrow.

You want a hundred years of soldiers playing police on the streets and getting sniped / killed, or do you want them safe at home? Politicians want them on the Afghan streets. Soldiers are more useful to their reelection campaign when they're dying. The campaign doners appreciate the war supplies we spend. Generals say it's a crock and get replaced.

This is a deliberate sabotage of our blood and coin by our politicians. Too many of us applaud them for it.
 
Jaskalas said:
At the end of the century Afghanistan will be no different or less hostile if we pull out tomorrow.

You want a hundred years of soldiers playing police on the streets and getting sniped / killed, or do you want them safe at home? Politicians want them on the Afghan streets. Soldiers are more useful to their reelection campaign when they're dying. The campaign doners appreciate the war supplies we spend. Generals say it's a crock and get replaced.

This is a deliberate sabotage of our blood and coin by our politicians. Too many of us applaud them for it.
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
However much you agree with a general, there's a reason for them not to be making political statements to the press having to do with the civilian control of the military.

The last thing we need is generals going to the people to try to turn public opinion against the elected politicians for the policies they want as their rivals.
 
Jaskalas said:
At the end of the century Afghanistan will be no different or less hostile if we pull out tomorrow.

You want a hundred years of soldiers playing police on the streets and getting sniped / killed, or do you want them safe at home? Politicians want them on the Afghan streets. Soldiers are more useful to their reelection campaign when they're dying. The campaign doners appreciate the war supplies we spend. Generals say it's a crock and get replaced.

This is a deliberate sabotage of our blood and coin by our politicians. Too many of us applaud them for it.
Click to expand...

I applaud soldiers who go through this. They do it with our interests at heart, many of them. But I'm all for just bringing them home. It's enough at this point. We did what we could, let's stop spending the money and the manpower when it isn't welcome. Fuck em, let them go crying to Pakistan for help.
 
We should have either colonized that country or stayed the hell out. Half-measures just don't work there.
 
The General is there to perform a job for his boss. He does not agree with the direction his boss is taking. Boss fires him.

Really no different than most other places of employment.
 
He's in the military. He isn't free to say what he wants on the record without prior approval. even a General has to follow the chain of command. You do not step on toes without blow-back. Same thing happened before, Gen McChrystal was forced into early retirement by saying things to the media without thinking about the consequences.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_A._McChrystal#Rolling_Stone_article_and_resignation

Then again, maybe that's what he wanted, to get out.
 
Last edited:
What he said is essentially true although he must have known this probably would have happened by saying it. I'm thinking he knowingly rolled the dice.
 
Craig234 said:
However much you agree with a general, there's a reason for them not to be making political statements to the press having to do with the civilian control of the military.

The last thing we need is generals going to the people to try to turn public opinion against the elected politicians for the policies they want as their rivals.
Click to expand...

As much as I hate it I have to agree 100% with Craig.
 
He's 100% right about what he said, but it's really not that different from anyone else in the civilian world saying something your employer doesn't like: you get fired. You have the right to say whatever you want, but you don't have a right to be shielded from the consequences of what you say.

The guy is completely right, but he should have bitched privately or "off the record" somewhere.
 
Double Trouble said:
He's 100% right about what he said, but it's really not that different from anyone else in the civilian world saying something your employer doesn't like: you get fired. You have the right to say whatever you want, but you don't have a right to be shielded from the consequences of what you say.

The guy is completely right, but he should have bitched privately or "off the record" somewhere.
Click to expand...

The bitch goes up the ladder. In the end if you have a boss and there is a disagreement you need to do as your boss says or find a new job. Military is a little more stringent on this one.
 
tm37 said:
The bitch goes up the ladder. In the end if you have a boss and there is a disagreement you need to do as your boss says or find a new job. Military is a little more stringent on this one.
Click to expand...

100% correct. The reason why they are more stringent is that the military is under civilian control for very good reason. The last thing we want is for the military to start running things.
 
While I agree with Fuller, one needs to save comments for the diplomats. But, I do not think he should have been fired over this. This sounds more like a "straw that broke the camel's back" kinda thing in regards to his firing.

The Afghan war is also a psychological war and we are losing on that front, horribly. I attended a seminar in which an officer that was conducting "PR" with Afghans in various areas of the country. You have to be very careful about how you word things and timing is everything.

The Taliban spread word that they had taken over New York City and the population in that area believed them. Some people thought that America was over a neighboring mountain range. Others did not know of America and thought the US soldiers were Soviets returning for revenge.

Trying to "colonize" Afghanistan didn't work out so well for the Soviets...
Click to expand...
I think he is referring to the old definition of colonization. You build settlements of your people within a newly acquired territory and displace / remove the people currently living there (indigenous population) whose ancestors did the same to the previous inhabitants. AFAIK, the Soviets were not doing this (they were supporting the Pro-Soviet government in Kabul).
 
Craig234 said:
However much you agree with a general, there's a reason for them not to be making political statements to the press having to do with the civilian control of the military.

The last thing we need is generals going to the people to try to turn public opinion against the elected politicians for the policies they want as their rivals.
Click to expand...

Yeah the people some this forum should crack a history book and study MacArthur . 😉
 
Funny how things work out for the chicken hawks that were gung ho on putting boots on the ground and blindly support the Admin and Karzai.

Well, lived my life and never stopped to worry 'bout a thing
Opened up and shouted out and never tried to sing
Wondering if I'd done wrong
Will this depression last for long?

Won't you tell me
Where have all the neocon gone?
Where have all the neocon gone?

Well, once we had an easy ride and always felt the same
Time was on my side and I had everything to gain
Let it be like yesterday
Please let me have happy days

Won't you tell me
Where have all the chicken hawk gone?
Where have all the chicken hawk gone?

Ma and Pa look back at all the things they used to do
Didn't have no money and they always told the truth
Daddy didn't have no toys
And mummy didn't need no boys

Won't you tell me
Where have all the good times gone?
Where have all the good times gone?

Well, yesterday was such an easy game for you to play
But let's face it things are so much easier today
Guess you need some bringing down
And get your feet back on the ground

Won't you tell me
Where have all the good times gone?
Where have all the good times gone?
Where have all the good times gone?
 
He decided he'd rather retire or get reassigned rather than continue supporting a foolish venture, just like McChrystal. If you guys think generals are ever surprised to be relieved, you're mistaken.
 
Craig234 said:
However much you agree with a general, there's a reason for them not to be making political statements to the press having to do with the civilian control of the military.

The last thing we need is generals going to the people to try to turn public opinion against the elected politicians for the policies they want as their rivals.
Click to expand...

I wonder what your response would have been if it were a R in the white house.
 
iGas said:
Funny how things work out for the chicken hawks that were gung ho on putting boots on the ground and blindly support the Admin and Karzai.
Where have all the neocon gone?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

A fellow conservative helped me see the folly in our 'wars' back in late 2006 when the Democrats were waging that campaign against the surge in Iraq. I came to realize then that our only purpose over there is to get our own men killed.

The enemy will not fall, our efforts are far too pathetic for that to happen.
 
JS80 said:
I wonder what your response would have been if it were a R in the white house.
Click to expand...
His response(along with some other people in this thread) would have been different.

A favorite tale by Democrats during the 2004 presidential campaign was that Gen. Shinseki was "forced out" by the Bush administration because Shineski's views were at odds with Donald Rumsfeld's. Shinseki publicly clashed with Donald Rumsfeld during the planning of the Iraqi war over troop levels.

You either believe in complete civilian control of the military, or you don't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top