General McChrystal

Jason Tandro · Thu Jun 24, 2010 9:10 pm

Former General was forced to resign after he made disparaging comments about the current administration.

Those of you who know my distaste for Obama might find this hard to believe but I have to say this:

It serves him right.

As much as I think Obama is an idiot, YOU CANNOT MAKE NASTY COMMENTS ABOUT YOUR SUPERIOR OFFICER IN THE MILITARY.

Whether we like it or not, President Obama is the Commander-In-Chief of the military. My father damn near got an Article 15 for having a bumper sticker that said "Stupid Is As Clinton Does" on his car and he was only a Sergant.

I mean I sympathize with him, no question, but he should have known better.

tay120n64 · Posted: Thu Jun 24, 2010 9:42 pm Post subject:

Agreed. As a member of the military, there are certain rules he must follow, and one is representing and following your superiors with pride.

Otherwise you have no business in the military.

Freedan · Posted: Thu Jun 24, 2010 10:02 pm Post subject:

It's a bad idea to make disparaging remarks about your boss.

It's a worse idea to do it where millions of people can see it (it was printed in a magazine).

It's a monumentally stupid idea to do it when your boss is the most powerful man in the world.

Honestly, what did he expect to happen?

Manibrandr System · Posted: Fri Jun 25, 2010 2:58 am Post subject:

You are forgetting one thing, though. Regardless of feelings, regardless of how offensive he is, there should not have been a problem IF he is doing this out of his work. As long as he is doing his damn job, I don't see an issue. It would pretty hypocritical and unconstitutional to force people to resign because of a few disparaging remarks. Fuck ranks, we aren't truely free unless we walk abreast of each other.

Posted: Fri Jun 25, 2010 3:03 am Post subject:

Valerie Valens wrote:You are forgetting one thing, though. Regardless of feelings, regardless of how offensive he is, there should not have been a problem IF he is doing this out of his work. As long as he is doing his damn job, I don't see an issue. It would pretty hypocritical and unconstitutional to force people to resign because of a few disparaging remarks. Fuck ranks, we aren't truely free unless we walk abreast of each other.

This, though I will admit I'm pretty torn on the issue. Yes, he shouldn't have done it. HOWEVER, Obama pretty much throwing a hissy fit over it and going WELL I'M GOING TO FIRE YOU NOW while stamping his feet was... yeah. :/

psychokind · Posted: Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:31 am Post subject:

Valerie Valens wrote:You are forgetting one thing, though. Regardless of feelings, regardless of how offensive he is, there should not have been a problem IF he is doing this out of his work. As long as he is doing his damn job, I don't see an issue. It would pretty hypocritical and unconstitutional to force people to resign because of a few disparaging remarks. Fuck ranks, we aren't truely free unless we walk abreast of each other.

there are special laws for soldiers, which exactly regulate issues like that. believe me, it's not allowed to do sth like that even if you're doing this out of your work. a soldier is, concerning his freedom of speech, never out of his work.

Jason Tandro · Posted: Fri Jun 25, 2010 9:25 am Post subject:

psychokind wrote:
Valerie Valens wrote:You are forgetting one thing, though. Regardless of feelings, regardless of how offensive he is, there should not have been a problem IF he is doing this out of his work. As long as he is doing his damn job, I don't see an issue. It would pretty hypocritical and unconstitutional to force people to resign because of a few disparaging remarks. Fuck ranks, we aren't truely free unless we walk abreast of each other.
there are special laws for soldiers, which exactly regulate issues like that. believe me, it's not allowed to do sth like that even if you're doing this out of your work. a soldier is, concerning his freedom of speech, never out of his work.

This. Soldiers have much less rights than civilians.

Obama is not throwing a hissy fit. If he had fired him off the cuff without meeting with the General to allow him to explain himself first (as proper military decorum regulates) then that would have been throwing a hissy fit.

The General should have known better. If any of his subordinates had done to him what he did to Obama, he would have rightly Article 15'd and possibly court marshalled them depending upon the seriousness of the offense.

His rank and services do not mitigate the circumstance, they exacerbate it. What the General did was undermine not only years of military tradition, out of petty arrogance, but undermine the whole concept of civilian leadership.

Now we might be able to debate that point endlessly, I don't think a person should be allowed to control the military unless they have military experience themselves, but as it stand General McChrystal was CLEARLY out of line.

psychokind · Posted: Fri Jun 25, 2010 10:22 am Post subject:

Jason Tandro wrote:
Now we might be able to debate that point endlessly, I don't think a person should be allowed to control the military unless they have military experience themselves, but as it stand General McChrystal was CLEARLY out of line.

now that's NOT a good idea jason

there should always be people out of the military control it. it's essential to democracy.

Jason Tandro · Posted: Fri Jun 25, 2010 10:25 am Post subject:

psychokind wrote:
Jason Tandro wrote:
Now we might be able to debate that point endlessly, I don't think a person should be allowed to control the military unless they have military experience themselves, but as it stand General McChrystal was CLEARLY out of line.
now that's NOT a good idea jason there should always be people out of the military control it. it's essential to democracy.

I said military experience, not active military. It's not unreasonable to hope that the person in charge knows what they are doing.

SoulBlazerFan · Posted: Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:35 pm Post subject:

Jason Tandro wrote:I said military experience, not active military. It's not unreasonable to hope that the person in charge knows what they are doing.

...Did you forget W's entire presidency?

I think he should have known better. I don't care who you are, and whether you agree with your boss or not, you always show them respect, whether they deserve it or not. Reserve your thoughts for your private times, with other people you know and trust. Don't allow it to directly affect your performance, or, in this case, your job security.

Also, one thing that was never brought up; where and when were these comments made? To officers underneath him, his own peers, or during some press conference or something? There has to be a reason he's being made an example of.

EDIT: Looked it up. It's really breaks down to, you can't be honest in front of a reporter, especially about such a thing as a gripe with your boss. He'll use it to sell stories- and obviously it worked, considering this has garnered so much publicity.

Ratty Randnums · Posted: Mon Jun 28, 2010 1:15 am Post subject:

I think any time you're not allowed to question the people in power it's dangerous.
On the other hand I think that civilian control of the military is essential. And if you were to require every person who makes a decision about it to have some experience in it would crack the door to a future military coo or dictatorship open much wider. And while I can understand the need in the past for a military to show a uniform face "against the enemy" I think we're just about beyond that point.
A soldier should be able to say what they want as they follow their job of doing what they believe is the best thing to protect the people. Remember that McChrystal was casting doubt on Obama's leadership abilities and not his military strategy, which McChrystal still supported.

We don't need a bunch of Oliver North's running around. A military should serve the PEOPLE of a country, not the President, or any one branch of Government, the people. And as such it's members should be able to speak their minds. After all they should know a little more about their own work than others right?

This is setting aside my general feelings about the shiftishittyness and irony of Governments in general.

PS- I voted for Obama and I'd do it again.

Jason Tandro · Posted: Mon Jun 28, 2010 7:38 am Post subject:

@Ratty: This isn't so much an issue of censorship, but rather the age old military rule that you salute the rank, not the man. Part of being a soldier is that you set aside those rights that civilians enjoy in the sake of serving your country and maintaining order. Dissidence and insubordination should not be tolerated in any capacity.

Manibrandr System · Posted: Mon Jun 28, 2010 8:36 am Post subject:

How are soldiers any different from any other people? The millitary is just a job like any other job, and like any other job, it helps the country in certain different ways. There is nothing really special or magical about working in the army that pots its workers on a pedestal apart from the rest of the populace.

Saying that dissidence and insubordination should not be tolerated is an authoritarian viewpoint that paves the way towards a dictatorship. Just like how any person should be free to criticize one another, and just like how their positions should not matter in that regard, authority should always be questioned lest they become complacent and abusive. Forget tradition or the foolish notions of national pride, the people's right to speak their mind regardless of situation without fear of retribution is worth more than token platitudes and shameless pandering to authority.

psychokind · Posted: Mon Jun 28, 2010 9:42 am Post subject:

Valerie Valens wrote:Saying that dissidence and insubordination should not be tolerated is an authoritarian viewpoint that paves the way towards a dictatorship. Just like how any person should be free to criticize one another, and just like how their positions should not matter in that regard, authority should always be questioned lest they become complacent and abusive. Forget tradition or the foolish notions of national pride, the people's right to speak their mind regardless of situation without fear of retribution is worth more than token platitudes and shameless pandering to authority.

that's ok, but just not for the military. if every soldier question his orders, it's not a effective tool for the executive. would be the same if police questions its statutory basis.

besides, in civilized countries there's always a last choice when it comes to orders against a democratic basic structure (like genozid).

Freedan · Posted: Mon Jun 28, 2010 6:09 pm Post subject:

Valerie Valens wrote:How are soldiers any different from any other people? The millitary is just a job like any other job,

...........

Saying that dissidence and insubordination should not be tolerated is an authoritarian viewpoint that paves the way towards a dictatorship. Just like how any person should be free to criticize one another, and just like how their positions should not matter in that regard, authority should always be questioned lest they become complacent and abusive.

What makes the military different is that it's based on a command structure. Every soldier entering the military understands that when they sign up, and that there are rules to be followed regarding decorum.

When you're serving in a command structure under a superior, that kind of behaviour is not tolerated. Soldiers don't get an equal say, that's just the rules they've agreed to serve under.