Comments on: It’s Not Insubordination When the CINC Is Barack Obama

By: BlueDogDemocrat

BlueDogDemocrat — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 20:58:17 +0000

How is it undemocratic or unconstitutional for a General to speak out? Unelected bureaucrats throughout DC and in the Courts make policy all the time… Perhaps its been more tradition than anything for a General to remain silent … Obama can fire this guy at any time, so that’s what McChyrstal risks through his words. MacArthur was fired for similar actions.

In some ways the Public benefits from hearing McChrystal speak and reading his report for ourselves. Again, we don’t know how the report got leaked. But I wonder about this speech, is it unusual for a General to give a speech like this? Certainly MacArthur spoke a lot .. He is NATO Commander so maybe the folks in London wanted to hear from McChrystal, invited him to this forum because he commands their troops as well.

Anyway, looks like this report (which was ignored for 2 months) is finally getting some attention in the White House.

By: tas

tas — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 06:09:07 +0000

I didn’t say that military generals shouldn’t have a say in the policy, or advise their civilian superiors on what they think the best course of action is. As far as military actions in the field go, generals are the experts. But it’s the civilian administration which makes the final decisions about policy. If a general is trying to use other channels beyond advise and consultation to effect this policy, that is wrong — it’s undemocratic and unconstitutional because the generals were not elected by the American public. If a general has strong disagreements with the policy from the civilian administration, to the point where they don’t think they can execute their orders, then its time for the general to step down.

By: BlueDogDemocrat

BlueDogDemocrat — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 23:50:29 +0000

I somewhat agree with your assessment tas. Firstly we don’t know who leaked the document, certainly we can’t say it was ordered leaked by McChrystal nor can this leak be tied to McChrystal right now. Second, yea, its the Military’s job to execute the orders of the President or Congress … when the orders get made … but that does not mean the Military can’t nor shouldn’t lobby the administration to go with it’s assessment until that point. Absolutely McChyrstal and other Military leaders should have a say in policy, These guys are the experts, these guys have dedicated their lives to the Military and War Strategy … many put their lives on the line. Injecting politics into War led to debacles like Korea, Viet nam, Iraq, Afghanistan … half measures and politics don’t win a War.

Who better to assess Military needs than General’s involved in the War? You think Rahm Emmanuel, and David Axelrod can give better advice? I don’t.

If Obama gives orders which McChrystal feels he can’t follow then I agree he should resign.

By: tas

tas — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 13:40:58 +0000

What’s being lost with commentary from the right is the notion that the military heeds to the commands of a civilian government. If General McChrystal disagrees with the president, fine. And if McChrystal’s disagreement is so strong he feels the need to resign his command, fine — if it comes to it, that’s his choice. But it’s the job of the military to execute the commands of their civilian superiors, which is much different from making policy. With his selective leaks to the press, McChrystal is straddling the fine line between obeying orders and trying to create a policy he wants. McChrystal was not elected by the American people, and therefore, he should have no say in policy until asked by his civilian superiors what he thinks. If McChrystal is unable to abide by the policy of his civilian superiors, then he should think twice about undertaking the job of being a general.

By: BlueDogDemocrat

BlueDogDemocrat — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 08:12:05 +0000

Looks like Gates is an Insubordinate now too:

http://alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N05397351.htm

By: BlueDogDemocrat

BlueDogDemocrat — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 07:53:58 +0000

Looks like someone forgot to point out that Obamba has been sitting on McChrystal’s report for nearly 2 months … had it not been leaked I doubt we’d even know about it. Another inconvenient point is that Obamba appointed McChrystal himself … this was not inherited from Bush … yet has only met with him for a few minutes over the past 3 months!! This whole Afghanistan thing, this whole “Commander in Chief” thingie seems rather inconvenient for Obamba. He’d rather fly to Copenhagen (burning tons of fuel and costing tens of millions) in support of his corrupt Chicago buddies bid for the Olympics while soldiers are dying in Afghanistan.

Commanders on the ground know what’s best, not politicians in DC like Obamba, Axelrod, or Rahm Emmanuel. I doubt Obamba’s ever fired a BB Gun let alone planed War Strategy … so why sit on the guy’s report and ignore him for 2 months??

At least McChrystal is giving us some straight talk. I don’t agree with him openly challenging the President, if he did so … but during the Bush era there was no shortage of applause from the Left whenever some unknown General criticized Bush … those folks went straight on MSNBC.

Didn’t “Progressives” tell us for the past 8 years that Afghanistan was the problem not Iraq?? Where’s Osama Bin Laden?? Obamba assured us he would do everything to get OBL … where is Osama?? Quit crying and make a decision.

By: Bob Della Valle

Bob Della Valle — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 00:03:54 +0000

Obviously, Obama should tell Gen. McChrystal to keep his mouth shut or have that little weasel Rahm Emanuel do it. This deference to the military has gone way too far, as has this commander in chief cult.

By: McQ

McQ — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 23:36:19 +0000

Nice out of context spin on the “Disingenuous Vanilla” quote.