General McChrystal has been dragged back to Washington to face the music, it seems.
The top US military commander in Afghanistan has left the White House after meeting President Barack Obama to explain his criticism of leading officials.
What about; the comments were perfectly valid, eh? Oh, yeah, of course we cannot criticise politicians, can we? And, being a military man, McChrystal can’t be seen to openly disagree with his commander in chief. But it’s nice to see someone have the balls to do it.
Can’t agree with you on this one. McChrystal may have been right in what he said but he was wrong to say it publicly.
Civilian control of the armed forces is a fundamental protection in a democracy and is drummed in to all servicemen. McChrystal wouldn’t stand for such insubordination in his subordinates, quite rightly, and shouldn’t have been insubordinate himself. he has set a bad example and sadly will have to go.
Just heard on BBC R4 news that he has been fired.
Can’t now remember where I read it, but it may actually be a clever move by McChrystal. He might have concluded that his surge is not winning the war, getting removed now means that the clag sticks to someone else!
Indeed. Doesn’t stop me enjoying it, though.
And me sad to see a good soldier sacrificed to left wing political expediency.
Well, he hasn’t really said it publicly, has he? He was fired not for public utterances, per se, but for comments he and his staff made in a magazine feature, and which he seemingly regretted becoming public.
Well, Mr Eugenides, I suspect that a General knows perfectly well how to deal with the media and that what he said was done so either with the expectation that it would get a reaction or imagining that it was somehow ‘off the record’. Astonishing behaviour, whether intentional or not.
But I don’t think that the reaction to the comments were any more ‘valid’, Longrider, than you getting a letter published in your local paper in which you criticise your boss. Several times. And then get sacked…
Not being a military man, I’m of the opinion that insubordination can be a good thing. It’s probably why I was right not to sign up for twelve years 😉
Mr E’s point stands depending on the context of the comments – did he intend for them to be published? Were they asides of the kind we all make? Okay, saying anything to journalists is a bit daft…
Just a stray thought on Voyager’s final point – my boss (me) doesn’t operate in the public sphere and doesn’t grandstand to the gallery in the hope of clinging onto power while sacrificing the lives of others in the process, so I wouldn’t need to make criticism public. It’s entirely possible that McChrytal did what he did because he felt that he had no option, despite the consequences. In which case, I admire him.
I have read, but do not know, that McChrystal and his team along with the journo were holed up in Paris because a flight was delayed because of Icelandic volcano and quotes in the story may have come out after a couple of days stuck there doing little more than drinking beer…..
True or not I don’t know. Funny as fuck if it was though.
Moral of the story – NEVER trust a journalist to be on your side!
Many years ago, Queen decided not to give newspaper interviews. Freddie Mercury said that as they were going to pretty much print what they liked anyway, they could do so without help from him. His advice is spot on. On the couple of occasions when I have been asked to speak to the media or have any involvement with them, I’ve refused. If I say nothing, I can’t be misquoted. If I don’t say something unguarded, I can’t be quoted. A harsh lesson Stanley McChrystal may well have just learned…