Originally Posted by DaveJay
The only caveat I would add (and it is not the case at this time) would be if the administration had committed treason or other acts subverting the Constitution which the officer has sworn to uphold. Again, this administration - as much as I dislike it - has not gone there.
retirement at a 4 star generals pay,plus any proceeds from the book he will write after they can no longer muzzle him
I believe that that is what he was doing...IMHO.
Originally Posted by SIXTO
The problem is that in any organization, loyality is important. In my business, I expected loyality...especially with unpopular issues. Support the team or leave the team.
The General chose to be part of a team, and his loyality is of extreme importance. If he did not agree with the purpose, mission, or plan, then it should have been his decision to retire from that team.
From what I've heard on the news (for what it is worth) I understand and agree with the anti-administration statements. The problem is that loyality trumps all. Either you go with the flow (except in illegal or immoral situations), or you go...:yup:
To me, a General that is commanding troops in war should not be spouting off in Rolling Stone magazine.
Is it a fireable offense? I dunno but it shows poor judgement and that seems mutualy exclusive for the job that he is doing for our military.
(hope I am following the rules with this post)
It is my understanding that the ONLY comment attributed to the General was disparaging to the Special Ambassador to Afghanistan. All the other comments were attributed to unidentified subordinates. So I don't see where he violated the stated section of the UCMJ. I'm sure that his not disciplining his subordinates is a violation as well, but should not be in the same category. If it is, then he should resign (assuming all the things in the article are true).
I do believe that the Administration should have expected a former Special Forces officer to be somewhat less respectful to non-combat "suits". From a strategic standpoint, this is a very poor time to be pulling the commander of the theatre of operations.
Most of what was attributed to the General was said in confidence in a circle of friends.
One of them ratted him out.
Because of that, we lose a General. America loses a Patriot and one of the few that can make things happen that speaks the truth.
We are greatly diminished.
The only one winning here is Obama...who will simply appoint a "yes" man in his place. That is not the way to win a war...
and that makes me want to puke.
As stated, almost nothing was attributed to Gen McCrystal. Even then, most of the comments don't reach the level of "contemptuous" to me. Should he have given the interview in the first place? I don't think so. Is he disloyal? I don't think so. There is a line between loyalty and being a lapdog - the General has a huge responsibility, and a big part of that responsibility lies in speaking the truth as he understands it. Whether or not that truth should be given to Rolling Stone is another matter entirely...
If what he said was to his friends, and not directly to the magazine, then I retract.
No more spouting off for me until I read the whole article.
He's been punished enough by the WH in his efforts to prosecute the war, Obama should accept his resignation.
Originally Posted by archer51
I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
Nothing about the President there....
However, I agree he did run his mouth when he should have kept it to himself....retire, and become a pundit.
Loose lips sink more then just ships
Originally Posted by Guns and more
Originally Posted by OPFOR
However, the only things we have seen is the excerpt of the article given to the Washington Post...the complete article comes out Friday in The Rolling Stone...
I'm assuming here...but I would wager The Rolling Stone kept the "best" , or most damning (depending on your POV), comments for their own publication...this was the "taste" or tease to get sales up on Friday...
Why did the General submit an apology? That is my question. If me and my buddies were sitting around talking and my boss overheard us slandering him and his and I was called out, I would say "yep I said it". He was caught "red tongued" and should have just rode it out. The apology makes it seem as if he did something wrong. "Roger Sir, I said I dont like the way things are around here and my buddies said your staff were a bunch of morons, would you like me to tell you how I think we can fix it?". That should have been his line and then it would be up to CiC to do what he felt he must. I dunno, too much politics at that level. Im glad Im just a dumb, enlisted Grunt......
Yes he should be fired.
SSG, USA (Retired)