It must be frustrating for a General when he begs to meet with the President of the United States, when he request the needed troops to do the job he has been assigned, isn't given those troops, and the meeting with the president was a “10-minute photo op.” Gen. Stanley McChrystal should not have said what he did, at least in earshot of a reporter, but what he said is true.
Read the article yourself and your response will be, "sounds about right to me".
What is the response from the military and from the reporter who wrote the article?
What’s the response from the military been? Do you think your access will be cut in the future?
The most interesting response has been, in Kandahar, and having more than one person come up to me and saying, "We heard about your story, and we like McChrystal, but the message needs to get out there that these restrictions he’s putting on the soldiers are no good." So it’s actually been a positive response among the soldiers here. (Newsweek)Paul at Powerline sums up the situation:
... I assume that the conduct of Gen. McChrystal and his aides reflects deep frustration with the Obama adminstration over, among other things, (a) its inability for the better part of a year to formulate a plan for waging war in Afghanistan and, far more importantly, (b) the imposition of a July 2011 deadline or target date for beginning our withdrawal, along with (c) the decision to retain an ambassador to Afghanistan who doesn't see eye-to-eye with McChrystal on key issues.
Add it all up, and It probably looks to McChrystal as if he has been dealt a losing hand. That's hard to keep silent about, especially nowadays.No doubt McChrystal should not have allowed his staff to share with the Rolling Stone reporter and McChrystal himself should not have given they his statements, it just isn't done. However, what was said is what many think and believe concerning Obama. It should have been said by someone else or in another venue.
McChrystal was correct when he said, "I extend my sincerest apology for this profile. It was a mistake reflecting poor judgment and should never have happened." Also as Blackfive says,
1. GEN McChrystal should never have said he voted for anyone. In fact, I know General Officers who claim they don’t vote for Presidents at all to avoid ever taking political sides. He voted for Obama?!It is interesting that the White House questions McChrystal's maturity, when McChrystal himself questioned Obama's ability to lead.
2. GEN McChrystal fired a subordinate for giving the reporter access to the general (in essence, he did his job – albeit, naively).
3. It is against the UCMJ to criticize the President, Congress, etc. Period.
4. This event is what the anti-war lefties want (we lost). This event is what the take-the-gloves-off right want (less ROE restrictions). However, this makes things in AFPAK infinitely more difficult.
The Left is calling for McChrystal's head, they might get it: "Andrea Mitchell: McChrystal 'Legally, Morally, Ethically, Professionally Ought to be Canned", NewsBusters.
You can read various reactions here, via Memorandum:
The Huffington Post, The Corner on National …, Newsbroke, Danger Room, TPMDC, Hot Air, Pajamas Media, Raw Story, Gawker, Jumping in Pools, Sister Toldjah, Little Green Footballs and VetVoice, The Moderate Voice, PostPartisan, ATTACKERMAN, Washington Monthly, BLACKFIVE, Reuters, FP Passport, THEROOT.COM, The Foundry, Hot Air, VetVoice, The Agonist, Open Left, The Washington Independent, Obsidian Wings and The Impolitic, Jack & Jill Politics, The Politico, Balloon Juice, American Power, The Corner on National … and This Just In
