Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #politics #afghanistan #barackobama stories and more


  • Kyle

    Good, we can’t have this sort of insubordination at this time!

  • Kris

    Ding Dong the witch is dead…which old witch? The McChrystal witch.


    To color so far outside the acceptable military lines, I think McChrystal might have actually been doing crystal! :-p

  • reason

    McChrystal’s action are inexplicable inexcusable, I am disappointed that an intelligant grown man with four stars on his shoulder has clung on to his childish ways. It wouldn’t be surprising in congress, but he is a top warrior that is trained in discipline something that is clearly lacking in this individual.

    McCrystal has put the President in a situation were any choose he makes can result in the loss of life and undermining the U.S. Military. If he fires him, there is going to have to be a transition at one of the most critical junctures of the war. Mistakes made at this time can imperil all of the efforts, of soldiers that are with us and those that have given the ultimate sacrifice, in Afghanistan. Deciding to let McCrystal stay after exhibiting such gross insubordination, is no less then providing tacit approval of such boorish behavior and an invitation of Murphy’s law.

    A soldiers job is to act, not question and debate the orders that have been handed down. Anything else brings reluctance to doing the job, back-biting, undermining, and other unscrupulous behavior to the theater that will only result in chaos, death, and defeat. The rules were put in place for a reason. McCrystal’s actions have hurt Americas ability to protect our citizens and has jeopardized the integrity of the entire force, so with great regret I have to say that McCrystal’s behavior parallels that of a traitor.

  • Eminent Victorian

    I’m not sure why this is in Queerty, although I applaud you for finally getting through an entire posting without any typos!

  • ForeverGay

    He didn’t like this administration which is why he is resigning. The Rolling Stone interview was just a place for him to publicly state his views.

  • jeffree

    If McChrystal goes down, Gates will likely follow.
    Do click through to the RS article: it’s very long but really interesting to hear about our strategy in Afghanistan, and how the Pentagon actually works.

  • A.G.

    Can someone tell us what McChrystal’s stance is on DADT?

  • reason

    Not sure if McChrystal has a public stance on DADT most generals that are not close to the political realm like the JCS don’t.

    Secretary Gates is not going anywhere, and he certainly doesn’t hold those views of the President or his staff. In the secretaries interview he relied that Obama is questioning, committed, eager, and more analytical than Bush. Gates is up there with the best Secretaries of Defense that we have had.

    He offered his resignation because he made a grave mistake, that would be made worse if he didn’t. Not doing so would have come off as arrogant and force the president to loose face by asking for it or having to fire him. I am sure McCrystal would rather leave with his pension or continue to earn his six-figure salary. He voted for Obama, but has always had a cavalier attitude towards authority, class clown type behavior. If he wanted to resign he would not have done it in a way that tarnishes his image and runs afoul of military law. The general is unprofessional. I would be more sympathetic if it was something that was leaked from one of his people, all sorts of ugly things get said in the board room that may not even represent your views, more like boys being boys; McCrystal’s situation is different, he is just reckless knowing darn well there is a reporter in the midst that can never be trusted.

  • jeffree

    @Reason: I agree that Gates is good & that McChrystal got sideswiped by the reporter. Why I think Gates may go down is guilt by association. The Administration has tried to paint a pretty picture of whats going on in Afghanistan but the DOD is divided internally about the CounterInsurgency tactics, strategy & chance of it succeeding. We’re failing to win hearts & minds, unable to cross into Pakistan officially at least, & we are losing more & more troops in an unpopular war.

    I’ll take Gates over Rumsfeld any day, but I think all the same that more heads will be rolling.

  • reason

    Gates is one of the brain trust in Obama’s inner circle, and the President holds him in high esteem. Gates was even surprised at the beginning of the administration on how well Obama treated him and the access that he had, it was clear the president valued him and was not just using him for the appearance of bi-partisanship. It’s the major reason that Gates didn’t exit back to Texas A&M, where he has been dying to get back to. The president values opinions and wants to hear all sides of the story; something that was severely lacking in the Bush administration with Rummy and Cheney acting as filters restricting Bush’s access to information and options.

    Gates also was a CIA chief, the CIA is a fan of counter-terrorism in order to fight the war from the shadows similar to what is going on in Pakistan. Gates knows the ends and outs of both organizations making him impartial to his support of the counter-insurgency option over counter-terrorism.

    Gates also has tight bonds in the pentagon, and is one of the only people that has the credibility and power to reshape the budget and cut out waste. This is one of the presidents priorities; he is acutely aware that he can count on Gates to seek out all the relevant information and give unbiased opinion. Gates has done it before and will do it again. Gates and Obama have similar temperaments and value realism over idealism. Gates is more representative of the realism geared Bush I defense apparatus that Obama greatly admires. Gates is also a no nonsense guy that has berated individuals at the pentagon for loose lips. It is telling that Obama assailed Mullen during the first McCrystal flair up not the Secretary.

    Of course there is the problem with continuity, they are fresh of a switch and strategy and removal of General David McKiernan, now if McCrystal, a brain trust of counter-insurgency, goes and you remove Gates on top of that your going to have a leadership vacuum at the most critical time of the war. It would be extremely disruptive. Even to remove McCrystal now will be a tough decision, through out his tenure in the military McCrystal has threaded the needle just enough to to not get fired. He was almost kicked out of West Point for the same type of antics.

    Also do you find it disturbing that he was on the ground going on combat missions with the soldiers. If he was killed on one of those missions it would have been a rallying point for Al Qaeda, and a serious blow to the U.S. to suddenly loose such an pivotal leader. There better not be other generals engaging in such activities.

  • jeffree

    @Reason: That whole bit of McChrystal going on foot patrol struck me as a bad or even stoopid move. I want us to defeat the Taliban, but with the porous border with Pak. & the tribal loyalties, I don’t see how the CO-IN strategy has a chance. Iran is now exporting militants across the region, and poses a nuke threat. We don’t have the personnel to fight the entire region and our allies seem to be jumping ship,

    Gates is an incredible improvement over his predecessor, but as the toll of dead keeps climbing I dn’t know how long the US can stomach or afford such a war,

  • Lanjier

    Bye bitch! you did so well winning the war in Afghanistan, maybe they will let you manage the water-squirt at my local carnival.

  • whatever

    Gone! Good job for asserting civilian control of the military.

  • whatever

    Ugh, but replaced by Betray-,er, Petreaus. The qaugmire continues…

  • Jack E. Jett

    McChrystal Blue Persuasion.

  • B

    In No. 10 · jeffree wrote, “@Reason: I agree that Gates is good & that McChrystal got sideswiped by the reporter.”

    …. McChrystal may have been sandbagged, but a general should be astute enough to know that The Rolling Stone just might have lower standards than the New York Times.

Comments are closed.