MSNBC military analyst Jacobs: McChrystal "is the wrong guy for the job, shouldn't have been in there in the first place"
June 23, 2010 6:39 am ET
From the June 23 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe:
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
















BUT... He's NOT a "hearts and minds" kind of guy. When the VELVET GLOVE is what's called for, a brash, sometimes arrogant, tough-talking, swaggering @$$-kicker should not be the guy you pick.
But there's one part of that rolling stone article that Obama really needs to take to heart: If there was a Diplmatic equivent to the cohesive team that McChrystal surrounded himself with and built, if the DIPLOMATS had the kind of organization cohesion that McChrytsal created, we'd be doing a lot better in Afganistan and in Europe, with our allies. Obama would do well not to ignore that very valid point.
And in any case, he's obviously not the guy you send to dinner in Paris to woo foreign dignitaries. His role is military missions, and he;s damned good at those. His role is NOT diplomatic missions - which he obviously sucks at.
------------------------------------------------------
IMHO
Unfortunately, Tillman's death became an propaganda ploy, but this was still a political bluder, not a tactical one. And there were other General's involved (Abizaid, for example) who were involved with that. And McChrystal himself sent a memo the next day, warning of possible friednly fire being the cause of death. Which is why I'm not inclined to accuse McChrystal or being part of a "cover-up" RE Tillman: If there WAS a 'conspiracy' he'd be counted amongst the whistle-blowers, on the basis of that memo.
So his worst crime, as I see it (and I'll admit that I'm not intimately familir with the details, so I could be misinformed) was helping to award a medal that an otherwise honorable soldier didn't earn. And it's not like they gave the Medal of Honor to a War Criminal.
------------------------------------------------
That being said... I shoudl say that I do agree with the sentiment that the General should resign.
MSNBC military analyst?
That has a hollow ring to it.
As far as Gen. McChrystal goes, he's not going anywhere, he's not resigning and he's sure as heck not getting fired.
He didn't criticize the mission, he hasn't failed to carry it out or even dragged his feet in the matter, he gave an opinion to a magazine writer that he should have otherwise kept to himself, and so he'll be reprimanded for that...
But if he wants to get out of Afghanistan, if he wants to parachute out of his Command (right when it's getting really hot and starting to dawn on everybody how really senseless this mission is), if the General wants out, he's going to have to try a lot harder than this.
Sorry, Dem, but you're wrong. What McChrystal did is a court-martial offense. It is also damaging to the chain of command in the military. McChrystal is a flag officer. He KNOWS better. He has just shown his subordinates that he thinks that he is above the law. He has lost the respect of his troops.
The biggest difference is that General MacArthur was a lot more popular at the time than General McChrystal and President Truman a lot less popular than President Obama is.
--------------------------------------------------------
IMHO
You cite the law, without citing the offense... what good does that do?
Cite the offense, or offensive act or words, and then say "that's a Court Martial offense!"
It would look ridiculous if you wrote it out completely like that, it's pointless to state only the measure of the law, without stating also the offense to be measured.
You're saying that Gen. McChrystal should be fired and/or Court Martialed, you're even saying he should go to prison I think, but I asked you to say specifically for what, and you haven't.
It must be too much to actually say specifically what a person did, to be fired and Court Martialed and sent to prison, to say it all in one and the same sentence, "he said this, and should be sent to prison or otherwise Court Martialed for it!"
I'm pretty sure I know why you aren't putting it all into one complete thought, and that's because it would look ridiculous, and maybe make you look hysterical, which is what all these bloggers and pundits are looking like, who are calling for the General to be fired or Court Martialed (or be sentenced to prison?!), it's ridiculous, it's hysteria and it's hysterical.
Care to back that up. From what I see He actually gained more respect since we are tired of all these BS rules of engagement and only getting half the troops we requested.
This is the maximum punishment for a commissioned officer who violates Article 88. Yes, he did do something more than "give an opinion to a magazine writer." He broke military law.