About us Login Get email updates
Quick Clip
Print

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.

EMBED
Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by NiceguyEddie (June 23, 2010 7:34 am ET)
      3 1
      I'm going to go out on a limb hear and defend McChrystal a little bit. The way I see it, he's the Right man for the job, when a HAMMNER is what's called for. When you've got a battel to win, in a tough situation, and everythign has to be perfect to win the BATTLE, he's your man. He's kind of reminds me of the late baseball manager Billy Martin: If you need someone to kick-@$# until things are working, he's your man.

      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
      Report Abuse
      • Author by thaneb (June 23, 2010 8:10 am ET)
        4 1
        However, this is two strikes on the judgment front, the other being his role in the approval of Pat Tillman's Silver Star with knowlege of, and without timely reporting to superiors, Tillman's fratricide. Is it reasonable to assume that such judgment is compartmentalized from the judgment of war-fighting?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by NiceguyEddie (June 23, 2010 8:38 am ET)
          3 1
          Well, yes, I think it IS.

          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.



          Report Abuse
          • Author by thaneb (June 23, 2010 10:39 am ET)
               
            As to implementation of tactics, now it seems the Marjah offensive is an evolving into dissaray dispite earlier successes on the "clear" front. The entireity of the strategy is "shape, clear, hold, build." Granted, the theater is encumbered by shortcomings dating from 2004, but the latest back-sliding in Marjah is wholly under McCrystal's watch.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by GBU-15 (June 23, 2010 8:10 am ET)
      2 1
      As a soldier his job is to follow orders even if he thinks they are stupid. In addition he should known that an officer of his rank should keep personal opinions to himself. His staff should have known better too. They were talking to the PRESS. He should resign immediately!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by blk-in-alabam (June 23, 2010 8:23 am ET)
      2 1
      Finnally somebody said it.General McCrystal was put in charge of a counter-insurgency in Afghanistan.A counter-insurgency means the General's job is to pass out money.General McCrystal is about cowboy immage like the Tillman thing.This may be understod,and accepted coming from a soldier who came up through the ranks.The general's behavior,and attitude is not acepted,nor expected from a Westpoint trained officer.The Chinese have been beating the USA for over 3 years at counter-insurgency,in Afghanistan.The Chinese are spending $billions building the largets copper mine on Earth in Afghanistan.And if McChrystal keeps palying cowboy.The Chinese wil get control of Afghanistan's large reserves of lithium,and rare earth minerals needed to make computers,and stuff.Materials the Chinese currently have a strangle hold on.Afghanistan is also an ideal place to pipe line Russian,and Middle East oil for sea shipments.This is Russia's interest.This will let Middle East oil bypass the Suez Canal.This takes Israel hands off of one of the worlds oil valves.Closing the Suez Canal cannot be used as a threat to world oil supplies.Afghanistan is not a place for a cowbow,too many $billions are at stake.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Dem02020 (June 23, 2010 8:24 am ET)
      2 2

      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.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by bintx (June 23, 2010 9:32 am ET)
        4 1
        Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
        Article 88, Uniform Code of Military Justice.

        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.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by NiceguyEddie (June 23, 2010 9:40 am ET)
          1 1
          On a personal level, I think the comparison to General Douglas MacArthur is particularly apt. As I see it, both men had the exact same strengths, and the exact same weaknesses and liabilites.

          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
          Report Abuse
        • Author by Dem02020 (June 23, 2010 9:40 am ET)
          1 2

          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.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by bintx (June 23, 2010 10:07 am ET)
               
            Read the article.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Dem02020 (June 23, 2010 10:19 am ET)
                 

              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.

              Report Abuse
          • Author by bintx (June 23, 2010 10:12 am ET)
               
            Oh, and I'm not the one who would be drafting the indictment, now would I be? Neither would you. I quoted the law which McChrystal's comments violated . . . I posted the punishment for that particular violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. McChrystal KNOWS he effed up, that's why he immediately issued the apology BEFORE the article came out and that's why he has offered to resign and why the responsible aide has already resigned. Resignation is preferable to a court martial, don't you think?



            Report Abuse
        • Author by highliter (June 23, 2010 10:56 am ET)
            1
          He has lost the respect of his troops.


          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.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by cuardai (June 23, 2010 12:53 pm ET)
               
            During Bush's time there were 30,000 troops, now there are around 100,000 I'd say he got troops. Now it is time to leave, when even your "Democratically elected government" in Afghanistan is dealing with Taliban behind your back, back stabbing you by giving contracts to Japan and god knows what else we don't know about...
            Report Abuse
            • Author by highliter (June 23, 2010 2:06 pm ET)
                1
              McChrystal asked for 60,000 troops for his afghan troop surge he only got 30,000. That’s half of what he said he needed for his plan. Get a clue before you post!
              Report Abuse
      • Author by bintx (June 23, 2010 9:39 am ET)
        2 1
        Maximum punishment.

        Dismissal, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 1 year.


        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.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by fairliberal (June 25, 2010 12:27 pm ET)
             
          You keep saying that but refuse to post his specific comments that were unlawful. Not surprising. Perhaps because the comments you view as unlawful came from aides and not him. But I'll wait for you to enlighten us all.
          Report Abuse