wrote:
On Jun 24, 1:42 pm, Ignoramus11945 ignoramus11...@NOSPAM.
11945.invalid wrote:

I think that McCrystal behavior amounts to insubordination, which
cannot go unpunished.


Things change a little bit if instead of operating a sliderule, that
subordinate is commanding an army.

i

Insubordination in my dictionary is not obeying a direct order.
McCrystal on the other hand was doing what Obama wanted. His biggest
offense seems to be saying that Obama looked intimidated and not
telling his staff to cut out the remarks about the administration.

The incompetent are intimidated by those they recognize as competent.

"RBnDFW" wrote in message
...
Don Foreman wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 07:10:47 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 22:47:28 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote the following:

On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 18:27:32 -0400, Wes
wrote:

rangerssuck wrote:

How is it possible that there hasn't been a single mention of this in
this group of opinion spewers? Do you armchair generals, lawyers and
politicians really have nothing to say?

Just wondering.
I've been trying to behave.

The military is under civilian control. McCrystal, who I have no
doubt is an excellent
warfighter and leader, crossed a line you do not cross unless you are
willing to give up
your job. Looks like he was willing and from what I can tell the Army
and his men was his
life. IOW, he fell on his sword.

I'd like to read Don's take on this. This is the (former) enlisted
view.

Wes
Public display of disrespect for leadership is not acceptable for any
military personnel.
While this is true, it was staff, not the General, who gave the
reporters the -vast- majority of the controversial statements.

A C.O. is always ultimately responsible and accountable for the
actions and performance of his unit and staff. If they transgress,
it's up to him to take appropriate corrective measures.

Extension of that logic would require that Obama resign.

Nope. It would require that he fire McChrystal.

McChrystal was in immediate contact and command of his staff. Obama was half
a world away from McChrystal. And the general contributed to the disparaging
remarks himself. Obama did not.

(I haven't read the article)
By most accounts McCrystal was effective at his job. And the Afghan
government officially requested he stay at his post.

Whatever the Afghan government wants is sure to be something that serves the
financial interests of Karzai and Company, not something that serves the
interests of the United States.

I think a Come to Jesus talk in private would have resolved the issue, and
we'd still have a proven leader in an area where we need all we can get.

What we need is to get the hell out. Petraeus is more likely to pull off the
political and PR sleights of hand that will make that possible. Good
morning, Vietnam...

--
Ed Huntress

On Jun 24, 9:49*am, Joseph Gwinn wrote:

I also find it hard to believe that this was an accident. *One does not rise to
such a position being unpolitical and naive. *He had to know that telling
Rolling Stone such things would cause a firestorm, and that there would be big
consequences. *


Joe Gwinn

People make mistakes all the time. I think this is similar to Obama
involking a moratorium on deep water drilling. He thought everyone
would think it was the thing to do. Then he found out that about
300,000 people would be affected and said BP ought to be responsible
for everyone out of work. Fortunately a Federal Judge ruled that
Obama did not have sufficient cause to shut down deep water drilling.

Dan

wrote in message
...
On Jun 24, 11:35 am, Ignoramus11945

I do not think that Obama had any choice, he had to fire him.

i

Why do you say he had no choice? Do you think that firing McCrystal
will change what anyone thinks of Obama and his administration?

I once had an engineer in my group that was a competent engineer. But
he could not tolerate management. We got along pretty well before he
was transferred into my group. But he could not get along with the
supervisor of the group he was in. So he was transferred into my
group, and as soon as he was in my group, things changed.

If he was talking to some people and saw I came into the room, he
would raise his voice and start making derogatory remarks about me.
Sure I could have complained just as his former supervisor did, but
he was a competent engineer.
And it was so obvious that he did not get along with anyone who was
his supervisor, that his remarks did not bother me. To me competence
is more important than being civil.

Dan

I take it he was not a civil engineer.

Here's an angle for you.
If I had know he had voted for Obama, I'd question his judgment too!
Note that he only apologized for the article, not the remarks.

Suicide by Interview

by Jeff Dunetz



I extend my sincerest apology for this profile. It was a mistake
reflecting poor judgment and should never have happened. Throughout my
career, I have lived by the principles of personal honor and
professional integrity. What is reflected in this article falls far
short of that standard. I have enormous respect and admiration for
President Obama and his national security team, and for the civilian
leaders and troops fighting this war and I remain committed to ensuring
its successful outcome.”
-General Stanley McChrystal, 6/22/2010

The interview of General McChrystal and his in Rolling Stone was not an
accident, it’s a perfect example of suicide by interview. The General
knew that every criticism would be “on the record.” He also knew that
the President will have no choice but to relieve the General of his
command after their meeting tomorrow. The Military Code of Justice
provides that a General does not criticize the Commander-in-Chief
publicly however, the General criticized Obama in a major way and even
picked the perfect vehicle to do it in the most visible of ways.

McChrystal’s statements clearly point to the fact that he believes the
war cannot be won under the President’s parameters, a tepid escalation
to protect the president from his political supports. McChrystal is
clearly frustrated by Barack Obama and his administration and finds it
necessary to protect his men. He finds himself having to take radical
steps to protect his troops in the face of an administration trying to
fight a war on a half-assed basis.

According to Fox, Some of the highlights of the up-coming article include:

* Although McChrystal voted for Obama, the two failed to connect
from the start. Obama called McChrystal on the carpet last fall for
speaking too bluntly about his desire for more troops. The President did
not want to hear his advice. “I found that time painful,” McChrystal
said in the article, on newsstands Friday. “I was selling an unsellable
position.”

* It quoted an adviser to McChrystal dismissing the early meeting
with Obama as a “10-minute photo op.Obama clearly didn’t know anything
about him, who he was. The boss was pretty disappointed,” the adviser
told the magazine.

* The military is clearly unhappy about Obama’s arbitrary deadline
of July of next year. The White House’s troop commitment was toed a
pledge to begin bringing them home in July 2011. Counterinsurgency
strategists advising McChrystal regarded as an arbitrary deadline.

* The article list of administration figures said to back
McChrystal, including Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham
Clinton, and puts the SCHMOTUS (Schmo of the United States), Vice
President Joe Biden at the top of a list of those who don’t. The article
says McChrystal has seized control of the war “by never taking his eye
off the real enemy: The wimps in the White House.”

* Asked by the Rolling Stone reporter about what he now feels of
the war strategy advocated by the SHMOTUS last fall (fewer troops, more
drone attacks), McChrystal and his aides attempted to come up with a
good one-liner to dismiss the question. “Are you asking about Vice
President Biden?” McChrystal joked. “Who’s that?” “Biden?” one aide was
quoted as saying. “Did you say: Bite me?”

* Another aide called White House National Security Adviser Jim
Jones, a retired four star general, a “clown” who was “stuck in 1985.

* Some of the strongest criticism, however, was reserved for
Richard Holbrooke, Obama’s special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan.
“The boss says he’s like a wounded animal,” one of the general’s aides
was quoted as saying. “Holbrooke keeps hearing rumors that he’s going to
get fired, so that makes him dangerous.”

* If Eikenberry had doubts about the troop buildup, McChrystal said
he never expressed them until a leaked internal document threw a wild
card into the debate over whether to add more troops last November. In
the document, Eikenberry said Afghan President Hamid Karzai was not a
reliable partner for the counterinsurgency strategy McChrystal was hired
to execute. McChrystal said he felt “betrayed” and accused the
ambassador of giving himself cover. Here’s one that covers his flank for
the history books,” McChrystal told the magazine. “Now, if we fail, they
can say ‘I told you so.”‘

McChrystal is a Four-Star General, a position you do not achieve by
being an idiot. Today’s military leadership is well schooled not only in
war-making but in diplomacy. He knew what the content of the article
would be. He also knew that the article would lead his own dismissal (or
the proverbial resignation letter where he says he’s quitting to spend
more time with his family).

The Rolling Stone interview highlights the difference in the leadership
styles of the President and the General. When this President faces a
crisis, he looks for someone either internally or externally to blame.
On the other hand, the General sees the War in Afghanistan reaching a
crisis point because of the way it is being waged, rather than looking
to find a scapegoat in his ranks as Obama would do, McChrystal found a
way to let the country know what is really happening, while at the same
time redirect any criticism for the war effort, away from his men and on
to his own wide shoulders.

Notice that even in his apology above,the General does not take back the
comments, he simply apologizes for making the comments. The Military
commander was sending his troops and the administration a message. To
the troops he was saying ” I have your backs even to the point of
hurting my own career.” The message for the administration was, “Your
way isn’t working, let us do what is necessary to win this war. Even
though this was a violation of the Code of Honor, the General’s
statements were a service to America and to his men by confirming what
we all suspected, the President and his administration does not have a clue.

On Jun 24, 4:49*pm, "ATP" wrote:
wrote in message


I take it he was not a civil engineer.

Very good!!!!

Dan

" wrote:

On Jun 24, 4:49 pm, "ATP" wrote:
wrote in message


I take it he was not a civil engineer.

Very good!!!!


Haven't you heard? There are no civil engineers!


--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 20:40:32 -0400, the renowned "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


" wrote:

On Jun 24, 4:49 pm, "ATP" wrote:
wrote in message


I take it he was not a civil engineer.

Very good!!!!


Haven't you heard? There are no civil engineers!

Now you're sounding like my wife.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 10:40:41 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote the following:

On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 07:10:47 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 22:47:28 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote the following:

On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 18:27:32 -0400, Wes
wrote:

rangerssuck wrote:

How is it possible that there hasn't been a single mention of this in
this group of opinion spewers? Do you armchair generals, lawyers and
politicians really have nothing to say?

Just wondering.

I've been trying to behave.

The military is under civilian control. McCrystal, who I have no doubt is an excellent
warfighter and leader, crossed a line you do not cross unless you are willing to give up
your job. Looks like he was willing and from what I can tell the Army and his men was his
life. IOW, he fell on his sword.

I'd like to read Don's take on this. This is the (former) enlisted view.

Wes

Public display of disrespect for leadership is not acceptable for any
military personnel.

While this is true, it was staff, not the General, who gave the
reporters the -vast- majority of the controversial statements.

A C.O. is always ultimately responsible and accountable for the
actions and performance of his unit and staff. If they transgress,
it's up to him to take appropriate corrective measures.

Yes, you're right. But the way it happened, it sure seems likely to
me that he pulled this on purpose, to get away from the current
regime, and I don't mean the one in Afghanistan.

--
Peace of mind is that mental condition in which you have accepted the worst.
-- Lin Yutang

On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 10:35:25 -0500, Ignoramus11945
wrote the following:

On 2010-06-24, wrote:

I agree the military is not a democracy. And officers must behave
with respect toward their superiors.

But I still think that Obama will regret firing McCrystal. Civilians
will look at it as Obama not being able to withstand criticism. And
Obama still needs to work with people that do not agree or respect
him. Midterm elections are coming. He may be forced to deal with a
Republican Congress. Most of the people that Obama deals with are not
military.

I think Obama had alternatives. Obama could have reprimanded
McCrystal for not maintaining discipline among his staff. I did not
read the RS article, but I do not think McCrystal was quoted.

I do not think that Obama had any choice, he had to fire him.

Penn & Teller program.

--
Peace of mind is that mental condition in which you have accepted the worst.
-- Lin Yutang

On Jun 23, 11:18*pm, Don Foreman
wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 17:11:11 -0700 (PDT), "





wrote:
On Jun 23, 6:51*pm, steamer wrote:
* * * * --My two cents: how could a guy with that much military background
manage to shoot himself in the foot? ;-)

--
* * * * "Steamboat Ed" Haas * * * * : *Didja see my stuff *
* * * * Hacking the Trailing Edge! *: *at 2010 Maker Faire??
* * * * * * * * * * * * *www.nmpproducts.com
* * * * * * * * * *---Decks a-wash in a sea of words---

I think that firing McCrystal is something that Obama will regret. *If
the war in Afghanistan turns out well, then no one will think much
about McCrystal being fired. But the more likely outcome is the war in
Afghanistan will turn out badly, and people will remember that Obama
fired McCrystal for saying what half the country thinks. And that most
people thought that McCrystal was the best person for leading the
troops in Afghanistan. *People will remember McCrystal was fired not
for failing to perform, but because he did not hide his opinions of
the administration. *Obama needs to learn how to work with people that
do not respect him.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dan

The general was out of line. *The C in C had no alternative but to
fire him or get his resignation, just as Truman had to fire MacArthur
for disobedience.

The military is not a democracy. *Military people must behave
respectfully toward their superiors *even if they privately and
personally regard them with contempt and disdain. *This is especially
necessary for high-ranking officers with high visibility because they
have influence over so many subordinates. *

So why did he do it? We can speculate, but I prefer not to. *- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes he was out of line, but he could have continued to follow orders
and be in charge of an army being slowly bled to death. I think that
if he could have respectfully resigned, he would have, but I don’t
think that that’s allowed in the military. He got out of a situation
that politicians put him using his own political means.

On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 10:30:20 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Jun 24, 11:35*am, Ignoramus11945

I do not think that Obama had any choice, he had to fire him.

i

Why do you say he had no choice? Do you think that firing McCrystal
will change what anyone thinks of Obama and his administration?

I once had an engineer in my group that was a competent engineer. But
he could not tolerate management. We got along pretty well before he
was transferred into my group. But he could not get along with the
supervisor of the group he was in. So he was transferred into my
group, and as soon as he was in my group, things changed.

If he was talking to some people and saw I came into the room, he
would raise his voice and start making derogatory remarks about me.
Sure I could have complained just as his former supervisor did, but
he was a competent engineer.
And it was so obvious that he did not get along with anyone who was
his supervisor, that his remarks did not bother me. To me competence
is more important than being civil.

Dan

In the military, what matters to you is irrelevant. If an officer
behaved as you did, he would be regarded as incompetent and dealt with
accordingly.

On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 13:51:08 -0500, RBnDFW
wrote:

Don Foreman wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 07:10:47 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 22:47:28 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote the following:

On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 18:27:32 -0400, Wes
wrote:

rangerssuck wrote:

How is it possible that there hasn't been a single mention of this in
this group of opinion spewers? Do you armchair generals, lawyers and
politicians really have nothing to say?

Just wondering.
I've been trying to behave.

The military is under civilian control. McCrystal, who I have no doubt is an excellent
warfighter and leader, crossed a line you do not cross unless you are willing to give up
your job. Looks like he was willing and from what I can tell the Army and his men was his
life. IOW, he fell on his sword.

I'd like to read Don's take on this. This is the (former) enlisted view.

Wes
Public display of disrespect for leadership is not acceptable for any
military personnel.
While this is true, it was staff, not the General, who gave the
reporters the -vast- majority of the controversial statements.

A C.O. is always ultimately responsible and accountable for the
actions and performance of his unit and staff. If they transgress,
it's up to him to take appropriate corrective measures.

Extension of that logic would require that Obama resign.
(I haven't read the article)
By most accounts McCrystal was effective at his job. And the Afghan
government officially requested he stay at his post.
I think a Come to Jesus talk in private would have resolved the issue,
and we'd still have a proven leader in an area where we need all we can get.
==========
Like some many of this type of situation there are two
problems.

A "come to Jesus" meeting would most likely have solved the
first problem, which is an excessive supply of opinions and
gas from a group that should have known better, i.e. the
General and his staff.

The larger problem is the precident/example this sets for
the Officer Corp qua civilian control of the military.
General McCrystal would/could not tolerate one of his
subordinate and/or their staff making similar observations
about him or his staff, as this would be fatal to good order
and military discipline [and most likely a lot of "grunts"
in the field].
--

-- Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 11:10:54 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Jun 24, 1:42*pm, Ignoramus11945 ignoramus11...@NOSPAM.
11945.invalid wrote:

I think that McCrystal behavior amounts to insubordination, which
cannot go unpunished.


Things change a little bit if instead of operating a sliderule, that
subordinate is commanding an army.

i

Insubordination in my dictionary is not obeying a direct order.
McCrystal on the other hand was doing what Obama wanted. His biggest
offense seems to be saying that Obama looked intimidated and not
telling his staff to cut out the remarks about the administration.

Dan

Your dictionary is not the standard here. The standard is how
insubordination and conduct unbecoming of a commissioned officer are
defined in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and various
regulations.

I don't mean to be critical of your opinions, Dan, just point out that
the military has clear and definite expectations of conduct.

On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 10:18:16 -0500, RBnDFW
wrote:

Don Foreman wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 17:11:11 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Jun 23, 6:51 pm, steamer wrote:
--My two cents: how could a guy with that much military background
manage to shoot himself in the foot? ;-)

--
"Steamboat Ed" Haas : Didja see my stuff
Hacking the Trailing Edge! : at 2010 Maker Faire??
www.nmpproducts.com
---Decks a-wash in a sea of words---
I think that firing McCrystal is something that Obama will regret. If
the war in Afghanistan turns out well, then no one will think much
about McCrystal being fired. But the more likely outcome is the war in
Afghanistan will turn out badly, and people will remember that Obama
fired McCrystal for saying what half the country thinks. And that most
people thought that McCrystal was the best person for leading the
troops in Afghanistan. People will remember McCrystal was fired not
for failing to perform, but because he did not hide his opinions of
the administration. Obama needs to learn how to work with people that
do not respect him.

Dan

The general was out of line. The C in C had no alternative but to
fire him or get his resignation, just as Truman had to fire MacArthur
for disobedience.

Truman put up with far more from MacArthur before he had had enough.

Truman was considerably less arrogant than Obama.

On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 18:49:57 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 10:40:41 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote the following:

On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 07:10:47 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 22:47:28 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote the following:

On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 18:27:32 -0400, Wes
wrote:

rangerssuck wrote:

How is it possible that there hasn't been a single mention of this in
this group of opinion spewers? Do you armchair generals, lawyers and
politicians really have nothing to say?

Just wondering.

I've been trying to behave.

The military is under civilian control. McCrystal, who I have no doubt is an excellent
warfighter and leader, crossed a line you do not cross unless you are willing to give up
your job. Looks like he was willing and from what I can tell the Army and his men was his
life. IOW, he fell on his sword.

I'd like to read Don's take on this. This is the (former) enlisted view.

Wes

Public display of disrespect for leadership is not acceptable for any
military personnel.

While this is true, it was staff, not the General, who gave the
reporters the -vast- majority of the controversial statements.

A C.O. is always ultimately responsible and accountable for the
actions and performance of his unit and staff. If they transgress,
it's up to him to take appropriate corrective measures.

Yes, you're right. But the way it happened, it sure seems likely to
me that he pulled this on purpose, to get away from the current
regime, and I don't mean the one in Afghanistan.

We can only speculate on his motivations, but I'm inclined to doubt
that his intent was merely to "get away". He could have done that by
quietly resigning or retiring.

On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 07:08:26 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

On 6/24/2010 1:33 AM, Don Foreman wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 22:47:28 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:



I'd like to read Don's take on this. This is the (former) enlisted view.

Wes

Public display of disrespect for leadership is not acceptable for any
military personnel.

I should have said "chain of command", because genuine leadership is
nearly always genuinely respected by military people.

Apparently the Point is different from the Canoe Club. At Canoe U we
had to memorize and recite on demand a little ditty: "Take heed what
you say of your seniors, be your words spoken softly or plain, lest a
bird of the air tell the matter, and so shall ye hear it again."

The Point is quite different from the Canoe Club.

On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 00:39:38 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote the following:

On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 18:49:57 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 10:40:41 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote the following:

On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 07:10:47 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 22:47:28 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote the following:

On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 18:27:32 -0400, Wes
wrote:

rangerssuck wrote:

How is it possible that there hasn't been a single mention of this in
this group of opinion spewers? Do you armchair generals, lawyers and
politicians really have nothing to say?

Just wondering.

I've been trying to behave.

The military is under civilian control. McCrystal, who I have no doubt is an excellent
warfighter and leader, crossed a line you do not cross unless you are willing to give up
your job. Looks like he was willing and from what I can tell the Army and his men was his
life. IOW, he fell on his sword.

I'd like to read Don's take on this. This is the (former) enlisted view.

Wes

Public display of disrespect for leadership is not acceptable for any
military personnel.

While this is true, it was staff, not the General, who gave the
reporters the -vast- majority of the controversial statements.

A C.O. is always ultimately responsible and accountable for the
actions and performance of his unit and staff. If they transgress,
it's up to him to take appropriate corrective measures.

Yes, you're right. But the way it happened, it sure seems likely to
me that he pulled this on purpose, to get away from the current
regime, and I don't mean the one in Afghanistan.

We can only speculate on his motivations, but I'm inclined to doubt
that his intent was merely to "get away". He could have done that by
quietly resigning or retiring.

Yabbut, his staff (or others) might have advised him to shoot himself
in the foot publicly so Ali Bama might not have any other choice. Or
he might have tried and The Chosen One declined his resignation. We
probably won't know for sure until the book comes out.

I think we can all agree that it was embarrassing to the current
resident of the White House if only for being the truthful opinions of
his minions.

--
Pain makes man think. Thought makes man wise. Wisdom makes life endurable.
-- John Patrick

Don Foreman wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 10:18:16 -0500, RBnDFW
wrote:

Don Foreman wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 17:11:11 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Jun 23, 6:51 pm, steamer wrote:
--My two cents: how could a guy with that much military background
manage to shoot himself in the foot? ;-)

--
"Steamboat Ed" Haas : Didja see my stuff
Hacking the Trailing Edge! : at 2010 Maker Faire??
www.nmpproducts.com
---Decks a-wash in a sea of words---
I think that firing McCrystal is something that Obama will regret. If
the war in Afghanistan turns out well, then no one will think much
about McCrystal being fired. But the more likely outcome is the war in
Afghanistan will turn out badly, and people will remember that Obama
fired McCrystal for saying what half the country thinks. And that most
people thought that McCrystal was the best person for leading the
troops in Afghanistan. People will remember McCrystal was fired not
for failing to perform, but because he did not hide his opinions of
the administration. Obama needs to learn how to work with people that
do not respect him.

Dan
The general was out of line. The C in C had no alternative but to
fire him or get his resignation, just as Truman had to fire MacArthur
for disobedience.
Truman put up with far more from MacArthur before he had had enough.

Truman was considerably less arrogant than Obama.

I think that is the crux of the matter.
A strong, confident CIC would be able to ignore such things as long as
results in the field were positive. Truman was not intimidated by
generals, whereas BHO appears to be.

Spehro Pefhany wrote:

On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 20:40:32 -0400, the renowned "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


" wrote:

On Jun 24, 4:49 pm, "ATP" wrote:
wrote in message


I take it he was not a civil engineer.

Very good!!!!


Haven't you heard? There are no civil engineers!

Now you're sounding like my wife.


She should know! ;-)


--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 10:18:16 -0500, RBnDFW wrote:

Don Foreman wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 17:11:11 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Jun 23, 6:51 pm, steamer wrote:
--My two cents: how could a guy with that much military background
manage to shoot himself in the foot? ;-)

--
"Steamboat Ed" Haas : Didja see my stuff
Hacking the Trailing Edge! : at 2010 Maker Faire??
www.nmpproducts.com
---Decks a-wash in a sea of words---
I think that firing McCrystal is something that Obama will regret. If
the war in Afghanistan turns out well, then no one will think much
about McCrystal being fired. But the more likely outcome is the war in
Afghanistan will turn out badly, and people will remember that Obama
fired McCrystal for saying what half the country thinks. And that most
people thought that McCrystal was the best person for leading the
troops in Afghanistan. People will remember McCrystal was fired not
for failing to perform, but because he did not hide his opinions of
the administration. Obama needs to learn how to work with people that
do not respect him.

Dan

The general was out of line. The C in C had no alternative but to
fire him or get his resignation, just as Truman had to fire MacArthur
for disobedience.

Truman put up with far more from MacArthur before he had had enough.


Indeed he did. 3 presidents did, before they put Mac out to pasture.

Gunner

One could not be a successful Leftwinger without realizing that,
in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers
and mothers of Leftwingers, a goodly number of Leftwingers are
not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid.
Gunner Asch

On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 19:46:23 -0500, "Bar Fly" wrote:



"steamer" wrote in message
...
--My two cents: how could a guy with that much military background
manage to shoot himself in the foot? ;-)

Hand picked by Obama, you expected some kind of hopey thing? What did the
libtards call his replacement, oh yeah, General Betray us. Another hand
picked selection by the Kenyan prince.


And that..is going to come back and haunt the Demonrats big time.

Gunner

One could not be a successful Leftwinger without realizing that,
in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers
and mothers of Leftwingers, a goodly number of Leftwingers are
not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid.
Gunner Asch

On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 22:53:20 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 10:30:20 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Jun 24, 11:35*am, Ignoramus11945

I do not think that Obama had any choice, he had to fire him.

i

Why do you say he had no choice? Do you think that firing McCrystal
will change what anyone thinks of Obama and his administration?

I once had an engineer in my group that was a competent engineer. But
he could not tolerate management. We got along pretty well before he
was transferred into my group. But he could not get along with the
supervisor of the group he was in. So he was transferred into my
group, and as soon as he was in my group, things changed.

If he was talking to some people and saw I came into the room, he
would raise his voice and start making derogatory remarks about me.
Sure I could have complained just as his former supervisor did, but
he was a competent engineer.
And it was so obvious that he did not get along with anyone who was
his supervisor, that his remarks did not bother me. To me competence
is more important than being civil.

Dan

In the military, what matters to you is irrelevant. If an officer
behaved as you did, he would be regarded as incompetent and dealt with
accordingly.

In retrospect, my response seems a bit brusque and dismissive. I
didn't intend that, Dan.

Some things aren't quite the same in the military as they are in a
business or corporate setting.

A good military commander seeks input from his experienced and
capable staff and makes good use of it, but a subordinate who makes
public derogatory remarks cannot be tolerated. Individual
competence cannot exuse any behavior that undermines team integrity
and performance in endeavours where second place is a body bag. Strong
disagreement from staff, including asshole-snapping heated argument,
is completely acceptable. The reason a commander has staff is to
competently advise him. Staff must understand that they are
subordinates and must vigorously implement the final decision of
the C.O. I was both staff (combat engr bn S-3 operations officer)
and C.O. (platoon leader and company commander) so I have first hand
experience in both roles.

Staff and subordinate units and men aren't always privy to all intel
that might affect a tactical or strategic decision. Matter of fact,
the commander often isn't either, and intel is never perfect or
complete and sometimes flat-ass eau-chitte wrong. Each level of
command must make the best decisions they can under the
circumstances, with no doubt at all that they will be implemented
aggressively, skillfully, with no reservations or second-guessing by
subordinates. Tactical decisions must sometimes be made
extemporaneously under rather chaotic conditions that preclude having
meetings with powerpoint presentations inviting dissenting viewpoints
for democratic resolution.

Leadership requires that the leader earn and deserve the trust of
his subordinates. It is initially assumed that an officer deserves
trust, but over time as a unit is forged into a functional combat team
the defacto trust must be replaced by earned trust. Part of
earning that trust is demonstrating clearly that he will not tolerate
any behavior from any subordinate that might compromise the integrity
or performance of the team, unit or command, and that he can and wil
make that stick.

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 22:53:20 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

Leadership requires that the leader earn and deserve the trust of
his subordinates. It is initially assumed that an officer deserves
trust, but over time as a unit is forged into a functional combat team
the defacto trust must be replaced by earned trust. Part of
earning that trust is demonstrating clearly that he will not tolerate
any behavior from any subordinate that might compromise the integrity
or performance of the team, unit or command, and that he can and wil
make that stick.


Don - you are wasting your time - the Obama haters will carp and whine no
matter what he does, even when it is the only choice, or a good choice.
Trying to explain why this particular action was required will be like
teaching a pig to sing - it won't work, and it will annoy the pig. This
country is descending into a pit of pure hatred where right thinking people
will be universally reviled because they don't wear the right suspenders, or
claim the right party allegiance.

On Jun 27, 2:26*am, Don Foreman wrote:



In retrospect, my response seems a bit brusque and dismissive. *I
didn't intend that, Dan. *

Some things aren't quite the same in the military as they are in a
business or corporate setting. *


I did not take it as dismissive or brusque. Just the viewpoint of
someone who was an officer. I was a enlisted man in the Navy on
Destroyers. Probably a big difference between Army and Navy, and
another big difference between large ships and destroyers.

I still think the general public will see it as a decision based on
appearance rather than substance.

Dan

"Bill Noble" wrote:



"Don Foreman" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 22:53:20 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

Leadership requires that the leader earn and deserve the trust of
his subordinates. It is initially assumed that an officer deserves
trust, but over time as a unit is forged into a functional combat team
the defacto trust must be replaced by earned trust. Part of
earning that trust is demonstrating clearly that he will not tolerate
any behavior from any subordinate that might compromise the integrity
or performance of the team, unit or command, and that he can and wil
make that stick.


Don - you are wasting your time - the Obama haters will carp and whine no
matter what he does, even when it is the only choice, or a good choice.
Trying to explain why this particular action was required will be like
teaching a pig to sing - it won't work, and it will annoy the pig. This
country is descending into a pit of pure hatred where right thinking people
will be universally reviled because they don't wear the right suspenders, or
claim the right party allegiance.


Bill,

I don't care for Obama but I support the retiring of McChrystal. The guy was let down by
his staff that he was responsible for. There may be issues that this was off the record
background stuff that was used improperly but the bottom line is in the military, you do
not disrespect the President and Vice President.


Wes
--

One Big Assed Mistake America.

On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 23:42:32 -0700, "Bill Noble"
wrote:



"Don Foreman" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 22:53:20 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

Leadership requires that the leader earn and deserve the trust of
his subordinates. It is initially assumed that an officer deserves
trust, but over time as a unit is forged into a functional combat team
the defacto trust must be replaced by earned trust. Part of
earning that trust is demonstrating clearly that he will not tolerate
any behavior from any subordinate that might compromise the integrity
or performance of the team, unit or command, and that he can and wil
make that stick.


Don - you are wasting your time - the Obama haters will carp and whine no
matter what he does, even when it is the only choice, or a good choice.

And you are wasting yours. Foreman is the only guy who's admitted to
being on the list of "great cull" seditionists. He won't say how being
on that list is honorable behavior. Whatever his point is here, it has
nothing to do with respect for Obama in particular, whom he refers to
as "arrogant", and will vote against even if the GOP puts up a
Palin/Beck ticket or worse.

Wayne

On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 01:26:07 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 22:53:20 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 10:30:20 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Jun 24, 11:35*am, Ignoramus11945

I do not think that Obama had any choice, he had to fire him.

i

Why do you say he had no choice? Do you think that firing McCrystal
will change what anyone thinks of Obama and his administration?

I once had an engineer in my group that was a competent engineer. But
he could not tolerate management. We got along pretty well before he
was transferred into my group. But he could not get along with the
supervisor of the group he was in. So he was transferred into my
group, and as soon as he was in my group, things changed.

If he was talking to some people and saw I came into the room, he
would raise his voice and start making derogatory remarks about me.
Sure I could have complained just as his former supervisor did, but
he was a competent engineer.
And it was so obvious that he did not get along with anyone who was
his supervisor, that his remarks did not bother me. To me competence
is more important than being civil.

Dan

In the military, what matters to you is irrelevant. If an officer
behaved as you did, he would be regarded as incompetent and dealt with
accordingly.

In retrospect, my response seems a bit brusque and dismissive. I
didn't intend that, Dan.

Some things aren't quite the same in the military as they are in a
business or corporate setting.

A good military commander seeks input from his experienced and
capable staff and makes good use of it, but a subordinate who makes
public derogatory remarks cannot be tolerated. Individual
competence cannot exuse any behavior that undermines team integrity
and performance in endeavours where second place is a body bag. Strong
disagreement from staff, including asshole-snapping heated argument,
is completely acceptable. The reason a commander has staff is to
competently advise him. Staff must understand that they are
subordinates and must vigorously implement the final decision of
the C.O. I was both staff (combat engr bn S-3 operations officer)
and C.O. (platoon leader and company commander) so I have first hand
experience in both roles.

Staff and subordinate units and men aren't always privy to all intel
that might affect a tactical or strategic decision. Matter of fact,
the commander often isn't either, and intel is never perfect or
complete and sometimes flat-ass eau-chitte wrong. Each level of
command must make the best decisions they can under the
circumstances, with no doubt at all that they will be implemented
aggressively, skillfully, with no reservations or second-guessing by
subordinates. Tactical decisions must sometimes be made
extemporaneously under rather chaotic conditions that preclude having
meetings with powerpoint presentations inviting dissenting viewpoints
for democratic resolution.

Leadership requires that the leader earn and deserve the trust of
his subordinates. It is initially assumed that an officer deserves
trust, but over time as a unit is forged into a functional combat team
the defacto trust must be replaced by earned trust. Part of
earning that trust is demonstrating clearly that he will not tolerate
any behavior from any subordinate that might compromise the integrity
or performance of the team, unit or command, and that he can and wil
make that stick.


On the other hand...when the Crew is having a beer, and do not consider
themselves to be On The Record...many things can and will be said.

If the lowlife cocksucker who led them to believe that they were Off the
Record quoted them....it is not a good thing.

I suspect the reporter who ass****ed that crew is going to be having a
very rough life from this point forwards. Not from the crew..but from
those on the line, who supported McChrystal.

Lots of guys coming home and going back. Perhaps someone will stop and
"chat"?

Gunner





One could not be a successful Leftwinger without realizing that,
in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers
and mothers of Leftwingers, a goodly number of Leftwingers are
not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid.
Gunner Asch

On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 23:42:32 -0700, "Bill Noble"
wrote:

This
country is descending into a pit of pure hatred where right thinking people
will be universally reviled


Im glad you phrased it that way. And I agree. But its not universally
reviled..ithey are only reviled by the Leftwingers.

Good job Bill!


Gunner

One could not be a successful Leftwinger without realizing that,
in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers
and mothers of Leftwingers, a goodly number of Leftwingers are
not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid.
Gunner Asch

On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 04:41:44 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Jun 27, 2:26*am, Don Foreman wrote:



In retrospect, my response seems a bit brusque and dismissive. *I
didn't intend that, Dan. *

Some things aren't quite the same in the military as they are in a
business or corporate setting. *


I did not take it as dismissive or brusque. Just the viewpoint of
someone who was an officer. I was a enlisted man in the Navy on
Destroyers. Probably a big difference between Army and Navy, and
another big difference between large ships and destroyers.

I still think the general public will see it as a decision based on
appearance rather than substance.

Dan

Indeed it will. And the returning military troops already had a bad
taste in their mouths over the Commander in Chief..this is going to
leave a very very bad taste, that will likely show in 2012...or before.

Gunner




One could not be a successful Leftwinger without realizing that,
in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers
and mothers of Leftwingers, a goodly number of Leftwingers are
not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid.
Gunner Asch

Don Foreman wrote:

On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 22:53:20 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 10:30:20 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Jun 24, 11:35 am, Ignoramus11945

I do not think that Obama had any choice, he had to fire him.

i

Why do you say he had no choice? Do you think that firing McCrystal
will change what anyone thinks of Obama and his administration?

I once had an engineer in my group that was a competent engineer. But
he could not tolerate management. We got along pretty well before he
was transferred into my group. But he could not get along with the
supervisor of the group he was in. So he was transferred into my
group, and as soon as he was in my group, things changed.

If he was talking to some people and saw I came into the room, he
would raise his voice and start making derogatory remarks about me.
Sure I could have complained just as his former supervisor did, but
he was a competent engineer.
And it was so obvious that he did not get along with anyone who was
his supervisor, that his remarks did not bother me. To me competence
is more important than being civil.

Dan

In the military, what matters to you is irrelevant. If an officer
behaved as you did, he would be regarded as incompetent and dealt with
accordingly.

In retrospect, my response seems a bit brusque and dismissive. I
didn't intend that, Dan.

Some things aren't quite the same in the military as they are in a
business or corporate setting.

A good military commander seeks input from his experienced and
capable staff and makes good use of it, but a subordinate who makes
public derogatory remarks cannot be tolerated. Individual
competence cannot exuse any behavior that undermines team integrity
and performance in endeavours where second place is a body bag. Strong
disagreement from staff, including asshole-snapping heated argument,
is completely acceptable. The reason a commander has staff is to
competently advise him. Staff must understand that they are
subordinates and must vigorously implement the final decision of
the C.O. I was both staff (combat engr bn S-3 operations officer)
and C.O. (platoon leader and company commander) so I have first hand
experience in both roles.


You might like this: http://bands.army.mil/music/bugle/


--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

Leadership requires that the leader earn and deserve the trust of
his subordinates. It is initially assumed that an officer deserves
trust, but over time as a unit is forged into a functional combat team
the defacto trust must be replaced by earned trust. Part of
earning that trust is demonstrating clearly that he will not tolerate
any behavior from any subordinate that might compromise the integrity
or performance of the team, unit or command, and that he can and wil
make that stick.


Don - you are wasting your time - the Obama haters will carp and whine no
matter what he does, even when it is the only choice, or a good choice.

And you are wasting yours. Foreman is the only guy who's admitted to
being on the list of "great cull" seditionists. He won't say how being
on that list is honorable behavior. Whatever his point is here, it has
nothing to do with respect for Obama in particular, whom he refers to
as "arrogant", and will vote against even if the GOP puts up a
Palin/Beck ticket or worse.


Man! wouldn't that be great if the GOP actually put together a ticket
with Palin/Beck? That's my 2012 dream team. Don't they just represent
the right wing perfectly? They are just what they doctor ordered. I sure
wish the GOP was dumb enough to run either of those morons. But they
won't. Look instead for a team made up of an old, white man and a non
threatening, very bland person in the number 2 spot. Best chance is Mitt
Romney as president. If it's him the VP won't be a woman. You know
Mormons don't like women in high places. Whoever the GOP picks to run in
2012 they are going to be losers. How could it be otherwise? That's all
they have to choose from.

Hawke

On 6/27/2010 5:33 AM, Wes wrote:
"Bill wrote:



"Don wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 22:53:20 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

Leadership requires that the leader earn and deserve the trust of
his subordinates. It is initially assumed that an officer deserves
trust, but over time as a unit is forged into a functional combat team
the defacto trust must be replaced by earned trust. Part of
earning that trust is demonstrating clearly that he will not tolerate
any behavior from any subordinate that might compromise the integrity
or performance of the team, unit or command, and that he can and wil
make that stick.


Don - you are wasting your time - the Obama haters will carp and whine no
matter what he does, even when it is the only choice, or a good choice.
Trying to explain why this particular action was required will be like
teaching a pig to sing - it won't work, and it will annoy the pig. This
country is descending into a pit of pure hatred where right thinking people
will be universally reviled because they don't wear the right suspenders, or
claim the right party allegiance.


Bill,

I don't care for Obama but I support the retiring of McChrystal. The guy was let down by
his staff that he was responsible for. There may be issues that this was off the record
background stuff that was used improperly but the bottom line is in the military, you do
not disrespect the President and Vice President.


Unless you're an arrogant, cocky, right winger. Then those rules don't
apply to your and your boys unless the pres and vice pres are
republicans. If they are Democrats right wing military types don't think
they have to show the same respect for the president they do when a
republican is in office. At least the commander now knows better. The
question is have his subbordinates learned to keep their pie holes shut.


Hawke

On 6/27/2010 10:11 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 01:26:07 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 22:53:20 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 10:30:20 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Jun 24, 11:35 am, Ignoramus11945

I do not think that Obama had any choice, he had to fire him.

i

Why do you say he had no choice? Do you think that firing McCrystal
will change what anyone thinks of Obama and his administration?

I once had an engineer in my group that was a competent engineer. But
he could not tolerate management. We got along pretty well before he
was transferred into my group. But he could not get along with the
supervisor of the group he was in. So he was transferred into my
group, and as soon as he was in my group, things changed.

If he was talking to some people and saw I came into the room, he
would raise his voice and start making derogatory remarks about me.
Sure I could have complained just as his former supervisor did, but
he was a competent engineer.
And it was so obvious that he did not get along with anyone who was
his supervisor, that his remarks did not bother me. To me competence
is more important than being civil.

Dan

In the military, what matters to you is irrelevant. If an officer
behaved as you did, he would be regarded as incompetent and dealt with
accordingly.

In retrospect, my response seems a bit brusque and dismissive. I
didn't intend that, Dan.

Some things aren't quite the same in the military as they are in a
business or corporate setting.

A good military commander seeks input from his experienced and
capable staff and makes good use of it, but a subordinate who makes
public derogatory remarks cannot be tolerated. Individual
competence cannot exuse any behavior that undermines team integrity
and performance in endeavours where second place is a body bag. Strong
disagreement from staff, including asshole-snapping heated argument,
is completely acceptable. The reason a commander has staff is to
competently advise him. Staff must understand that they are
subordinates and must vigorously implement the final decision of
the C.O. I was both staff (combat engr bn S-3 operations officer)
and C.O. (platoon leader and company commander) so I have first hand
experience in both roles.

Staff and subordinate units and men aren't always privy to all intel
that might affect a tactical or strategic decision. Matter of fact,
the commander often isn't either, and intel is never perfect or
complete and sometimes flat-ass eau-chitte wrong. Each level of
command must make the best decisions they can under the
circumstances, with no doubt at all that they will be implemented
aggressively, skillfully, with no reservations or second-guessing by
subordinates. Tactical decisions must sometimes be made
extemporaneously under rather chaotic conditions that preclude having
meetings with powerpoint presentations inviting dissenting viewpoints
for democratic resolution.

Leadership requires that the leader earn and deserve the trust of
his subordinates. It is initially assumed that an officer deserves
trust, but over time as a unit is forged into a functional combat team
the defacto trust must be replaced by earned trust. Part of
earning that trust is demonstrating clearly that he will not tolerate
any behavior from any subordinate that might compromise the integrity
or performance of the team, unit or command, and that he can and wil
make that stick.


On the other hand...when the Crew is having a beer, and do not consider
themselves to be On The Record...many things can and will be said.

If the lowlife cocksucker who led them to believe that they were Off the
Record quoted them....it is not a good thing.

I suspect the reporter who ass****ed that crew is going to be having a
very rough life from this point forwards. Not from the crew..but from
those on the line, who supported McChrystal.

Lots of guys coming home and going back. Perhaps someone will stop and
"chat"?


Notice the typical right wing response. Blame the messenger. The fault
doesn't lie with an insubordinate commander. The fault doesn't lie with
a bunch of the commander's posse who can't keep their mouths' shut.
Nope. The problem is the guy who did his job, which was to report on
what the soldiers think and say. That's all he did. He was with these
people for 3 weeks while they were in France, not in Afghanistan. They
willingly told him whatever they wanted to. Most of what they said was
on tape and most of the bad stuff was said in the first day or two. So
all the reporter did was write what the soldiers told him. Now that's a
crime isn't it? But as you might expect, certain idiots see nothing
wrong with the behavior of the military and blame the reporter. Didn't
they do they same thing when journalists reported on the massacres in
Vietnam? Yep, nothing wrong with massacring people. The crime is telling
about it. Have journalists learned nothing? If you report on the U.S.
military all you are supposed to do is kiss ass. Now why is that so hard
for them to learn?

Hawke

On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 23:42:32 -0700, "Bill Noble"
wrote:



"Don Foreman" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 22:53:20 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

Leadership requires that the leader earn and deserve the trust of
his subordinates. It is initially assumed that an officer deserves
trust, but over time as a unit is forged into a functional combat team
the defacto trust must be replaced by earned trust. Part of
earning that trust is demonstrating clearly that he will not tolerate
any behavior from any subordinate that might compromise the integrity
or performance of the team, unit or command, and that he can and wil
make that stick.


Don - you are wasting your time - the Obama haters will carp and whine no
matter what he does, even when it is the only choice, or a good choice.
Trying to explain why this particular action was required will be like
teaching a pig to sing - it won't work, and it will annoy the pig. This
country is descending into a pit of pure hatred where right thinking people
will be universally reviled because they don't wear the right suspenders, or
claim the right party allegiance.

This was not a political statement, please don't try to politicize it.

On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 14:25:43 -0700, Hawke
wrote:

On 6/27/2010 5:33 AM, Wes wrote:
"Bill wrote:



"Don wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 22:53:20 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

Leadership requires that the leader earn and deserve the trust of
his subordinates. It is initially assumed that an officer deserves
trust, but over time as a unit is forged into a functional combat team
the defacto trust must be replaced by earned trust. Part of
earning that trust is demonstrating clearly that he will not tolerate
any behavior from any subordinate that might compromise the integrity
or performance of the team, unit or command, and that he can and wil
make that stick.


Don - you are wasting your time - the Obama haters will carp and whine no
matter what he does, even when it is the only choice, or a good choice.
Trying to explain why this particular action was required will be like
teaching a pig to sing - it won't work, and it will annoy the pig. This
country is descending into a pit of pure hatred where right thinking people
will be universally reviled because they don't wear the right suspenders, or
claim the right party allegiance.


Bill,

I don't care for Obama but I support the retiring of McChrystal. The guy was let down by
his staff that he was responsible for. There may be issues that this was off the record
background stuff that was used improperly but the bottom line is in the military, you do
not disrespect the President and Vice President.


Unless you're an arrogant, cocky, right winger. Then those rules don't
apply to your and your boys unless the pres and vice pres are
republicans. If they are Democrats right wing military types don't think
they have to show the same respect for the president they do when a
republican is in office.

This is pure unsupportable partisan bull****.



Hawke

On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 06:38:06 -0700, wrote:

On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 23:42:32 -0700, "Bill Noble"
wrote:



"Don Foreman" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 22:53:20 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

Leadership requires that the leader earn and deserve the trust of
his subordinates. It is initially assumed that an officer deserves
trust, but over time as a unit is forged into a functional combat team
the defacto trust must be replaced by earned trust. Part of
earning that trust is demonstrating clearly that he will not tolerate
any behavior from any subordinate that might compromise the integrity
or performance of the team, unit or command, and that he can and wil
make that stick.


Don - you are wasting your time - the Obama haters will carp and whine no
matter what he does, even when it is the only choice, or a good choice.

And you are wasting yours. Foreman is the only guy who's admitted to
being on the list of "great cull" seditionists.

That story keeps changing as Wayne keeps re-writing it hoping for
responses to his trolls.

Whatever his point is here, it has
nothing to do with respect for Obama in particular, whom he refers to
as "arrogant".

Correct up to this point.

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
You might like this: http://bands.army.mil/music/bugle/


Hey those are great.
(almost as good the batch of bagpipe tunes I listened to
the other day) :-)
Now watch the flames.
...Lew...

On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 04:41:44 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Jun 27, 2:26*am, Don Foreman wrote:



In retrospect, my response seems a bit brusque and dismissive. *I
didn't intend that, Dan. *

Some things aren't quite the same in the military as they are in a
business or corporate setting. *


I did not take it as dismissive or brusque. Just the viewpoint of
someone who was an officer. I was a enlisted man in the Navy on
Destroyers. Probably a big difference between Army and Navy, and
another big difference between large ships and destroyers.

I still think the general public will see it as a decision based on
appearance rather than substance.

Dan

That could well be.

And that may not be an accident. I strongly doubt that a general in
charge of deep black ops at pentagon level for 5 years is so naive he
could get blindsided by either the press or his staff. But I don't
know the general and I've not seen the articles in question.

Perhaps he or his staff told the press, off the record, that the
emperor has no clothes. The press respected this confidence with
expected press integrity, whereupon the emperor felt compelled to
terminate the general because the emperor had no other way (like
maybe leadership experience) to retain a semblence of effectiveness
as his royal raiment came under public suspicion as possibly an
illusion. This press event may cause the people to indeed examine
the emperor's packaging and presentation with considerably more
interest and skepticism. Possibly the general is convinced that the
military is hamstrung in Afghanistan until we can effect a change in
emperors.

All purely hypothetical and allegorical, of course. I don't pretend
to be a general.

LBJ, a CIC getting increasing heat from the populace about an
unpopular war he inheirited, once said something about finding it
strategically and tactically expedient to keep his detractors inside
the tent ****ing out rather than outside ****ing in.

The good general is now outside the tent.

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 23:42:32 -0700, "Bill Noble"
wrote:



"Don Foreman" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 22:53:20 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

Leadership requires that the leader earn and deserve the trust of
his subordinates. It is initially assumed that an officer deserves
trust, but over time as a unit is forged into a functional combat team
the defacto trust must be replaced by earned trust. Part of
earning that trust is demonstrating clearly that he will not tolerate
any behavior from any subordinate that might compromise the integrity
or performance of the team, unit or command, and that he can and wil
make that stick.


Don - you are wasting your time - the Obama haters will carp and whine no
matter what he does, even when it is the only choice, or a good choice.
Trying to explain why this particular action was required will be like
teaching a pig to sing - it won't work, and it will annoy the pig. This
country is descending into a pit of pure hatred where right thinking
people
will be universally reviled because they don't wear the right suspenders,
or
claim the right party allegiance.

This was not a political statement, please don't try to politicize it.

no attempt at politicizing your statement, just an observation that in this
climate no one will listen to that which goes against their prejudices. I
happen to agree with your statements but I am only saddened by the decline
of any rational discourse