The retired generals who criticized Rumsfeld were outside the chain of command, responsible to nobody but themselves. As long as they don't claim to speak as representatives of active duty officers, they have the same First Amendment rights as abybody else and no duty of obedience to offset it.

McChrystal is on active duty. His obligation is to serve the Commander in Chief by giving the best possible advice and then carrying out his orders. His only other superior is Congress, and he has an obligation to give them the best available advice and information when asked, as Shinseki did in the runup to the Iraq War. Neither he nor any other serving officer has the right to appeal over the heads of his civilian superiors to the general public in order to put pressure on them, as both MacArthur and McClellan tried to do. Down that road -- a long way down, to be sure -- lies a banana republic where the opinion of the officer corps is factor in politics.

Until proven otherwise, I'm willing to give McChrystal individually the benefit of the doubt and assume that he didn't realize the political consequences of what he said in London.

jack_cerf:

The retired generals who criticized Rumsfeld were outside the chain of command, responsible to nobody but themselves. As long as they don't claim to speak as representatives of active duty officers, they have the same First Amendment rights as abybody else and no duty of obedience to offset it.

McChrystal is on active duty. His obligation is to serve the Commander in Chief by giving the best possible advice and then carrying out his orders. His only other superior is Congress, and he has an obligation to give them the best available advice and information when asked, as Shinseki did in the runup to the Iraq War. Neither he nor any other serving officer has the right to appeal over the heads of his civilian superiors to the general public in order to put pressure on them, as both MacArthur and McClellan tried to do. Down that road -- a long way down, to be sure -- lies a banana republic where the opinion of the officer corps is factor in politics.

Until proven otherwise, I'm willing to give McChrystal individually the benefit of the doubt and assume that he didn't realize the political consequences of what he said in London.

As with all Men and women in service to our nation McChrystal's first duty is to the Constitution, then to the President. In spite of all that American commanders also "feel" a duty to those they command. McChrystal knows the implications of what he did and knows the risk to his carreer by having done it. If he continues to press the issue he may very well be demoted and forced to retire even possibly facing a courts-martial as General Billy Mitchell did.

I agree McChrystal's behaviour is disrespectful to the CIC. It may be very distasteful to McChrystal to be insubordinate to the CIC but as with MacAurther and Mitchell it may be the only means to get his important point across.

Only McChrystal can gage if his actions regarding this is worth it to him, the country and the men under his command.

Frankly the obscene ROE that is designed to protect civillians is the main reason the job can't get done with the troops in place.

TexasPete:

Frankly the obscene ROE that is designed to protect civillians is the main reason the job can't get done with the troops in place.

You think? The Soviets weren't burdened with concern for civilian lives, and they couldn't conquer Afghanistan by the liberal application of firepower. Neither will we. The only prospect of success we have their is an alliance with some Afghan faction or other that has its own interest in defeating the Taliban

jack_cerf:

TexasPete:

Frankly the obscene ROE that is designed to protect civillians is the main reason the job can't get done with the troops in place.

You think? The Soviets weren't burdened with concern for civilian lives, and they couldn't conquer Afghanistan by the liberal application of firepower. Neither will we. The only prospect of success we have their is an alliance with some Afghan faction or other that has its own interest in defeating the Taliban

Ther is a difference between taking reasonable precautions to avoid civillian casualties and the ROE Currently in place. Our forces do need to be able to react strongly and swiftly on the battle field neither is possible under current ROE.

BTW the Soviets DID NOT concern them selves with civilian casualties In fact they caused them on purpose....I am not suggesting we do any thing remotely close.

Collateral damages is in the eye of the beholder. We don't intend to kill Afghan civilians with supporting fire, but the relatives of the dead ones don't see it that way, and they become our enemies. At some point, the saving of American lives through firepower causes more military problems than it solves.

jack_cerf:

Collateral damages is in the eye of the beholder. We don't intend to kill Afghan civilians with supporting fire, but the relatives of the dead ones don't see it that way, and they become our enemies. At some point, the saving of American lives through firepower causes more military problems than it solves.

The same can be said for the other extreme in rules of engagement. There must be a balance our current policy is too far into the other extreme.

jack_cerf:

Collateral damages is in the eye of the beholder. We don't intend to kill Afghan civilians with supporting fire, but the relatives of the dead ones don't see it that way, and they become our enemies. At some point, the saving of American lives through firepower causes more military problems than it solves.

In WWII the US and England firebombed Dresden. I know many German Civllians that survived that devestation....They still were happy when the Americns came.

Many did not understand anything other than it was war but they did not hold it against the victors.

First we drive out the Taliban then we make nice with the civilians.

jack_cerf:

Collateral damages is in the eye of the beholder. We don't intend to kill Afghan civilians with supporting fire, but the relatives of the dead ones don't see it that way, and they become our enemies. At some point, the saving of American lives through firepower causes more military problems than it solves.

In WWII the US and England firebombed Dresden. I know many German Civllians that survived that devestation....They still were happy when the Americns came.

Many did not understand anything other than it was war but they did not hold it against the victors.

First we drive out the Taliban then we make nice with the civilians.

TexasPete, the people of Dresden had to wait a long time for any Americans to come; it was firmly in the Soviet Zone of occupation after the war and was a GDR city for forty five years after.

Bentoniani:

TexasPete, the people of Dresden had to wait a long time for any Americans to come; it was firmly in the Soviet Zone of occupation after the war and was a GDR city for forty five years after.

Actyally you are only partly Correct. You see the US and Russian Armies met on the Elbe River between Dresden and Leipzig. The US Occupied Dresden for a short time before withdrawing to keep the Russians from getting into Austria.

I know this becuase my Mother is from a small Town between Dresden and Leipzig and she still remembers the difference between the US and Russian occupation. My Mother's family escaped the Iron Curtain in 1947. The People I know from Dresden are close family friends and relatives. My mother and one of her sisters both married USAF personnel. So much for hating Americans that bombed your city...

Bentoniani:

TexasPete, the people of Dresden had to wait a long time for any Americans to come; it was firmly in the Soviet Zone of occupation after the war and was a GDR city for forty five years after.

Actyally you are only partly Correct. You see the US and Russian Armies met on the Elbe River between Dresden and Leipzig. The US Occupied Dresden for a short time before withdrawing to keep the Russians from getting into Austria.

I know this becuase my Mother is from a small Town between Dresden and Leipzig and she still remembers the difference between the US and Russian occupation. My Mother's family escaped the Iron Curtain in 1947. The People I know from Dresden are close family friends and relatives. My mother and one of her sisters both married USAF personnel. So much for hating Americans that bombed your city...

TexasPete, you've got an echo going.