I see two things, separately, in there. One is McChrystal's take on the military aspect of things. I can respect his disagreement with tactics, strategy and execution. The other is bad mouthing your bosses. And, quite frankly, you just don't go around bad mouthing your bosses publicly. It is disrespectful.
The thing I find most interesting is that this is the 2nd time he's done this. When he wanted an assload of new troops, he went public and complained. People were a bit pissed at how he handled it, Obama continued the study he had already planned, then gave him 30,000 more troops. McChrystal's offensive with those new troops failed. Now there is this Rolling Stone article, which largely seems to be a push to get rid of the July 2011 draw down date. I can understand completely why McChrystal doesn't want to be operating under that deadline. But if he doesn't feel like it is the right strategy and he doesn't feel like he can accomplish the goals set out in that timeline, why doesn't he just step down and hand it off to someone else? Seems to me like a Rolling Stone article is a really bad way to try and pressure the administration into getting what you want. Judah On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Robert Munn <[email protected]> wrote: > > http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/06/white-house-questions-mcchrystals-judgment-maturity.html > > I love it. A general speaks his mind about how things are screwed up > and the White House goes apeshit. Were these same people not cheering > the generals who spoke out against the Iraq War years ago? Lovely. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology-Michael-Dinowitz/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:321721 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
