What would be your take on the brewing controversy over General McChrystal’s remarks?
Daniel ben Mordechai asked:
My own view is that General McChrystal’s statements in the Rolling Stone article I heard about while watching Fox News this morning, while they admittedly violate protocol, may just have some substance behind them, the fact that they were expressed rather impolitely notwithstanding. President Obama has summoned the general to the White House to explain his remarks; I anticipate that the general will be apologetic, but what do you think about this?
General News
The military code of conduct states you should never be insubordinate to a superior officer.
Obama is the Commander in Chief.
As far as the military loving McChrystal, I think that’s stretching the truth. McChrystal has a policy of no civilian casualties…which severly limits the response and safety of our troops.
General News
This is the mentality of so many top officials in the military…disdain for the civilian leadership and the feeling that they have every answer…even though they are clueless about the question. And this nation saw in Viet Nam what happens when the proper checks and balances are non-existent and generals were essentially given a blank check by presidents who lusted for the smell of napalm in the morning. If generals want to be politicians, they should retire from the military and enter the public arena…if not, then they should read history books and find out for the first time who is the commander-in-chief.