Should Geneal Shinseki have been fired when he publicly disagreed with Rumsfeld and company

[onenote]

during the early days of the Iraq war? He wasn't and I had no problem with that -- military leaders can and should be able to publicly speak out on military strategy.

In the case of McCrystal, therefore, the issue shouldn't be that he was critical of the civilian decision making, but rather the disrespectful tone and ad hominem nature of those criticisms. Shinseki voiced his criticisms in a Congressional hearing --that's appropriate. An interview with Rolling Stone? Not appropriate

He should offer his resignation. Its up to the President to decide whether to accept it or not.

[hedgehog]

1. IIRC, several generals retired early because they disagreed with Rumsfeld.

[Kber]

2. That's an interesting point that I hadn't fully considered,

but you are right. The venue and tone make a difference.

[joeybee12]

3. This is McCrystal' second major offense at this kind of crap...needs to be

slapped down hard.

[impik]

4. He said that president is a "wimp". That's his CiC. If he disagree with him

he should quit and then be free to say whatever he wants. This is the second time McCrystal is doing it to this president.

[Enrique]

5. you seem to be making two separate points

you seem to be comparing the two situations, and then at the same time saying that the situations are different.

i think the situations are different.

[Raine1967]

6. Rumsfeld wasn't the Commander in Chief.

And While I appreciated VERY much his comments -- yes, if he were in subordinate to the CiC -- he should have been fired. Words have consequences, even if they are righteous and true. The military is different from civilian life.

Let's not forget who Petraeus replaced and why... "According to a Kansas City Star article published December 24, "Commanders have been skeptical of the value of increasing troops. The decision represents a reversal for Casey, the highest-ranking officer in Iraq. Casey and Gen. John P. Abizaid, the top commander in the Middle East, have long resisted adding troops in Iraq,

David Petraeus will replace General George Casey, commander of US forces in Iraq. Casey originally opposed the President's plan to add troops in Iraq, arguing it could delay "the development of Iraqi security forces and increase anger at the United States in the Arab world." http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Bush_replaces_top_general_in_Middle_0104.html

[Vattel]

7. You raise an interesting issue.

Clearly if questioned by a Congressional committee, a general is obligated to tell the truth and let the political chips fall where they might. So the Shinseki case can't really be compared to the McChrystal case. Moreover, the insulting nature of McChrystal's remarks make them clearly a violation of the professional standards he now admits that he violated. Still, the interesting question that remains is whether a general has a duty not to reveal to the press any negative views he might have about his CIC's chosen military strategy. I'm not sure what I think about that. My initial impulse is to say that in a democracy a general should be able to enter into the public debate about military strategy even if that means respectfully disagreeing with his CIC.

[ellenfl]

10. entering into public debate about military strategy

does not include publicly dissing your boss . . . who happens to be the c-in-c. i have no problem with him debating policy but, from what i hear (and i have not read the article), he went beyond policy debate.

ellen fl

[Vattel]

11. I agree wholeheartedly.

He should be removed from his position.

[Phx_Dem]

8. When they publicly disagree with, or diss, the President, abso-fucking-lutely.

Generals seem to think they have more power and authority than they do.

[CanonRay]

9. Wasn't his disagreement during Congressional testimony

when he was asked his opinion by a Congressional committee? If so, that is far different from a magazine interview.

[nsd]

12. The problem with McChrystal's remarks is not about strategy.

In fact, McChrystal won the strategic argument, which makes his dissatisfaction mystifying. Obama gave him most of what he asked for.

The problem is that McChrystal and his staff expressed contempt for the civilian leadership. No matter what they may think privately, they're not allowed to do that publicly.

Shinseki never did that. He disagreed with strategy but never showed disrespect to Bush or Rumsfeld. It's not the same thing at all.