President Obama and General McChrystal

[MollieO]

Not sure what to make of this. Did he do the right thing in sacking him or has his ego got in the way of his job? Everyone that knows anything about Afghanistan speaks very highly of the General and think he is doing a good job. So why did he get the sack?

The sacking of this General and the behaviour toward BP reveal a lot about the weakness of Obamas current political position.

Here you are Sal!

I would be amazed if he got a second term.

I think it would have been weak of him not to sack him. What the General said was quite out of order and just plain rude. Not to mention that when you have a problem and are in that high of a position you shouldn't be splashing it about so happily in a rolling stones article. If there is a serious issue in which you think the President is making decisions that are putting lives at risk, by all means speak out, but this article just reeked of self-importance and ego.

It was his own fault and left Obama with little choice. I do however agree with beenbeta on Obama's reaction to the BP crisis.

Obama is the Commander in Chief after all.

The Labour government should have done the same here with the army chiefs continuously undermining them.

McChrystal was very, very out of order to publicly criticise his C-in-C. It was inevitable that Obama would fire him. Patraeus is highly respected and is the perfect replacement.

Here's the Rolling Stone article. I agree with the sacking, but I also take issue with the first paragraph of the article in the week that we, the UK have lost our 300th (and counting) troop to this war.
I didn't manage to read the entire article, but what I did read convinced me that the sacking was right.

McChrystal had bo right to make comments like that and in a magazine like that - he's no celebrity, he's an army general and this was totally unprofessional of him IMO.

Obama was right to sack him.

'The Labour government should have done the same here with the army chiefs continuously undermining them.'

As the Labour government knew fuck all about how to run a piss up in a brewery let alone a war in Afghanistan, that's rich.

The comments in the article were mostly unattributable as they were from the General's aides, and if a politician believed everything they read in a magazine, then they'd all be basket cases.

Obama should have kept McCrystal on, as he knows what he is doing, and that would have been the mature and considered decision. Obama didn't get to be POTUS by worrying what was said in the press.

Also, it isn't solely Obama's decision if McCrystal can be repalced as Head of ISAF - it is NATOs, of which the US is but one member.

I am worried about this. McC seemed to have a good relationship with the Afghan president.

Labour were useless with the Services during the various wars they instigated. I heard that some soldiers even bought their own boots in order to ensure a decent pair.

Since when did the Tories showed any skill in handling the military?! Was it really worth letting those boys burn on the Sir Galahad for an election victory?

Those boys didn't burn on Galahad for an election victory - they died liberating the Falklands.

The Tories are much better at handling the military, probably because some of them have served in it, as opposed to Labour. The Tories are giving us joined up thinking with Foreign and Defence policy intertwined, and are much more engaged already than Labour ever were.

Agree Scary, but can you use a phrase other than 'joined up thinking'? For some reason it gives me the creeps (was it coined by Mandy?).

I think it would have benefitted Obama to have taken the higher ground, said that although he was deeply dismayed by McChrystal's comments, the situation in Afghamistan was such that for continuity purposes he would keep McC on.

As it is, he looks very weak and unable to take criticism.

he's not much kop, is he Obama, in a crisis. Yes he can make a resounding speech but that's it, isn't it really? Little substance or intuitive intellgence behind it.

And I supported him wholeheartedly during his election campaign.

He has had an extremely tough time though GetOrf. America's worst recession for decades to cope with etc etc. I'm still reserving judgement and hopeing he will pull something amazing out of the bag soon.

Yes, you're right Callisto. And I was impressed with his work on health care reform. However I cannot prevent a feeling that he is essential lacking substance. The whole BP thing has not helped either.

Comprehensive approach better?

Ah yes, comprehensive approach

Although after what has gone before, it could equally be described as a coherent approach.