Why General McChrystal had to be fired

A lot of questions over whether Gen McChrystal should have been fired or not have been raised. The following should plainly clear it up. While Gen McChrystal was not insubordinate or disrespectful in his interview, he was, in fact, guilty of contempt toward officials (Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice).

Text.
“Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”
Elements.
(1) That the accused was a commissioned officer of the United States armed forces;
(2) That the accused used certain words against an official or legislature named in the article;
(3) That by an act of the accused these words came to the knowledge of a person other than the accused; and
(4) That the words used were contemptuous, either in themselves or by virtue of the circumstances under which they were used. Note: If the words were against a Governor or legislature, add the following element
(5) That the accused was then present in the State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession of the Governor or legislature concerned.

So, based on the actual words as stated in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, not only should he have been relieved of his command (fired), but, he could have been brought to a courts martial.

Now, it would be ridiculous to think that he would be brought to trial by courts martial. Relieving him of command virtually assures the country that he will never command again. He is a great leader and there is no reason to destroy him as a soldier, his family and his 30+ years of exemplary service. The punishment fits the crime and therefore was the proper decision.

I do, however, believe that our Commander-in-Chief, has taken full advantage of the situation for his political gain. Gen McChrystal is probably the only commander that could have made the counterinsurgency in Afghanistan work the way it was truly designed. Gen Patraeus is a capable commander, but he is too far removed from the situation on the ground, he is far too political and his rhetoric breeds contempt with Hamid Karzai. These things make him the least likely to succeed in Afghanistan. So, why then, would President Obama put him in place?

There have been rumblings that Gen Patraeus has interest in running for President of the United States in 2012. Now that President Obama has injected him into the ground fight, he has rid himself of a very viable threat to his re-election. Gen Patraeus now finds himself in a no-win situation. The President has stated very clearly (a huge mistake militarily) stated that we will begin drawing down in July 2011. If we have not completed our mission, then Gen Patraeus is bound to ask for more time, troops or support (money) to accomplish the stated mission. If this should happen, he is the failure and NOT the President. In the event that the drawdown begins on schedule, Gen Patraeus will be inundated with Congressional hearings, the business of pulling hundreds of thousands of troops and equipment home and the politics of leaving the Afghan government to their own devices. All of these things will hit him at the time he would be campaigning for the Presidency. In essence, President Obama has used Gen Patraeus as the fall guy for the war in Afghanistan and has eliminated the only viable threat to a second term.

I don't believe that he could have set this up himself, but it is a travesty that he would use Gen McChrystal's poor judgement as an opportunity to use our troops in harms way in this type of political chess match. But, what else should we expect from a President and Vice President with ZERO military service and a Congress with only 22 percent (this rate has been declining at roughly 5-10 percent every two years) of it's members having any military service.

Gen McChrystal had to go, legally. But, the President is using judgement just as poor in how he is handling the aftermath.

Update: A shakedown of the first proportion

UPDATE: Here is a link that you may also find interesting regarding this whole deal. http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=537967&p=2

KLB

Senator Barton hit this nail right on the head. Unfortunately, the politicians are so worried about the upcoming elections, that they refuse to admit it.



Let's be clear...I am not defending BP or their actions to date in regard to the spill in the gulf. This is strictly about the way the Obama Administration handled them at the White House last week.



When BP signed on to drill in deep water in the Gulf of Mexico, hey signed on with a predetermined liability of $750 million dollars in the event of a problem. They went into this deal knowing that they were willing to risk $750 million for the profits that they woulod reap from this well. Then, when the worst possible senario becomes reality, they immediately step forth and take full responsibility for the mishap and with that responsibility, agree to pay ALL legitimate claims, clean-up costs and damages, regardless of the cost.



The Obama Administration, not wanting to look any more inept, chose to flex their muscles and call the BP leadership to the White House. In that meeting, they forced BP's hand into a $20 billion dollar escrow account (It's been a long time since I took math in school, but this is a lot more than $750 million). Along with the escrow account, the Obama Administration demanded that the account be managed by a third party that is not tied to BP or the White House. BP continues to agree with this shakedown.



Within two days of their meeting, the Obama Administration appointed a manager, Kenneth Feinberg, to oversee this escrow account and gave him instructions on how they expected the claims to be paid. On 'Meet the Press' (NBC) on Sunday morning, Mr. Feinberg failed to answer the one question that I was most interested in...'Who is paying your wages?' It would be my guess that we, the taxpayers, are on the hook for his salary.



Senator Barton was spot on when he said that this was a 'Shakedown of the First Proportion'. The heavy handed Obama Administration called a private business to the carpet and threw the agreed upon penalty out the window, forcing them into another government controlled cashcow to be used as they see fit. If that's not a shakedown, I'm not sure I've ever seen one.



This is a slippery slope and for the business owners out there, this is a shot across the bow that if you want to do business in the United States, there are no rules.