• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

McChrystal Has Some 'Splainin' to Do....

Mid Aged Silverback said:
And a Silverback as his Sergeant Major!! >:D
Now, though I consider myself a competent mortar officer (competent, not talented), and as such know a thing or two about fire planning, I know nothing about NUCLEAR fire planning, so I wonder if there is someone in these esteemed forums who has done such a thing?  Any Artillery Officers want to be G3-Nukes?  >:D
 
Mid Aged Silverback said:
And a Silverback as his Sergeant Major!! >:D

With you whispering in his ear nightly(in a good way, I think  :D), all the 'stans are likely to be nuked, along with that funny little four letter country that keeps trying to make nukes.....
 
GAP said:
With you whispering in his ear nightly(in a good way, I think  :D), all the 'stans are likely to be nuked, along with that funny little four letter country that keeps trying to make nukes.....
Rome is  a country again? And they are trying to make nukes?  ;D
 
Technoviking said:
Now, though I consider myself a competent mortar officer (competent, not talented), and as such know a thing or two about fire planning, I know nothing about NUCLEAR fire planning, so I wonder if there is someone in these esteemed forums who has done such a thing?  Any Artillery Officers want to be G3-Nukes?  >:D
All I found on the net was this format:
FIRE PLANNING-NUCLEAR SCHEDULE [FP.NUCSCD]
Use to add, amend, or cancel the specified nuclear target in a specified fire plan. Reference: FM 6-20.
Posted Wednesday, December 14, 2005

LINE 1 -- DATE AND TIME______________________________(DTG)

LINE 2 -- UNIT________________________________________(Unit Making Report)

LINE 3 -- POI__________________________________________(Primary Option Indicator. Enter ADD, AMEND, or CANCEL)

LINE 4 -- PLAN_______________________________________(Fire Plan Designation)

LINE 5 -- TARGET NO._________________________________(Fire Support Target Number)

LINE 6 -- ZONE_______________________________________(UTM Grid Zone and 100-KM Square)

LINE 7 -- GRID________________________________________(UTM or Six-Digit Grid Coordinate With MGRS Grid Zone Designator)

LINE 8 -- ALTITUDE____________________________________(Altitude in Meters)

LINE 9 -- DGZ GZ & 100-KM SQ__________________________(Desired Ground Zero - UTM Grid Zone and 100-KM Square)

LINE 10 -- DGZ 1M E & 1M N____________________________(Desired Ground Zero - UTM 1-Meter Easting and UTM 1-Meter Northing)

LINE 11 -- GZ ALTITUDE________________________________(Ground Zero Altitude in Meters)

LINE 12 -- TARGET ELEMENTS__________________________(Number of Target Elements)

LINE 13 -- TYPE_______________________________________(Target or Friendly Unit Type and Subtype)

LINE 14 -- PROTECTION________________________________(Degree of Personnel Protection)

LINE 15 -- RADIUS_____________________________________(Target or Friendly Unit Radius)

LINE 16 -- LENGTH_____________________________________(Target or Friendly Unit Length)

LINE 17 -- WIDTH______________________________________(Target or Friendly Unit Width)

LINE 18 -- ATTITUDE___________________________________(Attitude in Mils)

LINE 19 -- TIME_______________________________________(Time in Minutes Relative to H-Hour)

LINE 20 -- DURATION__________________________________(Duration of Fire)

LINE 21 -- UNIT DESIGNATORS_________________________(Section, Platoon, Battery/Company, Battalion/ Regiment and Regiment/ Brigade/Division Designators)

LINE 22 -- POSITION___________________________________(UTM or Six-Digit Grid Coordinate With Grid Zone Single Firing Site Designator)

LINE 23 -- FIRE FOR EFFECT____________________________(Fire for Effect Number of Volleys)

LINE 24 -- PROJECTILE_________________________________(Fire for Effect Projectile)

LINE 25 -- FUZE_______________________________________(Fire for Effect Fuze)

LINE 26 -- NARRATIVE_________________________________(Free Text for Additional Information Required for Clarification of Report)

LINE 27 -- AUTHENTICATION___________________________(Report Authentication)
Some points:
VOLLEYS?  Are they serious?  How many nukes makes a good "volley"?  :o
 
Analysis: Colossal blunder, but Gen. McChrystal might be spared

General Stanley McChrystal's colossal blunder in allowing himself and his close aides to vent their frustrations to a Rolling Stone reporter has left him fighting for his job and indeed for his career. Robert Gates, the Pentagon chief, spoke of the general's "significant mistake" while a visibly angry Robert Gibbs, Mr Obama's spokesman, spoke of an "enormous" error with a "magnitude and graveness" that were profound.

Before boarding his plane bound for Washington and a dressing down, possibly accompanied by a dismissal, General McChrystal spent Tuesday apologizing. He telephoned Mr Gates, Vice-President Joe Biden, General Jim Jones, Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, Admiral Mike Mullen, Senator John Kerry and very possibly others.

The Left was baying for General McChrystal's blood, asserting that he was guilty of insubordination and had possibly even breached military law. Many were surprised that General McChrystal appeared likely to keep his job into Wednesday and that he had not resigned even if he had not been fired. Mr Obama's hesitation in immediately getting rid of General McChrystal was an indication, however, of the extraordinary difficulties in taking such action.

Last May, General David McKiernan, then the senior Nato commander in Afghanistan, became the first general to be fired in the field since Douglas MacArthur was removed as commander in Korea by President Harry Truman in 1951.

In appointing General McChrystal - a former special forces commander widely credited with defeating al-Qaida in Iraq by a series of relentless night operations in which hundreds of insurgents were killed - Mr Obama was doing more than just selecting one man for the job.

General McChrystal, an acolyte of General David Petraeus, who oversaw the successful Iraq surge, is the embodiment of a new American counter-insurgency (COIN) strategy resulting from a painful self-examination by the U.S. military. Implementing it in Afghanistan was seen as a last throw of the dice by the White House.

Once General McChrystal arrived in Kabul, virtually the entire senior Nato staff was changed. Most new arrivals were McChrystal disciples, steeped in COIN doctrine and filled with an almost messianic zeal for the mission and loyalty to the man in command.

Removing General McChrystal would be a significant blow to American chances of success in the war. He has the best relationship of any American official with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan. No one doubts his commitment to winning or the bravery he has exhibited in his career.

Democratic presidents often have a difficult relationship with the military and firing a second general carries political risks for Mr Obama. On the other hand, allowing him to remain in post would be judged by some as presidential weakness.

Having previously operated in the shadows, General McChrystal is unused to dealing with the press and seems almost incapable of not speaking his mind. That being said, the most insulting remarks came from the mouths of his aides and not his own.

Ironically, the very fact that things are so difficult in Afghanistan at this juncture - General McChrystal has been candid that it not progressing as he had hoped - could be what saves him. The problems in the Afghan campaign are so acute that Mr Obama might conclude that sacking the top general could only guarantee defeat.
http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Analysis+Colossal+blunder+McChrystal+might+spared/3187236/story.html#ixzz0rdHiVa5o

            (Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act)
 
Technoviking said:
All I found on the net was this format:Some points:
VOLLEYS?  Are they serious?  How many nukes makes a good "volley"?  :o

See line 20 for that answer:  "Until we're happy that the enemy is, in fact, firmly entrenched back into the Stone Age".
 
I think Ed Morrissey sums things up very well (I had the Petraeus idea too):
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/06/22/the-rolling-stone-article-as-bad-as-advertised/



So far, McChrystal hasn’t earned enough leash by winning anything. Regardless of what one thinks of the current C-in-C, Obama is still the man elected by the people to run the executive branch and the military. The picture this article paints is one of a lack of discipline and respect, and the White House has every right to demand an apology and replace McChrystal with someone who understands better the subtleties of overall command and its politics.

Will Obama fire McChrystal? It’s hard to say, mainly because of the critical juncture we face in Afghanistan and McChrystal’s deep involvement in all phases of the effort. But after reading the Rolling Stone article, which McChrystal has yet to deny, it would be very hard to blame Barack Obama if he canned McChrystal over it.

Update: Byron York says that McChrystal’s disdain for civilian leadership was a powderkeg waiting to blow:

        'I just got off the phone with a retired military man, with more than 25 years experience, who has worked with Gen. Stanley McChrystal in the Pentagon.  His reaction to McChrystal’s performance in the new Rolling Stone profile?  No surprise at all.

        “Those of us who knew him would unanimously tell you that this was just a matter of time,” the man says.  “He talks this way all the time.  I’m surprised it took this long for it to rear its ugly head.”'

Byron also points out the corner into which Obama has painted himself:

        'Obama is in a bind with McChrystal.  There’s no doubt Obama would be fully justified in firing his top general.  But at the same time Obama has committed himself to a rigid timeline for withdrawal from Afghanistan.  Changing commanders could complicate that enormously.  Right now, because of his own policy decisions, the president has no good choice.'

Not unless he can convince David Petraeus to return to field command…

Mark
Ottawa
 
This quote reveals much about the situation
" General McChrystal is unused to dealing with the press and seems almost incapable of not speaking his mind."
I think that's what makes him a top notch General  :salute:
My :2c:
 
General faces unease from 'handcuffed' troops
McChrystal's problems reach beyond White House as GIs resent restrictions

Riding shotgun in an armored vehicle as it passed through the heat and confusion of southern Afghanistan this month, an Army sergeant spoke into his headset, summarizing a sentiment often heard in the field this year.

“I wish we had generals who remembered what it was like when they were down in a platoon,” he said to a reporter in the back. “Either they never have been in real fighting, or they forgot what it’s like.”

The sergeant was speaking of Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal and the circle of counterinsurgents who since last year have been running the Afghan war, and who have, as a matter of both policy and practice, made it much more difficult for troops to use airstrikes and artillery in the fight against the Taliban.

No matter the outcome of his meeting on Wednesday in Washington over caustic comments he and his staff made about President Obama and his national security team, the general, or his successor, faces problems from a constituency as important as his bosses and that no commander wants to lose: his own troops.

(article continues)

Read more: http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/37865973/ns/world_news-the_new_york_times/#ixzz0rftFOQ8n

            (Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act)



 
I'm not sure how trust worthy this is, but:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyharnden/100044536/breaking-general-stanley-mcchrystal-tenders-his-resignation/ said:
A senior Capitol Hill source tells me that General Stanley McChrystal had tendered his resignation to President Barack Obama and that the White House is actively discussing a replacement who could be quickly confirmed by the Senate.

The source said that among the names being touted as possible successors are General James Mattis, the outgoing head of the US Joint Forces Command and due to retire after being passed over as US Marine Corps commander, and Lieutenant General William Caldwell, commander of Nato’s Training Mission in Afghanistan.

Of course, offering to resign is not the same as actually resigning and it remains to be seen whether Mr Obama will accept the resignation. Donald Rumsfeld offered to resign as Pentagon chief on more than one occasion but President George W. Bush requested that he continue in post before eventually firing him in November 2006.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100622/pl_nm/us_usa_afghanistan_mcchrystal_aide said:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A senior media aide to the top U.S. general in Afghanistan has resigned after a magazine article portrayed the military commander and his team making critical comments about the Obama administration, U.S. defense officials said on Tuesday.

Duncan Boothby had been a close advisor to McChrystal and frequently traveled with him.

(Reporting by Adam Entous, Editing by Sandra Maler)
 
How 'Rolling Stone' Got Into McChrystal's Inner Circle

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/06/22/rolling-stone-author-discusses-general-mcchrystal-interview.html

One of the most vivid scenes in the stories comes when you are out with the general, his wife, and his team for a night on the town in Paris. His team is entirely forthright with you, did that surprise you?

Well, they were getting hammered, I don’t know at that moment if they were being the most forthright. Of course it was surprising. A lot of the reporting that is getting most of the attention happened right away in the first few days in Paris. So I was surprised—because they didn’t know me.

It was always clear that you were a reporter and you were, in essence, on the record? And more, the entire article was thoroughly fact-checked, yes?

Yes. It was crystal clear to me, and I was walking around with a tape recorder and a notepad in my hand three-quarters of the time. I didn’t have the Matt Drudge press hat on, but everything short of that it was pretty obvious I was a reporter writing a profile of the general for Rolling Stone. It was always very clear.

More at link.
 
The idea, widely put about, that somehow it will be terribly difficult for any replacement for Gen. McChrystal rapidly to get up to speed is very thin.  During WW II then Lt. Gen. Bernard Montgomery was unexpectedly appointed head of the British 8th Army in North Africa in early August 1942, moving from Britain to Egypt.  Within three weeks he won the major defensive battle of Alam Halfa; at end of October he won the decisive British offensive at El Alamein.  It should also be kept in mind that, like ISAF, the 8th Army was a complex multinational force; four of its eleven divisions were from other British Commonwealth members.

Update: Besides which McChrystal has a deputy in day-to-day charge of ISAF and US operations, Lt. Gen. David M. Rodriguez.

Mark
Ottawa
 
Our local radio station has just reported that General McChrystal has just left the White House and that he will not be attending the president's next "war meeting." He is either out of a job, or he has been given a time out.
 
BBC says not clear yet:
The top US military commander in Afghanistan has left the White House after meeting President Barack Obama to explain his criticism of leading officials.

Gen McChrystal held a one-on-one meeting with Mr Obama which lasted about 30 minutes.

It is unclear whether or not he still retains his position in the military.

Gen Stanley McChrystal had agreed with Mr Obama that the statements in Rolling Stone magazine showed "poor judgement".

Gen McChrystal was also due to attend the monthly meeting on Afghanistan and Pakistan and face some of those he and his aides criticised.

It is unclear whether he will return for this 1535 GMT meeting ....

Edited to add this - Meanwhile, military types are pissed at civvy PAff types, according to Wired.com:
.... In Kabul and inside the Beltway, there’s a lot of anger being directed at Duncan Boothby, the strategic communications advisor who arranged the Rolling Stone interviews. Boothby, a former producer for Lou Dobbs’ television show, spent years counseling generals on improving their outreach. Those senior officers would sometimes appear on the most unlikely of media outlets. Ft. Leavenworth commander Lieutenant General William Caldwell, for instance, promoted  the Army’s new field manual for operations on the Daily Show.

Boothby is one of a handful of former journalists who in recent years became communications aides to top officers and diplomats. USA Today’s Dave Moniz now works as a media advisor to the Chief of Staff of the Air Force and other top officers. Time magazine’s Sally Donnelly is today a special assistant to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen. The Chicago Tribune’s Bay Fang currently works in Afghanistan as a strategic communications advisor to the State Department. Some of these advisors were policy-focused. David S. Cloud briefly assisted U.S. ambassador to Kabul Karl Eikenberry before returning to journalism; he’s now with the Los Angeles Times. Rosa Brooks, a former Times columnist, advises Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Michele Flournoy and also serves as a Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense.

All of these leading officials have public affairs assistants, as well. But with their journalism backgrounds, these strategic communicators are supposed to be more media-savvy than the civil servants or the servicemembers. They largely operate behind the scenes, connecting the officials to influencers and opinion-makers; meanwhile, the public affairs specialists are supposed to set up the bulk of the press interviews. But the boundaries between the two jobs can get pretty porous. So often, there’s a bit of tension between the “SC” and “PA” types. Rarely does it rise to this level ....
 
Beware the embed!  Paul Wells of Maclean’s magazine ponders journalists’ practices and ethics:

Gen. McChrystal gets hacked
http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/06/22/gen-mcchrystal-gets-hacked/

…what’s interesting about the Hastings/McChrystal case is that it’s not clear what would have been less defensible: hearing all these things and reporting them, or hearing them and choosing, for decorum’s sake, not to report them. In one case you’re f—ing sources over. In another, you’re entering into a protection racket with them…

Mark
Ottawa
 
From Tom Ricks’ Foreign Policy blog:
http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/06/23/who_thinks_mcchrystal_should_go

I’ve noticed an interesting pattern in my e-mails over the last 24 hours regarding the question of whether McChrystal should be fired. That is, the more someone knows about the military, the more likely they are to call for his removal. Political types, by contrast, don’t see what the big deal is…

Mark
Ottawa
 
Back
Top