Is McChrystal the Right Man For the Job?
By anniepa
@anniepa (27955)
United States
December 1, 2009 1:49am CST
In the past few months the President has been criticized by many from the right who felt he should have immediately followed the advice of Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal regarding sending additional troops to Afghanistan. After all, HE'S the general, he's the one who knows what's needed over there, right? However, should McChrystal have been appointed and then confirmed for this position to begin with?
According to the parents of Pat Tillman, whose death by friendly fire was covered up by McChrystal, that answer is no.
Pat's father, Pat Tillman Sr., told the Associated Press, "I do believe that guy participated in a falsified homicide investigation."
Mary Tillman, who excoriated McChrystal in her book, Boots on the Ground by Dusk: My Tribute to Pat Tillman, said, "It is imperative that Lt. Gen. McChrystal be scrutinized carefully during the Senate hearings."
Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said in response:
"We feel terrible for what the Tillman family went through, but this matter has been investigated thoroughly by the Pentagon, by the Congress, by outside experts, and all of them have come to the same conclusion: that there was no wrongdoing by Gen. McChrystal."
Read more here: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090525/zirin2
Any thoughts?
Annie
2 people like this
5 responses
@irishidid (8687)
• United States
1 Dec 09
Really? Sounds just like Obama's type if this is true.
1 person likes this
@Sir_bobby88 (8231)
• Singapore
1 Dec 09
He should have been given more time to prove his worth yea .
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
1 Dec 09
I don't think anyone on the right felt he should have "immediately" followed McChrystal's advice. Three months just seemed like a ridiculously long time to take for the decision.
I'd have to analyze his background more thoroughly to say if I think McChrystal is the right man for the job, but as Rollo pointed out, he was hand picked by Obama. If he's not the man for the job, it's Obama's fault for giving it to him.
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
3 Dec 09
I've never said the President isn't responsible for choosing him. I've heard some from the right say he should have immediately followed McChrystal's advice but apparently they weren't aware that the request had been for additional troops beginning in 2010.
Annie
@Rollo1 (16676)
• Boston, Massachusetts
1 Dec 09
You do realize, of course, that it was Obama who appointed McChrystal to head up the U.S. military command in Afghanistan, replacing Gen. David McKiernan. If he's not worthy of the position, then the responsibility for that falls square on Obama. In fact, many were surprised and disappointed that he had done so, because of the controversy surrounding McChrystal and felt it signaled that he didn't want to succeed in Afghanistan.
There's no going back now and trying to say it's not right for him to listen to his own appointed adviser because he's not fit for the position. Obama chose him. Perhaps you should write to Obama and tell him of your dissatisfaction with this appointment.
The responsibility is Obama's. Like our old friend Mike Dukakis said - the fish rots from the head down.
@Rollo1 (16676)
• Boston, Massachusetts
4 Dec 09
You also have to consider whom he would appoint if he wanted to leave his options open. If you appoint someone about whom there is a controversy then you can always turn around and say "I have considered his advice, but you see, he might not be trustworthy - look at this scandal". It's obvious that his base of supporters would back him on that, take this discussion as proof. But because of the calls for him to do something, he made a decision he thought would appease both sides but in reality, pleased no-one. I don't think he chose unwisely, if you consider his possible reasons for doing so. He may have chosen unwisely if you believe he wanted to win the war.
