That said, I do find it amusing to yet again see so many on the right and the left adopt the talking points that their political opposition were using a few short years ago. It’s almost as if they are positions of convenience.

Maybe Tully can point out a few.

Presidents/admins “firing” generals from top commands is hardly rare (doesn’t anyone remember how McChrystal got the job in the first place?) and the publicly stated reasons for doing so are not at all necessarily the actual reasons.

And those are just a few bits of recent history.

The Democrats are using this general to take the eyes off health care reform and put them on something else. Anything else.

“”"… On Monday night, Pelosi told Charlie Rose “should go up the line of command” instead of publicly opining on strategy — prompting a swift, sneering reaction from the GOP committee. …””"” This is how its portrayed at another left site.

“”“It’s evidence they long for the days when a woman’s place was in the kitchen. Now a woman is third in line for the presidency… But it’s not surprising, coming from a party that’s 80 percent male and 100 percent white,” she added, referring to the composition of the House GOP conference. …””" Another obscure Democratic congresswoman said yesterday.

This is nothing more then a gimmick by the Obama administration to use this generals remarks to get everyones attention off the Senate healthcare fiasco long enough to get a bill to the floor to debate on it. Because once we get a bill……its going to pass. Simple as that.

I don’t know if we’d have to dig very much to find other examples comparable to McChrystal (or even more outspoken, etc.). Maybe Tully can point out a few. Although he was not a general, Theodore Roosevelt was a “loose cannon” when he served as Assistant Secretary of the Navy (for all intents in purposes, he ran the department). In the run-up to the Spanish-American War, I don’t think Teddy was laying low.

One possibility is that this has happened more frequently than Bruce Ackerman claimed it has, but that the main difference now is that there’s more exposure with the alternative media, etc. (and, of course, there’s a Democratic president . . .).

Also, I’m not sure if there’s really been that many American wartime commanders at the level of McChyrstal, McClelland, and MacArthur. Three examples might be pretty telling.

Most officers and soldiers are expected to simply follow orders, but the highest ranking general(s) should be able resign from the top post

Me too, and I haven’t seen any suggestion that this is something generals can’t do. As for the possibility of firing him, so far the President seems to be taking it mostly in stride. McChrystal is safe, I think.

Does McChrystal have the right to expect his name won’t be attached to a policy with which he disagrees? Yes.

but that should actually help my case

Slight disagreement. That only those two names can be pulled up shows that it is not common. To say it’s non-existent would be wrong, and there are probably more cases to be found if you dug deep enough, but I think that mostly the generals take their disagreements to the President, if only out of respect.

And before someone hops on me, I’m not suggesting McChrystal is disrespecting the President.

@Jim

Maybe the situation is so dire in Afghanistan that he felt a fire had to be lit under Obama’s ass to get him to decide which way he wants to go.

But is it his place to go around publicly suggesting what courses of action he doesn’t want? Advice to the President, sure, but in public?

I was responding more to MM @ #1. Yes, the Prez can “fire” his generals. But he can do that no matter what, anyway. And any general worthy of his stars would rather be fired than used as the fall guy for a failure. (Conversely, most would also throw themselves under the PR bus if it meant a victory for the nation.)

Neither of those insubordinate loose cannons are all that comparable to McChrystal, save that it remains true that the C-in-C can of course “fire” him from that command if he wants to. Of course, then the C-in-C would OWN all the results of whatever substitute strategy was employed.

Again, my hunch is that McChrystal is thinking something like, “If you want to disregard my recommendations, that is your prerogative as the Commander in Chief. But I’ll be damned if you’re going to take another course of action and then suggest that the decision was largely/partly based on my input. Let’s be men and take full responsibility for whatever course of action is ultimately pursued rather than setting up CYA ‘outs’ in advance.”

Yep. He’s removing himself from nominations for the fall-guy position.