To hell and back. That is where I would follow General Mattis.

First, McChrystal obviously thinks this Afghanistan enterprise is a losing trade and wants to leave with his guns blazing. It is everybody else fault that he can’t succeed.

Secondly, this war is such a fiasco that making Mattis or the guy that services my car the next Af/Pak commander will make little difference. Nobody is happy with the wars rational let alone its moving target strategy.

Thirdly, in the end whatever you think of Biden (not much in my case) he will still have been discovered to be closest to being right about Afghanistan. We should have selected an over the horizon discrete al Qaeda centered strategy based on special op’s, UAV’s, intelligence, etc., not the hyper expensive and virtually inoperable nation building strategy mixed with massive conventional force that the military favors.

Lastly, the military looks very bad (not he trigger pullers) the high command that for years have portrayed an attitude of confusion, sham optimism and operational ineptitude. The military knows how to take a hill but seemingly little else. This is a sad day for those whose sons, fathers and daughters have died and been maimed while the high command blunders about with locker room towel snapping arrogance.

I suspect that this will be an interesting news generating story for the next few days. I have to admit that I like your theory that Petraeus (P4) could take over Afghanistan and his DCDR LtGen Allen could assume the Iraq portion. You know that P4 is very calculating with his every job move. I just can’t see him stepping down to vault up. Should rumor in DC be true, the Chairman is one incident away from being fired himself and the logical choice is that P4 rises to that position (…presidential springboard from there??)

Mattis, while an interesting General, does have the rap on him for being opinionated. If this plays out that McChyrstal (M4) gets relieved, I’m convinced that the administration will not want another potential powder keg in country. But then again, there isn’t much of a General Officer bench in any service, especially the Army, to push into these positions (there is a topic you should explore).

From what I have read of the excerpts from the Rolling Stone article, it appears that there is a mix of what M4 said and what his aides/XO’s commented on. Even if the majority of the story is based on what the personal staff said, it would not have been the first time that it was mentioned or discussed with M4. The truth be told, I wouldn’t say that they are isolated comments to M4s staff – poll other staffs and you will get the same comments in varying degrees.

Eikenberry is a piece of work. He is not exactly friendly to units on the ground and their initiatives. If it isn’t his idea then it isn’t on the table. Eikenberry has his own agenda, and it isn’t exactly what State or the White House directs him to do.

As for the NSC Advisor – the quote is dead-on. Jim Jones is no longer a General and needs to move into 2010 and not live in the past. As for Holbrooke, it is time for him to find a quiet lake to retire to. What has he accomplished in his position in 18 months? Except for asking inane questions during his infrequent visits to Pakistan and Afghanistan he is a relic from the past that doesn’t understand the modern battlefield, the region or the dynamic that is AF-PAK.

I'm surprised at this development. There are two issues that are troubling. The first is the comments are pretty sophomoric and more is expected of senior leadership. The second, and most troubling, is the way they let their guard down to a reporter. Should we require reporters to wear a stamp on their forehead that says "I am not your friend?" Well, no. Of course not. Four star generals and the senior staff should already know that and act accordingly. That failure really calls into question his (and the staffs) judgement.

This is the kind of stuff that happens when you are losing or at least not winning your war. If they were accomplishing their mission with their prescribed ‘strategy’ they would be falling over each other claiming credit. They very fact that something like this happens is the canary in the cage warning that the air is toxic.

I'm betting one of our normal posters brings up the "He should have been fired when he wore ACUs to meet the President." Wait for it in 10 seconds....9, 8, 7...

Having said that "Stupid Is as Stupid Does." Pretty dumb way to wrap up a career but he deserves nothing less than his walking papers on this one - not because he was insubordinate (which he was) but because he was dumb.

Yes, McChrystal deserves to be faulted and possibly expunged - but the real question is what motivated this, where does the discontent come from? - the possible answers you give Mr Ricks conspicuously avoid blaming the administration - but this administration has sown dysfunction and bad ideas all over the policy landscape and this faux pas is but merely another manifestation of the consequences of that. McChrystal is tired, really? That's your explanation? My god, Biden with yet another idiotic gaffe just kicked the chair out from under McChrystal again by uttering statements that entirely undermine the most fundamental condition regarding COIN - ie that the target population must believe that you're in it for the long haul, that you're in it to win - not to mention all the other crap that has come down the pipe - Obama's ridiculous 6 month gestation period while he played professor and 'meditated' on the problem, Eikenberry, the arbitrarily appended withdrawal date that Hillary and Gates tired to walk back into the barn - and you want to pretend the rancor wafting from the McChrystal camp is a result of fatigue?

This administration is an abysmal failure, Obama is an abysmal failure encroaching very rapidly on 'worse than Bush' territory - possibly his many failings will force him, a la Clinton, to rethink his approach to things - but I doubt that very much - after all Clinton, unlike Obama, didn't owe his political fortunes to left wing ideologues - and thusly there's no way in hell Petraeus will risk his reputation by taking on Afghanistan given the dysfunction currently on display.

Whether McChrystal was angling for a way out or just being an *ss i don't see any benefit for Petraeus in going back into the front line.

Fair enough if he feels that his country needs him and a sense of duty propels him back into the firing line but if he is thinking about his political future then he should sit on his hands and say nothing.

When things were going badly for the Empire in 1632 everyone thought that Ferdinand had recalled Wallenstein to stabilise the military situation ahead of peace talks. What happened instead was that Ferdinand used the peace overtures that Wallenstein had made on his behalf as an excuse to make him a scapegoat.

No one is going to burst into Petraeus' bedroom and run him through with a halberd but his career will be just as dead if he wades into the Afghan morass.

...for My Favorite Army and the AVF. These guys aren't professionals. They're plumbers. And bad ones at that. The degree of arrogant isolation is absolutely stunning.

Once more: after these two failed adventures in the Middle East, it now is time for a thorough review of our nation's approach to national defense and an in-depth reform of our military. Others can debate whether this instance is symptom or cause. All I can say is it's not working and we're spending far too much money and wrecking far too many lives to tolerate such incompetence and insubordination. And the entire chain of command is indicted.

The 'right stuff' in a warrior or general is not a feature of inexhaustable quantity. A lot of it has to do with tools and timing. Horatio had a bridge to cover his flanks, and knew when to swim for it.

Petraeus ran the good race. But he's no longer in a position to directly inspire company and junior field grade officers. He was once noted for exhorting the young turks to 'not let the Army stop you from doing your job'. That doesn't play as well from McDill HQ, or apply over in Pakistan and London.

Gen. McChrystal's explanation on the false story attached to the TIllman silver star is kinda poignant. Stan memo'd a warning to cover the President's six. But he thought Pat was a hero, deserved a medal, and saluted the version being sold? Now he's to show up in class A shiny shoes, to be cashiered for disrespecting the shifting policy line.

C'est la guerre. Maybe Casey and McKiernan will invite him to join their support group.

There's one marine being ignored here, and that's Jim Jones, in the bunker at NSC. I see him as sort of a shadowy anti-Keane figure in the Potomac drama, waving his friends away from toothless 'policy czar' positions. He's a guy who might keep stellar Ranger scores in perspective, at the 4-star level. What's he telling team Obama, about our strategic imperatives and tactical prospects, in our land-locked Asian war?

I gather McChrystal and his staff were making a case through the media to stay the course after the proposed 2011 withdrawl deadline? I think it's safe to say any possible thought of that, by any member of the national security staff, no matter how remote, evaporated.

Roger Trinquier said something about all the military tactics and hardware was great, but if the population lost its confidence in you, it was over with.

Perhaps I am overstating the impact on the local Afghan over time with this issue, but Karzai surely now has to be wheeling and dealing behind our back with even greater vigor at this point, with Eikenberry still in place, and his advocate McChrystal probably out?

Before replacing the general, the White House should take a hard look at finding a new ambassador in Kabul

Well said. I would only add that for someone who thinks that they can engineer the future of an entire country by immersing themselves in every aspect of its culture and maneuvering accordingly, he shows a stunning lack of perspective on his home country's culture and politics. Somehow, I doubt this type of person is qualified for this type of campaign--if it's even possible to win such a campaign. Second, he and his staff sound like middleschoolers. But hey, at least Karzai loves him.

Can't say what these affairs are called in other Services, but in the Navy what McChrystal faces tomorrow is called a 'come around.' They are never pleasant. I suspect from this one we'll see blood in the scuppers.

Did you really just rag on McChrystal for the Biden comment??? If you had read the report you would know AN AIDE made the "Bite Me" quip -- not McChrystal. Are we criticizing a General for something an aide said in private? How far we've fallen.....

Nah, I think it will be Rodriguez - and who's to say this wasn't a very calculated and deliberate move by McCrystal? He's nobodies fool. Every soldier in the military from PFC to General knows not to talk to the press. Not a word -- unless you want to see it sprawed across the front page of the Washington Post the next day. Everyone that has anything do do with Afghanistan knows its going to the toilet fast and Nobama and his idiot staff have no freaking clue what is going on over there.

Again can't say about the other Services, but in the Navy the concept of command is absolute. Happened on your watch? It's your fault. End of discussion.

Navy also has a concept of 'command climate.' It's the wild idea that a commander is somehow in charge of what goes on in his or her command. As i understand it, the journalist from Rolling Stone was with that staff for some period of time. McChrystal would have saved his ass had the reporter ever heard him brace one of his minions for inappropriate comments about the National Command Authority or the civilian leaders in Afghanistan. Instead, it sounds like McChrystal joined in. Leadership by precept and example is the standard: it should not be a lesson a 4-star needs reminding of.

I read the article. While the lack of discipline on his staff is inexcusable, not to mention their lack of sense around the media...

...I would not be surprised if 90% of the quotes came from their trip to the Irish Pub in Paris. Either way, they all should have known better and those quotes are probably symptomatic of a disdain for the people they are supposed to work with- and FOR.

Doesn't matter who's his replacement, it's unwinnable. Afghanistan ain't Iraq, and trying to graft the Iraq surge onto it- whilst adding restrictive ROE- hasn't worked and probably won't.

A dozen dead Americans a week so that President Obama can back up his Afghanistan-as-a-foil-to-Iraq campaign rhetoric about the "right war," until we withdraw in a year as planned.

Since Mr. Ricks has been focused on General Patton's diary I thought I would segue on WW 2 and what a lot of US military commanders thought of President Roosevelt (rubber legs comes to mind). Or how President Truman fared after sacking General MacArthur. BTW, what did Patton think of MacArthur? I know what Patton thought of Bradley.

Can't wait to see Faux News spin on this. Good thing Bush and Cheney never took their eyes off of Afghanistan especially Tora Bora when they went to war in Iraq. Good thing that Karzai is an honest trust worthy man. Good thing we never have to worry about those nukes in Pakistan. For what it is worth I support the war in Afghanistan. I think of Afghan girls trying to go to school and not have acid thrown in their face. I think that we are not the British or the Russians and that is why we could win in Afghanistan. I think that the President that I voted for and still support is trying to do the right thing in Afghanistan. I don't know what that is. And while it is easy to dump on Obama it was the previous administration who dropped the ball. Nonetheless President Obama wanted this job and it is his responsibility to complete the mission.

I do focus on the lessons from WW 2 and how some of it may appliy to Afghanistan. Same with Vietnam. Do we rebuild Afghanistan like we did Japan and Germany. Is it even possible? Do we leave like what we did in Vietnam?

McChrystal was wrong in speaking out. But in the wisdom of Soloman, I would keep him on the job. I think in some ways that is a worse punishment then firing him. But as always I bet on Ricks since he is a f*cking smart son of a gun. And because he likes dogs a lot.

Seems to me the President's in a tough spot. Does he fire McCrystal and thus free him to go write a book with all the good dirt and hit the Tea Party speaking circuit til November? Or does he spare McCrystal to minimize the damage? But how does he do that without looking weak? I've got a feeling this story is only going to get more interesting in the next couple weeks.

Contrary to what some people think leaving McChrystal in his present position would not make Obama seem strong, it would validate the concern in the Pentagon that he is weak.

Obama must finally exert some leadership and make a tough, but correct call and remove McChrystal from his command immediately, otherwise Obama will show the world, including our adversaries, how weak he is.

McChrystal is a NATO Commander. Does anyone think that othr ISAF countries will say anything, or will they remain silent as when McKeirnen was sent home.
I think the deeper problem is the civil-military rift that is occuring in Afghanistan. I do not recall Petreus and Crocker having the problems that McChrystal and Eieknberry are having. I guess it shows the value of personnal relationships even at that level.

Somebody has to explain to Obama that he basically comes across as a wussy, and nobody respects a wussy, particularly folks of a bellicose bent, who Obama needs to carry out his liberal interventionist policy, because God only knows the honeymoon is over with Obama and his base. If Obama lets McChrystal go there will be howls and cries of protest, but basically half the country claims he is a subversive Islamist Communist, so who cares what they think? But, if the truth be known, those people don't believe Obama is a Communist, they just know he is a Democrat, which in their Manichean dichotomous world is just as evil.

Americans have a lot of patience for a f%ck up, provided said person is self confident (i.e. cocky), refuses to apologize for things beyond their control (i.e. never admit to any wrongdoing) and is possessed of clarity (i.e. bullheaded), if we voted a warthog into office it would be one of the most popular leaders ever, I think. This isn't a dem vs. repub/left vs. right thing, lot's of folks on the left wanted and want the Republicans to feel pain for the years 2000-2008. But either way, Obama has been too wishy washy and my money says he'll show that always predictable, and always annoying tendency to obfuscate, apologize, and try to reach across to people who hate him while spitting in the face of the people who supported him, supporters who aren't big moneyed interests on WallStreet, that is.

You learn as much about a man's character from what he won't do as from what he does. I sensed a flaw in Gen. McChrystal's character when he declined to watch LTC Frank Jenio's back last winter. ... Jenio and Stan go back a long way. Jenio was a member of Stan's inner circle during the dark ops in Iraq. Stan knew better than anyone what Col. Drinkwine's motives were in getting Jenio relieved of command. ... I have been told on good authority that Jenio's last evaluation was the best of any battalion commander in the Afghan theater. Stan could have stepped in here, but he obviously could not summon the courage to do so. Meanwhile, competence wasn't enough to save a good officer from an angry wife. ... Jenio's judgment with the slide show may have been poor, but it doesn't begin to match Stan's lack of judgment. If Jenio could be sacked for the most frivolous of reasons, why should anyone think Stan deserves better for much more grievous failings?

http://www.fayobserver.com/articles/2010/06/11/1006135?sac=Home

...dont have that kind of luxury. If your precious Commander-in-chief is wrong who's gonna tell him that ? Also, i would think twice before nominating Mattis.