<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: McChrystal &#8216;scandal&#8217; is phony</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.reuters.com/gregg-easterbrook/2010/06/23/mcchrystal-scandal-is-phony/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/gregg-easterbrook/2010/06/23/mcchrystal-scandal-is-phony/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 25 Sep 2012 00:58:59 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: newsreview</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/gregg-easterbrook/2010/06/23/mcchrystal-scandal-is-phony/comment-page-1/#comment-437</link>
		<dc:creator>newsreview</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jul 2010 22:22:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.reuters.com/gregg-easterbrook/?p=160#comment-437</guid>
		<description>It is common for military personnel who are risking their lives to feel hostility about pompous civilians who pamper themselves in Washington.  

That we seemed shocked to hear a fairly tame version of how they talk among themselves shows how out of contact much of America is with its armed forces.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It is common for military personnel who are risking their lives to feel hostility about pompous civilians who pamper themselves in Washington.  </p>
<p>That we seemed shocked to hear a fairly tame version of how they talk among themselves shows how out of contact much of America is with its armed forces.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: z_capitan</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/gregg-easterbrook/2010/06/23/mcchrystal-scandal-is-phony/comment-page-1/#comment-411</link>
		<dc:creator>z_capitan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Jun 2010 13:57:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.reuters.com/gregg-easterbrook/?p=160#comment-411</guid>
		<description>If Air Force One was forced down in a Taliban controlled area on the Afghan/Pakistan border, I wonder who POTUS would want planning and executing the rescue mission - McChrystal or Petraeus?  

Hint:  If you asked Petraeus who would be best qualified to run the operation, he would want McChrystal running the show! 

McChrystal and his hand picked staff of &quot;special operators,&quot; know: 1) our capabilities with an understanding of the tactical use of &quot;black ops&quot; that very few have, 2) the terrain, 3) enemy estimates/capabilities.  They also have streamlined strikes against the enemies leadership so they occur within minutes without waiting for layers of approval.  The result is one of the most surgically efficient and effective killing machines in American military history.  It has kept al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders looking over their shoulders and constantly on the move (for fear of being located and killed) since McChrystal implemented the new policy targeting their leadership.

Now McChrystal&#039;s and his team are out.  His top advisors, the team of special operators similar to a native American war council, will go with him because they won&#039;t fit in with Petraeus&#039; team.  It will be a tremendous loss of knowledge and expertise.  McChrystal and his team will probably be relocated to administrative positions were they can write field manuals on how to conduct a war.  Personally, I would want my team&#039;s &quot;baddest tough guys on the planet&quot; running the operation in the theater.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If Air Force One was forced down in a Taliban controlled area on the Afghan/Pakistan border, I wonder who POTUS would want planning and executing the rescue mission &#8211; McChrystal or Petraeus?  </p>
<p>Hint:  If you asked Petraeus who would be best qualified to run the operation, he would want McChrystal running the show! </p>
<p>McChrystal and his hand picked staff of &#8220;special operators,&#8221; know: 1) our capabilities with an understanding of the tactical use of &#8220;black ops&#8221; that very few have, 2) the terrain, 3) enemy estimates/capabilities.  They also have streamlined strikes against the enemies leadership so they occur within minutes without waiting for layers of approval.  The result is one of the most surgically efficient and effective killing machines in American military history.  It has kept al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders looking over their shoulders and constantly on the move (for fear of being located and killed) since McChrystal implemented the new policy targeting their leadership.</p>
<p>Now McChrystal&#8217;s and his team are out.  His top advisors, the team of special operators similar to a native American war council, will go with him because they won&#8217;t fit in with Petraeus&#8217; team.  It will be a tremendous loss of knowledge and expertise.  McChrystal and his team will probably be relocated to administrative positions were they can write field manuals on how to conduct a war.  Personally, I would want my team&#8217;s &#8220;baddest tough guys on the planet&#8221; running the operation in the theater.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: hsvkitty</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/gregg-easterbrook/2010/06/23/mcchrystal-scandal-is-phony/comment-page-1/#comment-409</link>
		<dc:creator>hsvkitty</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Jun 2010 05:14:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.reuters.com/gregg-easterbrook/?p=160#comment-409</guid>
		<description>rgrowley, this article did as the author wished... bring out like minded idiots.  It isn&#039;t even a coherent article.   

It seems no matter what Obama would do, he would be wrong.  The Obama haters are just that, hating because he is who he is.  I am a white Canadian and I can smell your racism from here...

Obama did the right thing... and he should not be blamed for this... the General shot himself in the foot to weasel out of his position when he should have just quit.   No officer should be acting/speaking like this, especially in front of the press.  

Yet you bad mouth in a disgusting fashion, your President, while blaming Rolling Stone.  

The General allowed access to his childish actions for nearly 6 months.  That tells me there were 100 times worse antics that did not get shared and you should be ashamed to have a military commander who would undermine his troops and their mission by making a mockery of the bosses!

I dare you to go to work tomorrow (although, who employees disgusting pigs) and speak to your boss like that so he can fire your sorry behind. Speaking of weasels, you can climb back under your rock now.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>rgrowley, this article did as the author wished&#8230; bring out like minded idiots.  It isn&#8217;t even a coherent article.   </p>
<p>It seems no matter what Obama would do, he would be wrong.  The Obama haters are just that, hating because he is who he is.  I am a white Canadian and I can smell your racism from here&#8230;</p>
<p>Obama did the right thing&#8230; and he should not be blamed for this&#8230; the General shot himself in the foot to weasel out of his position when he should have just quit.   No officer should be acting/speaking like this, especially in front of the press.  </p>
<p>Yet you bad mouth in a disgusting fashion, your President, while blaming Rolling Stone.  </p>
<p>The General allowed access to his childish actions for nearly 6 months.  That tells me there were 100 times worse antics that did not get shared and you should be ashamed to have a military commander who would undermine his troops and their mission by making a mockery of the bosses!</p>
<p>I dare you to go to work tomorrow (although, who employees disgusting pigs) and speak to your boss like that so he can fire your sorry behind. Speaking of weasels, you can climb back under your rock now.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: rgrowley</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/gregg-easterbrook/2010/06/23/mcchrystal-scandal-is-phony/comment-page-1/#comment-408</link>
		<dc:creator>rgrowley</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Jun 2010 03:19:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.reuters.com/gregg-easterbrook/?p=160#comment-408</guid>
		<description>Obama reacted shamefully to place full confidence in a Rolling Stone article.  

Oh here&#039;s one I heard from unnamed sources therefore it has to be true.  Obama shaves his arse and walks backwards to appear more handsome and to see his trail of tears.

I am eagerly waiting to read McChrystal forth coming book.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Obama reacted shamefully to place full confidence in a Rolling Stone article.  </p>
<p>Oh here&#8217;s one I heard from unnamed sources therefore it has to be true.  Obama shaves his arse and walks backwards to appear more handsome and to see his trail of tears.</p>
<p>I am eagerly waiting to read McChrystal forth coming book.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: widollar</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/gregg-easterbrook/2010/06/23/mcchrystal-scandal-is-phony/comment-page-1/#comment-405</link>
		<dc:creator>widollar</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Jun 2010 16:34:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.reuters.com/gregg-easterbrook/?p=160#comment-405</guid>
		<description>It does not matter who the General is for this failed war. All that it will accomplish is cause the U.S. Treasury to continue to spend hundreds of billions of dollars thrown down a giant rat hole. It will cost Obama his second term, and given his poor performance that is what should happen. The horrible thing is some GOP nitwit with no good plans for America will take his place. So the bottom line, America loses either way, unfortunately. The blame can be laid on the doorstep of Bush and Cheney and their eight year reign of stupidity!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It does not matter who the General is for this failed war. All that it will accomplish is cause the U.S. Treasury to continue to spend hundreds of billions of dollars thrown down a giant rat hole. It will cost Obama his second term, and given his poor performance that is what should happen. The horrible thing is some GOP nitwit with no good plans for America will take his place. So the bottom line, America loses either way, unfortunately. The blame can be laid on the doorstep of Bush and Cheney and their eight year reign of stupidity!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jf518</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/gregg-easterbrook/2010/06/23/mcchrystal-scandal-is-phony/comment-page-1/#comment-403</link>
		<dc:creator>jf518</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Jun 2010 14:23:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.reuters.com/gregg-easterbrook/?p=160#comment-403</guid>
		<description>Apologies to NobleKin, who expressed my sentiments more thoroughly and eloquently several posts prior to mine.  Well said.

I also feel compelled to respond to PassingResident - absolute truth that inexperienced officers must listen to and learn from more experienced enlisted/officers.  

Huge difference between that and tolerance for insubordination though - you know that better than anyone.  How would you react if one of your guys was trying to undermine you behind your back?  

Not defending any political figure here, but leadership is leadership - can&#039;t have it both ways.  McChrystal would have been cooked with any president, of any ideology - Roosevelt (Frank or Teddy), Nixon, Reagan, Obama, you name &#039;em.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Apologies to NobleKin, who expressed my sentiments more thoroughly and eloquently several posts prior to mine.  Well said.</p>
<p>I also feel compelled to respond to PassingResident &#8211; absolute truth that inexperienced officers must listen to and learn from more experienced enlisted/officers.  </p>
<p>Huge difference between that and tolerance for insubordination though &#8211; you know that better than anyone.  How would you react if one of your guys was trying to undermine you behind your back?  </p>
<p>Not defending any political figure here, but leadership is leadership &#8211; can&#8217;t have it both ways.  McChrystal would have been cooked with any president, of any ideology &#8211; Roosevelt (Frank or Teddy), Nixon, Reagan, Obama, you name &#8216;em.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jf518</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/gregg-easterbrook/2010/06/23/mcchrystal-scandal-is-phony/comment-page-1/#comment-402</link>
		<dc:creator>jf518</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Jun 2010 14:01:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.reuters.com/gregg-easterbrook/?p=160#comment-402</guid>
		<description>As a former military officer, a few things - 

*Anyone who has spent more than 24 hours in the military knows that their right to free speech does NOT absolve them of the consequences of what they say - especially up the chain of command!  The culture of the military is pretty clear on this one...

*Civilian control of the military is one of the most critical aspects of our democracy, period.  The president is well within his rights to defend that principle agressively.  In my opinion, he is obligated to do so.

*The general SHOULD agressively defend his positions and advise the government on his views on conducting the war - PRIVATELY.  If he can&#039;t stomach those views being overridden, he should tender his resignation immediately.  Sniping via anonymous sources in the media is a political act, not the act of an honorably serving officer (see Truman v. MacArthur, Korean war for context).

I don&#039;t support a lot of the current administration&#039;s policies, but any White House that tolerated this level of insubordination is not qualified to serve as commander in chief.  McChrystal left them no choice, not because of what was said, but the venue and manner in which it came out.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As a former military officer, a few things &#8211; </p>
<p>*Anyone who has spent more than 24 hours in the military knows that their right to free speech does NOT absolve them of the consequences of what they say &#8211; especially up the chain of command!  The culture of the military is pretty clear on this one&#8230;</p>
<p>*Civilian control of the military is one of the most critical aspects of our democracy, period.  The president is well within his rights to defend that principle agressively.  In my opinion, he is obligated to do so.</p>
<p>*The general SHOULD agressively defend his positions and advise the government on his views on conducting the war &#8211; PRIVATELY.  If he can&#8217;t stomach those views being overridden, he should tender his resignation immediately.  Sniping via anonymous sources in the media is a political act, not the act of an honorably serving officer (see Truman v. MacArthur, Korean war for context).</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t support a lot of the current administration&#8217;s policies, but any White House that tolerated this level of insubordination is not qualified to serve as commander in chief.  McChrystal left them no choice, not because of what was said, but the venue and manner in which it came out.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: onlinenews</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/gregg-easterbrook/2010/06/23/mcchrystal-scandal-is-phony/comment-page-1/#comment-401</link>
		<dc:creator>onlinenews</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Jun 2010 13:21:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.reuters.com/gregg-easterbrook/?p=160#comment-401</guid>
		<description>First of, Gregg, the article in Rolling stone was reported interview on McChrystal and his aides(including his advisor). Why did they name McChrystal if it was not credited? Maybe the others chose not to be named. And why did McChrystal acknowledge the interview? Give me a break. He broke the chain of command(whichever way you look at it)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>First of, Gregg, the article in Rolling stone was reported interview on McChrystal and his aides(including his advisor). Why did they name McChrystal if it was not credited? Maybe the others chose not to be named. And why did McChrystal acknowledge the interview? Give me a break. He broke the chain of command(whichever way you look at it)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: onlinenews</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/gregg-easterbrook/2010/06/23/mcchrystal-scandal-is-phony/comment-page-1/#comment-400</link>
		<dc:creator>onlinenews</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Jun 2010 13:21:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.reuters.com/gregg-easterbrook/?p=160#comment-400</guid>
		<description>First off, Gregg, the article in Rolling stone was reported interview on McChrystal and his aides(including his advisor). Why did they name McChrystal if it was not credited? Maybe the others chose not to be named. And why did McChrystal acknowledge the interview? Give me a break. He broke the chain of command(whichever way you look at it)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>First off, Gregg, the article in Rolling stone was reported interview on McChrystal and his aides(including his advisor). Why did they name McChrystal if it was not credited? Maybe the others chose not to be named. And why did McChrystal acknowledge the interview? Give me a break. He broke the chain of command(whichever way you look at it)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mcoleman</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/gregg-easterbrook/2010/06/23/mcchrystal-scandal-is-phony/comment-page-1/#comment-399</link>
		<dc:creator>mcoleman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Jun 2010 13:03:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.reuters.com/gregg-easterbrook/?p=160#comment-399</guid>
		<description>If this had happened during the Bush administration, they&#039;d have gone after McChrystal&#039;s wife (assuming he&#039;s married).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If this had happened during the Bush administration, they&#8217;d have gone after McChrystal&#8217;s wife (assuming he&#8217;s married).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
