General Stanley McChrystal

[Tactical Dave]

As he's regarded as one of the foremost authorities upon the subject of counter insurgency operations, he might just become a high priced consultant to DoD.

Either way he is set for life when it comes to $$$.

 

[downzero]

McCrystal is a bad ass. I wish I'd served in one of his commands.

 

[lashicoN]

Nope.

Good counter.

 

[E5RANGER375]

The General will be working for Haliberton within a year. Like I said before, he knew exactly what he was doing. He'll be back in Afghanistan working side-by-side with Karzai and his half-brother. He'll make millions of dollars on top of his retirement, which is exactly what him and those like him normally do.

He's no leader in my book, because a leader inspires others to do what must be done. He could have retired without the drama. Now, there are soldiers who must SIU&DO after all of this mess. If he cared about the soldiers, he would have just walked away.

"He's no leader in my book"

thats a pretty bold statement from you. I havent read your book Que, but im sure i will read his. have you ever met him?

Also, whats wrong with getting paid to do what your good at? better the people who are good do it rather than a suit, right??

I think this is an Honorable man. More than your savior Obama.

 

[WWIIIDefender]

You don't get to general status unless every move you make has already been calculated out. Trust me this is what the good ol general wanted for what ever reason.

 

[Blue Tile Spook]

Watch what you say: Speech limits under UCMJ

Watch what you say: Speech limits under UCMJ

Q: I am currently on active duty and I want to get involved in politics. Can I?

A: This is a tricky question. The short answer is “no,” but like almost everything with law, exceptions do apply. (If it was not for exceptions in the law, law school would be three months instead of three years.) Numerous articles in the UCMJ restrict the speech of service members, and two of those could affect political speech. I would point out that under Article 2 of the UCMJ, retired members of the military drawing pay, as well as active-duty service members, are subject to UCMJ provisions. So if you think retiring will allow you to escape UCMJ action, you are wrong.

My favorite UCMJ provision is Article 88, which makes it a crime for an officer to use contemptuous words against the president, the vice president, Congress, the secretary of defense, the secretary of a military department, the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, or the governor or legislature of any state, territory, commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present

In 1999, Army Lieutenant Colonel Michael Davidson explained in a law review article that contemptuous “means insulting, rude, disdainful or otherwise disrespectfully attributing to another qualities of meanness, disreputableness, or worthlessness.”

This article of the UCMJ is relatively new (about 60 years old) but it can trace itself back to colonial times. If you think nobody gets prosecuted under it, think again. Numerous officers have been disciplined for criticizing the president. Two Marine Corps officers were administratively punished for published letters to newspapers that were disrespectful to the president in the 1990s.

Article 134, known as the catch-all article, makes criminal those acts of speech that are prejudicial to good order and discipline or that could bring discredit upon the Armed Forces. This is pretty broad and explains why it is often called the catch-all article. If your chain of command thinks your political involvement has affected your unit or the military, you could be punished under this article.

The UCMJ is not the only thing you need to worry about. If you are a noncommissioned officer, warrant officer or an officer, and attempt to influence other members of the military to vote because of your military authority, then you will be facing five years in prison under 18 USC 609.

Now that you have brushed up on some key laws, you could also run afoul of some very restrictive regulations. DoD Directive 1344.10 bans active-duty service members from running for office, participating in partisan political management, or campaigns (many exceptions are applicable).

If you have plans to speak out against the current administration, I would strongly recommend against it until you are off active duty — and not collecting retired pay!​

 

[JBusch8899]

Watch what you say: Speech limits under UCMJ

Especially if its the truth.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Great for you, but your "list" wasn't shared by the person who wrote the 1st Amendment, any of his contemporaries, or anyone else for that matter. None of the framers ever, at any time, suggested that the BoR they wrote somehow over-rode existing libel and slander laws, or gave military persons the right to be insubordinate.

This isn't my opinion, or "what I believe" it's the simple facts.

You voluntarily join the military, you voluntarily take everything that goes with it, e.g. speech restrictions (no absolute 1st amendment), following lawful orders, submitting to military justice system in lieu of civilian justice system, etc, etc.

Even if you didn't volunteer for the military, once you take the Oath, you are bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Doesn't matter what an ideal of a civil libertarian thinks, it is the law, promulgated by Congress, signed off by the President of the United States, and upheld by the Supreme Court. You'll just have to live with that, as we have.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Generals are quite often like county Sheriffs here in Indiana. They are savvy politicians or they don't attain their position. It doesn't mean they are exceptional in any meaningful sense. I served under a couple general officers over the years. Some were warriors; most were button-counters at heart. When the Army got away from "Leadership" and became "managers" (circa WWII) they opened the door for this sort of stuff. From what I've heard, I think it likely that McKristal, being of like mind to his CIC on many issues, didn't expect to get nailed as a result of this interview with a freelance journalist. After all, his staff didn't express any different opinion of the VP than have members of the CIC's staff at times. He should have known better.

 

[Ogre]

I'd say we are better off with Patreaus...
.