E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS From NBC's Alexander Rosen
In the wake of Gen. Stanley McChrystal's resignation last week, it remains unclear whether a wide-scale house cleaning of his former staff will occur within U.S. Central Command. After all, it was not only McChrystal who was quoted in the Rolling Stone article making inappropriate comments, but also numerous anonymous aides to the general.
So far only General McChrystal’s civilian press aide, Duncan Boothby, the man who set up the Rolling Stone article, has resigned from his position, but those who have not yet been fired or resigned could also be walking to the guillotine very soon.
The New York Times points out “General Petraeus is known for bringing a large and diverse team to work with him, one with civilians and military personnel,” adding that bringing in a new team is “somewhat more complicated in this case, because precipitous changes in the middle of a war could mean a loss of continuity and institutional knowledge.”
A senior officer speaking on the condition of anonymity told the Times that in order to create a smooth transition of power in U.S. Central Command, “A lot of people will stay for the transition and then you’ll see them gradually pack up.”
It might be unlikely that the names of the aides quoted alongside McChrystal in Rolling Stone will be made public, but the individuals associated with McChrystal’s command could very soon be quietly looking for new jobs.
Leave a Comment:
... what about the troops?
Bring the troops home immediately! Every republican Senator to a man and Ben Nelson voted against the unemployment extension because we do not have the money, they don't want to add to the deficit. How can we justify 5.5 billion a month that we don't have to build up Afghan capacity and security. American citizens are going to lose everything, and there is not a dime to be had. The funding for the war should be cut off immediately, if we can't afford to take care of our own, we can't afford to wage war and build governments.
Thats why they didn't want to extend benefits. We are going to be in the middle east for a minimum of 10 more years. Anything we spend on it is going to add to the deficit. That spending and accompanying deficit increase is already a given so we can't spend any more on anything else to add to the deficit.
Of course we could take a serious look at our defense budget, currently at 50% of GDP, and probably find a few billion here and there that could be spent elsewhere, but you can bet your sweet a@@ they won't do it.
If I had the power I would start closing bases in the districts of senators that voted against the working people that are the victims of their economic policies. Further more the barracks could be offered as housing to the people who will be on the streets.
Yeah and why do we need so many troops in Germany, Canada, England, Japan. Some of this just does make any sense at all. They went on a U.S base closing spree some years back but nothing overseas.
If millions of americans are homeless, starving, and without hope, what the hell are you protecting other than Nike, Apple, Wal-mart, and many others. If the US can provide security to corporations abroad, why can't they provide minimum security to it's workers laid off due to the coporations moving their operations overseas for cheap labor.
This is, of course, pure speculation, but. . .
different managers bring different style to the same job. McChrystal, obviously, had a style which encouraged the sort of 'banter' that ultimately ended his career. I have no doubt that Petraeus is a completely different sort of manager-discipline, 'by the book', et te job done with a minimum of personalities.
That message is undoubtedly known by those officers at the ranks just below his, (think about your own office); therefore,those who report to him will be there just as long as he needs them there-then they will be either transferred or mustered out.
"Banter"? I guess a military coup would just be an example of boys being boys! This ain't Pinochet's Chile - and, God help us if it ever is!
This is, of course, pure speculation, but. . .
different managers bring different style to the same job. McChrystal, obviously, had a style which encouraged the sort of 'banter' that ultimately ended his career. I have no doubt that Petraeus is a completely different sort of manager-discipline, 'by the book', et te job done with a minimum of personalities.
That message is undoubtedly known by those officers at the ranks just below his, (think about your own office); therefore,those who report to him will be there just as long as he needs them there-then they will be either transferred or mustered out.
I look for a slow, methodical house cleaning. Then it will be time for troops to come home. Leaders usually want their own people around them...people they can trust. Some of McChrystal's aides are likely seeking a transfer already. They bet on the wrong horse.
I'm glad this was finally brought up. Certainly McChrystal had to go, but so should the rest of the louts whose lips were way too loose. I don't care whether their names are published, but they've got to go.
These jokers helped sink the Generals Ship and end his career... Their names should be published and they should also be 'relieved of duty'.
I also have issues with the by-line of the Rolling Stone article that states the 'real enemies are the wimps in the WH'... That was not said by anyone quoted in the article. It was just a little tease by the author to draw people in... Why this joker is getting so much glory is beyond me.
The decision as to who stays and who goes should be up to Gen. Patreus and I'm sure that is how he and Obama left it when Patreus was appointed.
FrankH:
Your question is a good one. The military has needed for several years now to re-design itself so that the full-time portion of the military is smaller, smarter, quicker and deadlier. The number of troops we have stationed around the world is unnecessary, especailly considering the economic costs. In the event of a serious major threat we have the air and sea power as well as our nuclear arsenal to protect our homeland. As far as other conflicts throughout the world, a large, expensive standing army is no longer the proper stratgey of the day. Just ask a few hundred terrorists keeping 130,000+ of our military beyond busy and overwhelmed in Afghanistan.
Hows the song go.... You got that right. Look at the downfall of so many empires throughout history and the biggest single factor was trying to keep a military presence in foriegn or occupied countries.
This is true FrankH. Even when as occupiers or as some would say liberators, you try and do the right thing, by allowing others to maintain their independence, to maintain their cultural identity, and to govern themselves. All one has to do is to study how Alexander the Great applied these priniciples while expanding a military presence outside the boundaries of his own country, yet in the end, he was unsuccessful.
Sometimes I wonder if those who have been in leadship roles in our country have ever read history, or if their egos and an ethnocentric attitude on the part of our people have grown so big that they / we think that they / we can change the laws of human nature and ignore historical patterns.
How about our own recent history, we couldn't do it in Korea, or Vietnam, and this will be no different. You can't win when you have no way of knowing who the enemy is from day to day.
Just as in any corporation when one fails to be part of the team and choses to dis the boss they find that they are very soon on the outside looking in wishing they had kept their mouth shut. So those who favor corporations over all else should appreciate that these folks are getting the axe.
Guillotine?! Get real.
I predict a fresh incoming class of pundits and military advisors for Halliburton, Blackwater, and Hollywood.
Ca-ching!!!
I suspect that General Petraeous will restructure the team with his folks. It may not be immediate but it will happen. He will not be an effective commander if he has to deal with the same staff that is there. I have seen a few commands that have been restructured and this is the typical result. Those junior officers that have the most impact on what the commander needs to accomplish will be addressed first and on down the food chain until he has a staff that he is comfortable with (it is his choice not the Presidents at this level, he may get some input from President Obama or others but bottom line General P makes the choice for his staff).