First General Stanley McChrystal, now Major General Peter Fuller.  Apparently telling the truth about the situation in Afghanistan ends careers.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11/04/us-general-fired-for-verbal-attack-on-karzai/?test=latestnews

I was going to post about this earlier after reading about it in the Washington Examiner, but you beat me to it. Here's my take:

"In a recent interview with the website Politico, Fuller characterized Afghan leaders as erratic, ungrateful and isolated from reality. The interview quotes him as saying Afghan leaders don't fully recognize America's sacrifices on their country's behalf. [The top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, General John] "Allen said the unfortunate comments don't represent the solid U.S. relationship with the Afghan government." (1)

Ouch. This is the guy that delicately steered the Stryker Family of Vehicles through its development and fielding. Were it not for his efforts, it is doubtful we'd have had anywhere near the capabilities that enabled the rapid overthrow of the Baathist regime in Iraq in 2003. Completely thrown under the bus for pointing out the truth: Afghanistan's President Karzai last week openly stated “God forbid, if a war breaks between Pakistan and America, we will side (with) Pakistan.” (2)

I guess he should have known better than to consent to an interview with any of the press, but especially with Politico. This mirrors what happened to General Stanley McChrystal last year and to Colonel Gregory Fontenot in 1995, for giving candid remarks to the Rolling Stone and the Wall Street Journal, respectively. (3)

None of these examples exhibit the wisdom of Prince Faisal's reaction to similarly realistic advice from Colonel Brighton, his British military liaison in the classic movie Lawrence of Arabia: "You tread heavily, but you speak the truth."

---

(1) http://washingtonexaminer.com/news/nation/2011/11/top-us-general-fired-afghan-training-job-0

(2) http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-10-24/karzai-says-afghanistan-would-help-pakistan-against-u-s-attack.html

(3) http://www.lineofdeparture.com/2010/06/22/what-was-he-thinking/

*Grumbles* !*&%@^! font sizes...

Well we are making desisions on how to run the wars based on the 2012 election and not military consideratons. So, you can't have a guy running around pointing out that the emperor has no clothes.

Originally Posted By Kid

Well we are making desisions on how to run the wars based on the 2012 election and not military consideratons. So, you can't have a guy running around pointing out that the emperor has no clothes.

No, I'm sure this has nothing to do with the 2012 elections.  You can't have a serving military officer going around gratuitously insulting our allies--the same with McCrystal.  It is incredibly poor judgment to be in Paris trying to get additional French troops to go to Afghanistan and to be publicly suggesting the French are gay.  The same with disparaging our Afghan allies -- we want them to be rallying their people and publicly demeaning them is really not going to help that.  And consequently neither will help our efforts in Afghanistan.  Do you think he can go back to his command position with this hanging over his head?  It's hard to see how effective he would be.  How do you think a US general would be treated if he told Politico that his Fort Bragg troops were ungrateful, lazy, entitlement whores and his fellow generals were in a state of denial?  Do you think he'd last long or have much credibility with his troops or his colleagues?

I am sure these are things that are conveyed privately to the Afghan leaders by a lot of our officials, both civilian and military, but publicly humiliating them is not going to be helpful.

Generals know that they are politicans and military commanders.  General Fuller either knew exactly what he was doing and what was coming when he made those remarks or he should have known better.

Originally Posted By Centurion40

Generals know that they are politicans and military commanders.  General Fuller either knew exactly what he was doing and what was coming when he made those remarks or he should have known better.

The Bold and Italics are obviously mine.

The bigger question is ... why ?  Why did Fuller ... and before him McCrystal ... feel the need to say what they did ?  Why did Franks, for that matter ?

Originally Posted By medck

Originally Posted By Kid

Well we are making desisions on how to run the wars based on the 2012 election and not military consideratons. So, you can't have a guy running around pointing out that the emperor has no clothes.

 

... How do you think a US general would be treated if he told Politico that his Fort Bragg troops were ungrateful, lazy, entitlement whores and his fellow generals were in a state of denial?  Do you think he'd last long or have much credibility with his troops or his colleagues?

 

I am sure these are things that are conveyed privately to the Afghan leaders by a lot of our officials, both civilian and military, but publicly humiliating them is not going to be helpful.

Versus what he actually said? "In a recent interview with the website Politico, Fuller characterized Afghan leaders as erratic, ungrateful and isolated from reality. The interview quotes him as saying Afghan leaders don't fully recognize America's sacrifices on their country's behalf.

Originally Posted By HarleyRider

Originally Posted By Centurion40

Generals know that they are politicans and military commanders.  General Fuller either knew exactly what he was doing and what was coming when he made those remarks or he should have known better.

 

The Bold and Italics are obviously mine.

 

The bigger question is ... why ?  Why did Fuller ... and before him McCrystal ... feel the need to say what they did ?  Why did Franks, for that matter ?

Why did Franks or why didn't Franks?

First, let me say I think the Generals need to stay out of the press unless they think the conutry is in real danger. I think what is happening is that the Presedent is making desisions about the wars so he can get re-elected and its driving the militry guys insane.

Originally Posted By ActionJack

Why did Franks or why didn't Franks?

Definitely why did.  His criticisms, as contained in his book, were harsh.

Originally Posted By HarleyRider

Originally Posted By ActionJack

Why did Franks or why didn't Franks?

 

Definitely why did.  His criticisms, as contained in his book, were harsh.

I thought he was reticent in his criticisms.  Which book was that?

Originally Posted By ActionJack

Originally Posted By HarleyRider

Originally Posted By ActionJack

Why did Franks or why didn't Franks?

 

Definitely why did.  His criticisms, as contained in his book, were harsh.

I thought he was reticent in his criticisms.  Which book was that?

In Woodward's book Plan of Attack he was notoriously quoted as referring to Douglas Feith, the No 3 person at the Pentagon, as "the dumbest f***ing man alive."  Had that come out when he was Centcom commander he certainly would (and should) have been sacked.  As it it was, he retired in 2003 and the book came out in 2004.

Originally Posted By ActionJack

Originally Posted By medck

Originally Posted By Kid

Well we are making desisions on how to run the wars based on the 2012 election and not military consideratons. So, you can't have a guy running around pointing out that the emperor has no clothes.

 

... How do you think a US general would be treated if he told Politico that his Fort Bragg troops were ungrateful, lazy, entitlement whores and his fellow generals were in a state of denial?  Do you think he'd last long or have much credibility with his troops or his colleagues?

 

I am sure these are things that are conveyed privately to the Afghan leaders by a lot of our officials, both civilian and military, but publicly humiliating them is not going to be helpful.

Versus what he actually said? "In a recent interview with the website Politico, Fuller characterized Afghan leaders as erratic, ungrateful and isolated from reality. The interview quotes him as saying Afghan leaders don't fully recognize America's sacrifices on their country's behalf.

I was referring to both McCrystal and Fuller, but I think Fuller's comments could well be seen in that light:

Ungrateful: Fuller: "ungrateful"

Lazy: McCrystal: allies prefer cushy HQ jobs to fighting or tough regional assignments

Entitlement whores: McCrystal: allies prefer cushy HQ jobs; Fuller: implication that Afghan leaders take billions in US military and economic aid and are ungrateful

State of denial: Fuller: "Afghan leaders ... isolated from reality" and "don't recognize America's sacrifices"

Not included were a host of McCrystal things about sexual orientation and the other members of the national security team, Fuller's characterization of Afghan leaders as "erratic" and Fontenot's description of Bosnian Croats as "racists".  Do you really think a similar public characterization of our own troops and leadership would escape some form of censure?  Do you think a manager in a company could get away with such public comments about their workforce or the leadership and personnel or a partner company with impunity?

Originally Posted By Kid

First, let me say I think the Generals need to stay out of the press unless they think the conutry is in real danger. I think what is happening is that the Presedent is making desisions about the wars so he can get re-elected and its driving the militry guys insane.

In which case Fuller knew what he was doing and fell on his sword (so to speak) in order to make a point, publically.

Hmmm, I wonder how many 3 & 4-star generals go into politics (or lobbying) when they retire from service?

I can't comment on General McChrystal; never met the guy. I thought that whole thing was inflated out of some idle banter at the O Club. Bad call to spend the time of day with anyone from Rolling Stone, IMHO. It's like Jimmy Carter's Playboy interview or something.

As for General Fuller, I have met the guy and attended many of his presentations in a DoD oversight capacity while he was PM Stryker. He's a stand-up guy and not the sort to make inflammatory, off-the-cuff remarks just to make a point. You don't get an entire fleet of wheeled vehicles developed and fielded in brigade sets over a period extending back to 1999 against strident opposition without having a good degree of restraint and savvy. A Google search on "tracked versus wheeled" will refresh your memory about the entire controversy -- there were a lot of highly placed stakeholders that were dead-set against wheeled vehicles and even today want to resurrect the M113 with band tracks (Gavin).

So not being there, I'd imagine the Politico reporter asked him for his reaction to Karzai's statement, he gave the rather mild observation that perhaps it did not take into account the great sacrifices the US has made on their behalf, and at that point Politico's embellishment of that into an "erratic, ungrateful and isolated from reality" rant began.

Similarly, I worked with Colonel Fontenot when he headed up General Frederick M. Franks Jr.'s Command Group at TRADOC in the early 1990s. Straight shooter. If I recall correctly, his remark was made to one of his soldiers; that they were deploying to an area where the opposing sides were slaughtering each other based on racial, ethnic, and religious differences (true statement, and for generations), and a WSJ reporter overheard and repeated it on a blog. Big deal.

I dunno, the whole business is typical of the media, deliberately inserting political implications to sell copy and speculate on how their self-generated controversy may impact the president's reelection chances. Or even just to make or reburnish their journalist credentials, much like Bob Woodward breathlessly reporting on his interview with a comatose CIA director to regain his youthful Watergate street cred. Nations, wars, presidents, and generals are all just bit players in the media's ongoing political theater.

Edit: These fonts just don't behave!

exellent analysis of it all over here, including some comments from Gian Gentile in the reader comments at the end.

I know this is a longer article than most of y'all are likely to sit thru, but it's worth the read

http://www.lineofdeparture.com/2011/11/06/fuller-brushed-away/

Originally Posted By medck

Originally Posted By ActionJack

Originally Posted By medck

Originally Posted By Kid

Well we are making desisions on how to run the wars based on the 2012 election and not military consideratons. So, you can't have a guy running around pointing out that the emperor has no clothes.

 

... How do you think a US general would be treated if he told Politico that his Fort Bragg troops were ungrateful, lazy, entitlement whores and his fellow generals were in a state of denial?  Do you think he'd last long or have much credibility with his troops or his colleagues?

 

I am sure these are things that are conveyed privately to the Afghan leaders by a lot of our officials, both civilian and military, but publicly humiliating them is not going to be helpful.

Versus what he actually said? "In a recent interview with the website Politico, Fuller characterized Afghan leaders as erratic, ungrateful and isolated from reality. The interview quotes him as saying Afghan leaders don't fully recognize America's sacrifices on their country's behalf.

 

... Do you really think a similar public characterization of our own troops and leadership would escape some form of censure?  Do you think a manager in a company could get away with such public comments about their workforce or the leadership and personnel or a partner company with impunity?

 

 

Similar characterization seems more of a 'strawman' argument.  Public comments?  No.  Publicized comments?  Why not?  We're not exactly talking McArthur here.  I think the president has passed on his thin-skinned attitude down through the military leadership.  Another reason for a change.

Originally Posted By ActionJack

I thought he was reticent in his criticisms.  Which book was that?

I'm referencing American Soldier.  I recall he didn't care much for Rumsfeld, Powell, Cheney, or Washington in general.

Originally Posted By HarleyRider

Originally Posted By ActionJack

I thought he was reticent in his criticisms.  Which book was that?

 

I'm referencing American Soldier.  I recall he didn't care much for Rumsfeld, Powell, Cheney, or Washington in general.

The book Marines In the Garden of Evil has some less than complementary comments concerning General Franks from some of his Army subordinates too.  Just like here, very strong personalities tend to share creative assessments.

Sounds like something right up my alley ... I'll give it a read.  Thanks for the tip, Jack.

Originally Posted By HarleyRider

Sounds like something right up my alley ... I'll give it a read.  Thanks for the tip, Jack.

I guess to be a good general requires straight talking, common sense, positive action, pragmatism and honesty. From what I read, these virtues are only going to give you sleepless nights and headaches in Afghanistan. If they were outspoken, even as reported (which I doubt) I trust it came after frustration and exasperation at their efforts.

Good for him for speaking out. He probably values his conscience more than his career.