Speaking the truth gets General sacked...sigh...

[Bill Mattocks]

And so it goes. Yeah, I know his remarks were rude. But dang, they were also true.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45169527/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/#.TrRkY4YdtIM

WASHINGTON — A top U.S. general in Afghanistan was relieved of duty Friday for "inappropriate public comments" after calling the Afghan government "isolated from reality" and President Hamid Karzai "erratic."

Maj. Gen. Peter Fuller, deputy commander for training Afghan security forces, blasted the Afghan government, military and Karzai in an interview with POLITICO published on Thursday.

He called Karzai "erratic" for recently saying Afghanistan would side with Pakistan if the latter declared war on the U.S.

"Why don’t you just poke me in the eye with a needle!," Fuller was quoted as saying. "You’ve got to be kidding me … I’m sorry, we just gave you $11.6 billion and now you’re telling me, 'I don’t really care'?"
...
"I actually had someone senior tell me, 'All I want to do is put them [tanks] on a flat bed and drive them around in a parade'," he added.

Fuller said Afghan leaders "don't understand the sacrifices that America is making to provide for their security. And I think that's part of my job to educate 'em."

 

[Empty Hands]

They were true, and they also make the mission of the General's superiors that much more difficult to accomplish. His firing should come as no surprise.

 

[Tez3]

I can see where he's coming from, it's frustration but I think he's mistaken. Kharzai isn't erratic, he's opportunistic and a crook. He's trying to screw NATO royally, he knows exactly what he's doing. The government isn't so much isolated from reality as again crooked, they don't have any intentions of allowing democray in Afghanistan if they can help it. They want the corruption to continue after all it's to their benefit. Still I suppose calling it how it really is would just make it all that more difficult.
Kharzia isn't above whining about the Allies if he doesn't get something he wants, he moaned about the British army not long ago. Afghanistan is never going to be a democratic (by our standards at least) country with him and his cronies in charge.

 

[stone_dragone]

Just as an aside...we speak of this government or that system as being corrupt. It all boils down to the cultural definition of corruption. In big terms, corruption is the accepting of inappropriate influence.

The bigger questions that need to be considered before one can solve a problem of corruption are these:

1) What is considered an acceptable method or level of influence? My culture may not have the same understanding as you. What I call a tip to a waiter is really a bribe for being taken care of well, especially if I expect to return to that establishment. What you call a compliment or flattery is really a verbal bribe...I will say nice things to you to get what I want that I otherwise might not have.

2) Do you really think that a culture of influence will change just because we see it as corrupt? Lobyists are a form of influence, but they are fully accepted in our system of government when often, their form of influence is very thinkly veiled bribery.

Just a thought for the evening.

 

[Big Don]

Sadly, being "Nice" is more important in society than being honest.

 

[Sukerkin]

I feel sorry for the fellow. I too have a limited capacity to deal with the 'BS' factor when it comes to conflicts between my jobs requirements and the clients actions. The sad fact is that the 'mission' in Afghanistan was never going to be accomplished. The culture there will not allow it and it only serves to fuel the actions of the 'bad guys'.

Guess Haliburton never will get that pipeline to the sea ...

 

[Carol]

Sadly, being "Nice" is more important in society than being honest.

Detailed honesty has never been a hallmark of military communications. I can't say anything other than "NATO" and (say) "Afghanistan"

 

[Tez3]

I'm talking about corruption not as just accepting bribes but more as squirrelling away money into private accounts that should be spent on public works like schools and hospitals. The not paying of public servants and keeping that money. Allowing senior officials to do the same. Corruption in allowing police officers to take bribes, beat people up for protection money, buy and sell drugs, to steal and lie. This starts at the top going all the way down.

 

[granfire]

I'm talking about corruption not as just accepting bribes but more as squirrelling away money into private accounts that should be spent on public works like schools and hospitals. The not paying of public servants and keeping that money. Allowing senior officials to do the same. Corruption in allowing police officers to take bribes, beat people up for protection money, buy and sell drugs, to steal and lie. This starts at the top going all the way down.

My dad said it one time, it's like this: It is not unacceptable to whisk away funds into private accounts since holding office comes with the threat to your life.

I forgot what the objectionable part was, I think it was something like blatantly abusing the people or such thing, that's what really ticks the folks off.

But yeah, as a major figure in this game, honesty is not a desired trait.

 

[oftheherd1]

All military owe alligeance to their civilian leaders, which is the executive branch. They also owe alligeance to the US Constitution. So if for example, the president were to order the military to attack the State of Maryland because they did not overwhemingly vote for him in a national election, they would be duty bound to refuse that illegal order. In between there are some grey areas.

But publicly going against your boss by not agreeing that the Afgan government is our faithful alli, is fraught with career danger. The honorable thing to do is to retire and then speak out.

But what is really silly to me, is the idea that we have to sell the Afgan government as anything more than a means to our own ends. They agree to do certain things we want, and get renumeration for it. Why would anyone seriously believe that the Afgan government was doing anything more than what it was paid to do, or that they loved us for putting them at odds with other Arab and/or Muslim countries.

And even worse, that we should renumerate them, and then fault them for accepting that renumeration. The general was closer to the Afgan country and culture than most of us and should realize he is there to serve the interests of his country, and not expect the Afgans to change hundreds of years of culture. It's much less frustrating that way, as well as more correct.

 

[ballen0351]

All military owe alligeance to their civilian leaders, which is the executive branch. They also owe alligeance to the US Constitution. So if for example, the president were to order the military to attack the State of Maryland because they did not overwhemingly vote for him in a national election, they would be duty bound to refuse that illegal order. In between there are some grey areas.

.

As long as its Obama Maryland will be his lap dog so he wont need to worry. Sorry couldnt resist. Anyone thats ever heard Gov O'Taxme speak knows what Im talking about

 

[Thesemindz]

Afghanistan is never going to be a democratic (by our standards at least) country with him and his cronies in charge.

Corruption? Greed? Backstabbing? Graft? War profiteering? All at the expense of the tax livestock? Seems like exactly the kind of democracy we're familiar with.


-Rob

 

[shihansmurf]

Corruption? Greed? Backstabbing? Graft? War profiteering? All at the expense of the tax livestock? Seems like exactly the kind of democracy we're familiar with.


-Rob

Maybe thats why he was fired. The remarks hit a bit too close to home.

Mark

 

[Cyriacus]

This is not the Type of Stuff anyone should say on a Public Broadcast, Period.

He should have gone and said it to those Relevant.

 

[rainesr]

Good. He needed relived, the military's job is not politics. As a military official of his rank he should have known better than to make that statement in public.

~Rob

 

[Tez3]

While a military commander's loyalty is to those in charge of his country he also has a loyalty to those he commands, it means he is responsible for making sure his troops, while keeping true to vows of loyalty, don't have their lives thrown away by politicians etc. Perhaps he felt his troops were laying down their lives or being wounded for something he felt was wrong. Perhaps he felt it was his moral duty to speak out, the days of obeying all orders regardless of their morality in silence and losing lives are gone. he may have felt that to save pointless loss of life he had to speak out despite the cost to himself. Now, whether you agree with what he said, it must be admitted he was morally right to say what he thought if it's going to save lifes, unless you think a soldier's job is to follow orders blindly and die silently.
I don't know whether there was another way to do or say what he wanted, he may have tried to go through the chain of command and been told to shut up as he was embarrassing someone by telling the truth, it quite often does.

 

[Sukerkin]

Also it does have to be recognised that for officers of 'Flag' rank. politics is indeed very much part of the job. Perhaps the fellow would've been better heard if he was a step or two higher up the promotion ladder?