Respectfully, the General who was dismissed from leading the war, does it matter?

American Generals are deep in talent, trained in the same schools for military doctrine and so forth. What changes as a result?

7 Answers

  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Hello Mark.

    No difference.

    What people sometimes "forget" is that every person is trained to move up and take over being "in charge" in the military.

    There are Colonels who are ready to move up to being a General.

    There are 3 star Lieutenant Generals ready to move up to be 4 star Generals who can do the job.

    No one person is "indispensable."

    There will always be a "chain of command" and a General in charge.

    Nothing will change.

    Sometimes, a "new face" helps win the war!

    Best wishes.

    Larry Smith

    Senior Master Sergeant, USAF (Ret.)

    First Sergeant

    Source(s): Previous military experience of 27 years: 1961 - 1989. P.S. "Resignation" term is misleading. He didn't resign his commission from the Army. He "resigned" from his POST being in command. He will be given a demoted job at a lesser Army base where he won't be so public. Enlisted people are not permitted to "quit" their post and not even most officers. In other words, he was "asking to be relieved of command." Clearly a demotion in authority and future usefulness to the Army. The General has 33 years in the military. I believe he will probably go to his new base and then request retirement and leave the military.
  • 1 decade ago

    Yes. Generals are "deep in talent" as you put it.

    But not all generals are created equal. Each has their own unique skills and qualifications to bring to the table. McChrystal has a Special Forces background. He would be far more qualified to lead a campaign such as Afghanistan than, say an Armor General, or any of the Combat Support Generals.

    General McChrystal has skills and talents that are NOT going to be easy to replace. If all Generals were as interchangeable as you imply, and using history as an example, we would not have needed Grant, Washington, Nimitz, Patton, Eisenhower, MacArthur, Schwartzkopf and the like. No, Petreus is a good man and a good general. But this is not his forte and the entire operation will suffer in the short term. Only time will tell over the long haul.

  • AD
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    Just because two people attend and pass the same school doesn't mean they are equally talented. You can have one person who graduated from high school who goes on to Yale and becomes a top intellectual and you can have another one who graduated from the same high school who works at McDonald's the rest of his life. It's the person, not the school.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Respectfully, what were the Generals major accomplishments that were supposed to insulate him from resignation ?

    If we have to rely on ONE specific General in a war we are in big trouble.

    What happens if his helicopter crashes or he develops Lupus (God forbid) is all then lost ?

    No, he is not indispensable.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    The only variable that you can change is Obama. If Obama uses this situation to actually recognize his failed Afghanistan policy and change things then he can think that he is saving face by making it look like General McChrystal was the person who was causing things to errode in Afghanistan. Doubtful that he will be intelligent enough to get that figured out though.

  • 1 decade ago

    I imagine it matters quite a bit to ....General McChrystal, do you think he was treated fairly?

  • 1 decade ago

    I suspect that you are right, the change won't make a lot of difference.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.