Gen. McChrystal’s resignation; partisanship in the military; reforming the county’s Probation Department

A general’s downfall

Re “General’s job hangs in balance,” June 23, and “McChrystal is out; Petraeus is in” and “General’s downfall was rapid-fire,” June 24

The comments by Army Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal and his staff are damaging not only to the rules and traditions of our military but to the special relationship between the military and the presidency.

Regardless of who is right on the management of this war in Afghanistan, McChrystal chose to do what soldiers don’t do. He went public, rather than professional.

Todd Rutherford

Riverside

President Obama’s message to those who wish to politicize the military was definitive and comprehensive: game, set and match. Now salute the flag and go back to work.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Frank Ferrone

El Cajon

Thanks to McChrystal and his staff for speaking the truth about the incompetent, idealistic children that populate the Obama administration from the top down.

John Biel

Lakewood

Obama fired McChrystal, saying that “the conduct represented in the recently published [Rolling Stone] article does not meet the standard that should be set by a commanding general.”

Since Obama used the article to justify the firing, voters should consider other revelations in it.

The article says that “diplomatic incoherence has … hampered efforts to build a stable and credible government in Afghanistan.”

That “diplomatic incoherence” appears to be among the staff of our commander in chief — specifically, his secretary of Defense and secretary of State.

Obama fired McChrystal because his conduct did not meet a standard. Who will fire Obama for “diplomatic incoherence,” which some might define as “dereliction of duty”?

Joe Boyett

Riverside

I had hoped that with the dismissal of McChrystal (and the public’s ongoing apathy and hostility toward the war in Afghanistan) there would be a shakeup of U.S.-Afghanistan policy.

Unfortunately, with the substitution of David Petraeus, it looks like we are stuck in the same Afghan ditch until July 2011.

Frances Spielberg

Pacific Palisades

Partisanship among officers

Re “A less political military,” Opinion, June 23

Although generals with Republican sympathies may be convinced otherwise, a partisan officer corps is dangerous to democracy. This is why we have a civilian as commander in chief and why presidents must seek approval for war from a civilian Congress.

The notion that generals are better able to decide whom to attack, where and for what reason leads to fascist militarism. This may be why it appeals both to generals, some of whom are prone to seeing war as career fulfillment, and to Republicans, whose simplistic patriotism is often thoughtlessly loud and bombastic and involves sending other people’s children into war.

If the partisanship at West Point is at the levels described in Bruce Ackerman’s Op-Ed, our country is not safe from those whose patriotism has become delusional.

Carl C. Slate

Sherman Oaks

Kudos to Ackerman, and Obama.

There are only three branches of government. Last time I checked, the Pentagon was not one of them.

Bill Davis

Malibu

Ackerman bemoans the predisposition since Vietnam of members of the military to prefer Republicans over Democrats, and in particular their tendency to say so. He fears for civilian control of the military. His solution is indoctrination.

First of all, no one in the military is questioning civilian control.

Second, as an attorney, Ackerman should appreciate that soldiers too are citizens and have a right to express their opinions.

Third, the growing tendency for the military to support the Republican Party has to do with the Democratic Party itself. Since Vietnam, the Democrats have been perceived, not totally accurately, as the party of defeatism and surrender.

Democratic politics of recent years can well be seen as anti-military. The inherent nature of any successful army is to fight and win.

Jack Kaczorowski

Los Angeles

Trouble in Probation

Re “Probation reform delayed a week,” June 23

Managers and others in the Los Angeles County Probation Department have been raising serious concerns about accountability and oversight for decades.

The important question is not whether the Board of Supervisors votes on reform this week or next week, but rather how to create and implement the best and most efficient reform possible for this critical component of the public safety system.

The Professional Managers Assn. represents the probation directors. The board brought in experts Probation Chief Donald H. Blevins and Deputy Chief Calvin C. Remington to turn around the department. It is imperative that their expertise be combined with our inside knowledge and experience to continue the process.

For these reasons, our managers have joined with supervising deputy probation officers and deputy probation officers in calling for a joint labor-management committee to formalize the existing partnership and initiate reform.

Andrea Gordon

La Mirada

The writer is president of the Professional Managers Assn.

Re “Fixing the Probation Dept.,” Editorial, June 18

The Times states that “the root of the problem is the lack of discipline and accountability” in the Probation Department and urges that new chief Blevins be allowed to fill five or six management positions from outside the department.

This diagnosis and proposed remedy are both inadequate.

This department once had a long tradition of innovation and excellence in service, and staff and leaders who were both committed to its mission and capable of achievement.

Workload increases and reductions in standards for employment have substantially weakened that commitment and that capability.

Managerial reshuffling may enhance discipline and accountability but will not create a staff in which those qualities are normative unless the leadership is inspirational as well.

Carl Terwilliger

Pasadena

Victim was more than a model

Re “Woman is charged in slaying of model,” June 22

Juliana Redding, who was murdered in 2008, was my student.

She was a lovely, cheerful, hard-working young woman, determined to complete her studies at Santa Monica College and eventually earn her bachelor’s degree — a point that The Times failed to mention.

Instead, The Times has encapsulated Juliana’s life in Los Angeles as that of an aspiring model and actress who pursued “gigs,” appeared in Maxim magazine’s Hometown Hotties feature, worked at a Venice tapas bar and lived in an “affluent neighborhood … where rent for a one-bedroom apartment can exceed $2,000 a month.”

These sound bites imply that the victim’s lifestyle was somehow associated with her untimely demise.

I can assure The Times that Juliana spent more time studying for exams than auditioning for roles. Moreover, I am certain that Juliana’s other professors, co-students, friends and family were equally offended by the distorted description of her life and insensitive depiction of her as simply a “slain model.”

Erna Toback

Studio City