McCain.
Meanwhile: "Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal left the White House after meeting with President Obama for about 20 minutes, apparently departing before another meeting on the Afghanistan war scheduled for later Wednesday morning, but there was no immediate word on whether he would keep his job as the top American commander in Afghanistan."
AND: "[W]hy were the general and his team so candid?... They were in Paris...."
AND: In the Wall Street Journal, there's "Why McChrystal Has to Go" by Eliot A. Cohen. But the editors say:
Above all, the President should think beyond short-term political appearances to the difficult hand his own policy restraints have presented to General McChrystal....
This is no justification for military disrespect, but it ought to make Mr. Obama think twice about advice that he sack General McChrystal merely so he doesn't look weak as Commander in Chief. He'll look a lot weaker in a year if his Afghan policy looks like a failure. With a war in the balance, Mr. Obama should not dismiss his most talented commander without knowing who, and what, comes next.
पोस्ट्स
१३८ टिप्पण्या:
Obama probably left the conversation after 5 minutes.
He floats like a butterfly and stings line one too.
"President Barack Obama's directive calling for the start of a conditions-based drawdown of U.S. troops from Afghanistan in July 2011 shouldn't be considered as an exit date," — af.mil, 2010-06-16
"Gates, […] said the July 2011 deadline set by President Obama in a speech to the nation Tuesday night is not a "deadline" or an arbitrary timeline. Any withdrawal from Afghanistan would "based on conditions" in the country." — abc news, 2009-12-02
Don't take off your coat...you won't be staying all that long.
Fire him!
Not only in Paris, but in a bar in Paris drinking. Their mistake was to let the puke from Rolling Stone hang around with them.
No need to pimp your own blog, Harry--as it turns out I agree with your end result although some of your analysis of military culture is a bit off the mark.
Obama foolishly escalated the Afghan War and is now entrapped in a military quagmire and a political disaster or his own making. ALL the reasons liberals gave us for why the Iraq war was unwinnable are true in Afghanistan. Vietnam in the mountains with less up side potential.
McChrystal, "Geez, what does a guy have to do to get a meeting with the boss?"
Now he knows. Tell the truth. The boss just hates when that happens.
Fire Obama and send McChrystal back to Afghanistan to do his job.
"Not only in Paris, but in a bar in Paris drinking. Their mistake was to let the puke from Rolling Stone hang around with them.'
MacC dis-embeds Michael Yon but hangs with a Rolling Stone reporter.
What's wrong with this picture?
The Dems had to oppose Bush on something - Iraq - but they were too afraid of looking weak and pacifist, so they elevated the Afghan theater in strategic importance, and now we're bogged down fighting for ........ what, exactly?
A unified Afghanistan under a democratic government? You've got to be kidding.
The sacrifices of brave men like McChrystal are being ignored, as this writer points out. Yet Obama's dilemma remains that any victory in the Afghan theater by the USA threatens his self image as a great negotiator called in when a smooth surrender to our enemies is needed. Reagan always said that he would never surrender to achieve peace, but Obama says that the rewards of peace are worth surrendering for. Reagan was old enough to have learned the high cost coming next when America surrenders. For some reason Obama likes the idea of those high costs coming upon America.
Both Obama and McChrystal got what they deserved. Obama overlooked his record as a wild card and McChyrstal got his ass fired for thinking he could dis the prez.
In the totality, this is another item that dismantles the case that Obama is careful thoughtful planner and displays the fact that he's just playing this all by ear.
He won't say this because he's captive of his far-left base.
Poor Obama, all his sweet reasonableness suppressed by commies.
This is no justification for military disrespect, but it ought to make Mr. Obama think twice about advice that he sack General McChrystal merely so he doesn't look weak as Commander in Chief.
Well maybe one of the vets can chime in here but is it possible this was McChrystal's way of getting out of a job he doesn't want anymore? I have a hard time thinking that a guy at his level 'misspoke' and later regrets it. It wasn't some off hand remark. What he did is inexcusable as a military officer and not sacking him not only makes Obama look weak but even more incompetent since it actually reinforces McChrystal's position.
It not like McChrystal in part of a coup that has to be defeated to control things. Everybody knows he screwed up and that Obama is the boss, as disappointing as that is. But, firing him accomplishes nothing that needs done and the cost TO US is clearly substantial.
It would be a small, foolish and shortsighted decision, so I fully expect Obama to do it.
What's wrong with this picture?
I can only speculate, Lars, but I believe that McC has had enough of this administration. In short, he doesn't give a fuck anymore.
Looks like Bush chose the right guy for Iraq (Petraeus) and Obama chose the wrong guy (McChrystal) for Afghanistan--
In the totality, this is another item that dismantles the case that Obama is careful thoughtful planner and displays the fact that he's just playing this all by ear.
You win the cookie and stuffed bear. Well said.
His team is entirely forthright with you, did that surprise you?
Well, they were getting hammered, I don’t know at that moment if they were being the most forthright. Of course it was surprising. A lot of the reporting that is getting most of the attention happened right away in the first few days in Paris. So I was surprised—because they didn’t know me.
Loose lips and all that.
From our Revolutionary War through the end of WWII, there were a total of only 25 4-star generals. Currently there are 39 active 4-star generals. I wonder how many regularly get drunk in Paris?
Hoosier Daddy--I have no personal knowledge of McChrystal's abilities. Personally, I am always a bit leery when special ops guys get in charge, but that, I will admit, is a personal prejudice reinforced by 25 years of military service.
He (McC) could have done the honorable thing expected as a serving officer--resign, and then take your beefs public.
This sorry episode underscores McC's judgment--which isnt looking any too sterling.
Mr Obama own the war and gets to chose the generals he wants--That question will be an appropriate subject for the next presidential election.
Anybody got a good recap of what the outrageous outrage is here?
Now I haven't really followed this story closely at all, but I didn't see anything the General himself said that came across as insubordinate or disrespectful.
His aides? Sure. But what was the envoironment here? Was it really in a bar with everyone getting hammered? I'm having a tough time understanding what all the hubbub is, so anyone who can put me some knowledge here, I'd appreciate it.
The innate weakness of Obama and his silly foreign policy ideas was always one of the biggest reason he was the worse choice in 2008. His weakness gives him and us little flexibility and makes smart decisions sometimes impossible and makes him easily played by our enemies. A bully all wrapped up in his narcissism is easily controlled.
Obama is either a weak pussy, or a ruthless thug dictator. Take your pick!
Conditions-based withdrawl is fine. But whether McChrystal stays or goes, conditions won't change for the better until our soldiers and marines get rules of engagement that make sense.
Unfortunately, I get the sense that if McC is canned the next commander will set up even more draconian restrictions on how our troops can apply deadly force. Very pessimistic right now.
Garage: both of the above; its situational dependent.
The thing no one is mentioning is, how did things get to this point? Where did things get so bad between Obama and McChrystal that he felt he had to/could even mouth off about the CINC in a magazine interview?
This is more than McChrystal being a twit. It's about a fatal level of miscommunication in the whole AfPak war effort.
This is what happens when a president can't decide between competing policies in a life-and-death situation. Advocates of the contending positions know the stakes and believe in their solution. They believe even more firmly that the opposing option is sure to bring disaster.
Obama is trying to have it both ways with his Afghan policy -- a little surge now but subject to an expiration date. No one on his team likes the result and, as far as I can tell, no one thinks it can succeed. And so they keep pushing their policy, keep bashing the opposing policy and (given the stakes) aren't trying very hard to keep the disagreements within the Situation Room. McCain is obviously right that Obama needs a team where the key players are all pulling in the same direction. But that can't happen since the key player here (Obama) doesn't really believe in his own Afghan policy and on that score is the embodiment of the split personality that characterizes his 'team'.
That's what passes for pragmatism and leadership in the time of Hope and Change. The only certainty here is that something has got to change soon.
:Obama is either a weak pussy, or a ruthless thug dictator. Take your pick!"
He's a bully. Weak in character and philosophy. This forces him to act tough to compensate so, yes both. If you look at all the despots in history you find these flaws. BTW Obama is not a despot, just a wanna be, which is really pathetic.
It's getting disgusting watching the best, bravest and most principled in our society being walked on by the most selfish and unprincipled. They only get away with it by using their betters' values, like love of country, against them.
Hey garage, you ditched us. We're still back at the oil well thread waiting for some evidence that other countries require the drilling of relief wells prior to drilling the production well.
Mccain said that Obama needs say up front that our withdrawal will be conditions based (even though some in the cabinet have said it willl be conditions based.
But doesn't it show you how silly people on the left are who are arguing that we SHOULDN'T have a withdrawal based on conditons but rather set dates? We had the same arguments about Iraq and Bush not wanting to set an arbitrary timeline, and the dems and libs (inlcuding Obama) saying we need a set date of withdrawal.
IN any situation, but especially in war, why would you ever set a plan into motion that didn't incorporate facts on the ground or that wasn't conditions based? Would you run a business that way? Who would listen to such a person (other than libs of course)? Of course, Bush, the idiot rube incompetent had it right, and the intellectual elite (self professed) who were going to bring competence to the white house and govt look like fools. And now of course, all his cabinet says that any withdrawal will be conditions based (even though he has yet to say so). Why? Because it would be idiot to argue otherwise.
"In the totality, this is another item that dismantles the case that Obama is careful thoughtful planner and displays the fact that he's just playing this all by ear. "
Not a good idea for the tone deaf.
Obama is either a weak pussy, or a ruthless thug dictator. Take your pick!
Both. Like most bullies, Obama is a pussy.
And a Diversity Hire in over his head.
Garage said:
"Obama is either a weak pussy, or a ruthless thug dictator. Take your pick!"
No matter which one picks, Garage, the problem for Americans is Obama does not seem to be learning or growing into the job. Even you must agree with that assessment.
garage,
Are you happy with the deficit that Obama is running?
Without mentioning Bush, please list everything that you like about what Obama is doing.
Just try.
Obama is either a weak pussy, or a ruthless thug dictator. Take your pick!
garage buddy, it is possible to be both at the same time. History is replete with examples.
garage, serious question: If Hillary mounts an insurgency campaign for 2012 what side you gonna join?
Hoosier Daddy: re Ms Clinton's political ambitions--my guess it will be determined by Mr Obama's poll numbers about a year from now.
How would Hillary make that transition? I've thought about this before. Would she do a McC interview ridiculing Obama and then get her ass fired? How would she go about working for this administration to ripping them as incompetent?
Obama is either a weak pussy, or a ruthless thug dictator. Take your pick!
Why pick? The careful observer understands that the former is his foreign policy, and the latter his domestic.
One of the most important aspects of our Constitution and the US military is that it is ultimately controlled by civilians. Whenever the military challenges that, they need to be slapped down as hard as possible in a way they won't soon forget. For this reason, I strongly urge President Obama to order that McChyrstal and the aides that made the criticisms to be court martialed under Section 88 of the USMJ. (This is an open and shut case.)
The voters will not be fooled by a Hillary candidacy - she is as much of a big govt lover as Obama.
Allen S: she will do whatever James Carville tells her to do.
I have a hard time thinking that a guy at his level 'misspoke' and later regrets it.
This was my thought. Do you really get to that level without knowing not to dis the boss? Or that loose lips sink ships? I kind of doubt it.
the US military is that it is ultimately controlled by civilians. Whenever the military challenges that, they need to be slapped down as hard as possible in a way they won't soon forget.
Criticism of Obama is bucking civilian control of the military?
What bullshit
Sure Joe- let's put listening devices in every military hangout in the world and court martial all the traitors.
Fen: I would suggest that serving officers who criticize their leadership are in fact doing precisely that.
I never made it past an E4. Having said that, we were still supposed to obey orders from our superiors. That did not stop us from talking amongst ourselves when our superiors were making bad decisions. If everyone in the military was court martialed for dissing their superiors, there would be about 3 people left. Maybe not that many.
Allen S--I was also an E4 in 1962--and yes, we spent a lot of time in the day room (remember those?) talking how fucked up our superiors were--the big difference was we didnt give interviews to Rolling Stone.
Roger,
Yes, I said as much in my 9:52 post. I think McC wants out.
Also, Roger, what I meant to say was when we were in a combat situation or the combat area. I just plain hated stateside duty. Hurry up and wait.
the big difference was we didnt give interviews to Rolling Stone.
Which is the other $69 question why a general officer would deign to even talk to a dweeb from that rag.
I would suggest that serving officers who criticize their leadership are in fact doing precisely that.
Then please explain how criticizing leadership is "challenging civillian control of the military"
AllenS--there are as you suggest two armies: the peacetime army and the wartime army. And the rules are different I think.
Hoosier Daddy: Agree as to your 69$ question--I didnt think a four star--or more important his PIO--could be that stupid. I gotta tell you--I question McC's judgment on this one big time.
Fen: check out the UCMJ for the specifics of criticism. General McC (and/or his staff)chose to criticize the civilians in the national command authority, specifically the VP. By such criticism it subjects the NCA to ridicule and thus undercuts the authority of civilians to exercise control. Thats my take on it--you are certainly free to differ.
Gen McC forgot the lesson my idol, General Creighton Abrams who said: never miss an opportunity to keep your mouth shut. And had Gen McC paid attention to his senior course at West Point (history of the military art), he would have learned the lesson of Gen McClelland with Lincoln as CIC.
Apparently he didnt.
Gen McC forgot the lesson my idol, General Creighton Abrams who said: never miss an opportunity to keep your mouth shut.
Hell didn't McChrystal never see Patton??!!
Bradley: "George, you got a big mouth!"
Patton, 1970
Hoosier Daddy: Since General Abrams (as LTC Abrams) led the St Lo breakout as commander of the second of the 37th armor, he was probably very aware of General Patton and Patton's propensity to let his mouth overload his ass. I suspect that is why Abrams adopted that aphorism. General Abrams was a cigar smoking guy who loved opera. He did far too young. I think it was Mel Laird who eulogized him at his funeral. Abrams was right up there with Omar Bradley as a great model for a general officer.
Bradley and Patton had no Rules of Engagement to contend with.
Patton: "Listen boys, I've been getting in a lot of hot water lately. Hell just the other day the Inspector General said I didn't have enough latrines for my Italian prisoners. Hell they didn't know what a latrine was before I captured them."
Patton, 1970
Hoosier Daddy: Since General Abrams (as LTC Abrams) led the St Lo breakout as commander of the second of the 37th armor, he was probably very aware of General Patton
Heh I know Rog, I meant if McChrystal ever saw Patton!
And come to think of it, neither had to put up with colored troops or women serving in their units.
Hoosier Daddy--yes, I got your point after I posted mine. We had to watch Patton in some of my armor officer schooling. I am still unclear as to why :)
Allen S: two straights weeks of KP followed by two weeks of shit burning for you--
I've been both enlisted and officer. One major difference--besides the pay--is that enlisted are allowed to gripe, officers are not. Those that do are guilty of conduct unbecoming of an officer. I think that is article 131 UCMJ. Badmouthing the president I think is covered by article 88, mentioned above.
Roger, I have a lot of experience in both, and I shall carry out my orders to the fullest!
We had to watch Patton in some of my armor officer schooling. I am still unclear as to why :)
Well the biggest lesson I got from it was don't talk to the media :-)
I can't help but notice that the evil Republicans have failed to make political hay out of this.
Bastards.
Danielle: hard to say exactly how the assignment of any serving 4 star or up and coming three star works--at the DOD level, Mr Gates, and the CINC of Area Command General Petraeus, will (i am sure) have consultations and provide a slate of candidates to the president.
My additional take is that were Mr Obama smart he will defer to SecDef Gates on the choice. But I dont think Mr Obama is particularly smart now that this unfortunate incident has become a political football.
Allen S: and I am sure you never placed the shit barrels up wind of the headquarters :)
we need the president to say what Secretary Clinton and Secretary Gates have both said
Hillary's certainly getting some love in the press these days, what with all the 3 a.m. calls that have gone straight to voicemail lately.
If you look at what McChrystal actually said, there is nothing much there. This is a media created problem for us all, that we do not need nor was it necessary. We are bored to death in this country.
I disagree that McChrystal is somehow indispensable, which is implied (I think) in McCain's quote.
Graveyards are full of indispensable people.
Been looking around on this, but I'm still not finding anything attributable to McC directly that comes across as damnable criticism or bucking civilian control. Anyone have some McC quotes that amount to this?
Serious question.
Ms Beth--to avoid thread hi jack I will go to your blog, but what the hell is going on with the feds stopping the sand berms? If you have the time and energy, would love your thoughts on your blog
take care and be safe.
Once they were pulled out of those trap doors, they didn't go far. Far enough as to not catch the latrine on fire. Once you poured in the fuel oil, you had to stir. I don't know where they came from, but there was always a shit stick handy.
I might have to drink some beer this afternoon. I love to reminisce. I guess I'm just a romantic.
McChrystal should - must go for the same reasons MacArthur was sacked; this coming from a MacArthur fan, generally. McChrystal went over the line and, like MacArthur, I don't think it was any accident. Just as MacArthur wanted to draw attention to Truman's policy of fighting for a stalemate, McChrystal seems to want to let the world know we have a fool and dilettante in command who is trying to implement all the unrealistic nonsense spouted by the anti-war crowd since J Wacko Fulbright.
As I said yesterday, he should have done it the way Robert E Lee did. This mess draws him down to The Zero's level.
garage mahal said...
Obama is either a weak pussy, or a ruthless thug dictator. Take your pick!
He thinks he's the latter or wants to be it, but he's the former, reminiscent of Bruce Catton's description of Edwin Stanton. Stanton loved to treat generals in trouble in the Roland Freisler manner, but, if said officer answered him back, Stanton would fold in a heartbeat.
Remember when people wondered if Zero was giving Hillary and, later, McCain the finger as he spoke about them? That's the only time he can be 'know which ass to kick'.
Allen S: thanks for the trip down memory lane--tell you what--I will down a beer (or two or three) this afternoon and raise a glass to the ancient and honorable order shit burners (E4 and below) who served in Viet Nam.
garage mahal said...
Obama is either a weak pussy, or a ruthless thug dictator. Take your pick!
You can be both. Like Nero. Or Caligula. Or Walt Dinsey.
"Obama is either a weak pussy, or a ruthless thug dictator."
Ruthless thugs are always weak pussies inside.
That's why they cover it thick with thuggery.
And it could also very well be that Obama has some weak pussies around him and some thugs, and he can't ever decide consistently who's advice to follow.
I will go to your blog, but what the hell is going on with the feds stopping the sand berms?
Well for that matter why not waive the Jones Act with an exec order?
I mean my expectation is not that Obama singlehandedly plug the damn hole but he sure as hell isn't frigging helping either.
One would get the impression that he just wants to eat his waffle and watch soccer or something.
I will down a beer (or two or three) this afternoon and raise a glass to the ancient and honorable order shit burners (E4 and below) who served in Viet Nam
Patton: ...30 years from now with your grandson on your knee and he asks what did you do in the great world war two you won't have to say, 'well, I shoveled shit in Louisiana.'
Patton, 1970
McCain has been repeating the same tired canard since well before he was routed in the 2008 election. Over and over again. No deadline, no deadline, no deadline. But everyone (jr565, for instance) who says the deadline approach is stupid is failing to see the parallels between the deadline and no deadline approaches.
Implicit in the deadline approach is that it is not a hard deadline, but is a soft deadline (masquerading as a hard one) meant to induce political movement. If there's no deadline, there's dependence and therefore no movement.
Implicit in the no deadline approach is that of course we won't be there forever, and in fact we'd like to leave relatively soon, but if we give a deadline then the enemy will just wait us out. So even if we have one, we won't say it.
As a result, these positions are not so far apart, and certainly FAR lesser issues than whether the war gets escalated in the first place. Once you escalate, deadline or no, you're committing yourself to a much longer war. If you wanted out, you wouldn't escalate. If you wanted out in 18 months, you CERTAINLY wouldn't escalate.
McCain's tired fixation on this reminds me of his constant raising of that planetarium pork project. Laser-like focus on the superficial at the expense of real understanding of anything. Every day since the election has revealed more and more how bad a president -- petty, rageful, superficial, rigid -- he would have been.
Article 88 of the UCMJ.
"Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct."
Article 80 of the UCMJ:
"(a) An act, done with specific intent to commit an offense under this chapter, amounting to more than mere preparation and tending, even though failing, to effect its commission, is an attempt to commit that offense. (b) Any person subject to this chapter who attempts to commit any offense punishable by this chapter shall be punished as a court-martial may direct, unless otherwise specifically prescribed. (c) Any person subject to this chapter may be convicted of an attempt to commit an offense although it appears on the trial that the offense was consummated.")
Article 78 could even come into play:
"Any person subject to this chapter who, knowing that an offense punishable by this chapter has been committed, receives, comforts, or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial, or punishment shall be punished as a court-martial may direct."
I was incorrect. Obama doesn't need to order anyone to convene a courts-martial:
§822, Art. 22(a)(1): General courts-martial may be convened by the President of the United States.
(Article 32 states, in part, "(a) No charge or specification may be referred to a general court-martial for trial until a through and impartial investigation of all the matters set forth therein has been made. This investigation shall include inquiry as to the truth of the matter set forth in the charges, consideration of the form of charges, and recommendation as to the disposition which should be made of the case in the interest of justice and discipline."
So, lawyers who know the UCMJ, how are these two articles reconciled? Does this mean that the President can order a court-martial, but specific charged can't be made until an investigation is done?
McChrystal, fired.
PETRAUS !!!!!!!!!!!!
That, my friends, was BRILLIANT !!
Still looking for contemptuous language used by McCrystal. Anybody?
What the fuck are you talking about danielle?
Not that anyone here ever expects you to make a coherent point, but surprise us.
Obama accepted McCrystal's resignation, and put Petraus in charge in Afghanistan.
GMay, it doesn't matter. Article 80(a) makes this absolutely clear. Furthermore, McChrystal's failure to report the clear violation of section 88 by an aide is a court-martial offense.
Danielle - this is the precise advice offered by Bill Kristol yesterday. Obama must watch Fox News.
"Still looking for contemptuous language used by McCrystal. Anybody?'
That makes two of us.
Politics, well done. The talking heads are creaming all over themselves.
Substance, not so much. I wish we could get out of Afghanistan. This was an opportunity, now closed. Then again, Obama had an opportunity before he sent the new 30k troops, and passed that up. Sigh. He did campaign on escalation, so can't fault him for being consistent.
What, danielle? General Betrayus is now in charge? Will there be an ad in the NYT?
OK, Obama haters, whatcha got?!?!
Check mate, bitches !!!!!!!!!!
Hey dingbat, I suppose you didn't notice us Obama haters were actually advocating McChrystal be fired.
I swear you define this.
Check mate, bitches !!!!!!!!!!
I guess this is the part where we're expected to pretend to believe danielle never called the guy General Betray Us. But OK, I'm good with it. He was the obvious choice when Obama chose McChrystal instead.
Interesting from Ben Smith.
Biden called Petraus a fool for believing in the surge, Obama ridiculed him. Petraus would be stupid for accepting this mission and working for these two complete imbeciles.
The Charge of the Light Brigade into Afghanistan continues. I suspect that Petrayus will not use the strategy designed by McChrystal. Therefore we will lose quicker and get out at last.
Danielle--I dont think you understand how american forces are deployed--they are under six unified commands that cover geographical areas--Afghanistan comes under the region commanded by the Commander in Chief of Central Command--that would be Gen Patraeus--who has always been Gen McChrystal's superior officer. The reality is that Gen Patraeus has always been on the hook for Afghanistan as the CINC of centcom--and now he will appoint a three star or maybe a four star to head up the effort in Afghanistan.
You really are a stupid bitch, Danielle. Now I would not have used that term but you saw fit to. You really need to learn something about how the department of defense is organized before letting your elephant mouth overload your hummingbird all. And the fact that Mr Obama put Gen Patreus "in charge" of Aghanistan suggests Obama is about as ignorant as you on the command structure.
Both of you are stupid bitches apparently.
I for one would like to thank General McChrystal for his service to his country.
He needed to go but this will not end well for the Big O.
Ouch! That will leave a mark.
AllenS, so who's calling Petraeus stupid now?
Get a new argument. Or just get an argument.
Petraus, what a great man.
And In this press conference, President Obama is a class act -- just admiration for McCrystal.
It is going to be just about as effective as the change of managers for the Baltimore Orioles.
Strong words, Roger J, full of uninformed guesses.
"I for one would like to thank General McChrystal for his service to his country. "
Me too. The next question is does he write that tell all book that will hit the market say.......late summer 2012..
Danielle--do you confound criticism with hatred? You are batting a thousand on your stupid streak.
Wow, Roger J, I used to respect your comments. But now I see that you are no different than several of the other obnoxious and cocky people here.
"Check mate, bitches !!!!!!!!!!"
For the left there are no real foreign enemies to be fought, only internal opposition to be suppressed.
Roger J, there's no reason for us to continue interacting here; so how about you just stop. I wont be addressing your comments any further.
Danielle said:
"Obama accepted McCrystal's resignation, and put Petraus in charge in Afghanistan. Checkmate!"
Oh you mean General "BETRAY US"? THat General? So are the left now on board saying Patreus is a competent guy who knows his stuff and that Bush picked the right guy for Iraq and that the dems played politics with his appointment simply to get at Bush?
Was he for the dems hard deadline withdrawal plan when it came to Iraq? And wasn't he the general that pushed for the surge strategy that Obama opposed in Iraq?
Daniel Foster, National Review, stupid bitch:
"This is technically a demotion for Petraeus, who was until today McChrystal's commanding officer."
"Empty cans make the most noise" .
Sister Bernard Patrick, 1958.
Daniel--pray tell what are my uninformed guesses? Are you telling me I am wrong about the organization of the Department of Defense and the role of the unified commands? If so, how I am wrong?
My strong words were directed at Ms Danielle (whom I duly note did apolgize in a half hearted way but still cited "obama hatred.")
My only "guess" was that General Patreus will appoint an Afghanistan based general to actually run the war, will Gen Patreus will remain, as he always has, the CINC of Centcom. Thats actually a quite well informed guess.
It was a hard decision to make. For the previous 14 months THE essential tool of my trade was both a sign of my progression from apprentice to journeyman, and, once the initial teasing turned into awe, a kind of talisman. The sense of distance created between me and my fellow coworkers as I approached my task was countered by satisfaction that not everyone could (or wished to) perform what I did as well as I did it. So as my employment contract eventually came to its end, the question - should I keep this tool or leave it for my replacement? - did not seem to have a satisfactory answer.
What ultimately forced the decision was when that crew chief said no fucking way I'm bringing that shitty smelling stick on his Huey on my last flight back to Danang.
Check mate, bitches !!!!!!!!!! might appear obnoxious and cocky at first glance but only to wingnuts
General McChrystal made the mistake of allowing his people to talk to "journalists." Now his long career of service and valor will only be remember by most by it's ending.
He lost the chance to protect his men by speaking the truth as he saw it out of turn. He needed to be relieved for his remarks and those of his staff and this sad chapter will soon be forgotten.
It's a very bad thing all the way around. Nobody wins. Except the scumbag journalists who will sell a lot of rags.
The only thing worse than a journalist is a lawyer.
Roger J, you have correctly identified your uninformed guess. As of right now it is being reported that, consistent with what Obama said in the press conference, Petraeus will be shifted from CINC of Centcom to Commander of the war in Afghanistan. This would in some technical way be a demotion, but given the centrality of Afghanistan right now, it really doesn't seem to be. Your argument that this is really nothing other than a firing of McChrystal and a gap waiting for Petraeus to appoint someone to fill it seems unsubstantiated by facts. I also wonder (really, because I don't know) whether what you're suggesting is even possible, since Obama actually "nominated" Petraeus for what appears to be a Congressional confirmation process.
Obama handled the removal well, the speech was excellent and well balanced. He has set the required standard for respect for the office of Commander in Chief, whether Democrat, Republican, liberal or conservative. Obama has actually enhanced his status as CIC.
Now, if he can gain control of the civilian part of his team - National Security Advisor, Ambassador to Afghanistan, Envoy Holbrooke, and especially Vice President Biden, we might have a chance at actually succeeding in this war.
Just a question on all this...
It appears that there were others in the room subordinate to McChrystal who also made remarks. 1. Is McChrystal (was he) responsible for those remarks - not that he said them but that they went on without protestation or simply stopping them, and,
2. If mcChrystal, due to his rank and potential for "ownership" of any other remarks,.. do these subordinates face any issues as well?
I'm curious and I can't find any place that makes this distinction clear.
Roger J, there's no reason for us to continue interacting here; so how about you just stop. I wont be addressing your comments any further.
Its amusing you use the term 'interacting' when you're initial comment was checkmate bitches!!!!.
Evidently in your unbrideled hatred of conservatives you were blinded by the fact that Roger, me and the rest of us bitches actually supported Obama sacking McChrystal because he stepped over the line.
I don't expect a response but you might consider your own poor behavior before spouting off next time. You'll look less like an uninformed fool.
Have a nice day.
And by the way, McChrystal's senior staff members will also be demoted and transferred.
That's how the military works.
It seems that most of these "remarks" in question were made in a bar while the general’s aides were drinking and had their guard down and treated the "journalists" like human beings and patriotic Americans. Big mistake.
There is no doubt that they will be separated from the service as well
Trooper -
As they should be. They let their boss down, their country down, their professionalism down, ...
Why should "senior aides" ever let their guard down?
Daniel--good to know that I know what I am guessing!
Removing Gen Patraeus from CINC Centcom will require replacing that position with another four star--to which, at least technically, General Patraeus will be responsibile.
As you suggest, the centrality of the Afghan war is analogous to the Viet Nam war where Gen Westmoreland was nominally under the control of CINC PAC (Ironically Adm McCain father of Sen John). And you are also correct that this is a congressionally approved position.
All of which, in my opinion blurs the roles of the chain of command which is not a good thing.
This command structure means that the CG of the Afghani campaign can bypass CINC Centcom, the JCS, and the SECDEF, and this structure then (IMO) really means Mr Obama has the con. Now putting my political hat on, were I Mr Obama, I would keep some command distance between me and forces on the ground--but thats just me.
The problem is that this has always been a materially different campaign than Iraq, more a SF/spec ops fight than pure conventional work. The issue is to enable a popular Afghan government to be able to defend itself against what's left of the Taliban.
McChrystal may have been the right guy, but his CIC's stereotypical disengagement, until the issue at hand becomes a good crisis he can exploit, foredoomed the venture from the start.
Trooper York said...
I for one would like to thank General McChrystal for his service to his country.
He needed to go but this will not end well for the Big O.
I second your first and second points, sir, and tend to ruefully applaud your perspicacity on the third
Oh I agree John. Their heads have to roll. Their job was to get the "journalist" senselessly drunk and leave them in an alley so they could get their heads cut off by Islamic terrorists.
The only thing worse than a journalist is a lawyer.
HD--to answer your question simply: yes McChrystal owns those remarks, and those making them on the record will, I suspect have their careers ended--as well they should be.
Very interesting point, Roger J.
Daniel--as an old Col Blimp type I have not kept up with current COIN strategy--I have my doubts that has apparently worked in Iraq will work in Afghanistan-as ragged as the tribal landscape was in Iraq, it is far more ragged in Afghanistan.
More uninformed guesses follow: what if Gen Patraeus advocates a surge strategy (please God no)--Mr Obama has put himself in the position of having to support such a strategy, no? I dont see any upsides to our involvement in Afghanistan that are easily resolved by purely military tactics.
I think Mr Obama--who I DO hope succeeds in Afghanistan--may have settled on a short term tactic to defuse a bad situation.
Roger, I think Obama already did embrace the surge/COIN strategy. And the choice of Petraeus, as you say and as I agree above, is great short term strategy, but definitely represents a continuation of the surge/COIN. I agree with you about Afghanistan, and am depressed about the direction we're headed in.
Check out that Ben Smith point, which shows how surge/COIN/nation building hawks wanted McChrystal fired so he wouldn't undermine the strategy, while those wanting to scale back in Afghanistan wanted him around in weakened state.
Daniel: the solution is obvious--put us in charge and get those other folks out of the way ;)
McChrystal's whole entourage is infected, and the rot must be cut out.
The wonderfully accomplished Obama administration vetting process chalks up another victory, no?
MadMan,
I don't get the idea that McCain is saying that McChrystal is indispensable. I think what he is saying is that the whole structure over there is screwed up and needs to be replaced top to bottom and workable ROE need to be implemented. That is something I can agree with. The whole atmosphere between the civilians there, the military leadership there and this benighted administration lends itself to SNAFU's of the worst kind. I think we need to revamp the whole setup and determine what the goals and strategies are going to be. I shudder to think that Bambi would be a part of that planning. He is sure to pick the exact wrong choices as we have seen from the rest of his administrative policies.
How soon can we get rid of him!!
The corner was turned in Iraq when the tribes became confident that the U.S. was there to stay and would kick ass until the job was done. Until the Military/Diplomatic/Political structure in the U.S. unites behind this goal, Afghanistan is just a quagmire.
Milwaukie guy said...
The corner was turned in Iraq when the tribes became confident that the U.S. was there to stay and would kick ass until the job was done. Until the Military/Diplomatic/Political structure in the U.S. unites behind this goal, Afghanistan is just a quagmire.
1. Currently, even McChrystal admits, the Taliban has fought us to a draw after 300 billion and 6800 casualties.
2. The Kharzai narcokleptocracy has virtually no popular support. Compared to Kharzai, the Soviets communist puppet was wildly popular, competent, not corrupted, and was not dealing behind the Soviets back. Great if he was still alive, maybe we could use him...but alas, the Noble freedom-loving Afghans killed him rather gruesomely.
3. Staying another 10 years requires a rationale.
A. Help nation-build the "noble" Afghans who hate us?
B. Find the two "Arch-Evildoers" with another 300 billion? When they are hiding in a different country?
C. Check Pakistan, even though the "Heroes" could not exist in Afghanistan without the continued permission and heavy bribery of the Pak government AND the Pak Taliban????
Nope - this war is unwinnable and likely to be over soon. Then the neocons can get back to demanding other people's sons invade and fight urgent new wars in Iran, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan - "lest the Evildoers be allowed to remain in all those nations America must rebuild so that they are not safe havens for Evildoers".
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा