Althouse: McChrystal out.

June 23, 2010

McChrystal out.

Petraeus in.

172 comments:

William T. Sherman said...: Christie/McChrystal 2012; 6/23/10, 1:09 PM
Eugene said...: And McChrystal breathes a huge sigh of relief.; 6/23/10, 1:14 PM
Unknown said...: Since Messiah are never wrong, Petraeus won't be allowed to run A-stan the way he ran Iraq. If I were Petraeus, I'd turn it down, especially since he may not be in the best of health.

danielle said...

Brilliant choice by the President !!

We'd get the same reaction if Ambrose Burnside or Charles Lee had been chosen.; 6/23/10, 1:16 PM
Anonymous said...: Senator Obama voted 'present' for the resolution condemning the "General Betrayus" ad.

Brilliant choice by the President. He removes his hand-picked choice for
someone he had no confidence in just 2 years ago.; 6/23/10, 1:17 PM
Scott M said...: The only slightly less-than-awful choice in a really, really bad situation. The only good that can come of this will be a new set of ROE's that actually allow us to do something. Unfortunately, ROE are usually handed down with administration hamstrings, so I wouldn't bet on it.

There really wasn't any good way for this to resolve. Any way you slice it, the Administration looks weaker at a time when it's already got a mountain o' other problems.; 6/23/10, 1:20 PM
Synova said...: Oh gawd... no.

Petraeus does not deserve this.; 6/23/10, 1:21 PM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 6/23/10, 1:21 PM
reader_iam said...: Fascinating choice.; 6/23/10, 1:22 PM
Anonymous said...: See Rules, Rumsfeld.

Back to the most important and most abandoned basics?

Nah!

But "rah rah rah America"! Just in time for the 4th of July. It's like rooting for the U.S. in the World Cup; everyone else knows you suck and are going to lose, while the Americans themselves pretty much don't care.; 6/23/10, 1:24 PM
Fred4Pres said...: I am sure Petraeus is just thrilled he is getting this tar baby. But he is a loyal solider, so he will probably do it.; 6/23/10, 1:24 PM
Synova said...: It's a demotion for Petraeus.

And then Obama says that policy will not change?

I sincerely hope that Petraeus had conditions. Granted, he has a bit of license anyway just because if Obama doesn't support him Obama is going to look like an idiot.; 6/23/10, 1:25 PM
rhhardin said...: Soto voce remarks are the most estimable. When I see a few of these in history, they please me greatly. They have not been completely soto. They have been known. The small way in which they appeared increases their merit. That they could not be ignored is the finest thing of all.

Lautreamont/Pascal; 6/23/10, 1:26 PM
rhhardin said...: What's the deal with Michael Yon and McChrystal?

The reason I don't know whether we're ahead or behind on this deal.; 6/23/10, 1:28 PM
Chase said...: Actually, Synova, McChrystal did very much deserve this. This is not about emotion. It's about the rule of law in the United States, which General McChrystal believes in, sworn an oath to defend, and dedicated his life to. He is a talented, brilliant man who did not stumble into this situation unaware or by surprise. He was lauded more than necessary by the President today, and can still retire honorably, which - unless he chooses to repeat more of the same - he definitely will.

I say that as a son of 2 United States Marines (yes, my mother was a Lady Marine), the brother of 2 United States Marines, and the father of a United States Marine Private First Class. And as a conservative.

My 2 previous posts on this matter:

1) McChrystal has done this country a tremenedous favor by exposing the inner foolishness of the Obama Administration.

2) Now he should be fired for speaking ill of the Commander in Chief, regardless if said CIC is Democrat, Republican, liberal or conservative.

Be a soldier, McChrystal and take it.

today -

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.; 6/23/10, 1:30 PM
Joe said...: People, Petreus gets the job because he's THEATRE Commander, it IS his job...I imagine he'll be delegating it on to someone else, pretty quickly.

Preferably someone he doesn't much like.....; 6/23/10, 1:31 PM
Scott M said...: 1) McChrystal has done this country a tremenedous favor by exposing the inner foolishness of the Obama Administration.

2) Now he should be fired for speaking ill of the Commander in Chief, regardless if said CIC is Democrat, Republican, liberal or conservative.

Well put.; 6/23/10, 1:32 PM
sunsong said...: So, this becomes a pivot point. Stating the obvious - things will get worse or begin to improve now.

By the end of the year we will have a pretty good idea of whether Afghanistan is *winnable*.; 6/23/10, 1:32 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Brilliant choice by the President !!

I guess it takes a Bush guy to do an Obama guy's job eh?; 6/23/10, 1:32 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: What do the "General Betray Us" crowd have to say about it?; 6/23/10, 1:34 PM
Phil 314 said...: He needed to go after the remarks, but what really did it for me was the unwavering support of Karzai.

If Karsai fearlessly defends you then you've got a problem.; 6/23/10, 1:36 PM
Anonymous said...: Well, let's all remember how wrong - dead wrong - so many people were.

Now they can't cling to Petraeus fast enough.; 6/23/10, 1:37 PM
Anonymous said...: HRC, "......and its a hand that is unlikely to improve, in my view...."; 6/23/10, 1:38 PM
Synova said...: "Actually, Synova, McChrystal did very much deserve this. This is not about emotion."

I said *Petraeus* doesn't deserve it.; 6/23/10, 1:39 PM
Kirby Olson said...: I think he should appoint Lady Gaga.; 6/23/10, 1:39 PM
Chase said...: Synova,

I was wrong. My apologies.; 6/23/10, 1:41 PM
Saint Croix said...: Obama didn't visit Afghanistan once in 2009. He's more concerned with gays in the military than actually winning a war. He has zero respect for the military or military culture. McChrystal said, for the record, what many military people are saying off the record.

Obama's relationship with the military is a disaster. McChrystal was fired, not for incompetence or screwing up the war--you know, the important stuff--but because he embarrassed Obama with some off the cuff comments.

It's Jeremiah Wright all over again. If McChrystal said "Damn the USA" or pissed on a flag, he'd be fine. It's the personal disrespect that Obama can't stand. You insulted me! The One!; 6/23/10, 1:42 PM
Tank said...: Does not matter really. Just another war we can't win. Just a matter of how much more money and how many more lives we're going to waste before we declare "Peace with honor" and helicoptor off the roof.; 6/23/10, 1:44 PM
Synova said...: "If Karsai fearlessly defends you then you've got a problem."

Either he's the head of the country or not. (Okay, maybe that's not so sure a thing, but...) And either we're the boss in Afghanistan or we're not. Either we demand that our puppet be seated or not.

What indicates a "problem" is when the elected leader of a country we occupy refuses to take meetings with official representatives of our country.

What was a "problem" was the power-play the US made to oust Karsai when it wasn't a sure thing. Losing that gambit (even if it seemed like a good idea at the time) was far worse than not making it to begin with.

You know... Bush was TONS better at this international statemanship stuff.

He really was.; 6/23/10, 1:44 PM
mRed said...: "we declare "Peace with honor" and helicoptor off the roof."

What a tiresome leftist remark. Glib, oh so witty and really stupid.

Maybe we'll hear another round of "the surge has failed" before the surge begins.; 6/23/10, 1:48 PM
Anonymous said...: "....we declare "Peace with honor" and helicoptor off the roof.'

As long as the helicopter is carrying OBL's and Zawahiri's heads that will be fine.; 6/23/10, 1:51 PM
Big Mike said...: Brilliant choice by the President !!

To give the same man two of the toughest 2 x 7 x 365 jobs in the world? After he demonstrated that he's been overworked by fainting in public?

I think danielle is dumbing down the definition of "brilliant."; 6/23/10, 1:51 PM
garage mahal said...: You know... Bush was TONS better at this international statemanship stuff.

Bring 'Em On!

/mouth full of food; 6/23/10, 1:54 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Professor I think you forgot the Obama is like Bush tag.

Just sayin ;-); 6/23/10, 1:55 PM
A.W. said...: Patreaus (sp?) is an absolute patriot for working for the a--hole in chief.

i really admire his willingness to put up with obama's stupidity in the name of the greater good.

btw, obama is probably more than happy all this happened. it takes our attention off the oil spill.; 6/23/10, 1:57 PM
MadisonMan said...: If I were Petraeus, I'd turn it down,

That would mean resigning his commission, wouldn't it?; 6/23/10, 1:58 PM
Tank said...: Hey, someone called me stupid and leftist.

I am not leftist.; 6/23/10, 2:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Its a no win for Obama.

If Petraeus turns it around, the common element was Patraeus.

If he doesn't the difference was the president.; 6/23/10, 2:00 PM
lemondog said...: Bite Me

Ha, ha, ha

I assume Petraeus's health is good and his brief spell was the result of congressional critters sucking all the air out of the room.; 6/23/10, 2:00 PM
pm317 said...: I wonder if you noticed how "Bite me" wants to stand so close and attached to Obama -- he is so afraid he will be left out of the picture frame.; 6/23/10, 2:01 PM
former law student said...: Will it stop there, or can we expect a bunch of courts-martial for violating Section 88 of the UCMJ?

888. ART. 88. CONTEMPT TOWARD OFFICIALS
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.

Commenters are trying the "Look over there! strategy:

Obama didn't visit Afghanistan once in 2009

Every time Obama got into Air Force One last year, the commentariat complained about the cost. Even our gracious hostess chimed in at one point. Imagine the level of security needed to keep Obama safe in a hot war zone -- I'm sure the Right would have complained about the waste of men and materiel needed to protect Obama during his "grandstanding stunt."; 6/23/10, 2:04 PM
Synova said...: Turning the job down would only mean resigning if Obama required it.

Otherwise it's just "No, thank you" and on to the next candidate.

Oh, and recall what I said about Obama having to sit down and go over personnel files and pick someone he can work with and how he might get military cooties?

Turns out he figure out how to not have to do that. He didn't actually assign Petraeus to the job after all, because Petraeus will still have his old job full-time. What he did was leave the post EMPTY and is going to let Petraeus fill the post with someone who will not have the official title on his resume for running the whole thing... Petraeus's choice will have all the responsibility without the official rank and title and Obama is off the hook and safe from military cooties.

Win/Win.

Someone mentioned Mattis.

Wouldn't that be a hoot.; 6/23/10, 2:04 PM
submandave said...: "People, Petreus gets the job because he's THEATRE Commander, it IS his job...I imagine he'll be delegating it on to someone else, pretty quickly."

So, according to your logic, USPACOM gets to decide who is COMPACFLT? It doesn't work that way, Joe. These sorts of jobs are appointed by Pres. and confirmed by Congress. Should Petraeus delegate AFG operations to another the much vaunted "civilian control" that so many have spoken of in this matter (and rightfully so) has been deftly sidestepped by the President's vote of "Present."

To my eyes, it looks like Pres. Obama either hasn't a clue or doesn't give a damn who should do the job so he just picks the closest thing we have to a living hero General so that if things continue to go downhill he has plausible deniability.; 6/23/10, 2:05 PM
MadisonMan said...: If Petraeus turns it around, the common element was Patraeus.

If he doesn't the difference was the president.

Only if Iraq is identical to Afghanistan.; 6/23/10, 2:05 PM
David said...: Our troops on the ground in Afghanistan have a single common thought: "WHAT THE FUCK?"

Obama needs to get over there and mingle with the subordinate commanders and the troops.

Any bets on likelihood?; 6/23/10, 2:05 PM
Scott M said...: Just to put the reins straight again, FLS, the overwhelming consensus here has been that Mac was in the wrong and, to a lesser degree, that he needed to go. Officially charging general officers over things like this is very rare and extremely unlikely to occur in this case.

Every time Obama got into Air Force One last year, the commentariat complained about the cost.

Not every time. Not even close. I definitely vented some frustration over his use of AF1 for the Chicago/Olympic debacle. Using AF1 for Copenhagen was just funny.; 6/23/10, 2:08 PM
Freder Frederson said...: It's the personal disrespect that Obama can't stand. You insulted me! The One!

So your respect for the military and military culture only extends as far as respecting rank, the chain of command, and the civilian control of the military (which is reiterated throughout the Constitution) as long as those in charge agree with you.

I submit you don't have the first clue about how the military in this country is supposed to operate.; 6/23/10, 2:10 PM
Synova said...: I think you're thinking that a "court martial" is more than it actually is, FLS. It could be a slap on the wrist, only slightly up from an Article 15, or it could be a "not-guilty" on account of the fact that it's every military person's God given right to complain about leadership on their own time.

Seeing as how we didn't court martial ANY of the active duty military that the anti-war movement got their claws into who stood up and gave speeches trashing Bush, and these guys already are going to lose their jobs or get transferred elsewhere with the stink sticking to them even if they weren't guilty of any disrespect... it's highly unlikely that anyone is going to decide that there is a need for *more*.; 6/23/10, 2:12 PM
TWM said...: "2) Now he should be fired for speaking ill of the Commander in Chief, regardless if said CIC is Democrat, Republican, liberal or conservative."

Agree totally, but if the CIC were a Republican the media and the left would be saying, what was it? Oh yes. He should be listening to the generals.; 6/23/10, 2:12 PM
bagoh20 said...: So did Rolling Stone fill in for McChrystal at that war planning meeting? Did Obama get their approval on Patraeus? I hope Obama is not just going all rogue and ignoring his advisers at the magazine.; 6/23/10, 2:15 PM
The Drill SGT said...: Saint Croix said...
Obama's relationship with the military is a disaster. McChrystal was fired, not for incompetence or screwing up the war--you know, the important stuff--but because he embarrassed Obama with some off the cuff comments.

I agree about the Obama part, but disagree about McChrystal. He demonstrated a significant level of stupidity by allowing a high degree of access to a reporter from an anti-military rag and expecting a fair piece. McChrystal was also poorly served by his staff. They seem undisciplined and unprofessional to me. In addition, we have not heard about the command Public Affairs Officer. He is either incompetent or McChrystal is terminally stupid for not listening to him. Regardless, it is McChrystals fault.

He had to be fired.

On a different note, strange how the MSM thinks "listening to the Generals" is the way to go when Bush was President, but "Civilian control of the military" is paramount when Obama is POTUS.

Next to last: The command environment in the whole theater is disfunctional. Hollbrooke from State, Eikenberry (ex-general) as the Ambassador, Clinton, Jones, Obama, McChrystal, their respective staffs backbiting and feuding... Obama is totally responsible for assembling this disfunctional team.

A-Stan was nearly unwinnable as a war, even with a great team and ful support from a POTUS like Bush...

with this crew, We're going to lose, cut and run...; 6/23/10, 2:15 PM
Synova said...: "So, according to your logic, USPACOM gets to decide who is COMPACFLT? It doesn't work that way, Joe. These sorts of jobs are appointed by Pres. and confirmed by Congress. Should Petraeus delegate AFG operations to another the much vaunted "civilian control" that so many have spoken of in this matter (and rightfully so) has been deftly sidestepped by the President's vote of "Present.""

Exactly.

It's a brilliant plan on Obama's part as he neatly avoids the work involved in actually getting to know his commanders.; 6/23/10, 2:15 PM
submandave said...: FLS, sorry to disappoint your blood lust, but there really is no Art. 88 violation to prosecute. In case you failed to actually read, the "bite-me" joke was not actually speaking about the VP, but rather questions that reporters may ask related to something the VP had said. There is no comparission, for example, with Harold Campbell, the Air Force General who directly spoke contemptuously of then Pres. Clinton by calling him a "dope-smoking, skirt-chasing, draft-dodging" President.; 6/23/10, 2:15 PM
submandave said...: Actually, there is one fair comparisson:

Both men were accurate and both lost their jobs.; 6/23/10, 2:20 PM
Anonymous said...: "If Petraeus turns it around, the common element was Patraeus.

If he doesn't the difference was the president.

Only if Iraq is identical to Afghanistan."

True.

But the part of Afghanistan that portents or dictates our failure, whatever it is, is also on Obama because he was was one of those that advocated our focus there and not in Iraq, and he was the one that upped the number of troops.; 6/23/10, 2:20 PM
Synova said...: If Petraeus turns it around, the common element was Patraeus.

If he doesn't the difference was the president.

"Only if Iraq is identical to Afghanistan."

Of course it's not, but if we're talking about popular impressions and the notion that we just need an enlightened person to implement COIN again, the differences are functionally irrelevant.; 6/23/10, 2:21 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Patreus/ Christie 2012.; 6/23/10, 2:22 PM
rhhardin said...: Winning consists of preventing a large group of bad guys from regrouping.

Small groups watching their backs is a win.

Normally the nation in question takes care of big groups; if they can't, we have to until they can.

If the nation itself is bad guys, then it's back to traditional methods, diplomacy and war. Then there's somebody who can offer to surrender, always a plus.

Big groups are the standard because that's what they'd need to organize serious damage to the US.; 6/23/10, 2:22 PM
TosaGuy said...: If the Iraq Surge would have failed, President Bush would have taken the fall. If the Afghan Surge under Petreaus fails, then Obama will make sure Petreaus takes the fall.

If the President can't get his diplomatic leadership team under control, then Petreaus will be set up for failure.; 6/23/10, 2:22 PM
Brian Hancock said...: Wonder if Olberman blasts the President for "pimping" Petreaus tonight?

(rhetorical question)

I wish nothing but success for General Petraeus in Afghanistan and I hope our President listens to him.

Now if he would only put Palin or W in charge of the Gulf Coast crisis, he may save even more face.; 6/23/10, 2:27 PM
The Drill SGT said...: a couple of other odd thoughts:

1. I was surprised at McChrystal's statement "I voted for Obama". That used to be the height of unprofessional conduct. Some officers never voted because they would have to register. The rest just said, I voted. Admitting who they voted for was off limits, like religion.

2. Every time Obama got into Air Force One last year, the commentariat complained about the cost.

I for one, and I think most vets, would never complain about the POTUS visting deployed troops. Sometimes however, photo ops during election campaigns in the states look contrived to the point of being embarrassing for all concerned when the POTUS uses soldiers as props.; 6/23/10, 2:27 PM
Automatic_Wing said...: They seem undisciplined and unprofessional to me. In addition, we have not heard about the command Public Affairs Officer.

The PAO who set up the Rolling Stone interview has resigned. Quite a spectacular fuck-up, they'll be using this as a case study in Public Affairs school decades from now.; 6/23/10, 2:28 PM
former law student said...: the Air Force General who directly spoke contemptuously of then Pres. Clinton by calling him a "dope-smoking, skirt-chasing, draft-dodging" President.

These are all matters of public record about Clinton's personal life, acknowledged by Clinton -- well, maybe not the skirt-chasing.

McChrystal could probably have spoken about that "hoop-shooting, golf-playing, ciggie-sneaking" President without harming his career.; 6/23/10, 2:38 PM
former law student said...: Thanks, Scott and Synova.

I mean if you can't diss the Sec'y of Transportation who can't you diss?; 6/23/10, 2:40 PM
Automatic_Wing said...: McChrystal could probably have spoken about that "hoop-shooting, golf-playing, ciggie-sneaking" President without harming his career.

So what exactly did McChrystal himself say about Obama that was offensive?

What is the damning quote?; 6/23/10, 2:42 PM
MadisonMan said...: I mean if you can't diss the Sec'y of Transportation who can't you diss?

Assuming that second can't should be a can, I say the Sec'y of Education.; 6/23/10, 2:43 PM
former law student said...: maguro: how could the PAO have suspected that the big chief was going to let his staff run off at the mouth in front of a reporter, or that the staff would even want to let their hair down in front of strangers? RS has had some quite decent military coverage over the years, so the idea of matching them with a RS reporter was not in itself idiotic.

Synova: Among the generals who would you pick for the job?

Loose lips...; 6/23/10, 2:45 PM
Anonymous said...: "So what exactly did McChrystal himself say about Obama that was offensive?

What is the damning quote?"

Don't expect an answer. This has been a frenzy not a examination of fact; 6/23/10, 2:49 PM
The Drill SGT said...: Maguro said...
The PAO who set up the Rolling Stone interview has resigned. Quite a spectacular fuck-up, they'll be using this as a case study in Public Affairs school decades from now.

Fairly or unfairly, PAO's used to be a joke professionally. That was 30 years ago. The last refuge of failed officers was PAO and civil-military affairs.

With COIN in play and embeds, that has got to have changed, but the PAO for McChrystal fucked that up big time and/or McChrstal was an idiot for not listening to him.

I mean, you have to give interview to Katie, and Peter when they come to country. The Rolling Stone? Let's your staff fend them off.

Oh, you haven't house broken your staff and they behave like spoiled frat brothers (I bet too many of them were SOF cowboys)...; 6/23/10, 2:49 PM
Opus One Media said...: Hoosier Daddy said...
"I guess it takes a Bush guy to do an Obama guy's job eh?"

The same guy who the right wing dubbed "General Betrayus"...that same guy.

I do wish I was born with the short life memories possessed by the neuvo-recht.; 6/23/10, 2:50 PM
Revenant said...: The same guy who the right wing dubbed "General Betrayus"...that same guy.

That the right wing dubbed "General Betrayus"???

Holy cats! Talk about convenient memory!; 6/23/10, 2:53 PM
Scott M said...: The same guy who the right wing dubbed "General Betrayus"...that same guy.

You'll have to refresh my admittedly poor memory, HD. I thought it was a left-wing organization taking out a full page ad in the NYT that started that particular wonderful chapter in American history.

Please remind me...what really happened?; 6/23/10, 2:54 PM
traditionalguy said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 6/23/10, 2:55 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: The same guy who the right wing dubbed "General Betrayus"...that same guy.

I do wish I was born with the short life memories possessed by the neuvo-recht.

Say WHAT? Good lord harold you never fail to break the stupid barrier. Maybe you and danielle should move in together.; 6/23/10, 2:55 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Synova: Among the generals who would you pick for the job?

Well if I had the powers of resurrection I'd go with Scipio Africanus.; 6/23/10, 2:57 PM
AllenS said...: HDHouse said...
The same guy who the right wing dubbed "General Betrayus"...that same guy

That was great. One of your better comments.; 6/23/10, 2:58 PM
traditionalguy said...: The goal that Joe Biden speaks for is an immediate cut of our loses by a partial withdrawal. The goal Obama acts for is a delay until a time when the American and NATO forces have lost so many men for little or no reason in outer no where that there arises a demand for withdrawal. Petrayus and McChrystal actually want to win while they are there. That difference in strategic goals has created a continuous conflict of interest. IMO this is a rare case where Biden is right.; 6/23/10, 3:03 PM
Saint Croix said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 6/23/10, 3:03 PM
Scott M said...: The same guy who the right wing dubbed "General Betrayus"...that same guy.

I do wish I was born with the short life memories possessed by the neuvo-recht.

It's one thing to be completely wrong about something. It's quite another to be completely wrong about something and then try to snark it up using what you believe to be a pithy use of new MSNBC talking points.

Stunning.; 6/23/10, 3:05 PM
Trooper York said...: Now, now lets not be too mean to hd. He is a little confused after all.

You would be too if Lady Gaga was moving next door.

Age catches up with all of us in time.; 6/23/10, 3:05 PM
Saint Croix said...: I'm pretty sure it's a hierarchy. And it's important for the underlings to respect the boss. But he, in turn, needs to respect them and what they do.

A leader who respects his troops would go to Arlington for Memorial Day. Particularly during a frickin' war. So sure, fire the underling. But as you shake your head at his lack of respect for the president, you might ask yourself why the respect wasn't there.; 6/23/10, 3:07 PM
Synova said...: "Synova: Among the generals who would you pick for the job?"

Oh, I have no idea. Not even someone who is a genuine war hero as a campaign commander will necessarily be right for the job overseeing strategic goals and the geo-political stuff at that level. And it has to be someone who can work with Obama and who can get behind Obama's goals for Afghanistan as well as command the respect of the military.

Someone at Blackfive.net said Mattis. That's an interesting thought. Vastly popular leader. It's probably not politically possible, however, as he's said too many things that would frighten the women and children. It might be possible for Petraeus to appoint Mattis sort of on the hush-hush seeing as Petraeus will be the one with his name filling that political letterhead.; 6/23/10, 3:09 PM
aronamos said...: The biggest question that remains is WHY? I mean, McChrystal is no idiot, and he knew it wasn't Stars & Stripes he was talking to. Why would he he talk, and let his staff talk, that openly? The result was the only possible outcome.

Maybe down the road someone will be able to ask him, and he'll be able to answer. Right now I'm thinking that commenter Chase above is right: That he did the honorable thing by speaking the truth about the poseur ninnies in civilian command, and then falling on his sword.; 6/23/10, 3:11 PM
Mick said...: McChrystal now has standing for Quo Warranto (by what authority do you hold this office) against the eligibility of Obama, on the basis that Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen, as required by A2S1C4,5. Obama Sr. was never a US Citizen, and Obama 2 was a dual British Subject at birth. That split allegiance at birth alone disqualifies him, no matter if he was born in the Oval office, in JFK's lap, on the 4th of July.; 6/23/10, 3:14 PM
The Drill SGT said...: Hoosier Daddy said...
Well if I had the powers of resurrection I'd go with Scipio Africanus.

Your Scipio won the second Punic War at Zama.

My choice would be Scipio Aemilianus (The Younger), the winner of the third Punic War.

He demonstrated that your mother was not right. Violence does solve some things.

He sacked Carthage, destroyed the city so that no two stones stood together, then sold the inhabitants into slavery. Thus the Carthagian problem was solved :); 6/23/10, 3:15 PM
former law student said...: So what exactly did McChrystal himself say about Obama that was offensive?

McChrystal told his staff, according to one member that his first meeting with Obama "... was a 10-minute photo op," the source says. "Obama clearly didn't know anything about [McChrystal], who he was... he didn't seem very engaged. [McChrystal] was pretty disappointed."

First, note that McChrystal had a chance to deny he ever said this but remained silent. Second, the words he used showed a lack of respect for the President, in that the President was not as familiar with the Great McChrystal as TGMC expected anyone in the President's position to be. Nor was he hanging on TGMC's every word the way TGMC would naturally expect anyone in the President's position to do. Clearly in TGMC's estimation, the President did not meet expectations, and he shared his lack of respect for the President with at least one subordinate. "Lack of respect" = "contempt." Thus remarks indicating a lack of respect for the President violate Section 88 because they are contemptuous of the President.

Allahpundit captures the issue nicely:

What seems clear is that McChrystal has sown, or in any case tolerates, an atmosphere of disrespect for the civilian chain of command. And the fact that his entourage feels free to talk like this in front of not just him but a reporter—much less a reporter from Rolling Stone—speaks volumes about how far they’ve burrowed into their cocoon.

McChrystal's whole entourage is infected, and the rot must be cut out.; 6/23/10, 3:16 PM
Automatic_Wing said...: maguro: how could the PAO have suspected that the big chief was going to let his staff run off at the mouth in front of a reporter, or that the staff would even want to let their hair down in front of strangers? RS has had some quite decent military coverage over the years, so the idea of matching them with a RS reporter was not in itself idiotic.

First, if you're the PAO for a guy like McChrystal, you're a full-time member of his travelling party so you know exactly how the boys on staff behave themselves. And the level of activity in these travelling parties is so intense and frenetic that forgetting there are strangers around is pretty easy.

As for Rolling Stone having "quite decent military coverage", you've got to be kidding me. It's got a definite point of view and not one that is friendly towards the US military. The PAO needs to be aware of that and either not invite the RS reporter along or restrict his access to more formal setting. Jesus, if you invite Rolling Stone for an embed, why not ask lardass Michael Moore and his camera crew along as well? It was an epic fuck-up any way you cut it.; 6/23/10, 3:22 PM
reader_iam said...: Wait. MoveOn.org is right wing? Have I been teleported to a different planet or something?

Man, if HDhouse believes MoveOn.org is right wing, I shudder to think what he considers left wing. Or right wing. Or anything.; 6/23/10, 3:26 PM
Automatic_Wing said...: By the way, I agree that McC was out of line for tolerating an unprofessional atmosphere in his travelling party and should have been canned. But saying that a meeting was "a photo op" clearly doesn't rise to the level of an Article 88 offense and continuing to insist that it does makes you look kind of silly .; 6/23/10, 3:27 PM
Synova said...: "Second, the words he used showed a lack of respect for the President, in that the President was not as familiar with the Great McChrystal as TGMC expected anyone in the President's position to be." etc.

I don't think there really is any basis for this interpretation of the event, fls. Obama gave no indication of caring at all who his general was or about taking any time to find out about the general he'd tasked with "fighting his fucking war." To make McChrystal out to be self-important and petulant because his CiC didn't bother to meet with him for four months and then only gave him 20 minutes is a ridiculous definition of self-important. External evidence doesn't support it.

And neither does current events because, again, it seems Obama is not interested in who is fighting his Afghan war. Petraeus will appoint someone who will have the responsibilities if not the title and Obama won't have to meet him at all.

Unless you've got some reason to think that Obama actually was familiar and engaged with McChrystal at an appropriate level?

It's sort of hard to argue with those four months when wooing the Olympic committee for Chicago took up so much of his time.

Honestly? This is probably one of the reasons that contributed to any problems in McChrystal's command, to the extent they existed. Keeping him cooling his heels would send the distinct and irrefutable message to those lower in the chain of command that McChrystal was disregarded or weak.; 6/23/10, 3:31 PM
former law student said...: Obama gave no indication of caring at all who his general was or about taking any time to find out about the general he'd tasked with "fighting his fucking war."

With respect, we only have McChrystal's word for any of this. For all we know Obama knew McChrystal's shoe size and what he had for breakfast the day before.; 6/23/10, 3:34 PM
former law student said...: maguro -- I was called out, twice. I had to present an argument.; 6/23/10, 3:35 PM
Synova said...: Of course... Mattis sure as heck doesn't deserve the post under a President not committed to victory, not any more than Petraeus does.; 6/23/10, 3:36 PM
Scott M said...: 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?; 6/23/10, 3:37 PM
Synova said...: In addition to McChrystal's word we have Obama's behavior.

The four months of "decision making" while not speaking to the fellow who ought to be his most direct line to information to base those decisions upon, the length of the visit which seems obscenely inadequate for a face-to-face no matter how thorough the communications otherwise... those things are consistent with not being engaged.

While your scenario is possible, it requires private behavior that is contrary to public behavior and indications. And what would be the purpose of Obama hiding the level of his engagement in the Afghan war? It would have to be deliberate, so what is the motivation?

Maybe it's a plan to keep his anti-war base happy? But it damaged morale for those fighting and sometimes dying so if it was a politically motivated deception then it's pretty vile. Or maybe he did it by accident, this message different from his actual engagement in the war, in which case I can't even imagine.

But sure... your version might be accurate. We don't know it's not. Maybe Obama talked to McChrystal on the phone for an hour every week. Certainly that wouldn't be too *much* direct involvement in a war that your country is waging under your command.; 6/23/10, 3:45 PM
Anonymous said...: aronamos,

I think that is exactly the right question. I think Gen. McChrystal wanted to get Holbrooke and the Ambassador fired. He also wanted to piss up the chain of command a bit--it's posturing, but happens. He took the President for a patsy and Biden for a joke, which they are, but the General overplayed his hand.; 6/23/10, 3:46 PM
AllenS said...: fls,

McChrystal's whole entourage is infected, and the rot must be cut out.

That would certainly improve morale, wouldn't it?; 6/23/10, 3:51 PM
Cedarford said...: "Saint Croix said...
Obama didn't visit Afghanistan once in 2009. He's more concerned with gays in the military than actually winning a war."

You have no concept of executive leadership, a trait much of the Left shares...both factions of the clueless delight in "assigning" things the President and the President alone "needs to do!!" for ceremonial and "Healing, understanding, teachable moments!!" reasons.

The President NEEDS to meet with every family of a Fallen Hero, attend the funeral. Needs to meet thousands of troops in each combat area every 6 months. Visit all the wounded in all the hospitals. NEEDS to meet with all affected Gulf Coast hurricane, oil spill, NOLA "victims"...NEEDS to meet with all successful sports figures and note the death of each celebrity. NEEDS to greet the boy scout troops, the Spelling bee champs, cancer victim-activists. Twice a year to host Medal of Honor winners, the Muslims on their holidays, AIPAC, The NRA, etc.

Real Executive Leaders - like Lincoln, Truman, Eisenhower, FDR, Nixon, Reagan know they have about 2500 hours a year to run the country, hundreds of agencies and issues. Interact with the public and Congress on major matters.

Most didn't visit war zones to "hear out the Sarge and the 2nd Louies". Others like Nixon and Eisenhower went once..
None thought they were the Clara Bartons of the Oval Office, none thought it remiss to "slight" the US Olympic speedwalking squad. VPs existed to attend funerals, not exec leader of the country with 200 things on their plate.

=====================; 6/23/10, 3:52 PM
caplight said...: At least he'll "always have Paris.'; 6/23/10, 3:53 PM
GMay said...: fls said: "McChrystal told his staff, according to one member that his first meeting with Obama "... was a 10-minute photo op," the source says. "Obama clearly didn't know anything about [McChrystal], who he was... he didn't seem very engaged. [McChrystal] was pretty disappointed."

Anybody in JAG is going to tell you that this is a stretch to label as contempt or disrespect.

Is this what's causing the uproar? If so, that's fucking lame. This is what, a third hand anonymous account of what McChrystal said?

I'd fire the guy for shitty, mission-hampering ROE before I fired him for this. McChrystal isn't an idiot. Nobody with 4 stars is. He knows what time it is. If the big issue is with his aides/staff/entourage/whatever running their mouths, then he'd have ordered an investigation if he was interested in keeping his job.

But all I can see so far is a bunch of hearsay published by Rolling Stone about a bunch of aides and staff officers. Are we saying that silly rag is respectable enough to be trusted with no investigation? All I can say to granting that kind of power to that liberal entertainment rag is holy fuck.; 6/23/10, 3:53 PM
William said...: I think the war will look like a losing war up until such time as we win it. Will the dismissal of McChrystal impede or help our war aims? Shouldn't that be the overriding question? Instead of the example of Truman-McArthur perhaps we should look to the Eisenhower-Patton example....Contrast the deliberation with which Obama has acted in other matters with the swift resolve with which he has acted in this case. Perhaps Obama is in the right, but he is right in the wrong way.; 6/23/10, 3:54 PM
exhelodrvr1 said...: Dump Eikenberry and Holbrooke, use this as an excuse to remove the deadline, and this could turn out OK. But I don't think Obama has the political courage to do that. He's afraid Pelosi will start squeezing.; 6/23/10, 3:58 PM
AllenS said...: I've said this before, and when I originally said what I'm about to say again, it was a long time ago:

There is no winning. Not in Iraq or Afghanistan.

The problem is not those two countries, nor was it these two people; Osama bin Laden or Sadam Hussein.

The problem is Islam. We will eventually leave, and when we leave, Islam will assume a leadership/governing role.

Nothing we will do, nobody we can appoint to do it, will solve this problem.

Any political/military options we choose to enact, will do one, and only one thing, push the problem down the road.

Argue amongst yourselves.; 6/23/10, 4:06 PM
Cedarford said...: Another clueless ideologue putting his thoughts in the heads of troops he doesn't understand:

David - "Our troops on the ground in Afghanistan have a single common thought: "WHAT THE FUCK?"

Obama needs to get over there and mingle with the subordinate commanders and the troops."

No, everyone expected McChrystal's head to roll.
And what the troops are concerned about is endless war with no viable strategy or an unrealistic end goal (turn the noble Afhan barbarians into peaceful, democratic, woman's rights friendly people like in Peoria).
They are concerned about a wild goose chase for 2 "Arch-Evildoers"
And concerned about how overly restrictive ROE insisted on by Karzai is causing significant US casualties that could be avoidable, and how untrustworthy our "noble Afghan allies" are.

When Bush's Iraq policy was a total bungle, Bush made sure he went to Iraq and "mingled with the troops". The message he got was "we love you", thanks for serving the Turkey, we need more pay and recreational facilities and a high-tech super wizzbang answer to IEDs.
Bush returned to announce that the troops believed in nation building and Freedom! for the noble Iraqis. That they needed 2 billion more in rec facilities and 4 billion in base comforts for the Fobbits he met. (all since abandoned to Iraqi golfers, electronic game afficionados, and swank AC apartments to connected Shiite families.)
7 billion was pissed away on "Miracle IED solutions!!" Beltway Bandits who pitched their snake oil to the Bushies. With nothing to show for it. For every 200 million dollar solution, the insurgents applied a 69.99 fix.

A Presidential visit does little more than assert a ceremonial photo op showing that "He cares!".
It does little to boost morale. Even down at the August Senatorial level, it is little more than a dog and pony show. 6 of the Mighties visited the Magic Kingdom and stopped by our base. In the Gulf War, rear echelon people with little critical responsibility were fed hamburgers grilled by the likes of Noble Algore. A Senator from used his "war fact-finding" to listen to some airman secretary blubber for 20 minutes about how his wife had run out their credit cards and his car might be repo'd.; 6/23/10, 4:06 PM
Michael said...: HD HOUSE: Did I read that right? Did you think that the right wing characterized Petraeus as "BetrayUS?" Are you sure of that?

I think you have it backwards.; 6/23/10, 4:07 PM
Synova said...: Cedarford, that's silly.

What he NEEDS to do is give the impression of engagement, however he decides best to do that.

I personally think that Presidents should stay home whenever possible because any trip becomes about them and ties up traffic to boot.

And it's just the lack of total hours to do the job that is an issue. It's "Why is Obama doing *this* when he really ought to be doing *that*."

It's probable that Obama actually traveling to Afghanistan would be more disruptive than welcome. Should he make time to meet with people who are there in the thick of things including enlisted and wounded and perhaps some families of the slain? Not if it's going to become a circus, but certainly the time it would take to fly there and back would lend itself to any number of private interviews.

And there are public ways of indicating that he takes it seriously that do not involve leaving his office. Things like taking meetings with your generals.

Bush was supposed to be so bad at controlling the narrative but Obama just seems oblivious. With the oil spill, did he need to go down there? Probably not, because there are other ways to assure people that he's fully engaged in the problem. He chose to try the "thoughtful and distant" thing that worked so well for him during the campaign and bank crisis. He's going the route of hearings and public circus to prove we're really mad at the BP guy. He gave a big speech.

It's not at all, does he do *everything* even when people say "what didn't he..." It's what he chooses to do and how, and what he chooses not to address.

It's *apparently* doing nothing about the economy while pushing through the health bill. It's his demonstrated priorities. It's the Chicago Olympics.; 6/23/10, 4:11 PM
former law student said...: As for Rolling Stone having "quite decent military coverage", you've got to be kidding me.

Not kidding:

Evan Wright

Rolling Stone

"The Killer Elite"

Of which, this from a commenter on leatherneck.com:

kentmitchell02-27-04, 01:42 PM
In my 65 years I've seen a lot of articles about the Corps but I never would have thought the best article I would ever read would be in f*****g Rolling Stone; 6/23/10, 4:12 PM
Michael said...: Marcus Licinius Crassus would have my vote.; 6/23/10, 4:13 PM
former law student said...: The wonderfully accomplished Obama administration vetting process chalks up another victory, no?

So the real problem is insufficient civilian control of the military? That the way the Army selects its officers for promotion is fatally flawed, and the Administration must take over?

In that case, why pick a four-star? There should be a colonel somewhere that Obama could put in the job that would really kick butt.; 6/23/10, 4:17 PM
AllenS said...: Good point, fls.

May I recommend Colonel Freder Frederson.; 6/23/10, 4:18 PM
GMay said...: fls dug deep: "Of which, this from a commenter on leatherneck.com:"

Well fuck me, if a random commenter on the internet said so, it must be true!; 6/23/10, 4:19 PM
Scott M said...: A Presidential visit does little more than assert a ceremonial photo op showing that "He cares!". It does little to boost morale.

That's not true at all. It depends entirely on the president in question and how the military in general feels about him. The reverse is certainly true too. After quotes from Clinton's college years were found decrying the military, his first official visit to a military facility, a naval ship, if memory serves, was received so coldly by the crew that a memo went out from the DoD instructions to all members of all branches that he was the president and is was to be accorded the respect as such.; 6/23/10, 4:22 PM
Scott M said...: So the real problem is insufficient civilian control of the military? That the way the Army selects its officers for promotion is fatally flawed, and the Administration must take over?

In that case, why pick a four-star? There should be a colonel somewhere that Obama could put in the job that would really kick butt.

No, my point was that this was a hand-picked guy and he, from the administration's point of view, went all failsauce on them. Hand-picked...their fault for not knowing him better if they indeed decided he needed to be fired for the way he runs his office.; 6/23/10, 4:24 PM
Synova said...: http://weaselzippers.us/2010/06/23/moveon-scrubs-general-betray-us-page-from-website/; 6/23/10, 4:29 PM
jayne_cobb said...: "The same guy who the right wing dubbed "General Betrayus"...that same guy."

Are we giving out points for the first person to make the obvious Orwell reference?; 6/23/10, 4:35 PM
Chip Ahoy said...: Come on, Wingnuts, won'cha ever give the guy a break? He managed an important decision without even appointing a Pick-a-New-General Czar. That's something.; 6/23/10, 4:35 PM
Roger J. said...: redundant thread--already said my piece on another thread. Clearly we need what McGuire called a thread herder.

Drill: As tread heads we have the same view of the special operations types--necessary as long as they are under a tight rein, but loose cannons in most other situations.

This is one of the "military culture" things that are very important but little understood outside the military.

As for Harry's more inane than usual comment this almost surpasses his ebonics/eugenics confusion thing--but then he does have nine patents and hero of lenin award from the USSR so who are we to question.

Trooper--you should run the picture of harry going to get his depends again.; 6/23/10, 4:52 PM
bagoh20 said...: This will send a message to scare those terrorists. I expect surrender at 2311 hrs.; 6/23/10, 4:54 PM
Trooper York said...: I am trying detente with hd these days Roger.

It's like Bethenny of the Real Housewifes said about Kelly, "We have to stop...she needs help...enough already....I just hope she gets the help she needs."

wv:conlech....an organization of lonely women who breast feed convicts...if you want to hear more contact danielle.; 6/23/10, 4:58 PM
Roger J. said...: edutcher--she was probably confusing Bruce Lee with Charles Lee.; 6/23/10, 4:59 PM
Cedarford said...: Synova, with your military background, I am probably in more agreement than disagreement with you. And, as no Obama fan, I am not defending his absolute blundering on what should be his more proper priorities.

I just have a beef with the moron brigades on the Left and Right that drone on and on about and endless list of things a President, a private sector leader they don't care for - must do - to PROVE they care.
And their abettors in the media.

And their stupid ideological "standards". Bush must serve ice to NOLA residents and hand out diapers. Presidents must comment on any accident or event in which more than 5 people die.
Obama must only go to Arlington, every Memorial day and NEVER visit any "lesser" military cemetery that day with "lesser" people buried therein. The President "MUST" call and congratulate pro football champions every year because "It's been sacred tradition since Nixon to do so".; 6/23/10, 5:01 PM
Opus One Media said...: ahhh you're right. he was cooking the books for Bush and Co.....and in doing so betrayed US (get it?)

no matter. so its the same guy right? which was the question...

I gather then that the uber-recht here doesn't have an issue with a general who was caught not telling the truth...

glad that is all cleared up.; 6/23/10, 5:02 PM
Roger J. said...: Trooper--I have been barred from interacting with danielle--I am heart broken.; 6/23/10, 5:02 PM
AC245 said...: The same guy who the right wing dubbed "General Betrayus"...that same guy.

I do wish I was born with the short life memories possessed by the neuvo-recht.

...

hdhouse said...

Patreus lost me when he went on Faux Noise for his one and only interview.

Besides, I don't think there were 2 members of the GOP senate panel who were buying what he was selling.

He gets what he gets. If for a minute I thought he wasn't coached through the entire ordeal it would be one thing but...hello...bring troops home as a show of how well things are going when the troops were scheduled to come home anyway is a bunch of bullshit and he knew it. just look at his face.
9/12/07 10:09 AM; 6/23/10, 5:04 PM
Michael said...: HD House: The General Betrayed Us page has been removed from the MoveOn.org site. You couldn't have had a hand in that since you were searching for it over at the RNC weren't you? So you were for him before you were against him or are you now not sure?; 6/23/10, 5:08 PM
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.; 6/23/10, 5:17 PM
Milwaukie guy said...: Somewhat OT. If I were Iran, I'd start getting worried.

Our best SpecOps general can now disappear, with his staff. The Central Commander will be on the ground in Afghanistan where not only are reinforcements arriving, their are troops in reserve waiting for the postponed Kandahar offensive. And, there are combat forces in Iraq, preparing to move back to the U.S.

A carrier group just passed through the Suez canal, an Israeli submarine squadron is on station in the Persian Gulf and there are unconfirmed reports about the IAF setting up at an airbase in Saudi Arabia. And much, much more including jihaddist provocation.; 6/23/10, 5:26 PM
JAL said...: Wait!

Isn't this General Betray Us?

And will the Secretray of State, the honorable Hillary Clinton have to suspend her disbelief once more?

Ohhh the agony of being anti-military.

And danielle -- the President *removed* the previous general in charge and hand picked McChrystal.

What does that say?; 6/23/10, 5:27 PM
Opus One Media said...: @AC

You have a point? superb writing then and it holds the test of time...is that what you are saying?

thank you.; 6/23/10, 5:43 PM
Revenant said...: HDHouse -- when you're in a hole, stop digging!

First you realized that Obama was putting Petraeus in charge. That fired off the neuron in your brain labeled "Obama = good, conservatives = bad" and you foolishly bleated something about right-wingers smearing Petraeus.

Then you realized that, wait, the *left* smeared Petraeus. This fired off the neuron in your brain labeled "if the left hates it, it is bad" and you bleated something about how Petraeus is a two-faced liar who betrayed his country.

In another few minutes you'll re-realize that Obama just put the aforementioned two-faced traitor in charge of the war to replace Obama's own original choice, who just resigned in disgrace. Then that first neuron will kick off again, and the loop will begin again.

For the sake of your own brain, just stop thinking about it. :); 6/23/10, 5:53 PM
AC245 said...: I was just pointing out that your tiny little pea-brain already has short-term memory problems.

So, rejoice! Your wish has been granted!

Hey, did you ever remember what 9 patents you were granted? Or is your memory still failing you there, too?; 6/23/10, 6:00 PM
Opus One Media said...: @ Rev...

I don't think it is nice to stay I said things I didn't say.

I do note that the quote dug up from 3 years ago was

1. accurate
2. is still accurate (no new events)
3. and, as noted earlier, a superb bit of writing ...urbane, cogent, smack dab on point -

I'm sorry that he cooked the books earlier and doubly sorry that his "hardball session" with the press was on FauxNoise..well "press" is a bit of an overstatement in that case -

but he was every bit Bush's man over there and did what it appears every general has been doing for years now...waiting until the comamander in chief is out of the room to let his pinocchio nose grow.; 6/23/10, 6:04 PM
Opus One Media said...: Sure AC. I remember them fairly well.

I suspect that if you remember to unzip before peeing it is a major accomplishment and that you pretty much blinded by the presence of anyone with average talents, so as I said the other day, when I did them out of the attic or basement in the early 70s boxes i'll scan and send.

Now can you remember if your cereal had holes in it or not..you know? from this morning?

prove it.; 6/23/10, 6:09 PM
Anonymous said...: Revenant said re HDHouse:

"For the sake of your own brain, just stop thinking about it. :)"

That's just pure genius.; 6/23/10, 6:10 PM
AC245 said...: At least danielle was smart enough to be embarrassed and flee the comments section in shame when Roger J put her some knowledge on the other thread.

You, on the other hand, are as stubborn and stupid as GasRage.

Keep doubling down.; 6/23/10, 6:12 PM
Synova said...: "Patreus lost me when he went on Faux Noise for his one and only interview."

Rolling Stone would have been much better.

Seriously... this is what it is, right? McChrystal's public affairs guy is a complete idiot for allowing access to a publication that couldn't be counted on to be discreet but if the military is even suspected of trying to control the narrative or their own image then they automatically lose credibility.

Lose-freaking-lose.; 6/23/10, 6:25 PM
The Drill SGT said...: General Mattis would be an interesting pick. He currently commands JFCOM, which isn't a warfighting command. Maybe he wants a challenge. Here is an interesting factiod.

During his time at CAC, Petraeus and Marine Lt. Gen. James N. Mattis jointly oversaw the publication of Field Manual 3-24, Counterinsurgency

the 2 of them, literally wrote the book on COIN.; 6/23/10, 6:25 PM
Alex said...: Can anyone explain me WHY we went to Iraq/Afghanistan? 5000+ American soldiers dead - for NOTHING. This is the biggest American catastrophe since the Civil War.; 6/23/10, 6:31 PM
Unknown said...: One point to keep in mind on this is that the Afghans seem to be with us rather than against us in the sense that they hate the Taliban at least as much as we do. That said, Petraeus, whom I admire, can't change this by himself. He needs the same whole-hearted and unwavering support he got from Dubya - but won't get here.

If you're looking to history for a leader whose qualities we'd need for this, I'd suggest George Crook and/or Nelson Miles from the American side or the likes of Henry Havelock or Charles Gordon from the British.

Roger J. said...

edutcher--she was probably confusing Bruce Lee with Charles Lee

The Zero probably would.; 6/23/10, 6:33 PM
Anonymous said...: Alex,

I doubt that anyone can explain anything to you.; 6/23/10, 6:37 PM
garage mahal said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 6/23/10, 6:47 PM
Synova said...: And if it's legitimate to criticize Petraeus for not speaking out against his CiC, how in God's heaven do you justify firing McChrystal?

Or don't we need to worry about that little inconsistency?; 6/23/10, 6:49 PM
Opus One Media said...: serious questions...kidding aside, i've been looking to see if there is anything that says we have ever been invited to "base" inside Pakistan...does anyone know?

and second, has the subject of the Lithium/rare minerals surfaced since that story broke or re-broke in all of this hub-bub?; 6/23/10, 6:50 PM
garage mahal said...: At least danielle was smart enough to be embarrassed and flee the comments section

She probably seen you, puked, and left. I bet you get that a lot, especially from women.; 6/23/10, 6:51 PM
Synova said...: House, There *may* have been one joint operation, IIRC, in Pakistan but I'm likely wrong. We have permission (or did) to supply overland through Pakistan to Afghanistan. I haven't heard any more than you have about the lithium, though I feel it has the potential to change things. In both cases there could well be good reason not to publicize whatever is going on.

I suppose we could all google search it.; 6/23/10, 7:17 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: He sacked Carthage, destroyed the city so that no two stones stood together, then sold the inhabitants into slavery. Thus the Carthagian problem was solved :)

Kinda makes me nostalgic....; 6/23/10, 7:23 PM
The Drill SGT said...: Roger J. said...
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.

Roger,

I missed posting about this on the other thread.

For the rest of you non-tankers. General Abe was literally the point man of the fight across Europe. Patton's Third Army led the Way. The 4 Armored Division was out front. 37th Armor was the unit that led, and LTC Abrams was always out front. His was the third tank in the column headed up the road into Bastogne.

AllenS, He had 1 BSM(v), 2 SS, and 2 DSC's. That indicates he had seen the war up close and personal.

General George Patton said of him: "I'm supposed to be the best tank commander in the Army, but I have one peer - Abe Abrams. He's the world champion."

Armor branch loved him enough to name our tank for him.

PS: His wife founded the Army's Arlington Ladies. (a whole separate story)

PPS: 3 sons, all Generals, 3 daughters, all Army officer's wives.

a classy guy.; 6/23/10, 7:24 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: ahhh you're right. he was cooking the books for Bush and Co.....and in doing so betrayed US (get it?)

Nice try harold. Once again you try to spin your way out of yet another brain dead utterance which spouts from that hole you call a mouth. Hell just tell us you have tourettes syndrome, hell I'll but that since its obvious you have mental issues.; 6/23/10, 7:28 PM
Phil 314 said...: McChrystal now has standing for Quo Warranto (by what authority do you hold this office) against the eligibility of Obama,

Ahh Mick, Old Faithful. Fads come and go but you remain, ever steadfast. A lonely voice crying in the wilderness; 6/23/10, 7:28 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: hdhouse said serious questions...kidding aside...,

Yes harold, wipe front to back is the correct way.; 6/23/10, 7:33 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: I still think its a hoot that Obama has to go with Bush's guy.

I mean you just can't make this stuff up.; 6/23/10, 7:34 PM
master cylinder said...: omg-AllenS.. I ..... I ..... I agree with you,
can't win there.; 6/23/10, 7:39 PM
AC245 said...: She probably seen you, puked, and left. I bet you get that a lot, especially from women.

That's unlikely, unless she is as delusional as you and HDHouse are, GasRage.

(Hint: I didn't participate in the thread where "Check mate, bitches !!!!!!!!!!" danielle was schooled, beyond reading it and laughing at her idiocy.)

Don't let reality get in the way of your playground-level commentary, though.

Rage on, GasRage. Rage on.; 6/23/10, 7:45 PM
bagoh20 said...: Alex, it's been explained here a hundred times and I know a few times, directly to you. You can't learn. I'm sorry, but this is not a remedial blog. It's OK though, because there are plenty of places for someone like you. Places still under the protection of those you don't understand, even if the residents there don't appreciate it.; 6/23/10, 7:45 PM
ken in tx said...: Alex--I call bullsh1t! Iraq and Afghanistan are on the same level as the Spanish American War and the Philippine Insurrection. Conflicts that almost no one remembers today.; 6/23/10, 7:54 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: That's unlikely, unless she is as delusional as you and HDHouse are, GasRage.

Nah, danielle just came in with the preconceived notion that all the conservatives here were on McChrystal's side and when it was pointed out to the dumb twat that we actually sided with Obama and that McChrystal was out of line and should be sacked, rather than admit she was wrong, she threw a tantrum like most 15 year olds and stormed out.

Now delusional is hdhouse.; 6/23/10, 7:59 PM
exhelodrvr1 said...: Interesting observations by VDH:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...jRlZmQwYzRjYWU=

The closing paragraph:

It is one of ironies of our present warped climate that Petraeus will face far less criticism from the media and politicians than during 2007–8 (there will be no more “General Betray Us” ads or “suspension of disbelief” ridicule), because his success this time will reflect well on Obama rather than George Bush. It is a further irony that Obama is surging with Petraeus despite not long ago declaring that such a strategy and such a commander were failures in Iraq. And it is an even further irony that he is now rightly calling for “common purpose” when — again not long ago, at a critical juncture in Iraq — Obama himself, for partisan purposes on the campaign trail, had no interest in the common purpose of military success in Iraq.; 6/23/10, 8:01 PM
Jason said...: McChrystal now has standing for Quo Warranto (by what authority do you hold this office) against the eligibility of Obama, on the basis that Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen, as required by A2S1C4,5. Obama Sr. was never a US Citizen, and Obama 2 was a dual British Subject at birth. That split allegiance at birth alone disqualifies him, no matter if he was born in the Oval office, in JFK's lap, on the 4th of July.

Mick,

How about a nice big cup of shut the fuck up?; 6/23/10, 8:03 PM
Revenant said...: Can anyone explain me WHY we went to Iraq/Afghanistan?

You don't understand why we invaded Afghanistan?

Really?

Huh. Interesting.; 6/23/10, 8:13 PM
Opus One Media said...: Thanks Synova...

Sometimes news items take a little time to come up in search..

I think you are on point with the Lithium/rare minerals - and as the war game's end is or was in Pakistan I've always wondered why we didn't go in through there but i don't really understand the geographics that well...but a huge and near priceless mineral deposit...that sees to me to be understandable to everyone and just might play into this as you observed.; 6/23/10, 8:26 PM
David said...: The attendees at today's White House strategy session:

Vice President Joe Biden
Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State
Timothy Geithner, Secretary of the Treasury
Robert Gates, Secretary of Defense
Rahm Emanuel, Chief of Staff
General James Jones, National Security Advisor
Tom Donilon, Deputy National Security Advisor
John Brennan, Homeland Security and Counterterrorism Advisor
Ambassador Susan Rice, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations
David Gompert, Acting Director of National Intelligence
Leon Panetta, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency
Rajiv Shah, Administrator, USAID
James Steinberg, Deputy Secretary of State
Admiral Michael Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
General James Cartwright, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan
Doug Lute, Coordinator for Afghanistan and Pakistan
John Tien, Senior Director for Afghanistan and Pakistan
General David Petraeus, U.S. Central Command
General Stanley McChrystal, Commander, International Security Assistance Force and Commander, U.S. Forces Afghanistan
Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan (via videoconference)
Ambassador Anne Patterson, U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan (via videoconference); 6/23/10, 9:17 PM
garage mahal said...: Don't let reality get in the way of your playground-level commentary, though.

Rage on, GasRage. Rage on.

The only reality is you're still the most obnoxious and petty little fucking twerp ever to comment on Althouse. You offer really nothing here. Not funny, insightful, or honest. why do you bother?; 6/23/10, 9:31 PM
GMay said...: "The only reality is you're still the most obnoxious and petty little fucking twerp ever to comment on Althouse."

Bzzzzzt. Wrong answer!

That honor goes to Jeremy.; 6/23/10, 9:45 PM
garage mahal said...: I feel your pain Gmay, Jeremy is a monumental asshole. Duh. A pretty tough call actually for me though. YMMV.; 6/23/10, 9:49 PM
Ralph L said...: I mean if you can't diss the Sec'y of Transportation who can't you diss?
The Coast Guard was part of his fiefdom before Homeland Security was created. I suspect the law has been updated since.; 6/23/10, 10:49 PM
Revenant said...: You offer really nothing here. Not funny, insightful, or honest.

He's the one who pointed out how your staged rages against the nasty, racist Pat Buchanan contrasted with your past admiration for the man.

That way honest, insightful, and effin' *hilarious*. :); 6/23/10, 11:23 PM
AC245 said...: The only reality is you're still the most obnoxious and petty little fucking twerp ever to comment on Althouse.

Poor GasRage.

It really does piss you off that I exposed you for the viciously dishonest little anti-semite that you are, doesn't it?

Too bad.

You offer really nothing here. Not funny, insightful, or honest. why do you bother?

More projection from Althouse's resident Buchananite.; 6/24/10, 1:05 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: The only reality is you're still the most obnoxious and petty little fucking twerp ever to comment on Althouse. You offer really nothing here. Not funny, insightful, or honest.

This is kind of funny coming from the guy whose major contribution is three to four word partisan snarkiness.; 6/24/10, 6:34 AM
jr565 said...: David wrote:
Obama needs to get over there and mingle with the subordinate commanders and the troops.

Any bets on likelihood?

That depends. Does Afghanistan have any good golfing ranges?; 6/24/10, 6:24 PM
Anonymous said...: I say that we let Petraeus wear two hats for a short time to get a start on this and then turn it over to BG H.R. McMaster. He may be a bit junior but his performance in Tal Afar with 3rd ACR shows he gets COIN. That will keep Petraeus up at the Command level as well.; 6/24/10, 7:06 PM
museisluse said...: Sulla gets my vote; 6/24/10, 8:10 PM
EnigmatiCore said...: Holy Christ almighty.

HDHouse has been a reverse-Moby all along-- not a lefty, but rather a brilliant satire of a lefty.

I am in awe.; 6/24/10, 8:25 PM
SGT Ted said...: The same guy who the right wing dubbed "General Betrayus"...that same guy.

Such an obvious lie. Why does anyone talk to HDHouse?; 6/25/10, 11:09 AM