I don’t blame President Obama for relieving Stanley McChrystal of command. I would have done the same thing had I been in his shoes. You cannot, if you are the commander-in-chief, have a general going about making contemptuous remarks about your senior staff.
Let’s leave aside for a moment the question of whether General McChrystal was correct in his assessment. The president was right that the general’s remarks, quoted in Rolling Stone magazine, threaten to “undermine the civilian control of the military that is at the core of our democratic system.”
A few years ago, I had the privilege of being flown out to the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower, a Nimitz Class aircraft carrier, when it was conducting sea trials off Norfolk, Virginia. I spent the day being shown around that extraordinary machine, had dinner with some pilots and other officers, and spent much of the night watching planes land and take off, land and take off. The next day I was catapulted off the ship and flown back to the mainland. It was an amazing experience. The skill and technical prowess everywhere in evidence was humbling. So was the realization that what was happening all around me was deadly serious. All that technology, all that discipline, all that firepower: it was deployed not for show but on behalf of preserving freedom and democracy.
I mention that episode to recall a quiet but unyielding rebuke I received while being escorted around the Ike. Everyone I spoke to, from the youngest seaman to the captain himself, was polite, well-informed, and articulate. The officer assigned to show me around was a model cicerone: full of attentive courtesy and eager to make my visit enjoyable. There was, however, a moment of froideur. Around the time of my visit, the Navy had just announced the advent of its latest Seawolf nuclear submarine, the USS Jimmy Carter. I found the conjunction of the words “nuclear submarine” and the name “Jimmy Carter” hilariously absurd and mentioned this in passing to my host. He did not laugh. On the contrary, he assumed a grave and distant mien, making it perfectly clear that this was a subject into which he was not prepared to trespass. He was perfectly happy to discourse about the aircraft carrier’s weapons and capabilities, but disparaging remarks about a former commander-in-chief were out of bounds.
The military is just looking for an excuse to go all Honduras on obama’s ass…
The list of thing that obama has done to really piss the military off is long but the real key issues come down to the US Constitution… the very thing the military exist to protect(it isn’t there to protect a “government”).
First many in the military don’t like the fact he keeps refuses to prove under the US Constitution he is legally able to be president. This leave soldiers to question the chain of commend… but more importantly those questions are valid in the legal context of the military’s job.
Second He has a long history of anti-military actions both before and after being president. Turning down going medal of honor ball to show up at a MTV party… just a bit insulting.
Third His power grabs and end runs around the US Constitution rightfully make the military nervous… once again the military strictly exists to protect the US Constitution… from enemies foreign or domestic… the fact he borderline flaunts his unconstitutional actions doesn’t help.
End run is sooner or later he’s going to cross the line and either the state militias or the federal military will be there to deal with him. This illegal alien plans he’s trying to pull may well cause states or even federal military groups to move… he’s playing a very dangerous game if he goes that route.
Don’t count on it, champ.
Maybe but still enough ppl who believe in the US Constitution that they’re willing to fight for it….only took 3% last time…
According to Rasmussen, about 20% of the public are self-professed leftists.
About 40% are self-professed conservatives.
Thus the battle lines are drawn in the war for the soul of the world we live in.
Culture is destiny.
it ain’t gonna happen – no way, no how. We change leadership in this country at the ballot box….
“Hysteria
it ain’t gonna happen – no way, no how. We change leadership in this country at the ballot box….”
Really? With the panthers, seiu, acorn and all the other multitudes of corrupt power mongers ( unions ) managing the results at the polls? Think again. When it becomes obvious to more Americans than not…that the games are rigged…the ballot box will no longer count. The latest example of this rigged game is the NY fiasco giving aliens / lations / hispanics 6 votes per person! Is this how the game is supposed to be played? ONE MAN….ONE VOTE. Now if that should spread…do you think Americans will continue to put faith in the ballot box? Nah…I didn’t think so. Then the only answer to fed up voters would be what? Say screw it and move to Canada? I doubt it. If you think a civil war can’t happen again here…think again. We’re on the precipice once more in our history. And the pols better take heed this time.
The idea that somehow McChrystal eroded civilian control of the military by speaking out is preposterous. Only a fool would believe it and only an incompetent would charge it. Are American troops safer and more capable of getting the job done with McChrystal or without him? The answer is obvious. Obama has revealed a great deal about himself since being elected. Now we know just how sensitive his feelings are. A true product ” self esteem ” education. Obama had other options for punishing McChrystal. Obama had to prove he was a tough guy.
We have replaced a lion with a man the enemy will show collapsing in Congress from exhaustion. Anyone who thinks that helps the war effort is sadly mistaken.
Now that would be a major downer – to volunteer for military service and then be assigned to the USS Jimmy Carter. What a morale killer!
McChrystal should not have gone public with this opinion, but let’s be honest. Does anybody seriously believe that Obama is capable of winning a war? I surely do not.
It gets worse- how about a Marine assigned to, no kidding, the USS John Murtha?
Thanks, Queen Nancy.
Perhaps naming a sub the USS Jimmy Carter is a Freudian slip on the USN’s part? Our aircraft carriers are (of late) being named after former presidents – maybe the US Navy was forced to name something after Carter? What better way to hide that fact than a sub?
They could have named it the USS Malaise and most of us would have known to whom it was named for.
Just think – maybe in 20 or 30 years we’ll have another aircraft carrier named the
USS Barack Hussein Obama.Sorry, K.T. but, loathe though I am to defend anything about Jimmy Carter (google ‘Hitchens+Peanut Envy’ if you want to know how I really feel), the reason the Navy named a sub, not a carrier, after Carter, is because he is the only President who has served as a USN submarine officer.
Credit (through gritted teeth) where due.
Yes, and he also had studies nuclear engineering, and was the governor of Georgia. In short, Carter was a VASTLY more intelligent and accomplished man than BHO when he assumed the presidency. Sad that he proved to be such a disappointment. No real surprise in the case of BHO.
One understands McChrystal voted for Obama for president. That fact, coupled with the notion that he’d allow such access to any reporter, much less one from Rolling Stone, and then speak so carelessly (or allow his subordinates to do so in his presence) leads one to believe Gen. McChrystal isn’t as sharp as the pundits say.
If he is unique among his peers, the Army has more serious problems than we think.
Good points Cris. McChrystal is certainly not as brilliant as those who are blinded by hatred of Obama would like to suggest. Not only has he shown poor judgment in the Rolling Stone affair, but also in his emphasis on nation-building in Afghanistan, COIN, and the associated Rules of Engagement. He might have been excellent at special operations, but as a high echelon general he left a lot to be desired.
I dislike Barack Hussein Obama as much as anyone possibly can. I’d like to see him impeached, convicted by the Senate, and removed from office for his several traductions of the Constitution. But this McChrystal business isn’t just about that.
I haven’t seen the text of General McChrystal’s remarks. I have no idea whether their tone was as nasty as has been imputed to them. But no matter what organization one labors in, the inviolable rule is always: Criticisms of the boss must go directly to the boss, and never to an outsider.
I have a managerial position. Among the persons who’ve reported to me are a couple that might just be the brightest people on Earth. But if one of them were to bad-mouth me to an outsider, whether outside our department or outside the company, at the very least I’d have him involuntarily transferred to another department.
A civilian chain of authority cannot function under any other rule. In the military, it’s even more critical, for lives are usually at stake. A commander who believes his superior to be wrongheaded is obliged, first, to tell him so, and second, if the two can’t find a way to agree, to resign his position.
Some commentators have speculated that General McChrystal wanted to be fired, because he believes Obama’s split-the-difference attitude toward Afghanistan to doom the American effort there, and he’d rather be fired than be tarred as a “loser.” It sounds plausible. Whatever the case, from the moment he disparaged the president to an outsider, his fate was sealed — as it should have been.
5. Francis W. Porretto
“I have a managerial position. Among the persons who’ve reported to me are a couple that might just be the brightest people on Earth. But if one of them were to bad-mouth me to an outsider, whether outside our department or outside the company, at the very least I’d have him involuntarily transferred to another department.”
I disagree. I was an Engineering Manager 10 years, and a have been professional musician since I was in my early teens, and have been a bandleader in many of my musical situations.
I would think that you taking the initiative and going to that person and letting them know that you are aware of their viewpoint as a fist step would be more prudent. Then go from there, up to removing the person.
If the expectation is that no one will ever bad mouth you behind your back, then from my viewpoint, you are in the wrong position. This is human nature, and gossip and behind the scenes bitching will always occur. Remaining silent about real or perceived grievances (on both ends) regardless of the method used to transmit them generally is not positive. Having the ability to absorb criticism comes with the job title. That’s why you make the big bucks being a manager. People are letting you know through others that they are not in agreement with you. Something new?
Mr. President has what I would say is a fatal weakness there. His personnel appears to be chosen mainly on stricter than usual ideological grounds, for that go with the flow (Mr. President flow) quality. He has a difficult time dealing with even face to face criticism.
I look at your example of one of the “brightest” persons as denying talent a seat at the table. It’s possible that you manage in a field where good, experienced talent is readily available. But this usually has not been my experience. In the engineering field, you can somewhat recoup your loss because of numbers available, but key people are just that. In the musical world, blowing off talent because they bitch about you behind your back will get you a one man band, unless you can pay people to shut up. Then you just never get a full picture. It’s known whose bands, tours and sessions are desirable and whose aren’t. The good talent gravitates to the good, and the performances are better. And there is much less bitching.
In both cases, from my point of view, you may have unnecessarily caused damage to your product. Just as Mr. President has. Talented people simply do not line up to punch a clock and stand silent. Talent sometimes breeds conflict, which is not always a bad thing.
” . . . caused damage to your product.”
I believe you mean “collateral damage.” If you’re gonna promote the traditional dehumanization by the right wing, stay with the language suggested in the memo.
Stricter rules of engagement cause hesitation in the field.
That means more casualties and prolonged engagements.
The enemy has no rules of engagement.
They are murderous barbarians who lop off heads, murder babies, rape, castrate and hack to death. They are proud to murder their own women !
The soldiers of the US Military are ON LOAN from their families.
McChrystal wanted to win and bring his people home safe and sound.
Thank G-d there are still Americans who care about Americans.
Your thoughts on Obama’s trashing America throughout the world, to the UN, to China, to the EU?
“All that technology, all that discipline, all that firepower: it was deployed not for show but on behalf of preserving freedom and democracy.”
And now the gut wrenching sickening reality that all of it is under the command of Obama.
What in the name of God happened to our country..?
What should give the American public a lot, and I mean A LOT, of pause is what McChrystal and his men had to say about the civilian American leadership in Afghanistan. If Holbrook and Eikenberry are as bad as McChrystal and his men say they are, and if Hillary Clinton, James Jones, and VP Biden don’t really know what they’re doing either, then we are in deep, deep, trouble. It means that we are horribly mismanaging the war and that nobody in Washington has a clue on how to win this thing. McChrystal probably just got fed up with nobody listening to him and threw in the towel, not wanting to get blamed for the disaster that’s about to take place.
If things fall apart the way I think they’re going to fall apart, expect announcements that there will be an “Afghanization” of the war, meaning that most of the day-to-day fighting will be handed over to the Afghan Army (whatever that is) and that we’re out of there in July 2011. By giving the Afghan Army “control” of the fighting, we will have an excuse to “leave with honor,” just like in Vietnam.
The Taliban and al Qaeda will just sit back, wait until we leave, and then take over just like the North Vietnamese did after the American troops left South Vietnam in 1973. At least the South Vietnamese held out for roughly two years before they fell. I doubt Karzai will last even that long. And then you will see, once again, “iconic” images of American helicopters flying off the roof of the American embassy in Kabul. “Obama’s War” will, in the end, be another loss for us. We seem to learn nothing from history, do we?
South Viet Nam fell because the Democratic Congress refused to provide armaments while Russia was arming North Viet Nam with tanks, artillery, transport and ammunition. …
It’s really tough to fight a modern war without bullets and bombs.
“The two words that are everywhere repeated about Obama these days are ‘arrogance’ and ‘incompetence’.”
Either one can be tolerated in a Commander in Chief, but certainly not both. Obama is a master of both simultaneously.
The appointment of General Petraeus to succeed General McChrystal may be the downfall of Obama’s foreign policy regarding radical Islam.
Gen. Petraeus will be expected to carry out the same mission plan as Gen. McChrystal was. And being a good soldier, like Gen. McChrystal, he will do so.
Since the mission plan itself is, to put it charitably, badly flawed, when things start going south in a hurry, the Congress will want to know why, and they will most likely call Gen. Petraeus back to explain. He’s been there before, and both contingents for the most part trust him. (Except for the extreme isolationists on the right, and the extreme anti-Western radicals on the left, who don’t trust anybody, anyway.)
Which means that when Gen. Petraeus tells them that the mission is failing because of the parameters set down by the State Department and the White House, somebody will remember that this is essentially what Gen. McChrystal said. (Unlike the MSM’s opinion of the Great Unwashed, the Congress has a long memory.)
At which point I would not be surprised to see SecState Clinton subpoenaed in front of the Foreign Affairs and Armed Services Committees, of both upper and lower houses, in joint session, to explain how she and her staff, to say nothing of her boss, The Self-Exalted One, managed to turn a near-victory into Saigon in 1975 in the space of only 18 months. And more importantly, explain the “governing philosophy” which compelled them to do it.
Which I assure you is something neither Clinton nor Obama want to have to explain to the American people. Because they are probably pretty sure that their jobs, and their personal power, will be toast about five seconds after they stop speaking.
clear ether
eon
How about a little paranoia? In the 1970s, a Republican President was unable to end with victory for the USA a war begun and escalated by the two immediately preceding Democratic Presidents. A hostile Congress urged, aided and abetted by establishment Media and university students made it virtually impossible for his strategies. The protests on the streets and on the university campuses were virtually worldwide IN THE WEST. George H. Bush, a Republican President, began, then ended the first Iraq War, against plans of the Commanding General,DAYS BEFORE CERTAIN VICTORY FOR US/UN, AT THE BEHEST OF THE UN after consultations with the Secretary of State Colin Powell. After which Saddam Hussein engineered in earnest attempted genocide of the Kurds, and torture (REAL torture) and murder of Iraquis who had aided the Americans /UN troops.The Democrat President following Bush designed with banks sub-prime bank loans, and during his Administration ACORN was given large sums from taxes without significant public notice. Nancy Pelosi, Democratic Speaker of the House of Congress had a public tantrum tantrum with vows for revenge at the loss of the election of the Millenium.
During the second Bush Presidency, the Trade Towers and the Pentagon were assaulted by “islamic terrorists”, with the loss of more than 3000 American lives. The response another foray into Iraq, and then Afghanistan. The Democrats in Congress tried a replay of the 1970s, with once again organised street and campus protests, and trashing of the President and the US military throughout the establishment print and TV Media worldwide IN THE WEST. Impeding as far as possible virtually all the elected President’s proposals. And The similarities of the actions today of Democrats in Congress, Court, with again the urging aiding and abetting from establishment Media form design, a pattern. Groups organised at least loosely worldwide among scholars, information and entertainment Media and some politicians who have made no secret of their preference for the philosophy and methods of Marism/Leninism as practiced in the Soviet Union, and but not attributed, Nazi Germany, throughout the past half-century. And their disdain and contempt for the US as Constitutional Republic.Patterns repeated now with the Democratic Congress of the US. Can all these organised, consistent actions be just the way things develop, accident, serendity,organic development of any organised complex nation OR creation by a designer, e.g.The Political “Left”. With thepatience and perseverence til goal the NEW WORLD ORDER achieved. The present mess in the WEST could be one of, or THE goal.In America, the election, using questionably legal methods presenting /electing a candidate whose lawful eligibility is unexamined by any relevant officials. Or Congress and Court whose responsibilty it is to examine questions of Constitutional Law.. And particularly dismaying is the haste with which this administration/ Congress is institutionalising its plans and programs, TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE NATION IN HER IDENTITY AS CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, dismissing public objections
from large numbers of citizens as irrelevant. Your choice how you read these augurs. BTW taliban, I believe means student / scholar.
Command of the Military by civilians only works for competent civilians, not community organizers.
My last duty station in the Navy was as a Flight Instructor in Corpus Christi Texas. My decision to leave the Navy after 7 years was pushed over the top by the post-Vietnam military where spare parts and operating funds left us with flying crippled airplanes and trimmed-back proficiency latitude. Being “rusty” while flying in a carrier environment was not fun.
Sitting with my In-laws, my father in-law a veteran of Guadalcanal, we watched in silence as Carter announced the pardon of Vietnam draft dodgers. I consider it to have been the official slap across the face of Vietnam vets.
For the US Navy to have named a garbage barge the USS Carter would have been more appropriate.
…
What about the naming of (LPD-26), a San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock, as the USS John P. Murtha. The late CongressCriter, with no facts, falsely charged US marines with shooting civilians in Haidtha, Iraq.
….
Rumor has it that the ship’s motto of the USS John P. Murtha will be, “NEVER Faithful”.
‘I found the conjunction of the words “nuclear submarine” and the name “Jimmy Carter” hilariously absurd….’
Yeah, it would be like naming a movie theater after Ronald Reagan.
2. Menachem Ben Yakov “The idea that somehow McChrystal eroded civilian control of the military by speaking out is preposterous. Only a fool would believe it and only an incompetent would charge it.”
I guess that’s why the preposterous Code of Military Justice calls it a court martial offense.
Oh, do get over yourself.
Amazing how fast these talking points spead through the leftosphere, isn’t it? I’ll bet, Joseph, that 48 hours ago you had never heard of Article 88, or perhaps even the UCMJ. But it’s right at the top of your SorosCo briefing e-mail, so away you go. Next up: making bogus comparisons to Truman/MacArthur. That’s on the index card too.
Funny also how you libs called dissident generals “courageous patriots speaking truth to power” when Bush was in office.
Now, O military-hater: cite something that McChrystal said, personally, that violates Art 88. Unnamed “staff members” don’t count. Go ahead.
Fact- Rolling Stone’s reporter hung around with McChrystal’s entourage in a bar in Paris while they were getting hammered, and happily scribbled down their entirely justified observations on the Clown Machine. In vino veritas.
Joseph, I did not say that McChrystal didn’t break the rules. He did. What I did say was that the idea that somehow McChrystal eroded civilian control of the military by speaking out is preposterous. I stand by that statement. McChrystal intended no ” palace coup “. The Marines weren’t about take the White House. There was no ” erosion “, which is the excuse the President used to replace him. Any man-made ” Code of Justice ” has exceptions. A better man in the White House would have dragged the General in and told him to shut the F up and get back to work. Of course we didn’t know what a sensitive little prig occupies the Oval Office. Now we do.
Okay, I’ll say it again: Look at his handwriting, the large loops show inordinate sensitivity, and the low upstrokes show lack of penetrating or intellectual curiosity.
For many situations, lacking understanding of what is of importance, and what is not, he’s easily wounded and then confused.
He knows that, he’s not all that smart, and consequently, cannot add anything of value to the war, the economy, or to the gulf coast situation; so, . . . golf and what-not make sense.
And, he’s bound to the driving force of those for women for whom he lives, and who propel him forward, . . .
Sorry (really) but I believe your analysis is exactly wrong and qualifies those with that opinion as both an “armchair” and brainwashed.
There are first class American volunteer soldier’s lives being sacrificed for some politically correct protocol that is being administered by “Barney Fife” Commander in chief.
No, the lives of our best men, those who volunteered to serve this country can not be flittered away on the alter of political correctness: chain of command; when that chain of command is clueless; refusing even to acknowledge the enemy is Islime!
All these terrorist claim to be killing us in the name of Islime!
You undermine the ability to maintain an army with this rubbish!
The wrong man was fired; Obama the myopic: see no Islime, hear no Islime, butt apologize to Islime; is who needs to go…along with his entire administration…
I do not delude myself that the RichPubliCons are much better than the Demoquacks;
We need to elect only local hero’s that saved a baby from a burning building or landed a plane in the Hudson; all the current members and anyone with any connection to Banks, Weapons Mfg, Oil, Drug Mfg, or Lawyers should never be considered for elective office…only local heros.
And as far as Rolling Stone…He picked the exactly correct venue: A reporter who told the truth…Not one “Maim Stream Media” could have been trusted to so accurately tell the truth about what the General actually said.
UCMJ Article 88 forbids criticism of the President by Commissioned Officers. I could and did criticize the unlamented fool Jimmie Carter, but I was an NCO who was separating from the service. McChrystal could be court martialed for his actions.
what were McChrystal’s exact words to the reporter that you object to in particular?
Perhaps there is more to this than we know.
Our soldiers need to be able to shoot, detain at will. An army cannot operate on…”wait, I’ll get permission to shoot at those guys running at us, who has the bullets?”
The thing is, if you read the article, the General didn’t say anything against the president whatsoever. The Runaway General
Thanks for the link to the article, which I had not read previously.
As the ripples of Dem-disillusionment widen, I am wondering if the article’s key phrase will turn out to be this:
“Only Hillary Clinton receives good reviews from McChrystal’s inner circle. “Hillary had Stan’s back during the strategic review,” says an adviser. “She said, ‘If Stan wants it, give him what he needs.’ ”
Thanks for that!
So you say the General is such a great man and hero that he risked a court martial to protect his men from “death by fools orders” coming from “Barney Fife” Obama!
He is even a greater general than I thought!
This probably helps Obama a bit in the short term, clearing the air, getting McChrystal out of a sagging campaign, and permitting Obama to appear Presidential. The larger question is whether or not Petraeus (or anyone) can do a better job there. The plan for Iraq was to surge and leave, one I agreed with. Obama, and most of the Dems were clearly wrong on that one; a lot of it was almost meaningless posturing for their base. If they had REALLY been against the surge, they could have stopped it. The plan will (or should) be similar for Afghanistan. Can we ever make it safe enough for the multinationals to come in and set up mining operations there? That is our best one-two punch; hit them with the military, then with capitalism and hope that we can make them a little more like the Saudis, (gulp).
We, and/or history, have a long way to go on that one, but then, look what has happened in Vietnam.
The plan for Iraq was to surge and leave,
Not quite. The plan for Iraq was to build up Iraqi forces so that they could hold what we took. The Surge worked because it occurred after the Anbar Awakening and after Iraqi forces had been built up to the extent necessary to maintain order. The Surge would not have worked if tried earlier.
Afghanistan won’t work without a long term commitment that involves building up Afghan forces necessary to hold the country. It seems unlikely that Afghans will ever be interested in standing up for their country the way Iraqis have done.
The one thing that is certain is that Obama isn’t merely incompetent but is grossly incompetent. Obama demonstrated his cluelessness during his questioning of Petraeus in the September 2007 Senate hearings however an incompetent media ignored it and a hapless McCain didn’t exploit Obama’s miserable display of incompetence. The clip of Obama’s disgustingly ignorant questioning of Petraeus should have been used for a campaign ad.
Even today the GOP doesn’t have the courage to speak the truth about Barack Hussein Obama.
Well, you can spin it your way and I can spin it mine, but if you will recall the mood of the country at the time (they had turned against the war, but did not want humiliation, helicopters departing from embassy roofs etc) it WAS essentially surge and leave. Yes, one hoped that a lot of good things would happen because of the surge, but that’s what it was.
I agree that Afghanistan is a different situation, but we are still at surge and leave.
Spin it your way or mine, indeed. I’ve described why the Surge worked. You’ve described the mood of an ignorant public who still have no clue that the Surge would not have worked without the build up of Iraqi forces and the Anbar Awakening.
Well, just look at his script: In now way is he possessed of a penetrating intellect—he’s doing the very best that, he is capable of.
It’s quite a good thing that, his college records don’t show—I think that, very many people of the USA would walk quietly away, . . .
With Obama its all sizzle and no steak. He had to appear to be doing something. It takes a lot more time from basketball to solve the oil spill than it does to replace a General. His decision to replace McChrystal gave him a day off from looking like the guy who can’t do anything. That it weakened the war effort and put troops in harms way was secondary to Obamas self esteem.
yes, it takes our attention away from the tragedy in the Gulf and the Mexican border disaster!!
I;m sick of hearing on the raido what a brave, decisive, presidential decision Obama made!! Bull
right here in our own country THE MAN CAN’T CUT IT!!! he needS to go.
And NONONO to HIllary the hater.
America did not win in this. We have already neutered our soldiers in the middle East.
Good people dying for what?..the decisions of a stupid paper tiger of a man that cannot even honor them.
For a man as steeped in the military code as McChrystal to have acted in as undisciplined manner as he did and as he allowed his staff to act is inexcusable. It matters not that Obama is a catastrophic commander in chief, the commander in chief must not be publicly dissed by his troops, at any level.
I don’t have any idea what our objective in Afghanistan is.
Iraq had a relatively well educated and liberal minded population, a decent infrastructure (by 3rd world standards), and some experience with representative democracy. Our job there was tough but do-able.
Afghanistan has none of these things. It’s just a place on the map where savages live. I can support killing Terrorists there for as long as necessary. The nation-building effort is a complete waste of American lives and resources.
Old Soldier.
Here are the facts on the ground from when we had a Real President and actual Commander in Chief dedicated to protecting this nation against its enemies.
1. The problem of extremism in the Islamic world is endemic to the fundamental projection of the religion onto a population. Fundamentalist Islam/Radical Islam/Islam-o-Fascism are all the same game. It is all about the expression of a 7th century social, political (including religious they are intertwined), and legal system on the world. Islam-o-fascists are deadly serious about this, and have been dismissed and pooh-pooh’ed far too much by the rapidly unfocused and weakening West.
2. Internecine differences between Muslim sects have little effect when those sects operate in opposition to the non-Muslim world. We in the West, diplomatically and socially, haven’t the conceptual understanding of the world of Islam to deal effectively with it. Our institutional impulses have been far separated from that world. We have had more than 800 years of “evolution” away from that sort of mind set. This makes our mission difficult to rationalize to Western populations, and more difficult to exert against Islamic power cliques.
Please understand that our “diplomatic” tact is that violence is the absolute LAST resort. In the modern Western construct, we do the following:
1. Detect conflict
2. Attempt to resolve it diplomatically
3. Press the diplomacy to well beyond the practical
4. Exert only enough force to stop the conflict
5. Revert as quickly as possible to negotiations to effect the end-game.
These five steps are exactly the opposite and wrong steps to take against a power construct like the Islam-o-fascists operate. The 8th Century model works more like:
1. Start a conflict
2. Exert deadly an attack as possible to confuse, cripple and frighten your enemy
3. Demand Surrender (fall back is – only settle for capitulation with massive tribute)
4. If violent resistance is encountered negotiate only to buy time, resupply, and re-stage
5. Repeat step 2
Please pull out a topo map of Southwest Asia and follow along.
The adversary most capable of conducting this sort of power operation is a fully functioning nation-state of a Western level of technology, with natural resources that generate massive amounts of CASH. That nation is… I’ll wait for it a second…
IRAN
Look at the map again. How do you contain Iran? How do you defeat it? From where must you conduct those operations? What strategic points must you control in order to sustain them, and win?
The answers those questions are:
You contain Iran by controlling the territory around it. You isolate it, cut it off from its trading partners, and barring any success there… you must invade it and shut the regime down.
There are only two nation states or physical territories that can be held to effect containment. Remember Russia and Pakistan are non-starters for containment presence. That means Iraq and Afghanistan.
If it comes to a shooting war, which it will inevitably I assure you (some where in the 5 to 10 year range, the Iranians are about to unlimber more step 2). Iran is divided by a massive difficult to cross mountain range. The south western portion of the country where the oil fields are can only be approached from Iraq/Kuwait and Sea approaches. But the invasion would stop at the mountains, leaving Tehran and major population/military bases alone. Invasion of Iran must also come from Northern Iraq across the plains and wadis to Tehran. This is not a trivail distance, and the Iranians are not likely be as obliging and the Iraqis.
In both cases, containment and conflict, the lack of bases and control on the Eastern and especially Western borders of Iran will result in Effort Failure (whatever that effort is…)
If Obummer hikes up his skirts and minces away, the next President is likely to have to fight his way back in.
The American way of war seems to be to bluster ton, assert that no one would dare… go to sleep, get clobbered in the night, wake up finally… blow everything to hell… and go back to sleep with the “knowledge” that the problem was solved… That works just fine if you are killing one cricket. It fails miserably against a roach infestation.
We need to stop offering our weaknesses to the mad mullah’s strengths.
r/The Mighty Fahvaag
Sssh! (It’s the jihad stupid!)
I think that Roger suffers from what I would call DHS (David Horowitz Syndrome). That is, he is a conservative American patriot unwilling to consider whether Obama is a legitimate President or a fraud. At Horowitz’ site during and after the 2008 elections, David and his editorial team made it clear that ‘Birthers’ were ‘nuts’ and Obama was a legitimate President – and anyone who questions this is not really welcome at FPM.
My guess is that McChrystal’s ‘nastiness’ and apparent insubordination relate directly – as others have said – to their belief that Obama is simply the wrong President for the US, and probably illegitimate to boot.
How about it Roger, is this post about you essentially correct; would explain alot.
Well, is it?
Unless General McChrystal is a complete idiot, and complete idiots are hard to come by and never ever get promoted to General, I have to believe that General McChrystal deliberately encouraged his staff to verbally denigrate President Obama and that he himself consciously made off the cuff remarks insulting to the civilian members of the Afghanistan military diplomatic team. I am forced to believe that General McChrystal wanted to be fired rather than resign because resignation would make him appear to be a loser and quitter while being fired could, when the Afghan War goes South, make him into a hero.
There is no doubt in my mind that a serious, competent, and professional soldier like General McChrystal was fed up with having to try to deal with the Amateur Hour going on in the White House. General McChrystal may finally have realized that there was no hope whatsoever of Barack Obama growing into adulthood any time soon and that Obama’s handpicked experts and advisors were more ignorant of the Afghan reality than their leader.
General McChrystal had this all planned out, even to the detail of embedding an ultra Left wing anti military, anti Afghan war Rolling Stone journalist to make good and sure the media and the President would hear every juicy detail.
Ken, I have been thinking the same thing since this story surfaced. It is quite possible Gen. McChrystal purposely sacrificed his career for the good of the country. I also believe comments printed in Rolling Stone are the tip of the veritable iceberg regarding discontent and frustration withing the ranks of our military’s senior officers; that is, those officers who must deal with civilians in this amateurish administration.
Saltherring, one thing is for sure, as a responsible adult I would confidently support a loyal, experienced, responsible, and proven professional soldier like General McChrystal rather than an immature, inexperienced, lazy, and whining egotist like Barack Obama.
I am terribly afraid that Obama is just as hysterically indifferent to winning the Afghan War as he is to plugging the catastrophic oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Barack Obama should never have been elected President.
he was no longer willing to play the game, whether he is an idiot, or not, Obama has to openly deal with the issues. the general maybe knows a little about asymmetrical warfare.
or he’s going to run for president as Obama’s far left opponent…
“even to the detail”, on each point, you are correct—the General well knew that, he was operating under yer basic “C” student; and, perceiving the hopelessness of his circumstance, he didn’t like understanding the fount of error—unable to do anything about it, the while, . . .
You cannot, if you are the commander-in-chief, have a general going about making contemptuous remarks about your senior staff.
Go and read the article carefully: General McChrystal didn’t say anything!
The Runaway General
See also:
The Mark Levin Show, June 23, 2010
From the article: The relationship was further strained in January, when a classified cable that Eikenberry wrote was leaked to The New York Times.
Seems to me that the White House has some problems with national security!
But he did allow those comments to go unchallenged. Perhaps – as others have speculated – he ignored those comments in order to get ‘bailed out’ of the situation – i.e. – to save face (his own) in the mounting evidence that running a PC war is untenable.
Who knows? Maybe he got his staff to make those comments to force a situation Obama couldn’t ignore. And we know how Obama reacts to criticism.
I retired from the US Department of Defense in 2007 after 33 years as a civilian employee. During my career I interacted directly with hundreds of uniformed personnel, from junior enlisted ranks to senior officers, and got to know some quite well. Few would discuss politics until they trusted their comments would be held in the strictest confidence. Of those who did share their opinions, almost universal was the utter contempt for most Democrat politicians, particularly Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. The Carter and Clinton administrations were rife with military budget cuts, resulting in personnel shortages, reduced training opportunties, deficiencies in spare parts and decreased morale. Recalling the rebuilding/retooling efforts our defense forces needed during the Reagan and Bush II administrations, (after Carter and Clinton, repectively) I shudder to think what the Obama administration will leave for our next president, who hopefully will take office in 2013.
Thanks for the first hand report.
A mess behind he will leave,
only a few will enjoy a reprieve,
and when the winds of time do blow
a sown field of recriminations will lay low/
harvest of pride, harvest of shame:
most of all, harvest of blame.
Who knows, he might be gone before 2013. You never know.
I don’t see where any of this matters….we have told the people in Afghanistan every freakin move we’re going to make.. things are not going well, we have told them we are starting to pull out in july of next year…we can’t fire at will, the press dogs every move.
I think it’s a mess and our people do not deserve to serve in an armed force that is so mismanaged. Who is pulling the military strings needs sent to the front line with no defenses.
we have arm chair quarterbacks, at best, running things. McChrystal is merely a sacrificial lamb..
This has also taken our attention off the cartels setting up “outlooks” on the “American side” of the border, and the horrific oil spill in the Gulf.
Obama is in his element talking to the press…blahblahblah..but does nothing inside our country!!! He’s a disgrace.
After reading both articles (and quite a few others) I guess I have to ask, who’s zooming whom? Was the “creep from Rolling Stone” (that was really beneath you, Dr. Hanson) using the general or vice versa or a little of both? As someone said earlier, in a way it makes sense that McChrystal chose a reporter from RS, knowing that they would go with it.
While, I agree that he had to go if he is allowing this talk to go on amongst his officers, the article contains no quotes by the general directly critical of the president or his staff. It’s all hearsay. I think we all can agree that this is no way to fight a war and I believe the general did what he thought best to bring that to everyone’s attention. Self sacrifice is, after all, a fine military tradition. Under the circumstances, yes, he took one for “the team”.
Mr. Kimball: I just read your article.. for a momnet
I thought you were right on the point. a renegade general
but at the end you took a cheap shot
Since when is the truth a cheap shot.
Barry is hopelessly out of his depth and the whole world knows it by now.
What needs to be recognized is that U.S. soldiers are smarter than Americans give them credit for. They are most definitely much smarter than our politicians. They aren’t automatons. They aren’t mindless. They do take risks. They do face the “enemy” in life and death situations. But they also face these risks with full understanding of the circumstances under which they are being “USED” for political purposes. To face a violent enemy and a potential violent end for personal principle takes some thing that most Americans just do not possess under the absolute best of circumstances.
I just laugh thinking about the future: now Obama cannot afford to stop or to limit Petraeus in any way.
If this administration will try to impose a defeatist strategy, it will risk to create a SECOND case … and its own legitimacy will be in question.
Very funny, when you think about the insults hurled at Petraeus by the subversives in the past.
Now he is untouchable.
Let’s not forget that our Warriors take an oath to support and defend THE CONSTITUTION, not an administration.
My thoughts exactly. I doubt Petraeus waltzed into that job handcuffed. I look for the current rules of engagement to change.
If Petraeus fails – which I find unlikely as he is very capable – the onus is on Obama.
AND IN FACT….
(June 25th, FOXNEWS.COM):
“A military source close to Gen. David Petraeus told Fox News that one of the first things the general will do when he takes over in Afghanistan is to modify the controversial rules of engagement to make it easier for U.S. troops to engage in combat with the enemy.
Troops on the ground and some military commanders have said the strict rules — aimed at preventing civilian casualties — have effectively forced the troops to fight with one hand tied behind their backs.”
Messrs. Kimball and Obama would do well to review their history – as in this letter by Abraham Lincoln to Maj. Gen. Hooker during the civil war.
http://www.civil-war.net/pages/general_hooker_letter.asp
My point is: great leaders focus on the object. In the cases of Lincoln v. Hooker and Obama v. McChrystal that object was winning a war, but while Lincoln remained true to that fact, Obama has betrayed it. Neither McChrystal’s nor Hooker’s dissent appears to have risen to the level of insubordination – refusing an order – which no leader can permit for a moment.
Men like Obama rage against criticism with wrath and indignation because they don’t believe in their bones that they are being true to reality and to their own conscience – i.e., they lack honesty and integrity, and truly feel terror when confronting evidence that others don’t approve of them – particularly others who deserve respect.
By third comparison, consider Bill Clinton. Not much petulence while in office – more confident and willing to just manipulate public opinion to get reelected, or abscond with all the loot (pardoning his friends) on the way out. Once out of office, however, a pedestrian legacy is his fear, and he is more touchy than ever.
Without the courage and confidence which honesty and integrity engender, men like Obama are actually helpless to deal effectively with reality or with others. Their only tools are the pathos of the bully – bluster, intimidation, edicts, ultimatums.
Men like Lincoln face their challenges and critics squarely from confidence; then let the chips fall recognizing that they have done their best, and that others have free will so one’s best has limits.
In Obama, we’re seeing the soul of a dictator – a man of no self esteem – the most dangerous kind of man around – the man who petulantly wants no limits, who resents the free will of others more noble than him, and will jeopardize 30,000 American lives to get his way.
As for McChrystal’s criticisms, we need to read them to judge how objective they are, and, by extension, how great a man McChrystal really is.
I agree that Lincoln shows special qualities in this letter, ones that are currently beyond Obama and probably any recent President, but you also have to consider context.
The Union had already suffered some terrible defeats in the war pushing Lincoln toward a greatness and need to roll the dice that was essentially forced upon him. If I recall correctly, Burnside (who had replaced McClellan I or II?) had overseen the disaster at Fredericksburg and Lincoln canned him for the mouthy Hooker, who got completely hammered at Chancellorsville, and then it was on to what, Meade, who won at Getysburg, but got canned (or was it kicked upstairs?) for not pursuing the retreating Lee and Lincoln finally turned to Grant.
Obama is facing nothing like the pressure which faced Lincoln and is tiptoeing along as one tends to do in more normal times. I am sure that if Obama thought McChrystal was playing a winning hand at this time, that Obama would have admonished him and let him remain. Instead, he is replacing a general as Lincoln did…how many times?
We all (well, most of us) know that Lincoln was a great man and a great President; the jury is out on Obama, and I can’t see that he has greatness yet, but also do not know that he could not finally show greatness. I do know how many people thought that Lincoln was weak, incompetent, dictatorial, ugly, hayseedish etc. In the early years, he had to be one of the most mocked men ever to hold the office. Just imagine the PJM chatter…and rage, he would have evoked.
Yeah, we get to hear Obama’s voice more than we would like. I, for one, would pay a lot of money to ever get to hear Lincoln’s, but we know that that ain’t going to happen.
Quite a thing when POTUS recalls a general after reading a Rolling Stone Article…Soviets were also adept at employing the media to shakeup administrations and have G.O.s recalled. We haven’t really come too far at all. Of course soldiers are expendable given the nature of the profession, but we still wince when we see how little (and it is nothing really, regardless of UCMJ chatter)it takes to shake up the glitterati.
I keep wondering if this wasn’t a way for McChrystal to jump ship. Certainly he believes Obama hasn’t got the stones to win the war, and perhaps he didn’t want to be the one whose head would roll when the Democrats finally succeed in turning Afghanistan into Vietnam.
If Obama gets offended this easily, how’s he gonna handle having teenage daughters? The double standard is striking. Rahm Emanuel has a notoriously filthy mouth. Obama himself frequently calls a large portion of the population for tea baggers (someone that likes to lick balls). Maybe they should fire themselves instead.
One of the greatest generals of all time Patton said and did things much worse. Should he have been relieved of command as well? As for myself if someone cuts in front of me in traffic I use language 10 times as bad as this.
The reason to fire a general should be based on performance on the job or disagreement over strategy, not because of name calling in a bar in France. This new age of hyper sensitivity and political correctness is misplaced and counter productive. And ultimately it will result in the undoing of our western civilization.
And frankly the bloggers on this site disappoint me with their lack of perspective. When people work in a highly dangerous and stressful environment, they use a much more expletive laden language. It’s just a fact of life. When people are trying to kill you on a daily basis, using polite language just becomes less important. You cannot use the same standard for politeness for warriors as you would for a dinner party in Buckingham Palace.
McChrystal was the guy that lead the team that found Saddam. He hunted down the leader of Al Qaida in Iraq. Harmid Kazai says he’s the best General in Afghanistan in the last 9 years. And he got fired because of – what was it again?
Bingo! Obama is like the schoolyard bully. He only fights when he thinks someone wont or cant fight back. Look at his foreign policy. To those nations that need American help and are our allies he gives the back of his hand. To the nations that are anti-American like Russia, Syria, Turkey, Iran, etc. Obama holds out an open hand. Funny if it wasn’t so tragic.
“I don’t have any idea what our objective in Afghanistan is.”
The objective is to kill Al Qaida terrorists until there aren’t any Al Qaida terrorist left to kill.
McChrystal faced the firing squad. Obama should be lynched.
Not literally,of course. The mainstream media should grow a pair or two and lynch Obama over the keyboard for trying to shred the Constitution and intentionally breaking his oath of office. Obama deserves to be skewered like a hamburger; held up to public humiliation and ridicule for intentionally running this great nation into a Marxist, ObamaCaring, Stimulus, taxpayer money squandering ditch. The irony here is precious. Obama is a puke, labor union pimp, Marxist puppet. The General is a warrior willing to put his honorable, decent, devoted life on the line for his country.
If Obama, corrupt Inc.,isn’t led out of this White House in handcuffs, then, mouseketeers, no one ever will.
Please: even if Obama was 10x worse that the delirious, fevered imaginings of you right wingers, he would still be a 10x better President than Bush. And if you think Bush was OK enough as President, then clearly you have no clue whatsoever about what’s really going on in the world. As far as McChrystal goes, he did an elementary stupid thing as a soldier, and paid no more than just the usual price for doing so.
And how much, in what ways, do YOU pay for truths told to poison pen writers in wait, who hate everything you stand for and have been waiting their chance for a “gotcha” ?
It’s a little early in the month for the meds to be running low, isn’t it?
Uh, oh. TWO prescriptions needed.
If the prime requirement for the Commander’s job is at all times to speak well of the President and his staff, then what is needed is not a new Commander, but a new President. Although the U.S. has only one precedent for this event, there have been many others elsewhere that I can recall going back to the outbreak of World War II. In all that time there is only one other national leader that I can recall that has acted so capriciously in this regard, and that a European leader with whom no American would care to have Obama compared.
When Stanley Met Barry, Part Two
Part One of this very mini miniseries dealt with the firing of General Stanley McChrystal, America’s head honcho in the Afghanistan War, and the contention that his and his aides’ remarks in a Rolling Stone article reflected immaturity and poor judgement.
Okay. . . a general 8 years Obama’s senior on the field of battle made immature comments that reflected poor judgement on a president whose chief pre-political experience was serving as a neighborhood organizer on the Chicago front.
Whatevah!
But the general was summoned to an audience with the president, a meeting that promised to be a dressing down for his impertinence, a summons from the boss he could not ignore.
We are privileged to be the only source privy to the stream of consciousness thoughts of General McChrystal as he winged the miles from Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan to Obama’s air base in D.C.
We are also privy, via sources that cannot be revealed, to the dialogue between McChrystal and Obama in the White House on Wednesday, June 23rd, 2010.
WARNING: Some of what follows is not suitable for the eyes or ears of children. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1753)
I understand the Rolling Stone reporter was scheduled for a far briefer stay. The Iceland volcano stranded him. He had the extended access of an embed without the vetting or commitment.
I have no point or conclusion. It’s informative to know how it happened.
The first rule for anyone dealing with the press is, “if you don’t want to see it in print, don’t say it.” It’s that simple.
If you need a laugh check out this humorous cartoon at http://drawfortruth.wordpress.com/category/obama/ on Obama’s “Brilliant” choice in selecting Petraeous! You may be surprised by who else he was considering.