Writing in The Washington Post, Yale Law School Professor Bruce Ackerman attempts to chastise General Stanley McChrystal for standing behind his well known recommendations on the military strategy for the United States to follow in Afghanistan. What upsets the professor is McChrystal’s audacity to challenge the wisdom of the expert from Delaware, Vice-President Joe Biden- a man who has been consistently wrong on every foreign policy recommendation he has made for the past twenty years.
The man who voted against the First Gulf War under Bush 41 now favors less troops and the use of strategic bombing and drones—a tactic that would assure no return, harm innocent civilians, and guarantee America’s losing in Afghanistan. But the professor tells us “McChrystal has no business making such public pronouncements,” since the NSC, not the General, determines our strategy. Keep in mind, as Max Boot has pointed out, that McChrystal was not acting contrary to his orders, or even disagreeing with Obama. Indeed, Obama’s March 27th edict was made clear when he announced a “comprehensive strategy” that would reverse the Taliban’s gains. As the president then argued, we cannot allow Afghanistan to fall to the Taliban, or “that country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can.”
General McChrystal was simply doing what he was told: informing President Obama what needs to be done to accomplish the ends he said were necessary to achieve. Why would the President not listen to the recommendation of the very man he put in charge who knows the territory and what needs to be done better than anyone else? Does Ackerman really believe that Joe Biden has one ounce of credibility for his recommendations? This is especially the case, as Boot notes, since McChrystal was only “offering his judgment about what it will take to implement the existing policy.”
Nevertheless, Ackerman and others are making a very flawed analogy—that pertaining to the Truman-MacArthur fight during the Korean War. “We have no need,” Ackerman writes, “for a repeat of the showdown between President Harry Truman and Gen. Douglas MacArthur over Korea. Truman faced down his general the last time around, but it was a bruising experience.” Once again, Ackerman suggests that if the General does not “show more-self restraint,” there could be another showdown over the issue of civilian control of the military.
Columnist Eugene Robinson agrees. He too thinks the General should “shut up and salute,” and not campaign publicly on behalf of what he thinks should be done. Again, Robinson makes the same mistake as Ackerman: he does not seem to realize that McChrystal was defending the strategy Obama originally favored, not one contrary to that of the Administration. He was not, as Robinson charges, engaging in politics.
And in the same paper, columnist Richard Cohen too raises the Truman-MacArthur analogy, while failing to comprehend what that dispute was all about. Cohen, unlike his fellow columnists, thinks the war in Afghanistan “is eminently more winnable than was Vietnam,” and he knows to win, that more troops and funding are needed. That takes presidential leadership, and he is afraid that is something Obama lacks. “Does he,” Cohen asks, “have the stomach and commitment for what is likely to continue to be an unpopular war?” Will he send some troops- but not enough to do the job?
Military coup, or make McChrystal the top military officer of the American Government in Exile. That is what it boils down to because Agent Zero, and the rest of the zombies who have
their paws on the levers of power, practice the coldest eye this side of Mao in their drive to replace what they abhor.
I do remember Obama saying he was going to listen to commanders on the ground correct?Lets see if we can find that quote and information before the Left spins it away.Man gotta watch these guys like hawks.Cmon America call Obama on these issues ,especially the Left since you all voted for the guy.Its part of your responsibility for voting for him.Dont give me anything from the past BUSH years since we are living in the present here and now.
Er, guys, I believe that a state of war still exists between The United States and North Korea. The same North Korea that has developed nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. The same North Korea that has been shipping strategic weapons and technology to Syria and Iran among others. The same North Korea that periodically thretens to invade south Korea, and launches missiles towards Japan. So the obvious question arises, did Truman make the correct choice? (and please, don’t bring up the threat of the Chinese Hordes….as amply demonstrated during the war, the massed Chinese formations served as cannon fodder when faced with a determined opponent.)
President Obama just ordered the Secretary of Defense to grease and fire up the evacuation helicopters for the immediate and total withdrawal of our defeated military forces from Afghanistan.
Any questions?
Comparing MacArthur to McCrystal is absurd. It is like comparing a Yugo to a Rolls Royce, or a Prius to a Ferrari.
MacArthur was a military genius, one of the greatest Generals in history. One of the top 3 America has produced.
McCrystal is a “gedunk hero’, a Perfumed Prince. He is a ticket punching bureaucrat. He got his stars by kissing ass and his choice in fathers.
MacArthur won 7 Silver Stars in Combat in WW1. McCrystal has a Bronze Star. He doesn’t say what he got it for. Showing up sober at the Officers mess 3 days in a row?
{snipped}
“During the war{insert, WW1}, MacArthur received two Distinguished Service Crosses, seven Silver Stars, a Distinguished Service Medal, and two Purple Hearts.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_MacArthur#World_War_I
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_A._McChrystal
Compare the two entries.
Stanley is the son of a general. He is living breathing proof that the old boy system is alive and well. I see no mention in his public record of holding any combat command. He was in charge of the Special Forces unit that captured some terrorist. Big deal, he is the boss of some MP’s. What he isn’t is a world class military genius.
MacArthur was correct about how to deal with the Chinese. Truman was wrong. American voters thought he was wrong, which is why they booted him out of office.
McCrystal is wrong about Afghanistan.
If more troops would help it wouldn’t be 40,000 but 400,000. Since that ain’t gonna happen, Stanley is doing a little incremental empire building. 40,000 this year, 50 next.
The fact is that the Iraqi type anti guerrilla approach WON’T work in Afghanistan. That doesn’t matter to Stanley, the US Army gets rid of it’s incompetents by promotion. The Ol’ Boys will see that he gets another star and a nice quite job somewhere. That won’t help the 110,000 US troops that Stanley will leve between a rock and a hard spot. Look how they took care of General Casey, whose incompetence almost cost us Iraq.
McCrystal and the Ops plan used in Iraq are the wrong tools for Afghanistan. It’s like trying to drive a screw with a hammer. If you want a scree, use a screwdriver. If all you have is a hammer, use a nail.
Send in the Marines. Their mission won’t be nation building where there is no nation. Their mission will be to keep a lid on AQ and the Taliban types. Hunt them down and kill them. That is all that needs to be done and all that can be done.
We will never be able to create a nation out of Afghanistan.
The Truman – MacArthur comparison is silly. Both Obama and McChrystal are relatively new in their jobs. Truman was in his second term and MacArthur had been in his job even longer.
Both Truman and MacArthur had already made huge mistakes in Korea. Truman cut the military way too deep after WWII. He even tried to disband the Marine Corps. MacArthur meanwhile, had a great time playing Emperor of Japan and completely neglected the training of his Army. His poorly trained, out of shape, badly equipped troops barely slowed down the North Korean advances until the Marines showed up.
MacArthur also ignored all intelligence reports regarding the Chinese entering the war. His race to the Yalu turned into the worst boondoggle in history for the American Army.
McChrystal and Obama haven’t made their mistakes yet. If Obama thinks he can win this thing with the corrupt Karzia government and low troop levels, a disaster is on the way.
People who have not studied history might see similarities between MacArthur and McChrystal. What I’d give to have a president like Truman– patriotic, humble, decisive–who would not dither for months, and months, and months on something people do not want (government overhaul of health care) and ignore something people need, JOBS.
It appears that McChrystal is trying to do what was asked of him and he sent the President a report many weeks ago. What is taking brilliant Barry so long? Is he incapable of making a decision on his own?
Not MacArthur vs. Truman,
more like a competent adult vs a naive little kid.
The General is going to be more and more conflicted, as Obama caves in more and more to his base of marxist loons.
McChrystal sees the mission, buys the mission because of the net benefit to our long range security, but he also is in command of exceptional young Americans on that bloody ground that he does not want to be needlessly butchered because he doesn’t have the ablility to take the initiative away from the Taliban and the other Muslim terrorists that now flock to Afghanistan like flies to fly paper.
Obama is not Truman. Truman, as you will recall, based a lot of his relationship with the military on the fact that, in WWI, he has been the “CO of Battery B” in France, so he had a much better appreciation for both Macarthur’s problems and his shotcomings. MacArthur had many shortcomings. BHO has never served a second in the military, and everything he knows about it he has gleaned from the residue of KGB propaganda plants that infected the left in this country in the 1960s, and that have never been put aside. Obama is not Truman, he is a very poor copy of Jimmy Carter.
I see a point where the General will find that he cannot in good concience continue to serve under this man, and will resign. I think the only thing that keeps that happening this week is that he fears for the lives of the troops on the ground in Talibanistan if he does, because the POTUS and the Democrat led Congress will abandon them as expendable.
Is this not treason? Are we not now at a point where we should insist that a bill of impeachment be brought against this person?
“Is This Another MacArthur vs. Truman”
Except Truman actually had a set of b@lls. And was a competent President. Otherwise you are spot on.
Old Soldier: Your criticisms of both Truman and MacArthur are not inapt, and Dugout Doug (probably an unfair sobriquet, as he was personally courageous) certainly enjoyed being Dai Ichi, but, ultimately, MacArthur and Curtis LeMay were probably right that we should not have stopped at the Yalu….
McCrystal was quite canny in making his assessments about the Afghanistan Theatre public. The administration pundits cannot make his recommendations vanish or go away, and if they fail to conform to them, and we continue to lose, he cannot be blamed by them for the failure.
It is laughably silly to compare Stanley McChrystal’s behavior to that of the arrogant and disrespectful Douglas MacArthur. The latter man was openly defiant of Harry Truman. But left-wing activists like Bruce Ackerman don’t give a damn about objective historical evidence. They are seeking a cheap talking point to protect the Anointed One. A slim majority of Americans still get their news from the MSM. Those sort of people are generally too lazy to try and find out the truth.
McCrystal is unfortunately finished. He should resign before Obama adm destroys him completely. I read he had been termed “insubordinate” with his remarks…
Telling the truth is NOT popular in the current white house. Our service people will be the ones to bear the brunt of Obama’s lack of leadership abilities. After all Obama is not after “victory”. What a sham of a president.
LeighB / Fantom: Truman had balls. Unfortunately he didn’t have any competence. His appointment of Louis A. Johnson as SecDef was more damaging than any of Obama’s picks. The man, with Truman’s full support, essentially destroyed the ability of the United States to wage conventional war.
Thanks to Truman / Johnson we damn near lost a war to third world country a mere 5 years after beating the Germans and Japanese. If not for the Marine Corps and the pool of WWII veterans available for recall, it would have been an outright loss instead of a draw.
Of course MacArthur’s strategy during WW II, i.e. island hopping, was brilliant, and his stewardship of Japan was enlightened. And of course he did turn the tide during the early Korean conflict by landing at Inchon. And part of Truman’s decisiveness was roted in his own insecurity and need to show that he was up to the task. And then, also, there was the politics. But OLD SOLDIER has got it right.
This is sooo stupid!
When you politicize a ‘war’, all military perspectives are lost.
I hope that the Commander-in-Chief STOPS listening to politicians and pundits (if he does). Th military must resolve this by themselves.
“LeighB / Fantom: Truman had balls. Unfortunately he didn’t have any competence.”
Harry Truman had the best intentions—but he often listened to the wrong people. He is the same man who thought that Alger Hiss was merely a victim of a right-wing slime job. Truman was a Democrat and his party did enormous damage to America’s security. The Democrats during the Roosevelt and Truman era were overall too trusting of “Uncle Joe” Stalin and failed to perceive the extent of the Communist threat.
Well, VIVO, it is not possible to exclude politics from war-making. The politicians get to decide the goals. The military gets to decide the means to accomplish them. Lincoln picked the generals not the strategy and succeeded. Johnson picked the strategies and failed.
MacArthur; War God or SOB ?
The answer, from those who were there,
tends to depend on how close they were
to his brilliant, bloody, arguably
unnecessary island-hopping approach
to Japan. His plans for a repetition
in Korea, followed by a few terms as
President, indicate that he was living
more in Valhalla than on planet earth.
Truman was practicing the Art of the
Possible, which did not include funding
a standing army with no enemy in view.
The current situation is ~ the reverse:
A POTUS with delusions of gender (sic),
And a CINC Afghanistan with both boots
on the ground.
The truly scary question is: After Obama
overrules McChrystal, accepts his resignation,
and loses the war in Afghanistan, in a replay
of Last Helo Out of Saigon, who_will_he_blame ?
McChrystal has neither the rank, nor the credibility to be commander in chief at this present time- Petreus would be a more appropriate choice if you were going to pull a stunt like that.
Vivo: All wars are political. Our elected leaders set objectives and priorities and allocate resources to the military. It is up to the military leadership to achieve those objectives. In the case of Afghanistan, there are other political aspects – NATO’s half-hearted involvement and the corrupt Afghan government and their lack of effort. Karzia seems more interested in getting American soldiers prosecuted than winning a war.
Obama, and Bush before him, never really laid out our objectives for Afghanistan – other than kill terrorists which we have done a great job of.
Old Soldier, you’ve been reading your Clausewitz! All wars are political in that they are waged to win a political objective – i.e. a policy objective.
McChrystal has not done anything wrong. He has not challenged the official policy of the United States. He has challenged the incompetence of Mr. Obama by not letting the issue rest and by keeping it from being placed on the back burner but that is not a crime.
If Mr. Obama was smart, he would stop his surrogates from going after McChrystal. It makes Mr. Obama look petty and un-presidential. He allows it because he hopes it will distract from the real issues in Afghanistan but it really on highlights the incompetence of his administration.
Where was all the outrage when military leaders did actually cross the line and challenge their Commander-in-Chief. For example, Colin Powell in the first Bush administration or the handful of generals who constantly undermined George W. over Iraq.
I highly recommend Mark Moyer’s piece in the Wall Street Journal http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703298004574454810540018326.html.
Hey vivo, would you still be in the right age when your Commander-in-Chief reinstates the Draft? As ‘True Punk’ mentioned elsewhere your Great Nation could “benefit from a new great generation of highly educated youngsters who know what life and death decisions really entail. And who wouldn’t applaud the redemption of lefty traitors who’ve learned the verities at last?”
Your devoted German Punk
Fight politics with politics.
Petraeus has ambitions for the presidency. Let McCrystal be his running mate. 2012
Let it be an Eisenhower era again.
I’m personally tired of lawyers like Clinton and Obama, and scions like Bush I and II, having a run at the White House. Our first president was a general. We need more of their kind running things (who were the other generals? – Grant, Taylor, Andrew Jackson).
Obama may be the Messiah. But people in Iraq have called Gen. Petraeus, KING DAVID.
That there is any comparison here is laughable.
Truman was a World War 1 veteran who had by the time he confronted MacArthur made many tough executive decisions in World War 2 with the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
MacArthur’s record speaks for itself.
McChrystal is a battle tested general with a real perspective on current matters in Afghanistan specifically.
As for Obama, well … (queue the crickets)
MacArther disagreed with the strategy. McCrystal supports the strategy, but wants the resources to carry it out. Civilian control of the military is absolutely correct. Civilians need to decide WHAT to do and what the limits are, but the civilians need to defer to the professionals’ judgment on HOW to do it.
The fact that an elitist Yale law professor doesn’t understand the difference is not surprising, considering how little the elitists of this nation currently serve in our military. What is sad is that anyone with the slightest modicum of common sense would listen to this idiot.
wasn’t vietnam the problem it was because the brass in washington had to control everything and those on the ground who actually KNEW what was going on were forced to defer?
Afghanistan – obummer’s vietnam.
I do recall the soviets also having a really bad time of it in afgahnistan.
6. John “birther” Samford:
McCrystal got his stars by kissing ass and his choice in fathers.
~~~~~
Talk about double standards. You can’t shoot McChrystal for being the son of a two-star general if you give MacArthur a pass for being the son of a three-star general.
8. LeighB:
What is taking brilliant Barry so long? Is he incapable of making a decision on his own?
~~~~
I’m of the opinion (based upon observation of the great Iwon.) that he doens’t have the guts to say “no” (what he *really* would like to say), so he dither’s as a way to procrastinate. It’s the “if you ignore it long enough it will go away” strategy.
The comparison between MacArthur and McChrystal is just plain silly. MacArthur literally disobeyed orders and was a menace who was about to turn a regional war into a World War. MacArthur also didn’t seem to mind that the war he was fighting would also degenerate into a nuclear war. McChrystal is trying to implement a strategy that Obama agreed to back in March of this year. McChrystal is simply asking Obama to make a decision, not telling him what to do. Whether or not Obama takes McChrystal’s advice is another story. Given Obama’s past record on trying to make tough decisions, the president will probably do the wrong thing by trying to have it both ways, keeping troops in Afghanistan but not sending McChrystal what he needs. I think Obama would prefer a stalemate in Afghanistan for the next three years rather than trying to defeat the Taliban and al Qaeda. As long as losses remain “acceptable” politically, he can claim that he’s being tough on terrorism while not committing the resources to win the war. It’s a silly plan, one that will eventually fail because the Taliban and al Qaeda are masters at waiting for their enemies to tire of Afghanistan and just leave.
But what I find disgusting about some democrats is that they are falling all over themselves denouncing McChrystal because he says we need more troops to win in a war. Yet when General Eric K. Shinseki said the same thing about inadequate troop levels in Iraq, democrats hailed him as a courageous voice that should be listened to or else we would face defeat. My my, how times have changed. I guess Obama is finding out that it really is a bitch having to make decisions for a living, instead of only criticizing people who were faced with those same decisions in the past. Obama always said during the campaign that Afghanistan was “the right war, the war we should have been focusing on instead of Iraq.” He’d better start proving it. Whether or not Afghanistan is worth the effort doesn’t matter anymore. What matters is that Obama said for over a year now that we should be committed to the war in Afghanistan and that we needed to win it. If we fail in Afghanistan now, the rest of the world (as well as al Qaeda) will simply see Obama as a weak and indecisive leader. Obama the candidate painted himself into this corner, now he has to get us out of it.
21. myth buster:
McChrystal has neither the rank, nor the credibility to be commander in chief at this present time- Petreus would be a more appropriate choice if you were going to pull a stunt like that.
~~~
How old is Schwarzkopf? (he wasn’t called stormin’ Norman for nothing.)
Genghus
“MacArthur was a military genius, one of the greatest Generals in history. One of the top 3 America has produced.”
Please. MacArthur panicked at the US entry to World War II and and allowed the Japanese to destroy his air force to be destroyed on the ground in the Phillipines, despite ample warning, and thereby ensuring the loss of the Phillipines. He never visited his troops or the front lines, hunkering down on Corrigidor (and earning the name Dugout Doug), until finally abandoning his troops in Bataan. He should have been sacked along with Kimmel and Short in Hawaii.
– MacArthur was correct about how to deal with the Chinese. Truman was wrong. American voters thought he was wrong, which is why they booted him out of office.
Truman was elected to President in 1948 dude. And despite MacArthur’s ticket-tape parade, I doubt the American people wanted to go to war with China.
– Of course MacArthur’s strategy during WW II, i.e. island hopping, was brilliant.
It was the obvious move, made possible by naval and air power, which MacArthur had nothign to do with.
MacArthur was the perfumed prince, not McCrystal, who cared only for himself, which is poison in the military.
I never liked the idea of Generals and Amirals being trusted more than politicians because they are politicians. That is how they got promoted in the first place. However, it started when Bush lost so much credibility he brought Patraeus in to save his reputation and create a fall guy, in case his failed policies failed completely. Now we are stuck with “rock star” four stars. Obama would do himself well by getting rid of these Elvis’ as soon as possible and replacing as many as possible by real ones then get on the business of being in charge. Hint: he and congress make the decisions and the military carries them out. If they dont….fire em all.
We may have a MacArthur, but we certainly don’t have a Truman. Heck, we don’t even have a Carter who, when he was C-in-C stood up for human rights and fought the Russians.
McArthur’s dismissal may have been in part to kill any presidential aspirations he harbored. He wound up supporting Taft for the ’52 nomination, with rumors that he would be selected for the VP slot.
What we’re seeing may be a fight over the 2012 election. If McChrystal can be made to be perceived as a failure, then it will rub off on Petraeus, and that will eliminate perhaps the most viable candidate able to challenge Mr. Obama. So we may be looking at skirmishing over the election by some folks who may not be completely ignorant of strategy.
With no military experience, no international relations experience, no executive experience, it’s no wonder our naive president is dithering over yet another campaign pledge.
It would be comical if not for the fact that particular reneging is proving deadly to our troops.
It’s not in the same category as the president’s forestalling gay demands that he fulfill his promise to end Clinton’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy for the military; Obama knows his queer constituency will hang as tough as they can hang tough until he gets around to revamping that policy.
It’s not in the same category as reneging on his pledge to close GITMO in a year, either; aside from obamaniacs, everyone knew that was impossible and no state and no other country will agree to house any appreciable number of GITMO’s reprobates.
On the other hand, Obama’s stalling on General Stanley McChrystal’s request to provide him with more boots on the ground in Afghanistan to enable him and our forces there to do their jobs amounts to nothing more or less than an execution warrant for our troops.
Obama’s self-declared “war of necessity” as opposed to the Iraqi “war of choice,” is costing America dozens of valiant solders with many more casualties to come as the president weighs his options and consults his advisors.
One such military advisor is bumbling Joe Biden, his VP, the man who has never voiced a thought that wasn’t inane, who would cut and run full speed in retreat and screw the consequences.
Precisely who Obama’s other advisors are is unclear. Could one be Bill Ayers? That old buddy and unrepentent domestic terrorist hasn’t yet graced Obama’s White House, at least through the front door.
Or maybe his former spiritual advisor, Rev. Jeremiah “God Damn America” Wright is unavailable for comment and Obama needs his guidance?
To be generous, perhaps the president is wary of introducing more troops in fear that it will be called a “surge.” . . .
(Read the rest at http://genelalor.com)
McArthur was a good commander; he just didn’t know squat about nuclear weapons.
POOR CITIZEN
It is a shame that citizenship in this great country is not predicated upon service, and fidelity to the ideals of our founders. Your defamation of the military is disgraceful, and abhorent.
Actually, Poor Citizen is largely right about Generals. Skill and leadership will get you to Colonel, but you need to have some political finesse to earn your stars.
“16. Old Soldier:
Thanks to Truman / Johnson we damn near lost a war to third world country ”
Well, you had me considering until you wrote that. I am pretty sure we beat that third world country, now maybe you ment it was a billion chi-coms we fought to a standstill.
As for our forces, did you really think that it would stay at WW II levels of full mobilization?
Fact vs fiction;
“You can’t shoot McChrystal for being the son of a two-star general if you give MacArthur a pass for being the son of a three-star general.”
I haven’t shot anybody in years. I didn’t give anyone any passes either. Please pay attention when you read. MacArthur earned his stars. 2 Purple hearts for one thing.
They didn’t have a CIB back then, which is why MacArthur didn’t get one. Why doesn’t Stanley have one? When you are part of the old boy syatem and a major ring knocker ( as was MacArthur) you can avoid things like getting shot at, and being called up for having your troops torture POW’s. Then there was the Tillman incident. Stanly tried to cover it up, which was really stooopid.
Rockfish, that Dougout Doug thingie is a myth. MacArthur made daily trips to the front lines while there was fighting on Bataan, After the withdrawal to Corrigidor, he couldn’t of course, since there was no front line. As far as the other allegations, It was his air corps commander that screwed the pooch at Clark Airfield.
All this trash talk about MacArthur vs McCrystal is a red herring. Any competent military historian will see the danger of adding troops to Afghanistan. The questions then become; “Will the extra troops make a difference?” and “Is the risk worth the reward?” with the second question depending on the answer to the first.
The safest way is to not change missions, which is what McCrystal wants to do.
BTW, the original mission in Afghanistan was to run off the terrorist types. That has been done.
Anyone who claims we are losing in Afghanistan is either foolish or lying.
I can’t argue with the fact that MacArthur was really badass. The man earned his first star by serving as a Colonel on the front lines of WWI- unarmed! As for Afghanistan, if we’re winning, then more troops should finish off the enemy faster. More troops is only a bad idea if A. We don’t have them, or B. The strategy is all wrong and more troops just means more casualties. As it stands, the only thing the Marines are short on right now is Captains, and that is being dealt with by passing out $2000 bonuses annually for Captains and First Lieutenants slated to promote to Captain to stay in the Corps.
The real problem is in the Army. The Army still hasn’t recovered from the deep cuts Clinton made, and all too often the Marines have to clean up the Army’s messes for them, in addition to doing the job the Marine Corps is supposed to do. Personally, I think they’re granting waivers for all the wrong things- how do men who have been diagnosed with bipolar disorder get deployed to Iraq, but they won’t allow autistics to serve, even if they can pass the entrance exams, basic, and MOS training? An autistic guy isn’t going to intentionally kill himself or his comrades; a bipolar patient very well may.
A couple of comments: The claim that MacArthur was resposible for all those bloody island hopping battles in WW2 is flat wrong. Those were in the Central Pacific, under Nimitz. MacArthur went from New Guinea into the Philippines and was really good at bypassing the strongholds and letting the Japanese starve as at Truk and at Rabul.
As for MacChrystal and Obama, along with General David P, it’s too bad Obama doesn’t remember LBJ and his famous comment about “I’d rather have him inside the tent P**sing out than outside P**sing in”
Those two Generals have made their plans for this war, according to their orders. They have every right to talk to anyone, as long as they do not violate security. They took an oath to defend the Constitution, they did not give up their citizenship. If Obambi goes against his Generals, like Bush was accused of ignoring his, he’s in real trouble. Those to can retire, draw their pensions and hit the lecture circiut. About fifteen minutes later they can announce for political office, say against Harry Reid and some other Donk in a mostly blue state. Then in 2012 they’d each have just as much national political experience as Obambi. Is Ol’ Barry smart enough to see this?
20. carla:
23. Old Soldier:
“Well, VIVO, it is not possible to exclude politics from war-making. The politicians get to decide the goals. The military gets to decide the means to accomplish them.”
You are correct.
My feeling is that the politicians are not setting the right goals. Their mindset is still WWII.
1) “Army Officers Criticize Rebuke of Gen. McChrystal”
By Ann Scott Tyson/ Washington Post Staff/ Thursday, October 8, 2009.
Army officers gathered at a convention in Washington this week said senior White House officials should not have rebuked Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, for saying publicly that a scaled-back war effort would not succeed.”
… so, Obama’s right and the brass is wrong…
2) “the police acted stupidly!” – this incident and its crappy handling by the White House time and again shows Obama’s warped view of the outside world, his arrogance and his unwillingness to accept responsibility for his own actions.
And while Jones’ duty is to serve his boss in the White House, he shouldn’t have deferred to Obama superficiality and step out and criticize McChrystal.
As the Washington Post piece I mentioned shows, a beer with Joe Biden and McChrystal won’t do it this time – Obama and Jones should squarely apologize to McChrystal and the entire US military force.
Fantom: read some history.
1. The Pusan perimeter was a very very close thing. If the North Koreans had broken through the line even once in August 1950, the Eighth Army would have been destroyed and the war lost – without Chinese intervention.
2. Of course our forces would not stay at WWII levels. Troop levels weren’t the issue – equipment and training were. I expected Truman, as Commander in Chief, to maintain an Army capable of fighting. Instead he hired a man who gleefully destroyed the ability of the ENTIRE army to fight a conventional war. Our men were recovering abandoned tanks and planes from WWII junk-yards, putting them back together, and shipping them to the battlefield as fast as possible to avert disaster. It was madness.
Truman and Johnson had adopted a defense posture that essentially said – we will use nukes to defend ourselves and our allies. When McArthur found himself outnumbered and outmaneuvered, he called on Truman to carry through with Truman’s own policy. Truman finally saw the stupidity of his own defense policy – at the cost of thousands of dead American soldiers.
He did the right thing by relieving McArthur and putting Ridgeway in charge to start rebuilding the American Army – just several years late.
John “birther” Samford:
Why doesn’t Stanley have a CIB? I tried to read his bio – parts of it, including the Gulf War are real vague because he was in Spec Ops units. It is unclear from what I read, if he was ever personaly involved in a firefight.
Generals should discuss these things in private with the commander in chief, not in the press.
arthur: Agreed – but the CIC has to meet with the General – not blow him off for TV appearances and Olymic Lobbying.
The Congress has certain functions with regard to the armed forces of the United States. They are delineated in the Constitution and have to do with organization, funding, acquisition of equipment and supplies and the establishment of a military legal system, that kind of thing. The powers of Congress with regard to war policy and strategy do not exist. The Congress has no authority at all with regard to operations. The Congress can refuse to declare war, but when was a declaration of war last thought necessary?
The armed forces are commanded by the president. Mullen, McChrystal and Petraeus and everyone else in the armed forces are the military subordinates of the president and not of anyone in the Congress nor of the Congress collectively.
During the Civil War there were disagreements between President Lincoln and generals, specifically General McClellan. Thaddeus Stevens, Charles Sumner and their friends in the Civil War Congress created a “Joint Committee on the War” in order to use the testimony of various Union Army generals against Lincoln.
What a disaster that was! What an inducement to the poltical vanities and ambitions of the brass. General McChrystal was wrong wrong wrong.
The armed forces are commanded by the president. Mullen, McChrystal and Petraeus and everyone else in the armed forces are the military subordinates of the president and not of anyone in the Congress nor of the Congress collectively.