The four-star scapegoat

[DarrinS]

The White House finds a four-star scapegoat for its Afghan jitters. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204488304574428961222276106.html?m od=rss_opinion_main)





Democrats have found someone worth fighting in Afghanistan. His name is Stan McChrystal.

The other night, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi went after the commander of U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan, "with all due respect," for supposedly disrespecting the chain of command. Around the Congressional Democratic Caucus, we're told Members refer to General McChrystal as "General MacArthur," after the commander in Korea sacked by Harry Truman.

White House aides have fanned these flames with recent leaks to the media that "officials are challenging" his assessment asking for more troops. In the last two days, the White House National Security Adviser and the Secretary of Defense have both suggested that the general should keep his mouth shut. President Obama called him in Friday for a talking-to on the tarmac at Copenhagen airport.

Though a decorated Army four-star officer, the General's introduction to Beltway warfare is proving to be brutal. To be fair, Gen. McChrystal couldn't know that his Commander in Chief would go wobbly so soon on his commitment to him as well as to his own Afghan strategy when he was tapped for the job in AprilWe're told by people who know him that Gen. McChrystal "feels terrible" and "had no intention whatsoever of trying to lobby and influence" the Administration. His sense of bewilderment makes perfect sense anywhere but in the political battlefield of Washington. He was, after all, following orders.

***
Recall that in March Mr. Obama unveiled his "comprehensive new strategy . . . to reverse the Taliban's gains and promote a more capable and accountable Afghan government." The Commander in Chief pledged to properly resource this "war of necessity," which he also called during the 2008 campaign "the central front on terror." The President then sacked his war commander, who had been chosen by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, in favor of Gen. McChrystal, an expert in counterinsurgency.

Upon arriving in June, Gen. McChrystal launched his assessment of the forces required to execute the Obama strategy. His confidential study was completed in August and sent to the Pentagon. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Michael Mullen told Congress that more troops would be needed, and a figure of 30,000-40,000 was bandied about.

The figure has clearly spooked the Administration. Soon after, Gen. McChrystal's confidential report was leaked to the Washington Post by, well, you'll have to ask Bob Woodward. The report said that the U.S. urgently needs to reverse a "deteriorating" security situation. Soon the full retreat began in Washington, led by a vocal group within the Administration that wants to scale back the mission. The White House told the Pentagon to hold off asking for troops and Gen. McChrystal not to testify to Congress. Remarkably, President Obama mused on the Sunday talks shows, "Are we doing the right thing?"

Then Gen. McChrystal gave a speech last Thursday before the International Institute of Strategic Studies in London. It was scheduled and approved by the Pentagon weeks before the Afghan political jitters seized official Washington. The General was hardly incendiary.

"We need to reverse the current trends, and time does matter," he said. Asked vaguely about taking a narrower approach that leaves Afghanistan to its own devices and strikes at terrorists from afar, Gen. McChrystal offered that "a strategy that does not leave Afghanistan in a stable position is probably a short-sighted one." He warned the country would descend into "Chaos-istan."

What really worries Democrats is the prospect of Midterm-istan if Mr. Obama escalates the war. But some thought to play up the General's innocuous comment into an attempt to torpedo the latest Administration rethink.

In fact, the White House is merely revisiting the idea rejected in its "careful policy review" last spring to move from ambitious counterinsurgency to "counterterrorism" that would involve fewer troops and target al Qaeda instead of the Taliban. Vice President Joe Biden champions the change, and Sen. John Kerry and Speaker Pelosi have endorsed it.

The Biden faction says changes in the region justify a U-turn: An expanded U.S. force would merely be fighting a motley group of insurgents who aren't planning the next 9/11. This is partly true, but the links between the Taliban and al Qaeda are longstanding, particularly in the Pashtun areas of the south. If America pulls back and lets Mullah Omar create a Talibanistan in Helmand and Kandahar, al Qaeda operatives will soon follow.

As we've learned the hard way in Iraq and Afghanistan, successful counterterrorism requires intelligence. This comes from earning the trust of the people, which in turn can only happen if they are protected. The Biden approach would pull U.S. soldiers back behind high walls, far from the field of battle, and turns security over to the Afghan army and police before they are prepared for the job.

The sudden Afghan rethink also jeopardizes progress in Pakistan, the world's leading sanctuary for al Qaeda. The Pakistani willingness to expand American drone strikes and launch a military campaign in their tribal regions dates squarely to the Administration's recommitment to the region. Now that Mr. Obama is having second thoughts, so might the Pakistanis.

The President's very public waver is already doing strategic harm. The Taliban are getting a morale boost and claiming victory, while our allies in Europe have one more reason to rethink their own deployments. Such a victory, as the head of the British army Sir David Richards warned on Sunday, would have an "intoxicating effect" on extremist Islam around the world.

Commanders in Chief can change their minds. George W. Bush waited too long to embrace the "surge." He had private doubts when the casualties also surged in 2007, but he gave the new approach a chance to succeed. Mr. Obama is blinking even before all the additional troops he ordered to Afghanistan have had time to deploy to the theater.

***
Gen. McChrystal's liberal critics also have very short memories. In 2003, Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki clashed with his superiors by saying many more troops were needed to pacify Iraq. He became a Democratic hero and is now Mr. Obama's Veterans Secretary. In this case, Gen. McChrystal has become a political target merely for taking at face value Mr. Obama's order to fight the war properly. His superiors, the Central Commander David Petraeus and Adm. Fallon, back him, but can hardly be said to question civil control of the military.

In an interview with Newsweek, Gen. McChrystal said he wouldn't resign if the President rejects his request for more troops. If he were really trying to dictate policy, he'd have given a different answer. But we don't think Gen. McChrystal should stay to implement a Biden war plan either. No commander in uniform should ask his soldiers to die for a strategy he doesn't think is winnable—or for a President who lets his advisers and party blame a general for their own lack of political nerve.

[LnGrrrR]

Wow, a pro war Wall Street Journal op-ed? What a rare find!




If America pulls back and lets Mullah Omar create a Talibanistan in Helmand and Kandahar, al Qaeda operatives will soon follow.


I wonder where he hides his crystal ball. :lol



The Biden approach would pull U.S. soldiers back behind high walls, far from the field of battle, and turns security over to the Afghan army and police before they are prepared for the job.


After how many years, is the Iraqi army even prepared to take over the job? It's tough building an institution of professionalism from the ground up, and takes a lot of time. I've heard mixed reports on the Iraqi army.



The Taliban are getting a morale boost and claiming victory, while our allies in Europe have one more reason to rethink their own deployments


The whole idea of "morale boosting" is ridiculously overused. The Taliban just as likely would have us stay in the country and waste resources there. We shouldn't base our policy there on what the Taliban says.



Gen. McChrystal's liberal critics also have very short memories. In 2003, Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki clashed with his superiors by saying many more troops were needed to pacify Iraq. He became a Democratic hero and is now Mr. Obama's Veterans Secretary.


Solid point. Although I think that the Dem opposition to Afghanistan is taking on the idea of "Why are we even there?"

There's a real fight brewing about the US's role in the international community regarding terrorism. Are we supposed to remake EVERY country that could possibly harbor terrorists? That's impossible. And yet, if even one terrorist group gets a nuke it could lead to catastrophic consequences. How do we square these two facts?



In an interview with Newsweek, Gen. McChrystal said he wouldn't resign if the President rejects his request for more troops.


Good man.


No commander in uniform should ask his soldiers to die for a strategy he doesn't think is winnable—or for a President who lets his advisers and party blame a general for their own lack of political nerve.


Actually, that's not quite right. From what I've learned of leadership, it's about 'buying-in'. Even if you don't think a plan is very strong, you never "bitch down" to your soldiers. You lay out the plan and get them to buy-in too. If you have complaints about the plan, but you "bitch upwards".

Overall, I do think McChrystal has been treated pretty poorly. But that's not really something new in the military. :lol

[clambake]

darrins not going.

what does he care.

he wants soldiers to die so he can use them as political toys.

darrins still outraged about vietnam, but still offers the same solution.

[DarrinS]

darrins not going.

what does he care.

he wants soldiers to die so he can use them as political toys.

darrins still outraged about vietnam, but still offers the same solution.


Who's really playing politics with this "war of necessity"?

[boutons_deux]

Constitution says civilians run wars, not the generals.

Generals would be for never-ending, career-padding wars, in which generals never get killed nor pay for.

[DarrinS]

Constitution says civilians run wars, not the generals.

Generals would be for never-ending, career-padding wars, in which generals never get killed nor pay for.


So, McChrystal is trying to run the war now?

[clambake]

So, McChrystal is trying to run the war now?

you're not very bright.

[jman3000]

Who's really playing politics with this "war of necessity"?

You, and the author of the op-ed apparently.

This guy is pulling stuff out of his ass in regards to our position in Afghanistan and you're eating it up. The war in Iraq consisted of 3 or 4 strategy changes. We need to know if what we're doing in Afghanistan is working and if not, what do we need to do. Sending more troops without making sure that the strategy itself is sound is tantamount to throwing money at a problem and making sure it fixes itself. It's worse than the alternative because you're simply putting more lives at risk in a bad situation. Find the correct strategy, implement it, send in troops.

Of course the rebuttal to that is "how many troops who are there now are going to die because of the delay?"... most likely what we've been seeing the past couple months... but how many would die by sending them into the same exact shitty strategy.

But of course you read something that's critical of the administration and view it as sacrosanct anyway.

[hope4dopes]

What really worries Democrats is the prospect of Midterm-istan if Mr. Obama escalates the war.





In this case, Gen. McChrystal has become a political target merely for taking at face value Mr. Obama's order to fight the war properly:lol

[Winehole23]

Who's really playing politics with this "war of necessity"?McChrystal threw down the political gauntlet first, by daring the president publicly to increase troop levels, or lose the war.

[hope4dopes]

Afghanistan is afghani for Vietnam.

[SAGambler]

McChrystal threw down the political gauntlet first, by daring the president publicly to increase troop levels, or lose the war.

Daring him? or telling him like it is? Obama needs to quit his jet setting trips to try and make his buds in Chicago a bunch of green, and focus his ass on the job at hand. His "I need to think about it a while" routine is getting old. What does he need to "think" about? How he can blame it all on GW?

[Winehole23]

Daring him? or telling him like it is?The DoD plays politics too. McChrystal could've given the president his unvarnished opinion privately. Instead, he created a political football: give me troops, or bear the loss.


What does he need to "think" about? A strategy that will achieve our goals. We haven't had that the past six years. His predecessor knew this, but basically punted to Obama.

[DarrinS]

McChrystal threw down the political gauntlet first, by daring the president publicly to increase troop levels, or lose the war.

LOL

Why don't you read McChrystal's speech.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/10/01/gen_mcchrystals_address_on_afghanistan_98537.html

Yeah, he really threw down the gauntlet. :rolleyes

He sounds like a very reasonable and thoughtful man to me.

[clambake]

LOL

Why don't you read McChrystal's speech.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/10/01/gen_mcchrystals_address_on_afghanistan_98537.html

Yeah, he really threw down the gauntlet. :rolleyes

He sounds like a very reasonable and thoughtful man to me.

that was actually a good read.

he has no idea what to do......beyond smothering a fire with live bodies.

you see, darrins, thats what generals do.

[DarrinS]

that was actually a good read.

he has no idea what to do......beyond smothering a fire with live bodies.

you see, darrins, thats what generals do.


A good example of how the left REALLY thinks about the military. Thanks.

[MannyIsGod]

LOL

Why don't you read McChrystal's speech.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/10/01/gen_mcchrystals_address_on_afghanistan_98537.html

Yeah, he really threw down the gauntlet. :rolleyes

He sounds like a very reasonable and thoughtful man to me.


I don't expect you to understand, but try.

[DarrinS]

I don't expect you to understand, but try.


Quoting me and changing the font size sure made things clear. How long ago was his speech scheduled? What incendiary comments did he make?

<crickets>

[clambake]

A good example of how the left REALLY thinks about the military. Thanks.

those were his words, choo choo, not mine.

if you're going to fuck off at work, couldn't you at least try to comprehend what you're pedaling?

[DarrinS]

those were his words, choo choo, not mine.

if you're going to fuck off at work, couldn't you at least try to comprehend what you're pedaling?


You're only slightly more retarded than your alter-ego, ChumpDumper.

[clambake]

You're only slightly more retarded than your alter-ego, ChumpDumper.

wow, your youtubes are more impressive.

can't you find a video that will teach you about generals motivations...better yet, what motivates that general after 7 years of contact with the situation?

stick with what you know.

[DarrinS]

You're only slightly more retarded than your alter-ego, ChumpDumper.


And then you provide proof.



wow, your youtubes are more impressive.

can't you find a video that will teach you about generals motivations...better yet, what motivates that general after 7 years of contact with the situation?

stick with what you know.

[MannyIsGod]

Quoting me and changing the font size sure made things clear. How long ago was his speech scheduled? What incendiary comments did he make?

<crickets>

I told you I didn't expect you to understand.

The speech itself was a political move. It has nothing to do with being incendiary or having it scheduled in advanced. Do you understand why?

[hope4dopes]

that was actually a good read.

he has no idea what to do......beyond smothering a fire with live bodies.

you see, darrins, thats what generals do. Yes I'm sure the joint chiefs will be calling on you for advice if they can get your boss at the radio shack to let you have an early break.

[hope4dopes]

I told you I didn't expect you to understand.

The speech itself was a political move. It has nothing to do with being incendiary or having it scheduled in advanced. Do you understand why?Sounds like a man trying to do his job dealing with a boss to busy covering his political ass to be of much help to the troops.

[hope4dopes]

You're only slightly more retarded than your alter-ego, ChumpDumper. Hard call there.

[clambake]

Yes I'm sure the joint chiefs will be calling on you for advice if they can get your boss at the radio shack to let you have an early break.

thats the kind of break i need, micca.

thanks for caring.

[clambake]

Sounds like a man trying to do his job dealing with a boss to busy covering his political ass to be of much help to the troops.

or a guy who sat in virtual silence for the last 7 years.

now that it's his puppy, he doesn't know anything else to do.

[DarrinS]

I told you I didn't expect you to understand.

The speech itself was a political move. It has nothing to do with being incendiary or having it scheduled in advanced. Do you understand why?


From the International Institute for Strategic Studies website:

http://www.iiss.org/whats-new/iiss-in-the-press/october-2009/media-pushes-rift-between-mcchrystal-and-obama/

Also has a good article about how the general's remarks became controversial after NYT articles and the cables ran with it.




McChrystal’s London remarks, delivered at the U.K.’s premiere security think tank, the Institute for International and Strategic Studies, may have been delivered the day after Obama’s war cabinet met to debate Afghanistan, but they were the result of weeks’ worth of planning. “The IISS invited General McChrystal to address the Institute, having learnt of his intention to travel to the UK,” said Adam Ward, the director of the Institute’s studies, who added that the institute’s invitation had been extended “some weeks before he came.” Ward added that McChrystal appeared “very careful to appear not to be overstepping any boundaries,” noting that the general, far from rebuking the adminsitration, repeatedly declined to answer questions about troop levels ahead of Obama’s decision.



“From our perspective, we just wanted to hear him set out his thinking on Afghanistan,” Ward said.

[Crookshanks]

Obama needs to do something now - not 6 or 8 weeks from now. He either needs to listen to his General and give him the additional troops, or he needs to man up and get our troops out of there. His wishy-washy position is costing lives every day.

[clambake]

From the International Institute for Strategic Studies website:

http://www.iiss.org/whats-new/iiss-in-the-press/october-2009/media-pushes-rift-between-mcchrystal-and-obama/

Also has a good article about how the general's remarks became controversial after NYT articles and the cables ran with it.

one was enough. you're not good at managing your time.

[clambake]

Obama needs to do something now - not 6 or 8 weeks from now. He either needs to listen to his General and give him the additional troops, or he needs to man up and get our troops out of there. His wishy-washy position is costing lives every day.

you didn't say anything for years. what a cunt.

[DarrinS]

you didn't say anything for years. what a cunt.

one-liner with no punctuation or any meaningful content


Wow. That is easy.

[Crookshanks]

you didn't say anything for years. what a cunt.
That is the MOST OFFENSIVE thing you could call me. :nope And all because you disagree with me? What a sad and immature little man you are.

The difference between Iraq and Afghanistan is that we were fighting to win in Iraq - and they are now a free country with democratic elections.

Obama is "uncomfortable" with the word victory and is showing he doesn't have a clue what to do in Afghanistan. If you're not fighting to win, then just bring our troops home and leave that hell hole to it's own devices. But be prepared for the consequences.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Obama needs to do something now - not 6 or 8 weeks from now. He either needs to listen to his General and give him the additional troops, or he needs to man up and get our troops out of there. His wishy-washy position is costing lives every day.

really? how many lives will be saved today if he makes a decision today?

[George Gervin's Afro]

A good example of how the left REALLY thinks about the military. Thanks.

I don't think that way..you're lying again..

[ChumpDumper]

Obama needs to do something now - not 6 or 8 weeks from now. He either needs to listen to his General and give him the additional troops, or he needs to man up and get our troops out of there. His wishy-washy position is costing lives every day.Wishy-washy would be starting another war unnecessarily and keeping troops and material from being sent to Afghanistan for six years.

Obama already raised the troop levels once in Afghanistan. You probably didn't even know that.

You people are idiots.

[ChumpDumper]

If you're not fighting to win, then just bring our troops home and leave that hell hole to it's own devices. But be prepared for the consequences.Why didn't you tell the to Bush when he didn't send additional troops and material to Afghanistan?

Because you are a hypocrite.

[LnGrrrR]

The difference between Iraq and Afghanistan is that we were fighting to win in Iraq - and they are now a free country with democratic elections.


I wouldn't be so quick to declare Iraq a "win" yet. There's a good chance that as soon as we leave, the country will collapse.

[George Gervin's Afro]

The difference between Iraq and Afghanistan is that we were fighting to win in Iraq - and they are now a free country with democratic elections.

.




Odierno: May not be possible to declare victory in Iraq Story Highlights
U.S. Army Gen. Ray Odierno makes remark to reporters at Pentagon

About 123,000 U.S. troops in Iraq; could drop to 110,000 by January, he says

Odierno: Iraqi security forces recently seized caches of Iranian-made weapons

updated 11:00 p.m. EDT, Thu October 1, 2009Next Article in U.S. »


From Mike Mount
CNN

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- It isn't clear whether the United States will ever be able to declare victory in Iraq, the top U.S. commander there said Thursday.


Army Gen. Ray Odierno speaks to reporters at the Pentagon on Thursday.

"I'm not sure we will ever see anyone declare victory in Iraq, because first off, I'm not sure we'll know for 10 years or five years," Army Gen. Ray Odierno told reporters at the Pentagon.
About 123,000 U.S. troops are in Iraq now, and President Obama says all combat forces will be gone by the end of August 2010, leaving as many as 50,000 noncombat troops to advise and train Iraqi forces before leaving by the end of 2011.

Odierno has said he wants to draw down the U.S. forces at a faster rate than planned if the security situation allows it. On Thursday, he said he expected the number of U.S. troops to drop to 120,000 by the end of October, and to as few as 110,000 by the end of 2009.

"What we've done here is we're giving Iraq an opportunity in the long term to be a strategic partner of the United States, but more importantly, be a partner in providing regional stability inside of the Middle East," Odierno said.

"If you're training people ... in Iran to come back into Iraq, and you're providing them rockets and other things, I call that significant because it still enables people to conduct attacks not only on U.S. forces but on Iraqi civilians," Odierno said.

At a congressional hearing Wednesday, Odierno said the main threat to stability in Iraq are Arab-Kurd tensions, adding there has been difficulty bringing the two sides together for possible joint patrols.

"We've had some very good meetings," he said. "But we still have some ways to go on that."


doh.. nice job cs.:lmao

[MannyIsGod]

From the International Institute for Strategic Studies website:

http://www.iiss.org/whats-new/iiss-in-the-press/october-2009/media-pushes-rift-between-mcchrystal-and-obama/

Also has a good article about how the general's remarks became controversial after NYT articles and the cables ran with it.

Its such a simple concept and you can not seem to grasp it, Darrin.

[DarrinS]

Its such a simple concept and you can not seem to grasp it, Darrin.

Explain it.

Also, McChrystal has given an almost identical speech in the past, but it didn't cause the uproar that it apparently has NOW. Why is that?

[MannyIsGod]

Anytime a general makes a speech of that nature he is advancing his agenda in a political way. The uproar or lack of an uproar is irrelevant.

[Crookshanks]

doh.. nice job cs.:lmao
I SAID we were fighting to win in Iraq - and that doesn't seem to be the case right now in Afghanistan. Also - RIGHT NOW - Iraq is a free country and they've held free elections. Whether or not they remain free after we leave is up to the Iraqis - but we gave them their freedom and made those elections possible. And yes, only time will tell how successful we were.

[Wild Cobra]

Constitution says civilians run wars, not the generals.

Generals would be for never-ending, career-padding wars, in which generals never get killed nor pay for.
Wow...

I missed that. Can you please tell me what section of the constitution that's in.

[hope4dopes]

Constitution says civilians run wars, not the generals.

Generals would be for never-ending, career-padding wars, in which generals never get killed nor pay for. Why do you assume that generals who may have some empathy for their troops would seek to create a never ending war,and not the political class who recieve bundels and bundels of cash from defense contractors and who build their political lives on promoting a war.

[hope4dopes]

Anytime a general makes a speech of that nature he is advancing his agenda in a political way. The uproar or lack of an uproar is irrelevant.Is it possible he's trying to simply kill as many of the enemy as possible and trying to save as many of his troops as he can, and he is not really interested in how the presidents poll numbers are doing.

[Crookshanks]

Is it possible he's trying to simply kill as many of the enemy as possible and trying to save as many of his troops as he can, and he is not really interested in how the presidents poll numbers are doing.
Nah - that would make too much sense... :lol

[clambake]

nah, you guys dropped the afghan ball a long time ago......and cheered.

[hope4dopes]

nah, you guys dropped the afghan ball a long time ago......and cheered.whisteling past the graveyard.

[clambake]

whisteling past the graveyard.

thats where we buried them, micca.

i'm glad you remembered.

[hope4dopes]

thats where we buried them, micca.

i'm glad you remembered. and guess what ? we still are.How's that hope and change working for ya?

[clambake]

and guess what ? we still are.
you aren't. don't act like you care now.

How's that hope and change working for ya?

it's being addressed for the first time in 8 years. that's without question, change.

[MannyIsGod]

Is it possible he's trying to simply kill as many of the enemy as possible and trying to save as many of his troops as he can, and he is not really interested in how the presidents poll numbers are doing.

Political =/ poll numbers.

[hope4dopes]

you aren't. don't act like you care now.


it's being addressed for the first time in 8 years. that's without question, change. Yeah I guess it's being adressed on various tarmacks between dates with michelle on their FAAAAAAB, and very sexy marriage.....keep your eye on the birdie.

[Nbadan]

McCrystal is an ass-hat for putting this out there in the press so the wing-nuts could fain indignation for a war they themselves ignored for 7 years...the reason we are where we are today is because Rummy, Dubya, Cheney and all the other neocunts decided to go into Iraq rather than finish the job in Afghanistan first...

[boutons_deux]

WC, a civilian is top of the chain of command, n'est-ce-pas?

[Wild Cobra]

WC, a civilian is top of the chain of command, n'est-ce-pas?

As in the president. Yes. Then why did you use the plural form? That is confusing.


Constitution says civilians run wars, not the generals.
Are you saying the General was doing things the president didn't allow him to? Are you saying he tried? What was your point then?

Consensus among conservatives is that the general should resign if President Obama doesn't give him the troops and support he asks for.

Better to resign than be blamed for the fallout!

[clambake]

blame is not up for debate.

[ChumpDumper]

As in the president. Yes. Are you saying the General was doing things the president didn't allow him to? Are you saying he tried? What was your point then?

Consensus among conservatives is that the general should resign if President Obama doesn't give him the troops and support he asks for.

Better to resign than be blamed for the fallout!Why are conservatives trying to tell a general what to do?

How political of you -- of course, it's all politics with you. Success in Afghanistan doesn't matter at all to you -- the only thing that matters is that your side looks good no matter the outcome.

Pathetic.

[Nbadan]

..the afghani women...


NaXpO2QEtxA

[PEP]

Goodness! All the arm chair privates are out in force!!!

With 20 years and 3 wars behind me I cant wait to retire soon so I can start my new career as a military expert like those on here. :king

Why are you guys pooping all over the Afghan commander when I'm sure you were all cheering on the Army Chief of Staff when he said more troops were needed in Iraq and he was ignored.

Come on guys you cant be that political can you? Do you have to denigrate the 4 star general, I'm sure he knows what he's talking about and I highly doubt that he knew that this was going to cause such a firestorm. I do think it was pretty bad that he'd only met or talked to the President once since taking command.

[boutons_deux]

The president is the single official CiC, but he doesn't act without his other civilian advisers. And Secy of Defense is also a civilian.

[Nbadan]

Goodness! All the arm chair privates are out in force!!!

With 20 years and 3 wars behind me I cant wait to retire soon so I can start my new career as a military expert like those on here. :king

Why are you guys pooping all over the Afghan commander when I'm sure you were all cheering on the Army Chief of Staff when he said more troops were needed in Iraq and he was ignored.

Come on guys you cant be that political can you? Do you have to denigrate the 4 star general, I'm sure he knows what he's talking about and I highly doubt that he knew that this was going to cause such a firestorm. I do think it was pretty bad that he'd only met or talked to the President once since taking command.


Isn't this breaking some sort of chain of command though? and even if not, if I'm the commander, loyal to the President, I'm not gonna go spilling my guts to the press because we know even if we mean well, how it can be manipulated in the press...so while the General many know his shit, in the shit, so to say, maybe he best ought to keep his mug away from the cameras, lest someone suspect that he has ulterior motives...

[boutons_deux]

pooping because the lessons learned in Iraq (you can't force democracy and "values" onto alien cultures. was/is no exit strategy, no gain for USA, military and DoD completely misread the country going in) apply even more so in Afghanistan.

MacChrystal's 40K should really be Shinsheki's 400K to pacify truly the entire country.

When the US leaves Iraq and Afghanistan, they will revert to sectarian/tribal shitholes they've always been. Like in VN, the USA gains nothing from invading Iraq and Afghanistan (but the MIC is 100s of $Bs richer, a key secret reason the neo-c*ns wanted the wars, and want the wars to continue for decades. aka, corporate welfare and wealth transfer from taxpayers to corps)