McChrystal Is Summoned to Washington Over Remarks

[Winehole23]

but that is an apt description for someone who does not respect or follow authority, which is what McCrystal was accused of.Accused of?

McChrystal's staff straight up dissed Obama and Eikenberry, their civilian superiors. Firing seems an like proportionate response to me.

[CosmicCowboy]

OK, I will rephrase the original question using your preferred language.

Wait a second. McChrystal is now universally agreed to be disrespectful and seriously lacking in judgment. Petraus was his direct superior while this was going on. If you buy the story that McChrystal was fucking up, what does this say about Petraus's management skills?

Better?

Now address the question directly instead of nit-picking words out of context.

[Winehole23]

If you buy the story that McChrystal was fucking up, what does this say about Petraus's management skills?Not very much, IMO. Maybe he hoped McChrystal would keep his big mouth shut and continue to be an effective commander.

Unfortunately, Petraeus would seem to have misjudged his character/good judgement, and McChrystal's indiscretion (and disrespect to the president) soon revealed his unfitness to command at such a high level.

[ChumpDumper]

Wait a second. McChrystal is now universally agreed to be disrespectful and seriously lacking in judgment. Petraus was his direct superior while this was going on. If you buy the story that McChrystal was fucking up, what does this say about Petraus's management skills?

Better?

Now address the question directly instead of nit-picking words out of context."If I buy the story that McChrystal was fucking up"?

McChrystal fucked up by bitching to the press about his civilian authorities and letting his staff do the same. He got fired because of it, so he clearly fucked up. If you can give me an example of Petraeus' doing the same thing, we'll talk about that.

So the direct answer to your question is it doesn't say anything about his management skills.

Actually, if you can give me any example of any US senior officer's career benefiting from actions such as McChrystal's, that would be impressive.

[CosmicCowboy]

So are you saying that that the disrespect/bitching about the civilian authorities was just a one time "drunk in the bar" thing and not the norm in McCrystals staff?

[ChumpDumper]

So are you saying that that the disrespect/bitching about the civilian authorities was just a one time "drunk in the bar" thing and not the norm in McCrystals staff?In which previous articles or interviews has McChrystal and his staff directly criticized the civilian authorities in this manner?

Answer this question directly.

The only thing I remember is his leaking recommendations for troop increases.

[CosmicCowboy]

In which previous articles or interviews has McChrystal and his staff directly criticized the civilian authorities in this manner?

Answer this question directly.

One would hope that an effective manager wouldn't have to read about his subordinates disrespect for civilian authorities in the newspaper.

[Winehole23]

Gen. McChrystal's staff ought to know better than to get drunk with journalists while on the record, even one time.

[ChumpDumper]

One would hope that an effective manager wouldn't have to read about his subordinates disrespect for civilian authorities in the newspaper.You didn't answer the question, hypocrite.

[z0sa]

Posters are so often loath to unpack their ideas here, the temptation to jump to conclusions can sometimes be hard to resist.

My speculation was apparently hasty. I withdraw it, and concede its inapplicability to you. :hat

:toast , and I agree/admit, Karzai and the Afghan leadership's opinions are a moot point in this matter. Their approval or lack thereof won't change any of the fundamentals of this war. I just thought it an interesting aspect of the situation.

[CosmicCowboy]

You didn't answer the question, hypocrite.

I sure did. An effective MANAGER wouldn't have to read it in the newspaper if there was a problem with his subordinates attitudes. He would have recognized it and dealt with it. Unless, maybe, he SHARED their attitude.

[ChumpDumper]

I sure did. An effective MANAGER wouldn't have to read it in the newspaper if there was a problem with his subordinates attitudes. He would have recognized it and dealt with it. Unless, maybe, hes SHARED their attitude.That wasn't the question.
In which previous articles or interviews has McChrystal and his staff directly criticized the civilian authorities in this manner?

[Winehole23]

The fish-rots-from-the-head-down gloss ought to apply to McChrystal equally.

It was the loose cannons under his supervision who bollixed everything up. Suggesting blame for that should devolve primarily on Petraeus because Gen McChrystal was under his supervision seems kinda chickenshit.

It was Gen. Chrystal's responsibility to ride herd on his own staff, not his commander's.

McChrystal forfeit his credibility to continue in command, before he was ever fired.

[CosmicCowboy]

That wasn't the question.

So. Is your reading comprehension so bad that you couldn't deduce the answer? There had been no previous newspaper articles expressing a bad attitude. However, as THEIR MANAGER if they had bad attitudes he should have already dealt with it.

[ChumpDumper]

There had been no previous newspaper articles expressing a bad attitude.So this never happened before, though you tried to pretend it had.

OK.

[Winehole23]

However, as THEIR MANAGER if they had bad attitudes he should have already dealt with it.It's a little silly to compare shop managers with warriors, CC. Just saying.

[CosmicCowboy]

The fish-rots-from-the-head-down ought to apply to McChrystal equally.

It was the loose cannons under his supervision who bollixed everything up. Suggesting blame for that should devolve primarily on Petraeus because Gen McChrystal was under his supervision seems kinda chickenshit.

It was Gen. Chrystal's responsibility to ride herd on his own staff, not his commander's.

McChrystal forfeit his credibility to continue in command, before he was ever fired.

By that logic Tony Hayward had no responsibility for the Gulf oil spill because he wasn't the direct supervisor when it happened.

At least be consistent.

[CosmicCowboy]

So this never happened before, though you tried to pretend it had.

OK.

If the attitudes expressed weren't just a one time drunken thing then the attitudes had been expressed before. Take your pick.

[ChumpDumper]

A four star general should simply know better how to manage himself and his own staff. There is clear precedent for this.

[CosmicCowboy]

LOL

I never said he shouldn't have been fired.

[ChumpDumper]

If the attitudes expressed weren't just a one time drunken thing then the attitudes had been expressed before. Take your pick.You said they had not been expressed in the media before. Make up your mind.

Everyone is entitled to his or her private opinion. The mistake was giving it to the press. McChrystal fucked up that way and got fired for it.

[ChumpDumper]

LOL

I never said he shouldn't have been fired.So are you saying Petraeus should be fired?

[Winehole23]

I didn't say Petraeus had "no responsibility."

Look, the onus quite reasonably falls on Gen. McChrystal rather than his commander. Your reasoning that Petraeus is to be punished for McChrystal's misconduct -- and to a similar extent -- is a harebrained idea that would petulantly sweep Gen. Petraeus from the chessboard too. Do you really want that?

[CosmicCowboy]

I didn't say Petraeus had "no responsibility."

Look, the onus quite reasonably falls on Gen. McChrystal rather than his commander. Your reasoning that Petraeus is to be punished for McChrystal's misconduct to a similar extent, is a harebrained move would petulantly sweep Gen. Petraeus from the chessboard too. Do you really want that?

Not really. I'm suggesting that Petraus shares McCrystal's disdain for Obama and Hillary aka the State Department. Do you not remember the grilling he got over the Iraqi surge? Do you not remember Hillary calling him a liar right in front of Congress/CSPAN? I believe the famous phrase was something like "You are asking us for a willful suspension of disbelief".

[ChumpDumper]

Not really. I'm suggesting that Petraus shares McCrystal's disdain for Obama and Hillary aka the State Department. Do you not remember the grilling he got over the Iraqi surge? Do you not remember Hillary calling him a liar right in front of Congress/CSPAN?Has he expressed these sentiments to the media?

[CosmicCowboy]

Has he expressed these sentiments to the media?

no...so what?

[ChumpDumper]

no...so what?So there isn't a problem with Petraeus then.

Good talk.

[Winehole23]

Tact matters, dude. The military is not the sovereign. On the contrary. it is power's servant.

Generals do well to preserve the appearance of loyalty to civilian government. High commanders who disrespect the civilian government openly deserve to lose their posts. Period. (While US officials who diss the military may continue in office so long as the voters reelect them.) Don't like it?

Tough luck.

[CosmicCowboy]

I am a little disappointed that as big as our military is they couldn't find a single other qualified candidate and had to demote Petraus to fill the spot. Personally I think they are setting him up for failure and getting rid of him once and for all. I'm sure Obama and Hillary haven't forgotten being made to look like fools at those surge hearings.

[ChumpDumper]

Yes, because failure in Afghanistan is clearly a desirable political goal for the Obama administration. Especially to settle a perceived slight in a Senate hearing.

[CosmicCowboy]

Yes, because failure in Afghanistan is clearly a desirable political goal for the Obama administration.

:lol...I see that you are finally getting it. It will be all George Bush's fault when it happens. He's lost the right and the middle. All he has left is his hard core left and they could care less about "winning' in Afghanistan. They just want us out.

[ChumpDumper]

:lol...I see that you are finally getting it. It will be all George Bush's fault when it happens.No, it is clear that Petraeus will now deliberately fail in Afghanistan to settle the slights against him in the Senate hearings, because CosmicCowboy knows personal vendettas are more important than anything. Especially national security.

[CosmicCowboy]

No, it is clear that Petraeus will now deliberately fail in Afghanistan to settle the slights against him in the Senate hearings, because CosmicCowboy knows personal vendettas are more important than anything. Especially national security.

:lol

No, whats clear is that Obama knows he can't win in Afghanistan so he is just half hearted going through the motions till public support shifts to wanting us out.

[ChumpDumper]

:lol

No, whats clear is that Obama knows he can't win in Afghanistan so he is just half hearted going through the motions.:lol

What's clear is that you are desperately trying to spin this situation and making up shit to convince yourself that it is true.

[CosmicCowboy]

:lol

What's clear is that you are desperately trying to spin this situation and making up shit to convince yourself that it is true.

What? I thought that was what the Political Forum was for!

[CosmicCowboy]

C'mon CD, admit that you like sparring with me...You like a challenge.

[ChumpDumper]

What? I thought that was what the Political Forum was for!As long as you acknowledge that's what you are doing. :toast

[CosmicCowboy]

As long as you acknowledge that's what you are doing. :toast

I will if you will.

I admit I like sparring with you. Unlike the idiots like Manny you at least present a challenge.

[Winehole23]

What? I thought that was what the Political Forum was for!What? Scratching yer butt?

[Winehole23]

No, whats clear is that Obama knows he can't win in Afghanistan so he is just half hearted going through the motions till public support shifts to wanting us out.Seems plausible to me.

Changing commanders would seem to be a de facto temporizing move: Petraeus will have to rearrange things to meet his own suitabilities/judgment, as well as the inevitable political importunities (hand the ball off for victory?) of winding the war down.

If this war doesn't end politically, somehow, we're screwed.

[Winehole23]

Doubt Obama has thrown in the towel just yet.

Didn't he give Gen. McChrystal the troops he asked for last year?

Didn't he step up drone strikes in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen? Take the battle to Somalia?

[Winehole23]

The gloss of Obama as an intentional loser (or even as a half-hearted warrior) appears to be lacking in accuracy, if you go by the plain appearances. Obama's expanded the war.

[CosmicCowboy]

Doubt Obama has thrown in the towel just yet.

Didn't he give Gen. McChrystal the troops he asked for last year?

Didn't he step up drone strikes in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen? Take the battle to Somalia?

As I remember it, McChrystal asked for 40,000 and Obama gave him 30,000 (almost 6 months later) He stepped up drone attacks, then scaled them back.

So in your opinion Obama is fighting for an unconditional win?

[clambake]

generals (in general) always ask for more than they need.

[RandomGuy]

I sure did. An effective MANAGER wouldn't have to read it in the newspaper if there was a problem with his subordinates attitudes. He would have recognized it and dealt with it. Unless, maybe, he SHARED their attitude.

McChrystal was summoned to air-force one for a dressing down by the CIC for previous remarks. How is it on Petreaus that this happened? I am all for accountability, but you can't expect managers to be able to predict the future with 100% accuracy.

Command was fully aware of his attitude, and he was told to keep it low-key and to keep a low profile.

All of this was in the full RS article.

[Winehole23]

So in your opinion Obama is fighting for an unconditional win?Hell no, but neither did his predecessor.

Besides, winning, unconditional or otherwise, was never stably defined for Afghanistan. Hell, it's still pretty undefined. I doubt you could even describe what an unconditional win looks like in Afghanistan, or what steps would be needed to reach it.

Even Petraeus has publically conceded there exists no purely military solution. Everything rides on the eventual political settlement. Any military action between now and then will probably seek to maximize US leverage and influence at the parley.

[RandomGuy]

I am a little disappointed that as big as our military is they couldn't find a single other qualified candidate and had to demote Petraus to fill the spot. Personally I think they are setting him up for failure and getting rid of him once and for all. I'm sure Obama and Hillary haven't forgotten being made to look like fools at those surge hearings.

Personally I think that Patreaus is there because he is the best person for the job. :p:

[Winehole23]

He stepped up drone attacks, then scaled them back.I don't recall that. Can you support the claim? What kind of time-frame are you referring to here?

[clambake]

I don't recall that. Can you support the claim? What kind of time-frame are you referring to here?

he should ramp them up.......even if they only hit the ground.

[CosmicCowboy]

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 rules of engagement to make it easier for U.S. troops to engage in combat with the enemy, though a Petraeus spokesman pushed back on the claim.

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.

The military source who has talked with Petraeus said the general will make those changes. Other sources were not so sure, but said they wouldn't be surprised to see that happen once Petraeus takes command.

Petraeus spokesman Col. Erik Gunhus disputed the claim Friday, telling Fox News it's too soon to tell whether Petraeus would change the current rules. But he said it is one of many issues he'll take under consideration during his assessment after he's confirmed and after he takes over command in Afghanistan.

Any adjustment to the rules of engagement does not mean the counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan will change. President Obama stressed Wednesday -- after he accepted Gen. Stanley McChrystal's resignation in the wake of a magazine article in which he and his staff were critical of the administration -- that the change-up does not represent a shift in war policy.

Rather, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday that Petraeus, currently head of U.S. Central Command and the former U.S. commander in Iraq, will have the flexibility to reconsider "the campaign plan and the approach."

At the same news conference at the Pentagon, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen said Petraeus will be able to make tactical changes. But he said that does not necessarily mean changes will be made and echoed the president's insistence that the strategy stays as he prepared for a visit to the war zone.

"My message will be clear: Nothing changes about our strategy, nothing changes about the mission," Mullen said.

The issue is likely to be front and center in Senate confirmation hearings for Petraeus next week.

[Winehole23]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/25/petraeus-modify-afghanistan-rules-engagement-source-says/

[Oh, Gee!!]

So are you saying that that the disrespect/bitching about the civilian authorities was just a one time "drunk in the bar" thing and not the norm in McCrystals staff?

once is enough if it's on the record.

[boutons_deux]

I'm sure if McCrystal heard the rank and their staff just under him spouting off about him and his staff like that, they'd be gone, too.

[LnGrrrR]

The fish-rots-from-the-head-down gloss ought to apply to McChrystal equally.

It was the loose cannons under his supervision who bollixed everything up. Suggesting blame for that should devolve primarily on Petraeus because Gen McChrystal was under his supervision seems kinda chickenshit.

It was Gen. Chrystal's responsibility to ride herd on his own staff, not his commander's.

McChrystal forfeit his credibility to continue in command, before he was ever fired.

Here's where you get into fun stuff with the chain-of-command. Technically, if Petraeus was directly over McChrystal, then is going to accept partial responsibility for it. There are two things working in Petraeus' favor here though.

1) McChrystal was a general; he should've known better. It's one thing for a SSgt to take heat over something dumb his Amn does, because the SSgt should've mentored the Amn better. But a Gen pretty much knows his way around.

2) I'm assuming that Petraeus wasn't aware of the general atmosphere, and so only so much blame could be assigned to him. (I'll use a personal example here since it's easier for me to relate.) For instance, if my airman has talked often in the workplace about drinking, and then gets a DUI, my chain of command will want to know if I've looked into his drinking. Did I ask him if he always had a plan to get back before he went out? Did I talk with him about his drinking habits? Did I see any warning signs?

If leadership sees that I've done all I can to prevent any incidents, I'm mostly off the hook. But if I was just laughing it up and ignoring poor behavioral signs, then I'll get chewed out. I assume it's the same here.

[LnGrrrR]

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.


Which will probably have the consequences of more friendly fire towards civilians, which will lead to negative reactions from the local populace. I'm guessing the strict ROE is why Karzai liked McChrystal. It's a no-win situation.

[LnGrrrR]

:lol

No, whats clear is that Obama knows he can't win in Afghanistan so he is just half hearted going through the motions till public support shifts to wanting us out.

I'm still waiting for a definition of "win".

[LnGrrrR]

I am a little disappointed that as big as our military is they couldn't find a single other qualified candidate and had to demote Petraus to fill the spot.

It's not like people who have experience commanding entire battlefields are growing on trees. Not until we create the battle colleges from Ender's Game. :lol

[panic giraffe]

i think gen p makes sense from both a military and civilian standpoint.
in my exp in the corp world, its also common that if the owner comes into shop and see's/hears of an environment that he doesn't approve of, he is more than likely going to sack the dept/regional manager, then put a VP/president type down in place to get things running smoothly and in a way of what things are supposed to be like until he can get someone who is in that dept capable of running shop. however if it was a mid-level mgr making the mistakes then the guy in charge of the dept/region would be taking the flak.

same thing in my exp in the military. if a lt or capt mouthed off and created a culture that is not what it should be then prob all the up to a full bird would take the heat. but anyone past a col should just know better and should be replaced with a higher up to instill the right values til they get the right guy for the job or the mission is over.

[EVAY]

I'm still waiting for a definition of "win".

My guess is that if Osama bin Laden is ever captured/killed, we would pull out and call it a 'win'. That is, as I remember it, the primary reason we went into Afghanistan...to catch him 'dead or alive' according to our last pres.

[EVAY]

Remember W famously saying of Bin Laden "He can run but he cannot hide"?

Wanna bet?

It was true of Saddam, whom W. truly hated enough to go after tooth and nail, but not Osama, about whom he 'forgot' in his haste to go after Saddam.

[Yonivore]

Petraeus to Modify Afghanistan Rules of Engagement, Source Says (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/25/petraeus-modify-afghanistan-rules-engagement-source-says/)

I can pretty much imagine how the conversation went when President Obama asked the General to take command in Afghanistan:



http://blogs.trb.com/features/family/parenting/blog/obama_smoking.png

PRESIDENT OBAMA: "David, I've had to relieve Stanley of command in Afghanistan over the Rolling Stone flap and would like for you to move from Centcom into that role. Whaddayasay?"


http://www.foxnews.com/static/managed/img/U.S./GenPetraeus_061610_monster_397x224.jpg

GENERAL PETRAUS: "Sure, I'll keep my mouth shut about what I think of you and you'll stay the fuck out of my business. First thing I do is abandon those sissy ROE's that have been getting soldiers killed. Now, let's kick Taliban ass. Later."

[Winehole23]

Petraeus to Modify Afghanistan Rules of Engagement, Source Says (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/25/petraeus-modify-afghanistan-rules-engagement-source-says/)Already posted by CC. Linked by WH23 yesterday @4:34pm (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4449509&postcount=301).

Echo in here? :lol

[Yonivore]

Already posted by CC. Linked by WH23 yesterday @4:34pm (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4449509&postcount=301).

Echo in here? :lol
Can't read it all.

[CosmicCowboy]

Here's an interesting link.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/27/world/asia/27afghan.html?hp

It's too long to clip in full but a good read.

A little clip:

Beyond that, though, Mr. Karzai’s goals vis-à-vis the Taliban are difficult to discern. Recently he has told senior Afghan officials that he no longer believes that the Americans and NATO can prevail in Afghanistan and that they will probably leave soon. That fact may make Mr. Karzai more inclined to make a deal with both Pakistan and the Taliban.

[Yonivore]

Here's an interesting link.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/27/world/asia/27afghan.html?hp

It's too long to clip in full but a good read.

A little clip:

Beyond that, though, Mr. Karzai’s goals vis-à-vis the Taliban are difficult to discern. Recently he has told senior Afghan officials that he no longer believes that the Americans and NATO can prevail in Afghanistan and that they will probably leave soon. That fact may make Mr. Karzai more inclined to make a deal with both Pakistan and the Taliban.
Karzai has to hedge his position against the retarded Democrat diplomacy currently being foisted on the world by Barack Obama.

[CosmicCowboy]

Another interesting take:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/26/opinion/26herbert.html?hp

I don't agree with all of it but agree with the main premise...either fight to win or don't fight at all.

[z0sa]

Another interesting take:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/26/opinion/26herbert.html?hp

I don't agree with all of it but agree with the main premise...either fight to win or don't fight at all.

What do you define as a "win"?

[Winehole23]

Can't read it all.Recent history. Within the day.

Don't you check first? At least skim it, dude. It doesn't take that long.

(C'mon yoni, how hard is reading? Please please catch up.)

[boutons_deux]

"retarded Democrat diplomacy currently being foisted on the world by Barack Obama"

... it's working no worse than the neo-c*nt/Repug diplomacy 2 bogus, botched wars that Magic Negro inherited.

What's the matter, Yoni. Where do you want MN to start another war?

Yoni, tell us again about those WMD in Syria, and how the US was just "following" the beloved UN resolutions (when it suits the US) :lol you're fucking fool.

[RandomGuy]

What do you define as a "win"?

win (wn)
v. won (wn), win·ning, wins
v.intr.

1. Not losing.

[RandomGuy]

I would define a win as establishing a central government strong enough to provide basic services such as roads, education, and electricity to a majority of the population.

Democracy optional, but likely necessary, and certainly desirable.

10-30 more years, with the probable need for time being at the mid to upper end of that scale.

[boutons_deux]

RG, very idealistic, and HIGHLY improbable.

Why should the USA drop/waste 100s of $Bs on a medieval, corrupt, primitive backwater like Afghanistan over a few decades when the USA lets its own citizens be impoverished long-term due to lack of jobs from the enduring Banksters' Great Depression?

Why a safety net for Afghanistan while shredding the weak safety in USA?

America is insane, and fucked.

[boutons_deux]

Here ya go, and it's a reasonable assumption that there's nobody in Afghanistan less corrupt than Karzai. Corruption of officials by corps, capitalists, and criminals is how the world works, including USA.

"U.S. officials say Karzai aides are derailing corruption cases involving elite"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/27/AR2010062703645_pf.html

[DarkReign]

RG, very idealistic, and HIGHLY improbable.

Why should the USA drop/waste 100s of $Bs on a medieval, corrupt, primitive backwater like Afghanistan over a few decades when the USA lets its own citizens be impoverished long-term due to lack of jobs from the enduring Banksters' Great Depression?

Why a safety net for Afghanistan while shredding the weak safety in USA?

America is insane, and fucked.

Minus the obvious overtones, I am inclined to agree.

Fuck Afghanistan and any other shithole nation in the middle of nowhere.

Let them rot in their own filth. Garbage in, garbage out, as it goes.

America has its own problems. Afghanistan's problems are not America's...at least, they werent, until we decided to spread democracy under the guise of the War on Terror.

[RandomGuy]

America has its own problems.

Pearl Harbor.
September 11, 2001.

Ignoring the world is not an option.

Here is an honest question:

What if solving the problems of the Afghans ultimately helps us solve our problems?

[jack sommerset]

Pearl Harbor.
September 11, 2001.

Ignoring the world is not an option.

Here is an honest question:

What if solving the problems of the Afghans ultimately helps us solve our problems?

They did find a trillion dollars worth of mineral deposits. That could pay for a little of what Barry is spending.

[George Gervin's Afro]

They did find a trillion dollars worth of mineral deposits. That could pay for a little of what Barry is spending.

Congress spends the money jack..are you ever going get to get that through your thick head? are you teaching your offspring that the president spends money?

[RandomGuy]

They did find a trillion dollars worth of mineral deposits. That could pay for a little of what Barry is spending.

:rolleyes

In the same way oil revenues paid for Iraq?

Ninja, please.

[boutons_deux]

"What if solving the problems of the Afghans ultimately helps us solve our problems"

USA's problems are not in Afghanistan, or caused by Aghanistan, but caused 100% by Americans. America is rotting from within, under relentless attacks by corps and capitalists and their toxic products.

America is fucked. "fixing/winning" Afghanistan has nothing to do with stopping America from fucking itself.

[jack sommerset]

:rolleyes

In the same way oil revenues paid for Iraq?

Ninja, please.

Sensei, the government said they did not want to take oil from the Iraqis. I wish they did as if it was ours but thats a whole other subject.

Why don't you just tell us the answer to the your own question.

[clambake]

jack talking about the oil industry is fucking hilarious.

[boutons_deux]

"the government said they did not want to take oil from the Iraqis"

The Repug govt LIED. dickhead's super-secret/never-published National Energy Task Force with oilco execs in early 2001 discussed maps of Iraq and Iraqi oil fields, two years before the invasion-for-oil and months before 9/11. iow, dickhead's National Energy Plan was "Invade Iraq for Oil".

The no-other-possible-option urgency in early 2003 was really because Saddam had 60 oil contracts in negotiation with the French, Russian, and Chinese, excluding all US and UK oilcos.

Secondardy objective was to enrich the MIC corps like Halliburton by outsourcing to private contractors at much higher prices than insourcing, much like the Repugs did throughout all branches of govt, allowing private contractors to suck in/overcharge excessive $Bs in taxpayer money, as part of the oligarchic plan to plunder govt into incompetency and irretrievable debt.

[RandomGuy]

Sensei, the government said they did not want to take oil from the Iraqis. I wish they did as if it was ours but thats a whole other subject.

Why don't you just tell us the answer to the your own question.

So you think that if we had taken the Iraqi oil that was there we would have been better off?

1) It would have confirmed the worst beliefs of Al Qaeda, making it far easier for them to recruit new terrorists.

2) It would have confirmed the worst beliefs of many other countries and people regarding us as an imperial power, a very negative thing.

#1 would have killed people.

#2 would have made it far harder for US companies to do business overseas, by attaching the negative stigma of imperialism to US businesses directly costing US jobs.

Why do you want to help terrorists and cost people their jobs?

[DarkReign]

Pearl Harbor.
September 11, 2001.

Ignoring the world is not an option.

True, to an extent. Our military and presidents have taken it far beyond "the extent".

Now we're nation building, something I have non interest in. Those people over there dont deserve it, first off. They couldnt even collaborate intra-country long enough to drop their tribal differences which make Afghanistan such a fucked up country.

The only thing the word Afghanistan says to the world is "The people inside these borders dont like one another, but they really dont like YOU."

Theyre not united under their flag like nearly every other country in the world, theyre just a hod-podge conglomerate of separate little fifedoms inter-competing for the national mantle.

Nothing to like or adhore.

After 9/11, America should have:

Located OBL and killed or captured him. Fuck anyone up who gets in the way, which included the Taliban (supposedly). So what the Taliban fell from power? So long as their revival was long enough for the US to complete its mission, so be it.

We shouldnt be there trying to secure the populace, we should leave. Let them determine what to do, even if its the Taliban again. If the US should find out theyre helping terrorists again, we're coming back again to kill and conquer, then leave again.

If its a game of Whack-a-Mole they want, I'll bring the stick.

Iraq is just a flat-out fucking joke. Never should have went, shouldnt have stayed, should have left yesterday.

There was never a reason to go in the first place, Sadaam's bluff or not.

When will this country learn to avoid the Middle East and Muslim, radical countries? They arent like us, theyre nothing like us. They dont want to be anything like us and frankly, I dont want to be anything like them. There will be no kumbaya, we will never be greeted as Liberators because in their warped, brain-washed, religious minds, theyd much rather live under the tyranny of a Muslim leader who butchers his own populace, then be free under the stewardship of Western infidels. Their willful ignorance is a condemning factor on whether I care about them or not. Live, die, starve, learn...I dont give a shit. Here's a tip, you live in the desert...move.


Here is an honest question:

What if solving the problems of the Afghans ultimately helps us solve our problems?

If that were even remotely true, then I would say yes.

Since it is not, it doesnt matter.

Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Israel, Pakistan (maybe), Libya, Yemen, Palestine...

All lost causes. Theyre like the bad neighborhood in your nearest city. Unless you have business there, dont go there. If you do have business there, bring a gun and dont plan on staying long.

The only country I can think of that shows a willingness to evolve is Iran, but its become obvious that the Iran problem is going to solve itself. The young generation in that country just flat-out doesnt behave or believe what the old guard does. Its just a matter of time there, although, is time on our side?

I doubt that, but with two other wars going on, it doesnt matter.

[DarkReign]

Oh, also, Pearl Harbor.

While I see the point youre making with it, the similarities stop with ignoring international matters.

The Axis were an organized, recognized and established military force that marched under its respective flags with the express doctrine of "conquer".

Terrorism in its different shapes is no such thing. They dont have the balls or conviction to organize a military to lash out. No, they take shots at their enemy under no flag, so no recognized country has to take responsibility for their actions. Weird part is, you can draw a very small circle around the area that feeds these zealots. They then retreat (ie lure) to obscure fuck-holes drawing the enemy to them so they then fight on their own terms and turn what portion of the population that wasnt onboard with them from the beginning into their most ardent supporters.

I dont blame the normal, law-abiding Afghans for hating America. I have no clue and no ability to guess how many dead children it would take from my village to swear death to the invaders. Thats what the terrorists want, and its working...flawlessly. When we inevitably give up and leave, this will be a victory for them. This entire situation was always and will always be a no-win situation. Our government only exacerbates this with this protracted stay.

I think we would all be surprised how being a little more heavy-handed with Middle East countries would change what consititutes Terrorism. If the US said, "I know <insert terrorist or terrorist group> is in your country, being hidden and abetted by your citizens. I am holding you responsible for their actions. Youve been told. The capture of <insert terrorist here> would be of great importance to you and your country, you have my promise on that."

See what happens then.

[LnGrrrR]

What if scientists could actually turn sand into ice cream? Are you saying that outcome wouldn't be worth the millions that I plan on giving to these scientists to try to come up with that? :) :lol

[Winehole23]

We started talking about larger issues within the media, which I felt he was in a unique position to discuss. McChrystal was a spokesperson at the Pentagon during the invasion of Iraq in March of 2003, his first national exposure to the public.


“We co-opted the media on that one,” he said. “You could see it coming. There were a lot of us who didn’t think Iraq was a good idea."

Co-opted the media. I almost laughed. Even the military’s former Pentagon spokesperson realized—at the time, no less—how massively they were manipulating the press. The ex–White House spokesperson, Scott McClellan, had said the same thing: The press had been “complicit enablers” before the Iraq invasion, failing in their “watchdog role, focusing less on truth and accuracy and more on whether the campaign [to sell the war] was succeeding.”


I rattled off a few names of other journalists. I named the writer who’d just done the profile on him for The Atlantic, Robert Kaplan.


“Totally co-opted by the military,” he said.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/exclusive-excerpt-the-operators-by-michael-hastings-20120103?print=true