McChrystal Is Summoned to Washington Over Remarks

[jack sommerset]

This guy voted for Obama!

KABUL, Afghanistan — An angry President Obama summoned his top commander in Afghanistan to Washington on Tuesday after a magazine article portrayed the general and his staff as openly contemptuous of some senior members of the Obama administration.

An administration official said the commander, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, would meet with President Obama and Vice President Biden at the White House on Wednesday “to explain to the Pentagon and the commander in chief his quotes in the piece,” which appears in the July 8-22 edition of Rolling Stone.

General McChrystal was scheduled to attend a monthly meeting on Afghanistan by teleconference, the official said, but was directed to return to Washington in light of the article. He apologized for his remarks, saying the article was “a mistake reflecting poor judgment and should never have happened.”

The article shows General McChrystal or his aides talking in sharply derisive terms about Mr. Biden; Ambassador Karl Eikenberry; Richard C. Holbrooke, the special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan; and an unnamed minister in the French government. One of General McChrystal’s aides is quoted as referring to the national security adviser, James L. Jones, as a “clown.”

A senior administration official said Mr. Obama was furious about the article, particularly with the suggestion that he was uninterested and unprepared to discuss the Afghanistan war after he took office.

The magazine article, entitled “The Runaway General,” quotes aides of General McChrystal saying the general was “pretty disappointed” by an Oval Office meeting with Mr. Obama, and that he found the president “uncomfortable and intimidated” during a Pentagon meeting with General McChrystal and several other generals.

The article does not mention any serious policy differences with Mr. Obama, who chose General McChrystal to take charge of a major escalation of American troops and materiel, in hopes of reversing the deteriorating situation here.

In his statement, General McChrystal said, “I have enormous respect and admiration for President Obama and his national security team, and for the civilian leaders and troops fighting this war and I remain committed to ensuring its successful outcome.” Still, the article seems destined to raise questions about General McChrystal’s judgment, and to spark debate over the wisdom of Mr. Obama’s strategy, at a time when violence in Afghanistan is rising sharply and when several central planks of the strategy appear to be stalled. Two important American allies, the Dutch and Canadians, have announced plans to pull their combat troops out of the country.

Senator John Kerry, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said Tuesday in remarks broadcast on CNN that he had “tremendous respect for General McChrystal” and warned against overreaction to the remarks.

“My impression is that all of us would be best served by just backing off and staying cool and calm and not sort of succumbing to the normal Washington twitter,” Mr. Kerry said. The author of the article — Michael Hastings, a freelance journalist — appears to have been granted intimate access to General McChrystal’s inner circle. Most of the comments seem to have been uttered during unguarded moments, in places like bars and restaurants where the general and his aides gathered to unwind.

The Associated Press, citing an unnamed American official, said that a special assistant to General McChrystal who coordinated the article had resigned. The assistant was identified as Duncan Boothby, a civilian contractor to the Pentagon. About Mr. Holbrooke, Mr. Obama’s special envoy to the region, an aide to General McChrystal is quoted saying: “The Boss says he’s like a wounded animal. Holbrooke keeps hearing rumors that he’s going to be fired, so that makes him dangerous.”

On another occasion, General McChrystal is described as reacting with exasperation when he receives an e-mail message from Mr. Holbrooke. “Oh, not another e-mail from Holbrooke. I don’t even want to open it.”

The article describes a conversation in which General McChrystal and an aide talk about Mr. Biden. Mr. Biden is known to have opposed the decision to escalate the war, preferring instead a slimmed-down plan focused on containing terrorism.

“Are you asking about Vice President Biden?” General McChrystal jokes.

“Biden?” suggests a top adviser. “Did you say ‘Bite me?’ ”

General McChrystal is also quoted making disdainful remarks about Mr. Eikenberry, the ambassador to Afghanistan, with whom he has had sharp disagreements over the war. Last year, Mr. Eikenberry sent confidential cables to Washington opposing Mr. Obama’s decision to send more troops.

“He’s one that covers his flanks for the history books,” General McChrystal is quoted as saying. “Now, if we fail, they can say, ‘I told you so.’ ”

The magazine article also describes a meeting in which a soldier vents his frustration over General McChrystal’s tightening of the rules governing the use of air strikes against suspected insurgents. In the article, the soldier, Pfc. Jared Pautsch, is quoted telling General McChrystal that he is endangering soldiers’ lives by forcing them to be too restrained.

Pfc. Jared Pautsch is quoted as telling the general the Americans should just drop a “bomb on the place,” and asking, “What are we doing here?”


Jeff Zeleny and Brian Knowlton contributed reporting from Washington.

[boutons_deux]

Fire the bastard, and his staff.

Or leave him there and let him be tatooed forever as the General who lost Afghanistan.

[Oh, Gee!!]

common theme these days: guy says stuff he truly believes, stuff guy says gets reported in a magazine or blog or youtube, guy regrets saying stuff and makes public apology.

[Drachen]

I don't think that this is that big of a deal, everyone has people they work with that they don't like, some that they don't respect.

I do, however, think it makes him look petty and childish that he allowed this behavior to be observed by a reporter.

[jack sommerset]

I don't think that this is that big of a deal, everyone has people they work with that they don't like, some that they don't respect.

I do, however, think it makes him look petty and childish that he allowed this behavior to be observed by a reporter.

He did vote for Obama. His decision making is in question.

[DarrinS]

I don't think that this is that big of a deal, everyone has people they work with that they don't like, some that they don't respect.

I do, however, think it makes him look petty and childish that he allowed this behavior to be observed by a reporter.


I disagree. A general shouldn't be making these kind of remarks (publicly) about his commmander in chief. He should save them for his memoirs.

[fraga]

Do none of these retards understand that ANYTHING you say these days will be put on Youtube or recorded via camera phone...or transmitted over the internet to millions upon millions of people..you can't lie anymore...people will know...and fast...if you say dumb shit...people WILL know...there's no more hiding or covering up...information is at everyones fingertips...

[clambake]

he's been ineffective with what he's been given. he's posturing. he's building a door to exit through.

[jack sommerset]

Do none of these retards understand that ANYTHING you say these days will be put on Youtube or recorded via camera phone...or transmitted over the internet to millions upon millions of people..you can't lie anymore...people will know...and fast...if you say dumb shit...people WILL know...there's no more hiding or covering up...information is at everyones fingertips...

It's not like he was at the bar shooting the shit with the troops and one of them recorded it. He interviewed with Rolling Stones. He knew what he was doing. Obama "Can't handle the truth"

[CosmicCowboy]

Biden IS an idiot and Holbrooke and Eikenberry are typical state department style hacks. McCrystal shouldn't be apologizing for telling the truth.

[clambake]

he's trying to execute his own dismissal. not very brave for a general.

[Drachen]

I disagree. A general shouldn't be making these kind of remarks (publicly) about his commmander in chief. He should save them for his memoirs.


You and I agree here, the second portion of my post basically says something similar. All I was saying with the first portion was that I am not surprised that he doesn't like some of the people he works with, even his boss. It happens.

I would not, however, go tell the office gossip that I hate my boss, or other co-workers which is basically what this amounts to.

[Homeland Security]

The military needs to overthrow the civilian "leadership."

[jack sommerset]

"It was a 10-minute photo op," says an adviser to McChrystal. "Obama clearly didn't know anything about him, who he was. Here's the guy who's going to run his fucking war, but he didn't seem very engaged. The Boss was pretty disappointed."

[DarkReign]

Biden IS an idiot and Holbrooke and Eikenberry are typical state department style hacks. McCrystal shouldn't be apologizing for telling the truth.

Funny, I just got done reading the RS article.

If you had read it, I dont think you would come away with the above stated opinion.

McCrystal fancies himself a cowboy. He, his aides, his staff and even his soldiers know there is no "winning" Afghanistan.

Read the article. He can apologize for it now, but you are right on one point, he shouldnt be. One in a position of power should never have to apologize for their decisions, unless of course you knew the decision was a bad one to begin with. Needless to point out what that suggests, no?

[Homeland Security]

Just kill off all the civilian leadership and institure martial law. If anyone protests or gets out of line, they die. I don't care whether that's pussy liberal protestors, urban minorities, gun nuts, Jesus freaks, what have you. Cull 10-20% of the population and that will drive everyone else into terrified submission.

[CosmicCowboy]

Funny, I just got done reading the RS article.

If you had read it, I dont think you would come away with the above stated opinion.

McCrystal fancies himself a cowboy. He, his aides, his staff and even his soldiers know there is no "winning" Afghanistan.

Read the article. He can apologize for it now, but you are right on one point, he shouldnt be. One in a position of power should never have to apologize for their decisions, unless of course you knew the decision was a bad one to begin with. Needless to point out what that suggests, no?

McCrystal's biggest mistake has been handicapping his troops with the ROE. His replacement will probably be even more political and more restrictive on the ROE. We might as well just get the fuck out of there if we aren't gonna accomplish anything.

[DarkReign]

Just kill off all the civilian leadership and institure martial law. If anyone protests or gets out of line, they die. I don't care whether that's pussy liberal protestors, urban minorities, gun nuts, Jesus freaks, what have you. Cull 10-20% of the population and that will drive everyone else into terrified submission.

Article makes mention of that very strategy.

A strategy instituted by the Russians (killing north of 1 million Afghans).

Didnt work out as we all know (the Russian government especially).

Really, McCrystal, comes off as a wanna-be tough-ass to begin the article then transforms into a defeatist at the end.

Because the sober reality is, you cant win in Afghanistan. There is no centralized government that all the people look to for authority (much less respect as an authority). Its a tribal nation that only reacts to foreign incursion that threatens its ability to be tribal and factional.

I would hope much has been learned about the middle east (Iraq) and Muslim nations in general (Afghanistan) with the jaunts into their worlds over the past decade or so.

You either...

a) Stay the fuck out and let them be, for better or worse
b) Kill/Capture who you need to kill/capture and get the fuck out immediately
c) Be prepared to put the entire population "to the sword" wholesale should your goals entail regime change

These countries, the people and their way of life are completely and utterly foreign to us. They dont reason or think the same way (thus the "Western" moniker we wear with such pride). You can bring food, money, jobs and education and these people will still resent you as a foreign invader who doesnt pray to the East (or would be West when standing in Afghanistan?).

Theyre different...insurmountably so. Theyre nothing like you and me and no amount of university rationalization and peer-reviewed studies on human cognition will change the fundamental gaps between us. We are not and never will be seen as "Liberators" by the general populace (much less the warlords and power mongers)...it would be a giant step in relations if we were to be seen as something other than hostile foreign invaders.

Unwinnable by any current, coventional measure. Cant win, it is seriously impossible. FWIW, I do not consider mass genocide as winning, although it would certainly and permanently put control in our hands for the forseeable future. But, IMO, the ends do not justify the means (unlike Japan in WW2).

[Homeland Security]

Article makes mention of that very strategy.

A strategy instituted by the Russians (killing north of 1 million Afghans).

Didnt work out as we all know (the Russian government especially).

Really, McCrystal, comes off as a wanna-be tough-ass to begin the article then transforms into a defeatist at the end.

Because the sober reality is, you cant win in Afghanistan.
I wasn't talking about Afghanistan, fuckface.

[Oh, Gee!!]

You and I agree here, the second portion of my post basically says something similar. All I was saying with the first portion was that I am not surprised that he doesn't like some of the people he works with, even his boss. It happens.

I would not, however, go tell the office gossip that I hate my boss, or other co-workers which is basically what this amounts to.

exactly. didn't a pierogi get fired for posting negative stuff on his Facebook page about the Pittsburgh Pirates?

[EmptyMan]

Even a tough ass General is going to get on his knees and shell out a phony apology. :depressed


Either way, hopefully this brings America closer to leaving that pointless shithole.

[ElNono]

I wasn't talking about Afghanistan, fuckface.

http://www.motivationalz.com/pictures/internet_tough_guys.jpg

[DarkReign]

McCrystal's biggest mistake has been handicapping his troops with the ROE. His replacement will probably be even more political and more restrictive on the ROE. We might as well just get the fuck out of there if we aren't gonna accomplish anything.

Truth in this post, there is.

Thats the crux of my "unwinnable by any conventional measure" argument.

This bullshit winning hearts and minds shit has got to stop. Their hearts and minds do not think or feel the same way. People that state otherwise are idealists.

[DarkReign]

I wasn't talking about Afghanistan, fuckface.

Got it, dickhead.

[boutons_deux]

I'm reading suggestions that Mac WANTS to be fired so he can GTFO of failing Afghanistan and let the next poor sucker(s) fight a losing battle.

[spursncowboys]

Good to know Obama shows anger about something. Too bad it's only when people are talking bad about him. We should tell him the unemployment rate thinks he walks like a bitch.

[Drachen]

good to know obama shows anger about something. Too bad it's only when people are talking bad about him. We should tell him the unemployment rate thinks he walks like a bitch.

lol.

[jack sommerset]

Good to know Obama shows anger about something. Too bad it's only when people are talking bad about him. We should tell him the unemployment rate thinks he walks like a bitch.

No shit. Took Obama 2 months to talk to the CEO of BP but the general just days.

[EVAY]

I don't think that this is that big of a deal, everyone has people they work with that they don't like, some that they don't respect.

I do, however, think it makes him look petty and childish that he allowed this behavior to be observed by a reporter.

In spades.

No military commander is ever gonna express love for his civilian boss, any more than I could ever express love for any boss I had in private industry.

It is, however, colossally ignorant of him to let the opinions out in public.

It seems to me that he was posturing for his staff as much as anything else, especially since he voted for Obama.

[EVAY]

And does the fact that he voted for Obama tell you anything about the Military's feelings about McCain as a potential Commnader-in-Chief?

[jack sommerset]

And does the fact that he voted for Obama tell you anything about the Military's feelings about McCain as a potential Commnader-in-Chief?

He's human. He made a mistake.

[Winehole23]

No shit. Took Obama 2 months to talk to the CEO of BP but the general just days.It probably would have been characterized as collusion with BP if Obama had met with the CEO in the immediate aftermath.

[George Gervin's Afro]

It probably would have been characterized as collusion with BP if Obama had met with the CEO in the immediate aftermath.

Oh my God..the outrage by the Obama haters if Obama had a private meeting with the BP CEO in the immdeiate aftermath...

[George Gervin's Afro]

No shit. Took Obama 2 months to talk to the CEO of BP but the general just days.


He's human. He made a mistake.

[jack sommerset]

That's a pretty big fucking mistake. Atleast you admit Obama is handling this whole oil spill crisis wrong. I seriously applaud you for that! My hats off to you mate.:toast

[ChumpDumper]

He should have just flicked his wrist!

[George Gervin's Afro]

That's a pretty big fucking mistake. Atleast you admit Obama is handling this whole oil spill crisis wrong. I seriously applaud you for that! My hats off to you mate.:toast


He's human. He made a mistake.

[Winehole23]

Biden IS an idiot and Holbrooke and Eikenberry are typical state department style hacks.Holbrooke, sure. Buy him for what he's worth and sell him for what Obama thinks he's worth. But I thought Eikenberry was a former commander. Like, within the last two or three years.


McCrystal shouldn't be apologizing for showing up his civilian counterparts and higher-ups in front of a journalist.Fixed.

[Kermit]

Apparently he just submitted his resignation.

[Wild Cobra]

Apparently he just submitted his resignation.

Another bad omen for Obama.

[Kermit]

Another bad omen for Obama.

Why? It would have been worse for Obama to let him keep his job.

[clambake]

i wouldn't accept his resignation.

i'd fire his ass.

[jack sommerset]

i wouldn't accept his resignation.

i'd fire his ass.

You would fuck his ass, fag.

[clambake]

closet door opening a little wider for ya, jack?

[LnGrrrR]

You know military people aren't allowed to denigrate their commander-in-chief? I mean, it's a relatively loose rule, and some private that complains about Obama will probably just be told to shut up, but a higher-up? Big no-no. It pretty much goes against the rule of leadership which the military relies on. You don't backtalk the leader, especially to subordinates or others. You bitch up the chain, not down or sideways.

[LnGrrrR]

I disagree. A general shouldn't be making these kind of remarks (publicly) about his commmander in chief. He should save them for his memoirs.

DarrinS gets it :toast

Tell me, if a general talks bad about the President, what does that do for the morale of his troops? What if they question the mission, think it's stupid, and then refuse to do it? It takes buy-in from all sources, from the top down.

[Wild Cobra]

You know military people aren't allowed to denigrate their commander-in-chief? I mean, it's a relatively loose rule, and some private that complains about Obama will probably just be told to shut up, but a higher-up? Big no-no. It pretty much goes against the rule of leadership which the military relies on. You don't backtalk the leader, especially to subordinates or others. You bitch up the chain, not down or sideways.
This is all true, and I think any of us who have served agree with this with few exceptions.

Help me out here. I'm half way through the Rolling Stone article, and I have yet to see what he said that was insubordinate. Will I find it if I keep reading?

[DarrinS]

DarrinS gets it :toast

Tell me, if a general talks bad about the President, what does that do for the morale of his troops? What if they question the mission, think it's stupid, and then refuse to do it? It takes buy-in from all sources, from the top down.


There were several generals that were critical of Bush and Rumsfeld, but they were no longer active duty.


WTF are active duty generals granting interviews with Rolling Stone anyway?


By all accounts, McChrystal is a good guy, but he screwed up on this one.

[Galileo]

McChrystal is a Bush war criminal. He's the one who said Pat Tillman was killed in a shootout with Afghannie rebels and gave him his silver star medal.

[Wild Cobra]

McChrystal is a Bush war criminal. He's the one who said Pat Tillman was killed in a shootout with Afghannie rebels and gave him his silver star medal.
Not everyone shares that opinion.

[spursncowboys]

There were several generals that were critical of Bush and Rumsfeld, but they were no longer active duty.


WTF are active duty generals granting interviews with Rolling Stone anyway?


By all accounts, McChrystal is a good guy, but he screwed up on this one.

I agree with that. However I don't think he should be booted for it.
FTR when generals questioned bush, it was turned into that bush didn't have the support.

I think what we are missing is some of McChrystal's complaints. That he is timid and around "clowns" might be worth a discussion. McChrystal is Obama's point man for his Afghan plan which is not doing good from when Barry took over.

[Wild Cobra]

This guy voted for Obama!

--- snip---


Jack, where did you get this propaganda?

You should read the original Rolling Stone article, and see how much of your article is out of context.

The Runaway General (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/119236?RS_show_page=0)

[Wild Cobra]

I agree with that. However I don't think he should be booted for it.
FTR when generals questioned bush, it was turned into that bush didn't have the support.

I think what we are missing is some of McChrystal's complaints. That he is timid and around "clowns" might be worth a discussion. McChrystal is Obama's point man for his Afghan plan which is not doing good from when Barry took over.
Why are you both falling prey to effective media lies?

Read the Rolling Stone linked article in my last post.

[LnGrrrR]

This is all true, and I think any of us who have served agree with this with few exceptions.

Help me out here. I'm half way through the Rolling Stone article, and I have yet to see what he said that was insubordinate. Will I find it if I keep reading?

I'm just stating that as a rule in general, not specifically to this case. It seems most of the quotes are attributed to his aides. However, if my troop screws up, then I'm at a fault as well. I'm guessing the same mindset applies to the General's aides.

[Wild Cobra]

"It was a 10-minute photo op," says an adviser to McChrystal. "Obama clearly didn't know anything about him, who he was. Here's the guy who's going to run his fucking war, but he didn't seem very engaged. The Boss was pretty disappointed."
Yea, his aide says that the boss is disappointed. So?

What did McChrystal say that was out of line?

[Wild Cobra]

I'm just stating that as a rule in general, not specifically to this case. It seems most of the quotes are attributed to his aides. However, if my troop screws up, then I'm at a fault as well. I'm guessing the same mindset applies to the General's aides.
Yes, but even most the quotes of the aides are out of context:

The bad reinvention of the Rolling Stone article:

General McChrystal is also quoted making disdainful remarks about Mr. Eikenberry, the ambassador to Afghanistan, with whom he has had sharp disagreements over the war. Last year, Mr. Eikenberry sent confidential cables to Washington opposing Mr. Obama’s decision to send more troops.

“He’s one that covers his flanks for the history books,” General McChrystal is quoted as saying. “Now, if we fail, they can say, ‘I told you so.’ ”
Here’s the clip in the article:

The Rolling stone article:

The relationship was further strained in January, when a classified cable that Eikenberry wrote was leaked to The New York Times. The cable was as scathing as it was prescient. The ambassador offered a brutal critique of McChrystal's strategy, dismissed President Hamid Karzai as "not an adequate strategic partner," and cast doubt on whether the counterinsurgency plan would be "sufficient" to deal with Al Qaeda. "We will become more deeply engaged here with no way to extricate ourselves," Eikenberry warned, "short of allowing the country to descend again into lawlessness and chaos."

McChrystal and his team were blindsided by the cable. "I like Karl, I've known him for years, but they'd never said anything like that to us before," says McChrystal, who adds that he felt "betrayed" by the leak. "Here's one that covers his flank for the history books. Now if we fail, they can say, 'I told you so.' "

The bad reinvention of the Rolling Stone article:

The magazine article, entitled “The Runaway General,” quotes aides of General McChrystal saying the general was “pretty disappointed” by an Oval Office meeting with Mr. Obama, and that he found the president “uncomfortable and intimidated” during a Pentagon meeting with General McChrystal and several other generals.

The Rolling stone article:

Even though he had voted for Obama, McChrystal and his new commander in chief failed from the outset to connect. The general first encountered Obama a week after he took office, when the president met with a dozen senior military officials in a room at the Pentagon known as the Tank. According to sources familiar with the meeting, McChrystal thought Obama looked "uncomfortable and intimidated" by the roomful of military brass. Their first one-on-one meeting took place in the Oval Office four months later, after McChrystal got the Afghanistan job, and it didn't go much better. "It was a 10-minute photo op," says an adviser to McChrystal. "Obama clearly didn't know anything about him, who he was. Here's the guy who's going to run his fucking war, but he didn't seem very engaged. The Boss was pretty disappointed."

The bad reinvention of the Rolling Stone article:

On another occasion, General McChrystal is described as reacting with exasperation when he receives an e-mail message from Mr. Holbrooke. “Oh, not another e-mail from Holbrooke. I don’t even want to open it.”

The Rolling stone article:

McChrystal reserves special skepticism for Holbrooke, the official in charge of reintegrating the Taliban. "The Boss says he's like a wounded animal," says a member of the general's team. "Holbrooke keeps hearing rumors that he's going to get fired, so that makes him dangerous. He's a brilliant guy, but he just comes in, pulls on a lever, whatever he can grasp onto. But this is COIN, and you can't just have someone yanking on shit."
At one point on his trip to Paris, McChrystal checks his BlackBerry. "Oh, not another e-mail from Holbrooke," he groans. "I don't even want to open it." He clicks on the message and reads the salutation out loud, then stuffs the BlackBerry back in his pocket, not bothering to conceal his annoyance.
"Make sure you don't get any of that on your leg," an aide jokes, referring to the e-mail.

The bad reinvention of the Rolling Stone article:

The article describes a conversation in which General McChrystal and an aide talk about Mr. Biden. Mr. Biden is known to have opposed the decision to escalate the war, preferring instead a slimmed-down plan focused on containing terrorism.

“Are you asking about Vice President Biden?” General McChrystal jokes.

“Biden?” suggests a top adviser. “Did you say ‘Bite me?’ ”

The Rolling stone article:

Now, flipping through printout cards of his speech in Paris, McChrystal wonders aloud what Biden question he might get today, and how he should respond. "I never know what's going to pop out until I'm up there, that's the problem," he says. Then, unable to help themselves, he and his staff imagine the general dismissing the vice president with a good one-liner.
"Are you asking about Vice President Biden?" McChrystal says with a laugh. "Who's that?"
"Biden?" suggests a top adviser. "Did you say: Bite Me?"

The bad reinvention of the Rolling Stone article:

The magazine article also describes a meeting in which a soldier vents his frustration over General McChrystal’s tightening of the rules governing the use of air strikes against suspected insurgents. In the article, the soldier, Pfc. Jared Pautsch, is quoted telling General McChrystal that he is endangering soldiers’ lives by forcing them to be too restrained.

Pfc. Jared Pautsch is quoted as telling the general the Americans should just drop a “bomb on the place,” and asking, “What are we doing here?”

The Rolling stone article:

One soldier shows me the list of new regulations the platoon was given. "Patrol only in areas that you are reasonably certain that you will not have to defend yourselves with lethal force," the laminated card reads. For a soldier who has traveled halfway around the world to fight, that's like telling a cop he should only patrol in areas where he knows he won't have to make arrests. "Does that make any fucking sense?" asks Pfc. Jared Pautsch. "We should just drop a fucking bomb on this place. You sit and ask yourself: What are we doing here?"

The rules handed out here are not what McChrystal intended – they've been distorted as they passed through the chain of command – but knowing that does nothing to lessen the anger of troops on the ground.

[Wild Cobra]

I'm just stating that as a rule in general, not specifically to this case. It seems most of the quotes are attributed to his aides. However, if my troop screws up, then I'm at a fault as well. I'm guessing the same mindset applies to the General's aides.
I don't think you can hold an aide to the same standard. Otherwise, how many people in DC would be fired?

[DarrinS]

I agree with that. However I don't think he should be booted for it.
FTR when generals questioned bush, it was turned into that bush didn't have the support.

I think what we are missing is some of McChrystal's complaints. That he is timid and around "clowns" might be worth a discussion. McChrystal is Obama's point man for his Afghan plan which is not doing good from when Barry took over.



I agree that it wasn't egregious enough to warrant his resignation or his being fired.

[LnGrrrR]

I don't think you can hold an aide to the same standard. Otherwise, how many people in DC would be fired?

I'm not saying aides should be held to the same standard as a general; I'm saying the General is responsible for what his aides say. There's a difference.

I don't expect people to hold my troop to the same standards I hold for myself. I am responsible for what my troop does.

[ElNono]

From the standpoint that he actually apologized instead of claiming that the aides lied or were quoted wrongly, etc, it gives authenticity to the fact things were the way aides said they were.
To me, this is a way for him to get out of the Afghanistan mess. I wouldn't be surprised if he came out talking shit once he leaves his post.

[Wild Cobra]

I'm not saying aides should be held to the same standard as a general; I'm saying the General is responsible for what his aides say. There's a difference.

I don't expect people to hold my troop to the same standards I hold for myself. I am responsible for what my troop does.
So the aide can be punished. Everyone is responsible for what they say about work related topics. The original post makes it out as if the General said worse things than he did. None of this is enough to recall the General from off the AO. Obumbler is just being a sissy.

[Wild Cobra]

From the standpoint that he actually apologized instead of claiming that the aides lied or were quoted wrongly, etc, it gives authenticity to the fact things were the way aides said they were.
To me, this is a way for him to get out of the Afghanistan mess. I wouldn't be surprised if he came out talking shit once he leaves his post.
Could be. It's also possible he asked his aide to say things he couldn't.

[ElNono]

Could be. It's also possible he asked his aide to say things he couldn't.

Exactly.

[LnGrrrR]

So the aide can be punished. Everyone is responsible for what they say about work related topics.

Agreed that everyone is responsible for their mistakes. However, the General is probably responsible for his aide's mistakes as well, just as an NCO AND the Amn he supervises are responsible if the Amn makes a mistake.


The original post makes it out as if the General said worse things than he did.

Agreed. But it still reflects poorly on him/his office. If it was one aide, sure. But it seems like it was multiple aides, and for the aides to be that frank, it makes one wonder about the candor in that office as well as the level of respect for civilian leadership.

[LnGrrrR]

Exactly.

I'd consider that poor leadership if that were the case. I would never tell my airman to say something about/to leadership that I didn't feel comfortable saying.

[ElNono]

I'd consider that poor leadership if that were the case. I would never tell my airman to say something about/to leadership that I didn't feel comfortable saying.

And blow a book deal? No way... :lol

[LnGrrrR]

And blow a book deal? No way... :lol

This is why I'm enlisted instead of an officer... :lol

[Wild Cobra]

I'd consider that poor leadership if that were the case. I would never tell my airman to say something about/to leadership that I didn't feel comfortable saying.
I know I would consider letting the cat out of the bag in some indirect way if I was one of Obumbler's generals.

Actually, I would probably resign first.

[Wild Cobra]

I'd consider that poor leadership if that were the case. I would never tell my airman to say something about/to leadership that I didn't feel comfortable saying.
Did I say uncomfortable?

Sorry, I meant forbidden to say.

[CosmicCowboy]

Well, I've read the Rolling Stone article front to back.

I know why Obama is pissed.

It's not what McChrystal said or did.

The article exposes the false premise that we can actually "win" in Afghanistan.

Afghanistan is Obama's war. He owns it.

:lmao

[ChumpDumper]

So the aide can be punished. Everyone is responsible for what they say about work related topics. The original post makes it out as if the General said worse things than he did. None of this is enough to recall the General from off the AO. Obumbler is just being a sissy.So Bush was a sissy for firing all the officers who disagreed with him publicly as well.

OK.

[ChumpDumper]

Well, I've read the Rolling Stone article front to back.

I know why Obama is pissed.

It's not what McChrystal said or did.

The article exposes the false premise that we can actually "win" in Afghanistan.

Afghanistan is Obama's war. He owns it.

:lmaoSo now you are against the war in Afghanistan.

And you are laughing about the servicemen dying and being maimed there.

Nice.

[CosmicCowboy]

So now you are against the war in Afghanistan.

And you are laughing about the servicemen dying and being maimed there.

Nice.

I have consistently said for years we can't win a war in Afghanistan. The USSR at the height of their military power couldn't do it and for them it was geographically like us invading Mexico.

As for the drunk/stupid crack about my insensitivity to servicemen dying there I defy you to find a quote of mine that backs that claim up.

You can't.

[Wild Cobra]

So Bush was a sissy for firing all the officers who disagreed with him publicly as well.

OK.
This general didn't publicly disagree now did he.

Link...

[Wild Cobra]

I have consistently said for years we can't win a war in Afghanistan. The USSR at the height of their military power couldn't do it and for them it was geographically like us invading Mexico.

As for the drunk/stupid crack about my insensitivity to servicemen dying there I defy you to find a quote of mine that backs that claim up.

You can't.
Yep, he's just a big chump, isn't he.

Thing is, we aren't trying the same type of war the Soviets tried. As hard as it is, I think we can accomplish our mission. That is, as long as the president listens to the military experts.

[LnGrrrR]

Did I say uncomfortable?

Sorry, I meant forbidden to say.

Same difference. As a member of the military, especially in such a high leaderhip role, you shouldn't be complaining about your boss. Now, it's natural to vent, and maybe he thought he could trust his aides; obviously he couldn't. Now those comments reflect negatively on his character.

[Winehole23]

Afghanistan is Obama's war. He owns it.

:lmaoToo bad his predecessor twiddled his thumbs for five years before handing off the unwinnable mess to Obama.

[Wild Cobra]

Too bad his predecessor twiddled his thumbs for five years before handing off the unwinnable mess to Obama.
LOL...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the left and democrats kept saying we shouldn't be in Iraq, but should fight in Afghanistan...

Or am I living in an alternate time-line?

[ChumpDumper]

I have consistently said for years we can't win a war in Afghanistan. The USSR at the height of their military power couldn't do it and for them it was geographically like us invading Mexico.

As for the drunk/stupid crack about my insensitivity to servicemen dying there I defy you to find a quote of mine that backs that claim up.

You can't.
:lmaoJust did.

[Winehole23]

I agree that it wasn't egregious enough to warrant his resignation or his being fired.Whatever happened to "that's what memoirs are for?" Such a solid line of reasoning. I was ready to back you on that, D.

[Wild Cobra]

Whatever happened to "that's what memoirs are for?" Such a solid line of reasoning. I was ready to back you on that, D.
I cannot speak for Darrin, but I'll bet it was based on the assumption the propaganda was truthful rather than the actual rolling Stone article.

It was before I pointed out the deceitful nature of the article.

[Winehole23]

LOL...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the left and democrats kept saying we shouldn't be in Iraq, but should fight in Afghanistan...

Or am I living in an alternate time-line?Non-sequitur. This has nothing to do with GWB taking his eye off the ball in Afghanistan to pursue his idee fixe of overthrowing Saddam.

I'm not proposing the Dems as an alternative, so I'm completely free to agree with you on what they said. Nor am I a Dem; nor have I ever been one. Does that begin to satisfy you? I have been against this war before -- and after -- it was fashionable to do so.

Relevant gloss:


Idee fixe. (Literally: "Fixed idea"): A motive or theme associated with a character or idea in classical music. This is essentially the same thing as a leitmotiv, but the idee fixe--developed by Hector Berlioz in the 1820's--predates Wagner's famous use of the same device. http://wps.prenhall.com/wps/media/objects/543/556194/Glossary/meyer_keygloss.html

Cf., obsession

[ChumpDumper]

Afghanistan is about Afghanistan now. Unfortunately for us Al Qaeda is in Pakistan now; the opportunity to do anything about that was six years ago.

[Winehole23]

The political objectives were ill-defined from the beginning and they still are. That's what chaps my ass. There's not a goddam soul who can give me one good reason to keep doing it.

Can't afford to lose ain't good enough. What did we mean to acheive by evacuating the political power in the first place? What were the fucking objectives? Are we any closer to achieving them close on to ten years later?

[ChumpDumper]

Best I can tell, the only thing we could want there is to not leave conditions that would make it a haven for an Al Qaeda in the future. It's definitely not a sexy or concrete goal and there are so many complicating factors that it could well be impossible. The main problem is that Iraq was such an additional shithole that Americans simply wouldn't want to stay for the longer haul that Afghanistan was always going to be.

[Winehole23]

Best I can tell, the only thing we could want there is to not leave conditions that would make it a haven for an Al Qaeda in the future.They'll just pop up somewhere else.

What, isn't Afghanistan far enough away from the US? Supposing what you propose is at all doable. Do you think we can kill and neutralize all the bad guys? I don't think we can.

[Winehole23]

I do think we can choose to quit stirring the hornet's nest though.

[Winehole23]

We've had enough retaliation for some fairly episodic attacks already, don't you think?

[Winehole23]

Ain't we killed enough Muslims yet?

[ChumpDumper]

They'll just pop up somewhere else.

What, isn't Afghanistan far enough away from the US? Supposing what you propose is at all doable. Do you think we can kill and neutralize all the bad guys? I don't think we can.As all the bad guys are no longer in the one country, no. It's a matter of keeping them from coming back. I imagine we can live with regional warlords who don't give a shit about attacking the US. It's those who would attack the US we would want to keep out. The trick now is finding a leader in Pakistan who feels the same way.


I do think we can choose to quit stirring the hornet's nest though.Yeah, taking over an Arab Muslim country was a colossal fuckup. Iraq evaporated practically all of the international goodwill generated after 9/11.

[Winehole23]

It's a matter of keeping them from coming back.Are we anywhere close to achieving that yet, and does it really require the magnitude of force deployed?

[Winehole23]

I mean, fuck building Iraq or Afghanistan back up. Can't we just kill Al Qaeda without these stupid fucking occupations?

[Winehole23]

(Maybe Pakistan wouldn't *let* us bomb them so much if we didn't occupy the country next door, so that's one possible objection right there.)

[ChumpDumper]

Are we anywhere close to achieving that yet, and does it really require the magnitude of force deployed?Kind of depends on what one thinks would happen if we just left.

[Winehole23]

That only means we ain't done it yet.

[Winehole23]

How long will it take? It has already taken nine years.

[Winehole23]

BTW, do you think this was all worth it?

[Winehole23]

Because I thought it was a stupid fucking idea to begin with.

[ChumpDumper]

Eh, had to do something. Half-assing it in the first place was the big mistake. There was a slight chance AQ -- at least it's leadership -- could have been truly eliminated. There was too much reliance on Afghan forces whose interests did not extend beyond local power.

[boutons_deux]

- SpeakEasy - http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy -

One Number (25%) Tells You How Ridiculous our Afghanistan “Strategy” Really is

Posted By Joshua Holland On June 22, 2010 @ 4:12 pm In Uncategorized | 7 Comments

I’m doing a quick response piece on the McChrystal brouhaha for tomorrow’s lineup. And I’m including a paragraph about this story from back in January, which tells you everything you need to know about the effectiveness of our Afghanistan “strategy”:

Afghan officials are demanding £1.5 billion a year in bribes, equivalent to a quarter of the country’s gross domestic product, according to a report by the United Nations that says the practice is in danger of bringing down the government.

The report found that Afghans rate corruption as a bigger concern than security and unemployment and half have been forced to pay a bribe in the last 12 months.

It is the first time a figure has been put on a problem that has become one of the major sources of the insurgency.

Critics suggest many Afghans are being pushed into the arms of the Taliban who typically charge less and offer more security in return.

President Hamid Karzai’s own family has been dragged into the row with allegations that his brother is involved in the drugs trade and some of his ministers have taken kickbacks, allegations they both deny.

I honestly have a hard time even imagining 25 percent of a country’s GDP being sucked up in bribes. It’s a level of corruption unseen elsewhere, as far as I know.

As I wrote for tomorrow’s piece, “the U.S presence in Afghanistan is all about tactics dressed up as a strategy.”

Counterinsurgency is a matter of tactics. The “strategy,” we have been told for almost a decade, is to defeat the remnants of the Taliban and create a functional, legitimate state in a country where one has never before existed. It’s an effort in state-building that was supposed to enhance the United States’ security by fostering stability and economic progress that would make Islamic extremism unappealing to the masses.

We’re backing a hopelessly corrupt, completely illegitimate government that was imposed on the Afghani people by Western powers that also happen to bomb them pretty frequently. It probably controls a 3rd of the country’s territory, and yet it’s eating a quarter of Afghanistan’s domestic product in bribes. Who could possibly think this can work out OK in the end?

Article printed from SpeakEasy: http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy

URL to article: http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/06/22/one-number-25-tells-you-how-ridiculous-our-afghanistan-strategy-really-is/

===================

Magic Negro inherited two totally hopeless, fucked up, mismanaged wars in countries are nothing but outlines on the map, which is why the Repugs and neo-c*nts were so quick to say "It's Magic Negro's pile of shit now. What happens now is all on him, NEVER on Repugs"

At least the MIC is pocketing taxpayers' 100s of $Bs (which was the objective from the beginning). AQ? Taliban? US security? GMAFB

America is fucked.

[Winehole23]

There was a slight chance AQ -- at least it's leadership -- could have been truly eliminated.Damning with faint praise, no?

[Winehole23]

(In a probabilistic universe, things may stand otherwise, granted.)

[Winehole23]

Slight refrain:


Ain't we killed enough Muslims yet?

[Winehole23]

I understand that we had to come hard at the beginning, but here we are, nine years later, and we're not getting it done.

[boutons_deux]

"[Team Obama] are trying to manipulate perceptions because there is no definition of victory – because victory is not even defined or recognizable," says Celeste Ward, a senior defense analyst at the RAND Corporation who served as a political adviser to U.S. commanders in Iraq in 2006. "That's the game we're in right now. What we need, for strategic purposes, is to create the perception that we didn't get run off. The facts on the ground are not great, and are not going to become great in the near future."

But facts on the ground, as history has proven, offer little deterrent to a military determined to stay the course. Even those closest to McChrystal know that the rising anti-war sentiment at home doesn't begin to reflect how deeply fucked up things are in Afghanistan. "If Americans pulled back and started paying attention to this war, it would become even less popular," a senior adviser to McChrystal says. Such realism, however, doesn't prevent advocates of counterinsurgency from dreaming big: Instead of beginning to withdraw troops next year, as Obama promised, the military hopes to ramp up its counterinsurgency campaign even further. "There's a possibility we could ask for another surge of U.S. forces next summer if we see success here," a senior military official in Kabul tells me."

http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/147302

==========

The all-powerful, super-wealthy corps pursue profits no matter what the costs to everybody else.

The all-powerful, super-wealthy military pursues "victory" no matter what the costs to everybody else.

America is fucked.

[spursncowboys]

this is why i'm enlisted instead of an officer... :lol

+1

[DarrinS]

Whatever happened to "that's what memoirs are for?" Such a solid line of reasoning. I was ready to back you on that, D.


I think he should've apologized, taken a scolding from POTUS, and got back to his job.

[boutons_deux]

MacChrystal is the asshole who orchestrated the PR campaign to cover up Tillman's fragging.

[DarrinS]

MacChrystal is the asshole who orchestrated the PR campaign to cover up Tillman's fragging.

No dailykos or alternet link?

[TeyshaBlue]

No dailykos or alternet link?

truthout.borg

[boutons_deux]

Nope, got that one from Mo Dowd! :lol

Ya gotta any Heritage, Cato, Billy Kristol, Fox News, Limbaugh link saying MacChrystal wasn't the asshole hiding Tillman's fragging?

[EVAY]

According to the Rolling Stones Reporter, most of the opinions in the article were obtained from McChrystal's staff during a Berlin-based drink-a-thon when McChrystal and his staff were unable to get back to Afghanistan from London during the Volcano-induced cloud above Europe earlier this year.

According to the reporter, they had gotten stuck in London, so the entire entourage went to Berlin, set up at the Ritz-Berlin, got pretty lit, and the reporter was with them, and they started talking 'drink-talk'.

How stupid!

If what the reporter says about how the quotes came about, I'm willing to see the guy get fired for general stupidity...he knew the reporter was with them, and he let it all happen. THAT was a serious enough error in judgement to warrant dismissal.

[CosmicCowboy]

No surprise, but McCrystal fired.

[boutons_deux]

so is Magic Negro, beating up on old white guys, now Tuff Enuff for right-wingers? :lol

[ducks]

"[Team Obama] are trying to manipulate perceptions because there is no definition of victory – because victory is not even defined or recognizable," says Celeste Ward, a senior defense analyst at the RAND Corporation who served as a political adviser to U.S. commanders in Iraq in 2006. "That's the game we're in right now. What we need, for strategic purposes, is to create the perception that we didn't get run off. The facts on the ground are not great, and are not going to become great in the near future."

But facts on the ground, as history has proven, offer little deterrent to a military determined to stay the course. Even those closest to McChrystal know that the rising anti-war sentiment at home doesn't begin to reflect how deeply fucked up things are in Afghanistan. "If Americans pulled back and started paying attention to this war, it would become even less popular," a senior adviser to McChrystal says. Such realism, however, doesn't prevent advocates of counterinsurgency from dreaming big: Instead of beginning to withdraw troops next year, as Obama promised, the military hopes to ramp up its counterinsurgency campaign even further. "There's a possibility we could ask for another surge of U.S. forces next summer if we see success here," a senior military official in Kabul tells me."

http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/147302

==========

The all-powerful, super-wealthy corps pursue profits no matter what the costs to everybody else.

The all-powerful, super-wealthy military pursues "victory" no matter what the costs to everybody else.

America is fucked.

then you get the heck out

[z0sa]

No surprise, but McCrystal fired.

Not "surprising", but a controversial decision nonetheless. The Afghani government appreciated and respected McChrystal and his methodology; in fact, he ushered in a new era of Afghani-US relations and Hamad Karzai openly opposed McCrhystal being relieved after the article's comments went public.

[CosmicCowboy]

Not "surprising", but a controversial decision nonetheless. The Afghani government appreciated and respected McChrystal and his methodology; in fact, he ushered in a new era of Afghani-US relations and Hamad Karzai openly opposed McCrhystal being relieved after the article's comments went public.

The polls said Obama needed to kick some ass.

[clambake]

so....the puppet leader is unhappy?

[z0sa]

The polls said Obama needed to kick some ass.

It's likely that Obama simply decided based on past presidents' histories regarding these Civilian-Military divisions. The President, ie Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, must never be disrespected by the military publicly, especially those in command of tens of thousands of men and many billions of dollars in resources.

There are differences, though. Has any president relieved two commanding generals in a single campaign before?

[clambake]

bush got rid of abizaid and casey.

[ducks]

MacChrystal is the asshole who orchestrated the PR campaign to cover up Tillman's fragging.

you still worked up about tillman
:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

[Drachen]

Not "surprising", but a controversial decision nonetheless. The Afghani government appreciated and respected McChrystal and his methodology; in fact, he ushered in a new era of Afghani-US relations and Hamad Karzai openly opposed McCrhystal being relieved after the article's comments went public.

isn't this reason enough to fire the guy?

[z0sa]

bush got rid of abizaid and casey.

Which campaign were they both in charge and subsequently relieved?

[z0sa]

isn't this reason enough to fire the guy?

Why are we in Afghanistan if we can't even get the government we're supposedly helping to support us? :wakeup

[Drachen]

Why are we in Afghanistan if we can't even get the government we're supposedly helping to support us? :wakeup

Exactly my point, Karazai isn't that guy, so if he likes McChrystal, then good riddance. (BTW I am not implying that Gen. Mac is shady and that is why Karazai likes him at all. Just that for whatever reason Karazai likes him and Karazai is shady).

[DarrinS]

This wasn't a Douglas MacArthur moment. Shows how petty our narcissist in chief can be.

[DarrinS]

Exactly my point, Karazai isn't that guy, so if he likes McChrystal, then good riddance. (BTW I am not implying that Gen. Mac is shady and that is why Karazai likes him at all. Just that for whatever reason Karazai likes him and Karazai is shady).


Using your logic, what should we do about the fact that 3rd world socialist dictators love Obama.

[LnGrrrR]

What happened to just killing Osama/capturing him for trial? I miss that plan.

[Drachen]

Using your logic, what should we do about the fact that 3rd world socialist dictators love Obama.

loved would probably be more accurate, but if they fall back in love with him, then you can use that as one of the reasons to fire him the first chance you get.

With all that being said, I am not a one issue voter so something like that (being liked by someone I don't like) in and of itself would not be enough for me to fire someone. My comment above was meant as more of a tongue-in-cheek comment than anything else. Sorry to disrupt the conversation. LOL.

[Drachen]

What happened to just killing Osama/capturing him for trial? I miss that plan.

Recent reports say he is in Iran, do we want to start ANOTHER war?

I do, however, miss that plan too. I wish we had actually ever had that as our plan, because all of this would likely be over already, and we would be a far richer country.

[z0sa]

Exactly my point, Karazai isn't that guy, so if he likes McChrystal, then good riddance. (BTW I am not implying that Gen. Mac is shady and that is why Karazai likes him at all. Just that for whatever reason Karazai likes him and Karazai is shady).

Whatever the case may be, Afghan-US political relations were improving and McChrystal takes much credit for that. I expect the relationship to become strained once again now that yet another new Head Honcho is coming to town.

[Drachen]

Whatever the case may be, Afghan-US political relations were improving and McChrystal takes much credit for that. I expect the relationship to become strained once again now that yet another new Head Honcho is coming to town.

I am not trying to openly defy you on this, because maybe you have far more information than I do, but really? I was under the impression that political relations were worsening (i.e. Karazai almost uninvited to a conference here in the US a couple of months ago for all the smack he has been talking about the US and the military presence over there).

[z0sa]

I am not trying to openly defy you on this, because maybe you have far more information than I do, but really? I was under the impression that political relations were worsening (i.e. Karazai almost uninvited to a conference here in the US a couple of months ago for all the smack he has been talking about the US and the military presence over there).

Which is why it is notable that Karzai spoke out at all. It seems McChrystal's strict policies concerning Afghan civilian life/infrastructure preservation during military operations got on Karzai's good side. We'll see what effect McChrystal's resignation has on Karzai's political stances; it may be none. However, we know for a fact Karzai was most comfortable (thus far) with McChrystal commanding.

[Winehole23]

Maybe Obama is more comfortable with Gen. Petraeus.

[Drachen]

Which is why it is notable that Karzai spoke out at all. It seems McChrystal's strict policies concerning Afghan civilian life/infrastructure preservation during military operations got on Karzai's good side. We'll see what effect McChrystal's resignation has on Karzai's political stances; it may be none. However, we know for a fact Karzai was most comfortable (thus far) with McChrystal commanding.

so comfortable that all of a sudden he became a spoiled child.

[z0sa]

Afghan politicians rally around McChrystal: (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100622/ap_on_re_as/as_afghan_mcchrystal)

"[Karzai] believes that Gen. McChrystal is the best commander that NATO and coalition forces have had in Afghanistan over the past nine years," spokesman Waheed Omar said. Omar said McChrystal has worked closely with Karzai since he took command last year and that "lots of things have improved."

[EVAY]

Afghan politicians rally around McChrystal: (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100622/ap_on_re_as/as_afghan_mcchrystal)

"[Karzai] believes that Gen. McChrystal is the best commander that NATO and coalition forces have had in Afghanistan over the past nine years," spokesman Waheed Omar said. Omar said McChrystal has worked closely with Karzai since he took command last year and that "lots of things have improved."

Was Petraeus ever in charge of Afghanistan during the last 9 years?

[RandomGuy]

Petraeus is the right guy for the job, if one had to pick a seamless replacement for Mchrystal.

Oddly enough, Petraeus will essentially have to take a demotion from his current job as CENTCOM commander.

[EVAY]

I mean, do any of us actually care who Karzai likes?

[EVAY]

Do any of us believe that Petraeus, who did well in Iraq, is a BAD decision for a replacement guy?

[clambake]

Do any of us believe that Petraeus, who did well in Iraq, is a BAD decision for a replacement guy?

they'll turn on him......just because.

[RandomGuy]

Maybe Obama is more comfortable with Gen. Petraeus.

The decision to keep/fire McChrystal was a hard one. I think removing him with a ready replacement in Petraeus was probably the best choice.

[RandomGuy]

they'll turn on him......just because.

Remember that Petraeus acutally WROTE the counter-insurgency policy that McChrystal was following and putting into place.

If Karzai liked that policy, then he should be fine with the action to replace one hard-to-type general's name with the other.

[clambake]

Remember that Petraeus acutally WROTE the counter-insurgency policy that McChrystal was following and putting into place.

If Karzai liked that policy, then he should be fine with the action to replace one hard-to-type general's name with the other.

oh, i agree, but anyone fired by obama becomes their guy.

[RandomGuy]

Was Petraeus ever in charge of Afghanistan during the last 9 years?

No. Petraeus was in charge of Iraq, then was promoted to CENTCOM (Central Command) commander, and over both Iraq and Afghanistan. He is/was essentially McChyrstal's immediate boss.

Petraeus on wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Petraeus

Interesting tidbits:

As battalion commander of the Iron Rakkasans, he suffered one of the more dramatic incidents in his career when, in 1991, he was accidentally shot in the chest during a live-fire exercise when a soldier tripped and his rifle discharged.[28] He was taken to Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, where he was operated on by future U.S. Senator Bill Frist. The hospital released him early after he did fifty push ups without resting, just a few days after the accident.


During his time at CAC, Petraeus and Marine Lt. Gen. James N. Mattis jointly oversaw the publication of Field Manual 3-24, Counterinsurgency, the body of which was written by an extraordinarily diverse group of military officers, academics, human rights advocates, and journalists who had been assembled by Petraeus and Mattis.[21][22] Additionally, at both Fort Leavenworth and throughout the military's schools and training programs, Petraeus integrated the study of counterinsurgency into lesson plans and training exercises.

In recognition of the fact that soldiers in Iraq often performed duties far different than those they trained for, Petraeus also stressed the importance of teaching soldiers how to think as well as how to fight and the need to foster flexibility and adaptability in leaders,[23][24] he has been called "the world's leading expert in counter-insurgency warfare".[25] Later, having refined his ideas on counterinsurgency based on the implementation of the new COIN doctrine in Iraq, he published both in Iraq as well as in the Sep/Oct 2008 edition of Military Review his "Commander's Counterinsurgency Guidance" to help guide leaders and units in the Multi-National Force-Iraq.

Basically all of the touchy-feely stuff that conservtives don't particularly like, i.e. putting foreign civilian lives above that of our soldiers, is his doing.

The counter-insurgency policy was hotly debated as having too much "bleeding-heart" influence within the military community, but was essentially the summation of everything we really learned from Vietnam.

The reason so many of our soldiers died right up until the surge in Iraq, and why I was screaming that Bush et al. were essentially killing them through ineptness, was that the commanders there and the administration itself completely ignored the doctrine. Astonishingly enough the much touted Surge was where the fuck-ups in the administration realized they were fucking up and finally used the doctrine, putting the guy who wrote it in charge. The rest is history.

[RandomGuy]

oh, i agree, but anyone fired by obama becomes their guy.

Pretty much, as this thread demonstrates. Obama is damned if he does, and damned if he don't.

The same jackasses who will bray loudest about this would be the first fuckers to have supported any president making the exact same decision if that president happended to be a Republican.

We all know that.

[RandomGuy]

Why are we in Afghanistan if we can't even get the government we're supposedly helping to support us? :wakeup

Because the alternative is much, much worse.

[z0sa]

Pretty much, as this thread demonstrates. Obama is damned if he does, and damned if he don't.

Such is life in the Presidency, but I disagree in this case. Obama is doing exactly what everyone predicted he would, and what every (or almost every) President in the same situation has done. Patraeus is a damned fine replacement, and will probably be more successful than McChrystal would have been, for some of the reasons you've already stated.

[z0sa]

Because the alternative is much, much worse.

That's rather vague.

[RandomGuy]

They'll just pop up somewhere else.

What, isn't Afghanistan far enough away from the US? Supposing what you propose is at all doable. Do you think we can kill and neutralize all the bad guys? I don't think we can.

You can't.

What you can do is leave behind a stable, moderately developed country that doesn't let bad guys have training camps within their boarders.

That is the ultimate goal.

It will take 20-40 years to do that though. That is how long I am prepared to advocate staying, because the repercussions of us leaving would be so much worse.

We are only just now starting to win over many skeptics who mildly support us, because we have stayed a lot longer than many in the area thought they would. The mere fact that we haven't cut and run has convinced people that they can trust us.

Many have been reluctant to support us because they don't want to be the position that supporters of the US were in say, Vietnam, were when we pulled out of that war. It was not pleasant to have been a supporter of the US when the Viet Cong unified the country.

[RandomGuy]

That's rather vague.

Potential and almost certain bad outcomes:

Taliban sweeps back into power, providing easy access to training camps for potential al Qaeda militant operatives.

Skeptics of US policies and willingness to "tough it out" are vindicated, decreasing the amount of cooperation we get in many areas, because we have proven, yet again, that we will cut and run when things get mildly difficult.

Al Qaeda will, in essence, claim victory, and they will be right. This will make it much easier for them to convince others to join their cause.

Those are the direct, first order results. I would not even care to guess at a lot of the second + order results.

[RandomGuy]

Funny, I just got done reading the RS article.

If you had read it, I dont think you would come away with the above stated opinion.

McCrystal fancies himself a cowboy. He, his aides, his staff and even his soldiers know there is no "winning" Afghanistan.

Read the article. He can apologize for it now, but you are right on one point, he shouldnt be. One in a position of power should never have to apologize for their decisions, unless of course you knew the decision was a bad one to begin with. Needless to point out what that suggests, no?

Hmm didn't see a link in my brief bit here.

The Runaway General (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/119236)

Just so that those of us not too lazy to actually read it have a link.

[z0sa]

Potential and almost certain bad outcomes:

Taliban sweeps back into power, providing easy access to training camps for potential al Qaeda militant operatives.

Skeptics of US policies and willingness to "tough it out" are vindicated, decreasing the amount of cooperation we get in many areas, because we have proven, yet again, that we will cut and run when things get mildly difficult.

Al Qaeda will, in essence, claim victory, and they will be right. This will make it much easier for them to convince others to join their cause.

Those are the direct, first order results. I would not even care to guess at a lot of the second + order results.

I agree on all points.

Problem is, no one wants to stay there for 20-40 years, or however long it is necessary to be assured the Taliban are gone for good. The homeland is in economic decay and it's simply illogical to keep fighting these wars in the name of democracy/preventing terrorism/whatever. "We" (our civilian and military leaders) have only ourselves to blame for once again, putting us in a tough situation with no legitimate exit strategy.

I still have hope. 150,000 Allied troops in Afghanistan and just over 12 months til the first large-scale departures begin. It'll be an interesting year for the theater, that's for sure.

[RandomGuy]

This is one of the central flaws with McChrystal's counterinsurgency strategy: The need to build a credible government puts us at the mercy of whatever tin-pot leader we've backed – a danger that Eikenberry explicitly warned about in his cable. Even Team McChrystal privately acknowledges that Karzai is a less-than-ideal partner. "He's been locked up in his palace the past year," laments one of the general's top advisers. At times, Karzai himself has actively undermined McChrystal's desire to put him in charge. During a recent visit to Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Karzai met three U.S. soldiers who had been wounded in Uruzgan province. "General," he called out to McChrystal, "I didn't even know we were fighting in Uruzgan!"

I used to admire Karzai. That has changed.

[RandomGuy]

I agree on all points.

Problem is, no one wants to stay there for 20-40 years, or however long it is necessary to be assured the Taliban are gone for good. The homeland is in economic decay and it's simply illogical to keep fighting these wars in the name of democracy/preventing terrorism/whatever. "We" (our civilian and military leaders) have only ourselves to blame for once again, putting us in an tough situation with no legitimate exit strategy.

It is highly logical to be there.

Read up on the following book:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pentagon's_New_Map

If you want to tap into the mind of the junior officers that are coming into the O6+ ranks (Col/general/admiral+), learn what this guy is saying.

I caught the briefing he gives on CSPAN one day, and it astonishingly perfectly put into words and solid concepts things that I had vaguely formed for years, but never bothered to sit down and outline.

Mr. Barnett pretty much has the ear of the pentagon and is pivotal in forming a lot of thinking of up and coming leaders.

He is also pretty much spot on. The danger to the US is not from developed nations, it comes from the Gap that he talks about.

We need a different army and are slowly shaping that into one more capable of handling the types of wars we actually end up fighting, as opposed to the WW2/Cold War era nation-to-nation mindset that is the definition of starting the next war with the army from the last one.

[clambake]

bush also fired shinseki.

[RandomGuy]

Key ideas:

1.Systems of rules called Rule-sets reduce violent conflict. Violence decreases as rules are established (e.g., the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding) for dealing with international conflicts.
2.The world can be roughly divided into two groups: the Functioning Core, characterized by economic interdependence, and the Non-Integrated Gap, characterized by unstable leadership and absence from international trade. The Core can be sub-divided into Old Core (North America, Western Europe, Japan, Australia) and New Core (China, India). The Disconnected Gap includes the Middle East, South Asia (except India), most of Africa, Southeast Asia, and northwest South America.
3.Integration of the Gap countries into the global economy will provide opportunities for individuals living in the Gap to improve their lives, thereby presenting a desirable alternative to violence and terrorism. The US military is the only force capable of providing the military support to facilitate this integration by serving as the last ditch rule-enforcer. Barnett argues that it has been doing so for over 20 years by "exporting" security (US spends about half of the world's total in military spending).
4.To be successful the US military must stop thinking of war in the context of war but war in the context of "everything else", i.e. demographics, energy, investment, security, politics, trade, immigration, etc.
5.In recognition of its dual role, the US military should organize itself according to two functions, the "Leviathan" and the "System Administrator."
Leviathan's purpose is the use of overwhelming force in order to end violence quickly. It will take out governments, defend Core countries, and generally do the deterrence work that the US military has been doing since the end of WWII. The Leviathan force is primarily staffed by young aggressive personnel and is overwhelmingly American.
The SysAdmin's purpose is to wage peace: peacekeeping, nation building, strengthening weak governments, etc. The SysAdmin force is primarily staffed by older, more experienced personnel, though not entirely (he would put the Marines in SysAdmin as the " Mini-me Leviathan"). The sys Admin force would work best as a Core-wide phenomenon.
6.By exporting security, the US and the rest of the Core benefit from increased trade, increased international investment, and other benefits.

[RandomGuy]

By some accounts, McChrystal's career should have been over at least two times by now. As Pentagon spokesman during the invasion of Iraq, the general seemed more like a White House mouthpiece than an up-and-coming commander with a reputation for speaking his mind. When Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld made his infamous "stuff happens" remark during the looting of Baghdad, McChrystal backed him up. A few days later, he echoed the president's Mission Accomplished gaffe by insisting that major combat operations in Iraq were over. But it was during his next stint – overseeing the military's most elite units, including the Rangers, Navy Seals and Delta Force – that McChrystal took part in a cover-up that would have destroyed the career of a lesser man.

After Cpl. Pat Tillman, the former-NFL-star-turned-Ranger, was accidentally killed by his own troops in Afghanistan in April 2004, McChrystal took an active role in creating the impression that Tillman had died at the hands of Taliban fighters. He signed off on a falsified recommendation for a Silver Star that suggested Tillman had been killed by enemy fire. (McChrystal would later claim he didn't read the recommendation closely enough – a strange excuse for a commander known for his laserlike attention to minute details.) A week later, McChrystal sent a memo up the chain of command, specifically warning that President Bush should avoid mentioning the cause of Tillman's death. "If the circumstances of Corporal Tillman's death become public," he wrote, it could cause "public embarrassment" for the president.

"The false narrative, which McChrystal clearly helped construct, diminished Pat's true actions," wrote Tillman's mother, Mary, in her book Boots on the Ground by Dusk. McChrystal got away with it, she added, because he was the "golden boy" of Rumsfeld and Bush, who loved his willingness to get things done, even if it included bending the rules or skipping the chain of command. Nine days after Tillman's death, McChrystal was promoted to major general.

Two years later, in 2006, McChrystal was tainted by a scandal involving detainee abuse and torture at Camp Nama in Iraq. According to a report by Human Rights Watch, prisoners at the camp were subjected to a now-familiar litany of abuse: stress positions, being dragged naked through the mud. McChrystal was not disciplined in the scandal, even though an interrogator at the camp reported seeing him inspect the prison multiple times. But the experience was so unsettling to McChrystal that he tried to prevent detainee operations from being placed under his command in Afghanistan, viewing them as a "political swamp," according to a U.S. official. In May 2009, as McChrystal prepared for his confirmation hearings, his staff prepared him for hard questions about Camp Nama and the Tillman cover-up. But the scandals barely made a ripple in Congress, and McChrystal was soon on his way back to Kabul to run the war in Afghanistan.

The media, to a large extent, have also given McChrystal a pass on both controversies. Where Gen. Petraeus is kind of a dweeb, a teacher's pet with a Ranger's tab, McChrystal is a snake-eating rebel, a "Jedi" commander, as Newsweek called him. He didn't care when his teenage son came home with blue hair and a mohawk. He speaks his mind with a candor rare for a high-ranking official. He asks for opinions, and seems genuinely interested in the response. He gets briefings on his iPod and listens to books on tape. He carries a custom-made set of nunchucks in his convoy engraved with his name and four stars, and his itinerary often bears a fresh quote from Bruce Lee. ("There are no limits. There are only plateaus, and you must not stay there, you must go beyond them.") He went out on dozens of nighttime raids during his time in Iraq, unprecedented for a top commander, and turned up on missions unannounced, with almost no entourage. "The fucking lads love Stan McChrystal," says a British officer who serves in Kabul. "You'd be out in Somewhere, Iraq, and someone would take a knee beside you, and a corporal would be like 'Who the fuck is that?' And it's fucking Stan McChrystal."

(from page 3 on website) http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/119236?RS_show_page=3

Interesting article.

[z0sa]

It is highly logical to be there.

Perhaps that was the wrong wording; what I mean is, it's illogical to stay if the majority of Americans don't think it's necessary. Is the Taliban planning on invading the USA, or even Iraq if they regain power? It might seem necessary to stick it out but I don't think it is. We'll never crush out the terrorists for good, ever.

Long story short, I don't think we have the money, political will, or public desire to be there for 20-40 years.


Read up on the following book:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pentagon's_New_Map

If you want to tap into the mind of the junior officers that are coming into the O6+ ranks (Col/general/admiral+), learn what this guy is saying.

I caught the briefing he gives on CSPAN one day, and it astonishingly perfectly put into words and solid concepts things that I had vaguely formed for years, but never bothered to sit down and outline.

Mr. Barnett pretty much has the ear of the pentagon and is pivotal in forming a lot of thinking of up and coming leaders.

He is also pretty much spot on. The danger to the US is not from developed nations, it comes from the Gap that he talks about.

We need a different army and are slowly shaping that into one more capable of handling the types of wars we actually end up fighting, as opposed to the WW2/Cold War era nation-to-nation mindset that is the definition of starting the next war with the army from the last one.

I will definitely look into it. Thanks for the suggestion. And I agree it's time to change the way we wage war. I think Patraeus and others are on the road to doing just that.

[EVAY]

Potential and almost certain bad outcomes:

Taliban sweeps back into power, providing easy access to training camps for potential al Qaeda militant operatives.

Skeptics of US policies and willingness to "tough it out" are vindicated, decreasing the amount of cooperation we get in many areas, because we have proven, yet again, that we will cut and run when things get mildly difficult.

Al Qaeda will, in essence, claim victory, and they will be right. This will make it much easier for them to convince others to join their cause.

Those are the direct, first order results. I would not even care to guess at a lot of the second + order results.

I think this is, unfortunately, right on.

I hate it, but I think we have to stay there for a while...

but I keep remembering that "Afghanistan is where empires go to die".

[EVAY]

Truly a situation where there are no good alternatives, but some alternatives (like taking off right now or in 6 months or so) are clearly worse than others.

[EVAY]

Truly a situation where there are no good alternatives, but some alternatives (like taking off right now or in 6 months or so) are clearly worse than others.

I absolutely hate having to admit that.

[CosmicCowboy]

Afghanistan is a stone age country ruled by tribal chiefs that switch sides at will. They admire strength as long as you don't fuck with their little local power game. Start pussing out trying to avoid conflict, and let the Taliban back in unmolested to choose where/when they hit you and you not only lose casualties you lose the confidence of the tribal chiefs. They are a brutal people. You have to show strength and resolve or you are fucked.

[RandomGuy]

Afghanistan is a stone age country ruled by tribal chiefs that switch sides at will. They admire strength as long as you don't fuck with their little local power game. Start pussing out trying to avoid conflict, and let the Taliban back in unmolested to choose where/when they hit you and you not only lose casualties you lose the confidence of the tribal chiefs. They are a brutal people. You have to show strength and resolve or you are fucked.

The Soviets showed plenty. They failed.

Have you actually read the counter insurgency manual?

[CosmicCowboy]

Correction. Afghanistan isn't even a country. They don't and never have accepted a centralized government. The concept is totally foreign to them. It's fucking indian territory and they are some tough bastards.

[ChumpDumper]

The Soviets showed plenty. They failed.

Have you actually read the counter insurgency manual?He doesn't know what the term means.

[CosmicCowboy]

The Soviets showed plenty. They failed.

Have you actually read the counter insurgency manual?

They admire strength, not stupidity. The Russians occupied the cities and raided the countryside and planted a bazillion landmines blowing up and maiming a ton of locals. That pissed off the tribal chiefs which made it fertile ground for the Taliban after the CIA/US split after the Russians got their ass kicked.

[RandomGuy]

They admire strength, not stupidity. The Russians occupied the cities and raided the countryside and planted a bazillion landmines blowing up and maiming a ton of locals. That pissed off the tribal chiefs which made it fertile ground for the Taliban after the CIA/US split after the Russians got their ass kicked.

...so, you haven't read the counterinsurgency manual?

[RandomGuy]

He doesn't know what the term means.

Field Manual 3-24 in pdf format (http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-24.pdf)

282 pages that summarizes everything learned from counterinsurgency, esp. by the US military in Vietnam.

Yes, I have read the whole thing. Good reading, and I would recommend that anybody who wants to have an informed opinion on Afghanistan do the same, for reasons stated previously.

[CosmicCowboy]

...so, you haven't read the counterinsurgency manual?

Sorry, I actually have a job and have not read the counterinsurgency manual cover to cover but understand the highlights.

Meanwhile, Are you fucking stupid? Do you not know how this mess started? The US armed and trained the fucking Taliban with the goal of defeating the evil USSR empire. Yeah, we knew they were religious fanatics but they were stone cold killers and thats what we needed, not a bunch of farmers. Well, when the USSR left Afghanistan we did too, and left the general population to the mercy of the Taliban instead of staying there and nation building while we had a chance. Thank you very much Bill Clinton. Now, we reap what we sowed.

[MannyIsGod]

:lmao

You think RG doesn't work? You bitch and moan here on a daily basis and you can't find time to read 282 pages because YOU HAVE A JOB? And then you have the nerve to ask the guy who's obviously gone out of his way WHILE HAVING A JOB to inform himself if he's stupid?

Amazing.

282 pages? FUCK THAT I HAVE A JOB.

[word]

http://weaselzippers.us/

[CosmicCowboy]

:lmao

You think RG doesn't work? You bitch and moan here on a daily basis and you can't find time to read 282 pages because YOU HAVE A JOB? And then you have the nerve to ask the guy who's obviously gone out of his way WHILE HAVING A JOB to inform himself if he's stupid?

Amazing.

282 pages? FUCK THAT I HAVE A JOB.

Your fucking President and Attorney Fucking General couldn't read a THIRTEEN PAGE Arizona law either.

Fuck you Manny.

He gave me the link and I will probably read the full text. as I said, I've read the highlights.

Your jealousy/penis envy when I post continues to crack me up.

Fucking Loser. Bite Me.

[ChuckD]

Sorry, I actually have a job and have not read the counterinsurgency manual cover to cover but understand the highlights.

Meanwhile, Are you fucking stupid? Do you not know how this mess started? The US armed and trained the fucking Taliban with the goal of defeating the evil USSR empire. Yeah, we knew they were religious fanatics but they were stone cold killers and thats what we needed, not a bunch of farmers. Well, when the USSR left Afghanistan we did too, and left the general population to the mercy of the Taliban instead of staying there and nation building while we had a chance. Thank you very much Bill Clinton. Now, we reap what we sowed.

Don't expect Clinton to clean up your boy Bush I's messes. He didn't sell them that shit. He also makes your boy Bush II look like the retard he is by NOT getting involved in a land war in Asia, let alone doubling down with two.

[Yonivore]

So, let me see if I've got this straight...

President Obama accepted the resignation of his hand-picked general to lead the effort in Afghanistan and replaced him with a general he had no confidence in, just 3 years ago?

cIUej6VJzII

One wonders if MoveOn.org and MSNBC's Keith Olbermann will reprise their General BetrayUs chanting...

I can only conclude Petraeus took the job out of a sense of patriotism and devotion to his men and not out of any sense of duty to the President. Unlike McChrystal, however, I bet Petraeus can keep his personal views of the Commander-in-Chief to himself.

By the way, if Petraeus pulls Afghanistan out of the fire, it will -- once again -- vindicate the judgement of Obama's predecessor. Not that it will be acknowledged by anyone.

[CosmicCowboy]

Don't expect Clinton to clean up your boy Bush I's messes. He didn't sell them that shit. He also makes your boy Bush II look like the retard he is by NOT getting involved in a land war in Asia, let alone doubling down with two.

At that point it wouldn't have taken a war, just a little continuity. Whatever.

I'm not saying that any President has gotten Afghanistan RIGHT I'm just saying at this point it is fucking hopeless. But Obama OWNS this one. He said BushII fought the wrong war. Maybe he was right. At least that one was winnable. The government we will leave in Iraq is a thousand times better than Sadaam Hussein. The jury is still out on Obamas legacy in Afghanistan.

[clambake]

So, let me see if I've got this straight...

President Obama accepted the resignation of his hand-picked general to lead the effort in Afghanistan and replaced him with a general he had no confidence in, just 3 years ago?

cIUej6VJzII

One wonders if MoveOn.org and MSNBC's Keith Olbermann will reprise their General BetrayUs chanting...

I can only conclude Petraeus took the job out of a sense of patriotism and devotion to his men and not out of any sense of duty to the President. Unlike McChrystal, however, I bet Petraeus can keep his personal views of the Commander-in-Chief to himself.

By the way, if Petraeus pulls Afghanistan out of the fire, it will -- once again -- vindicate the judgement of Obama's predecessor. Not that it will be acknowledged by anyone.

don't sweat it. people only questioned the general because he was appointed by the guy that lied to you.

[Yonivore]

don't sweat it. people only questioned the general because he was appointed by the guy that lied to you.
Funny -- and more than a bit ironic -- you cling to that fallacy when we've been subjected to the most dishonest administration in recent memory, for the past 18 months.

Pick one major Obama initiative that isn't based on a whopper of a lie.

[clambake]

Pick one major Obama initiative that isn't based on a whopper of a lie.

you don't care about lies. remember?

[Yonivore]

you don't care about lies. remember?
So....you can't.

[clambake]

So....you can't.

he hasn't lied about anything. he "decides". he's the new "decider".

that use to turn you on. what happened?

[ChumpDumper]

Funny -- and more than a bit ironic -- you cling to that fallacy when we've been subjected to the most dishonest administration in recent memory, for the past 18 months.

Pick one major Obama initiative that isn't based on a whopper of a lie.Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.

[clambake]

he should be happy that there's one less black guy to run into at the pumps. lol

[CosmicCowboy]

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.

Funny how Sadaam's carefully orchestrated fabric of lies he created to project him as a "major world power" ended up biting him in the ass.

Our intelligence community believed him.

[Yonivore]

Funny how Sadaam's carefully orchestrated fabric of lies he created to project him as a "major world power" ended up biting him in the ass.

Our intelligence community believed him.
As did most of the world.

[ChumpDumper]

Funny how Sadaam's carefully orchestrated fabric of lies he created to project him as a "major world power" ended up biting him in the ass.

Our intelligence community believed him.The intelligence community had doubts. Cheney said there was no doubt.

That was a whopper of a lie.

[clambake]

actually, it was deliberately misleading.

[Wild Cobra]

The polls said Obama needed to kick some ass.
Are you sure the administration didn't misread that? I thought the polls said Obama needed his ass kicked.

[ElNono]

As did most of the world.

The same world that gave the US the middle finger when Powell made his presentation in the UN?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/12/Powell-anthrax-vial.jpg/300px-Powell-anthrax-vial.jpg

That's some revisionist history right there, yoni...

[CosmicCowboy]

The same world that gave the US the middle finger when Powell made his presentation in the UN?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/12/Powell-anthrax-vial.jpg/300px-Powell-anthrax-vial.jpg

That's some revisionist history right there, yoni...

The UN? The same UN that can't decide if Iran is really trying to get nukes?

:lmao

[ElNono]

The UN? The same UN that can't decide if Iran is really trying to get nukes?

We can argue wether the UN is good/bad/worthless, etc. It's irrelevant to the point made.

That's the forum where 'the rest of the world' gets together to discuss foreign affairs, and where 'the rest of the world' didn't agree with the US that Iraq had WMD...

Coincidentally, they were right...

[boutons_deux]

"Our intelligence community believed him."

bullshit. There were serious doubts, all of which were suppressed to build the case to grab the oil. Robert Gates in the early 80s starting the politicizing efforts in the CIA to present/select the "facts" that fit the political objectives, rather than presenting all facts and let the the politicians decide.

There were 60 oil contracts being negotiated by Saddam with France, Russia, China, etc, but not one contract with UK or US, who were pointedly excluded for obvious reasons. The US/UK started a war to grab the oil they were being excluded from.

Powell's close aides knew he was going to the UN will lies about mobile biological weapons labs.

Without the Repugs and neo-c*nts sexing up the case as the Brits said, there would have been no war.

btw, dubya pulled out the weapons inspectors so he could start the war. They weren't kicked out by Saddam.

We've been over this many times. But you fucking right-wingers will never admit that you were duped into promoting and still into justifying a war of choice to grab the oil.

And shall we mention had badly the Repugs fucked up their expectations of the US invaders as welcomed heroes, or how badly the Repugs fucked up the management of both their wars before dumping them on Magic Negro?

Afghanistan is a hellhole, not even a country, just some land with borders. I doubt Magic Negro has the balls to go against the ever-self-enriching MIC and stop the war.

[CosmicCowboy]

"Our intelligence community believed him."

bullshit. There were serious doubts, all of which were suppressed to build the case to grab the oil. Robert Gates in the early 80s starting the politicizing efforts in the CIA to present/select the "facts" that fit the political objectives, rather than presenting all facts and let the the politicians decide.

There were 60 oil contracts being negotiated by Saddam with France, Russia, China, etc, but not one contract with UK or US, who were pointedly excluded for obvious reasons. The US/UK started a war to grab the oil they were being excluded from.

Powell's close aides knew he was going to the UN will lies about mobile biological weapons labs.

Without the Repugs and neo-c*nts sexing up the case as the Brits said, there would have been no war.

btw, dubya pulled out the weapons inspectors so he could start the war. They weren't kicked out by Saddam.

We've been over this many times. But you fucking right-wingers will never admit that you were duped into promoting and still into justifying a war of choice to grab the oil.

And shall we mention had badly the Repugs fucked up their expectations of the US invaders as welcomed heroes, or how badly the Repugs fucked up the management of both their wars before dumping them on Magic Negro?

Afghanistan is a hellhole, not even a country, just some land with borders. I doubt Magic Negro has the balls to go against the ever-self-enriching MIC and stop the war.

Oh yeah. We sure grabbed that oil. Last I heard Iraq was still in charge of 100% of their oil and we are pulling out.

What kind of altered universe do you and Manny live in?

[boutons_deux]

"We sure grabbed that oil."

That was the objective, dubya and dickhead fucked up that up. The idea that Bremer was pushing, with all the oilcos, was production sharing arrangements, which favor the oilcos more, not leasing arrangements, which are used everywhere else.

did you not hear about a FOIA request that produced docs the dickhead's secret National Energy Policy group (of unknown oilco, etc execs) had meetings with maps of Iraq showing the oil and exploration fields? In spring 2001, before WTC, and 2 years before dickhead invaded?

dickhead lied for years trying to justify his bullshit resource grab by trying to tie Saddam to WTC.

And has anybody forgotten that dubya's first commerce secretary was astonished to hear dubya talking about Iraq in his very first cabinet meeting?

Invading Iraq for oil was a Repug/neo-c*nt dream from the 1990s.

[Marcus Bryant]

It's always good to be reminded that the elected civilian leadership is in charge and not the military.

[EmptyMan]

Politicians are in charge of the military.

Elected civilian leadership has a warm and fuzzy feeling though.

[boutons_deux]

"Politicians are in charge of the military"

The capitalists and corps, esp the MIC, are in charge of the politicians.

[DarrinS]

"Our intelligence community believed him."

bullshit. There were serious doubts, all of which were suppressed to build the case to grab the oil. Blah blah blah...


Cwqh4wQPoQk

[clambake]

why would anyone watch a harry reid utube, darrin?

[DarrinS]

why would anyone watch a harry reid utube, darrin?


Well, if you'd rather read than watch video.


"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

[clambake]

not important to read all of that.

clinton had it right when he kept saddam in a box.

the rest were swayed by "deliberately misleading evidence" provided by bush.

[Wild Cobra]

I'm not sure if I heard the radio blurb correctly on my way home this morning from work.

Petreous taking his place?

Weren't the democrats calling him "betray-us?"

[clambake]

way to keep up.

[RandomGuy]

Perhaps that was the wrong wording; what I mean is, it's illogical to stay if the majority of Americans don't think it's necessary.

The majority of Americans are morons when it comes to knowing anything about the rest of the world, let alone the vastly complex problem that Afghanistan represents.

That is partly why Obama got some votes, because of his promises to end the war.

Lo' and behold Obama gets into the white house and gets some decent advice and briefings and then realizes that withdrawing is not really an option.

The next president will face the same problems and much of the same advice.

[RandomGuy]

I'm not sure if I heard the radio blurb correctly on my way home this morning from work.

Petreous taking his place?

Weren't the democrats calling him "betray-us?"

Some liberals were indeed saying that. They were/are idiots.

[RandomGuy]

Funny how Sadaam's carefully orchestrated fabric of lies he created to project him as a "major world power" ended up biting him in the ass.

Our intelligence community believed him.

Pretty much every intelligence community believed that, despite the lack of evidence.

It was an interesting bluff, and you are right that it bit him in the ass. That miscalculation cost him one non-streched neck. Good riddance.

[RandomGuy]

Sorry, I actually have a job and have not read the counterinsurgency manual cover to cover but understand the highlights.

Meanwhile, Are you fucking stupid? Do you not know how this mess started? The US armed and trained the fucking Taliban with the goal of defeating the evil USSR empire. Yeah, we knew they were religious fanatics but they were stone cold killers and thats what we needed, not a bunch of farmers. Well, when the USSR left Afghanistan we did too, and left the general population to the mercy of the Taliban instead of staying there and nation building while we had a chance. Thank you very much Bill Clinton. Now, we reap what we sowed.


The final troop withdrawal started on May 15, 1988, and ended on February 15, 1989 under the last Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev.

Who was president on February 15, 1989?

I am not entirely sure why the governor of Arkansas was responsible for abandoning the Afghans.

[EVAY]

Pretty much every intelligence community believed that, despite the lack of evidence.

It was an interesting bluff, and you are right that it bit him in the ass. That miscalculation cost him one non-streched neck. Good riddance.

It is true that most world intelligence communities believed that Saddam had WMD's...but...

They did NOT believe that Saddam had any kind of positive relationship with Al Quaida, and THAT is what I could never forgive the Bush Administration for lying about. Cheny kept saying repeatedly on those Sunday morning talk shows that it was "clear" that they were connected to Al Quaida, and he knew all along that it was a lie, and his own intelligence agencies had assured him that Al Quaeda hated Saddam...and vice versa.

[EVAY]

Long after the invasion was underway, Cheney kept talking about how Al Quaeda was in Iraq.

Total unmitigated bullshit.

They DID come in after we tore up the country...

[RandomGuy]

Long after the invasion was underway, Cheney kept talking about how Al Quaeda was in Iraq.

Total unmitigated bullshit.

They DID come in after we tore up the country...

Indeed.

Much was made of a couple of low-level contacts between Iraqi intelligence and Al Qaeda, but no one familiar with the particulars would say it was anything more than the equivalent of two mail-room clerks from GM and Ford getting together for lunch.

[z0sa]

The majority of Americans are morons when it comes to knowing anything about the rest of the world, let alone the vastly complex problem that Afghanistan represents.

That is partly why Obama got some votes, because of his promises to end the war.

Lo' and behold Obama gets into the white house and gets some decent advice and briefings and then realizes that withdrawing is not really an option.

The next president will face the same problems and much of the same advice.

So our logic is: since we're there, let's finish the job. Let's not let our dead soldiers' lives be in vain since the country will once again fall into extremist hands and cause even more lives to be lost. And others.

What are some reasons why you think it will take as many as 40 years for the Afghans to become entirely autonomous?

[boutons_deux]

"let's finish the job"

US finished the job of chasing AQ out of Afghanistan and destroying the Taleban in 2002.

The generals say, like in Iraq, there is no military solution in Afghanistan. The backward, corrupt, tribal, shithole "country" is not worth dying for, now or ever.

The best defense of USA is here in the USA. Iraq and Afghanistan bullshit wars have not increased the US's security at all. A total waste lives and treasure (but the MIC and oilcos did well).

[DarrinS]

Suddenly, MoveOn.org removed "Betray-Us" ad from their website.

http://dailycaller.com/2010/06/23/mcchrystal-out-petraeus-in-moveon-org-scrambling/




Oddly enough, MoveOn.org still had this Sept. 2007 ad up as of June 18, according to their Google cache. But if you go to http://pol.moveon.org/petraeus.html now, it’s gone. They kept it there for almost 3 years before taking it down all of a sudden.

Wonder why?



http://dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/GeneralBetrayUs.jpg

[RandomGuy]

So our logic is: since we're there, let's finish the job. Let's not let our dead soldiers' lives be in vain since the country will once again fall into extremist hands and cause even more lives to be lost. And others.

What are some reasons why you think it will take as many as 40 years for the Afghans to become entirely autonomous?

Primary reason:

No infrastructure.

By any measure, human capital, physical capital, legal infrastructure, Afghanistan is roughly where the were pretty much at the level of the incas in the 1600's.

You just can't create a nation out of whole cloth in ten or even twenty years.

I would note the modern state of Germany didn't exist in 1860. It took more than a decade to form it, even with the forces of nationalism and common cultural elements to grease the wheels and force the two or three dozen principalities under one common flag.


Unifying various states into one nation required more than some military victories, however much these might have boosted morale. It also required a rethinking of political, social and cultural behaviors, and the construction of new metaphors about "us" and "them." Who were the new members of this new nation? What did they stand for? How were they to be organized?

Similar problems existed and were encountered for just about every modern nation created by colonial fiat, as Afghanistan was.

I think one good example is how Africa has developed post-colonial period. Contrary to many people's beleifs it has made massive strides, given where it was in 1950-1960.

Another 10-30 years given how things seem to go for the development of nations, is not outside the realm of what is necessary, IMO.

[clambake]

you shouldn't go to moveon.org.

i don't.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Suddenly, MoveOn.org removed "Betray-Us" ad from their website.

http://dailycaller.com/2010/06/23/mcchrystal-out-petraeus-in-moveon-org-scrambling/



http://dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/GeneralBetrayUs.jpg

why are you so worried about how Obama's decision is impacting MoveOn?

[MannyIsGod]

Your fucking President and Attorney Fucking General couldn't read a THIRTEEN PAGE Arizona law either.

Fuck you Manny.

He gave me the link and I will probably read the full text. as I said, I've read the highlights.

Your jealousy/penis envy when I post continues to crack me up.

Fucking Loser. Bite Me.

Thanks for taking time away from your job to make this post.

[CosmicCowboy]

Thanks for taking time away from your job to make this post.

Just wake up, bitch?

[MannyIsGod]

You had to edit that?

:lmao

Shouldn't you be working?

[CosmicCowboy]

You had to edit that?

:lmao

Shouldn't you be working?

I am working. I can multi-task.

[RandomGuy]

http://media.pegasusnews.com/img/photos/2007/03/24/Planet-of-the-Apes-Photograph-C11797467_t250.jpeg

Can't we all just get along?

[Wild Cobra]

you shouldn't go to moveon.org.

i don't.
Why? are they too far to the right for you?

[Winehole23]

COIN is has been a standoff at best, a war of slow attrition at worst, in Afghanistan. [over hasty inference, retracted, with apologizes to z0sa. -Ed.]

[z0sa]

^ You mean concerning McChrystal, or concerning McChrystal's tactics, or..?

Our quelling of these 'rebels' will never be complete (i think we agree there). Even in 40 years, I doubt the terrorist threat will be gone. It may even increase exponentially as more of the country's vast natural resources are uncovered and extracted.

[Winehole23]

Perhaps I mistook you. You seemed to be emphasizing the importance of Karzai's approval, and alluded to a vague improvement in US-Afghan relations.

[z0sa]

Perhaps I mistook you. You seemed to be emphasizing the importance of Karzai's approval, and alluded to a vague improvement in US-Afghan relations.

Karzai's approval of McChrystal? I did emphasize that, but it's not that important. Petraeus is probably the more apt general, even if counterinsurgency will be more difficult than in Iraq, and later in the "game". And Karzai isn't the only one in the Afghan government who was pleased with the general's efforts. Karzai's brother directly spoke about the improvements made since McChrystal was put in charge, and other officials as well. They seemed to appreciate his strict adherence to preserving Afghan civilian life/infrastructure at all costs, even as the Coalition body count average increased.

[Winehole23]

Karzai's brother directly spoke about the improvements made since McChrystal was put in charge, and other officials as well.The counterinsurgency plan isn't working in Afghanistan. It probably never will.

[z0sa]

The counterinsurgency plan isn't working in Afghanistan. It probably never will.

And I understand firing McChrystal changes little about that - which is why I consider Obama relieving McChrystal controversial. I doubt Petraeus accomplishes more than McChrystal could have, even if he's more able-minded, and it seems the Afghans actually liked McChrystal. I guess though, that there are those who believe that the Afghans' 'blessing' is actually a curse.

I don't mean to weave any myths, friend. :toast

[RandomGuy]

The counterinsurgency plan isn't working in Afghanistan. It probably never will.

Proper counterinsurgency requires more resources than they have been given so far.

That was one of the reasons that McChrytal was asking for more troops.

They need still more.

http://costofwar.com/

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0933935.html

You will note the rather large disparity between spending in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Both websites show about a 4:1 ratio of spending.

We can ramp down spending in Iraq, but must ramp it up for Afghanistan.

Power plants, roads, schools, hospitals ain't cheap.

[RandomGuy]

Key ideas:

1.Systems of rules called Rule-sets reduce violent conflict. Violence decreases as rules are established (e.g., the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding) for dealing with international conflicts.

2.The world can be roughly divided into two groups: the Functioning Core, characterized by economic interdependence, and the Non-Integrated Gap, characterized by unstable leadership and absence from international trade. The Core can be sub-divided into Old Core (North America, Western Europe, Japan, Australia) and New Core (China, India). The Disconnected Gap includes the Middle East, South Asia (except India), most of Africa, Southeast Asia, and northwest South America.

3.Integration of the Gap countries into the global economy will provide opportunities for individuals living in the Gap to improve their lives, thereby presenting a desirable alternative to violence and terrorism. The US military is the only force capable of providing the military support to facilitate this integration by serving as the last ditch rule-enforcer. Barnett argues that it has been doing so for over 20 years by "exporting" security (US spends about half of the world's total in military spending).

4.To be successful the US military must stop thinking of war in the context of war but war in the context of "everything else", i.e. demographics, energy, investment, security, politics, trade, immigration, etc.

5.In recognition of its dual role, the US military should organize itself according to two functions, the "Leviathan" and the "System Administrator."
Leviathan's purpose is the use of overwhelming force in order to end violence quickly. It will take out governments, defend Core countries, and generally do the deterrence work that the US military has been doing since the end of WWII. The Leviathan force is primarily staffed by young aggressive personnel and is overwhelmingly American.
The SysAdmin's purpose is to wage peace: peacekeeping, nation building, strengthening weak governments, etc. The SysAdmin force is primarily staffed by older, more experienced personnel, though not entirely (he would put the Marines in SysAdmin as the " Mini-me Leviathan"). The sys Admin force would work best as a Core-wide phenomenon.

6.By exporting security, the US and the rest of the Core benefit from increased trade, increased international investment, and other benefits.

Worth stating again. It is in our best long-term interests to shrink the Gap, both for security reasons, and for economic ones.

[CosmicCowboy]

Wait a second. McChrystal is now universally agreed to be dangerous cowboy. 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?

[jack sommerset]

This is the easiest decision Barry ever had to make. Today the two wars are on the back pages again.

[clambake]

Wait a second. McChrystal is now universally agreed to be a "dangerous cowboy". 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?

i think gates clearly explained the problems.

anybody here have a problem with gates?

[Winehole23]

Worth stating again. It is in our best long-term interests to shrink the Gap, both for security reasons, and for economic ones.What makes you think US officials will commit sufficient (for which btw, is there any definition yet?) resources to get the job done?

I just don't see that happening...but a decade more of continuing to half-ass it and just muddle through is plainly foreseeable.

Like George Will said recently, COIN is nation-building. If that's what we're in for, we deserve a straight tale about it from our government, and a straight up tally of what it will cost in men and money. But perhaps it is a point of guile to keep the real strategy concealed from the US public and US enemies as long as possible.

[Winehole23]

Wait a second. McChrystal is now universally agreed to be a "dangerous cowboy". I didn't assent to that.


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?Why would Petraus throw McChrystal under the bus? Hedid a bang up job as Special Ops Commander in Iraq. Don't they need a few dangerous cowboys for that?

[Winehole23]

Either McChrystal wasn't good enough at working the political side of the aisle, or it was a cynical self-immolation. Either way, the result is ok with me.

[RandomGuy]

What makes you think US officials will commit sufficient (for which btw, is there any definition yet?) resources to get the job done?

I just don't see that happening...but a decade more of continuing to half-ass it and just muddle through is plainly foreseeable.

Like George Will said recently, COIN is nation-building. If that's what we're in for, we deserve a straight tale about it from our government, and a straight up tally of what it will cost in men and money. But perhaps it is a point of guile to keep the real strategy concealed from the US public and US enemies as long as possible.

The doctrine does actually outline some rough rules of thumb for "sufficient" yes.

COIN is exactly nation-building and Mr. Will is right about that. It will, however, be called a "war" because that is easier to sell.

As for whether administrations/congress' will provide sufficient, I would guess it is more likely than you seem to think as well. The people who get to make the ultimate call as to what is necessary happen to be wearing uniforms, and they are much more of a constant than elected officials, and have some moral authority when asking for support from said administrations and congresses.

We do a lot of things half-assed, but hopefully not this one. We need the full ass.

[boutons_deux]

It will take $Ts to build an Afghan nation where there has never been anything but tribes and colonial invaders and occupiers. and that still won't work because the governmental institutions don't have a democratic populace, a shared culture to build on.

Get out of Afghanistan, accept defeat, and quit half-assing that which won't yield to full-assing.

[Winehole23]

To start with, how many more troops. The outgoing ISAF commander said 400,000 I think.

What are the chances of getting that many US troops in theatre, or do we just hire more mercenaries again?

[RandomGuy]

To start with, how many more troops. The outgoing ISAF commander said 400,000 I think.

What are the chances of getting that many US troops in theatre, or do we just hire more mercenaries again?

400,000 sounds about right.

That is not politically feasible. We should do as much as we can, and hope that proves to be sufficient.

As for the mercenaries, hopefully that won't be quite so necessary, as we will be able to concentrate our efforts a bit more as Iraq draws down.

[ChumpDumper]

Wait a second. McChrystal is now universally agreed to be a "dangerous cowboy". 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?Where is this universal agreement?

Provide a link. Actually several, since you claim it's universal.

[Oh, Gee!!]

dangerous cowboy? that would be Dubya.

[boutons_deux]

"hope that proves to be sufficient."

:lol :lol :lol :lol GMAFB

[Winehole23]

And I understand firing McChrystal changes little about that - which is why I consider Obama relieving McChrystal controversial. I doubt Petraeus accomplishes more than McChrystal could have, even if he's more able-minded, and it seems the Afghans actually liked McChrystal. I guess though, that there are those who believe that the Afghans' 'blessing' is actually a curse.

I don't mean to weave any myths, friend. :toast 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

[CosmicCowboy]

Where is this universal agreement?

Provide a link. Actually several, since you claim it's universal.


n a profile by Michael Hastings, published in Rolling Stone, titled "The Runaway General," McChrystal is characterized as an outsider who did not relate well with the administration, and as a military leader who was "disappointed" with his first meeting with the president.

The subhead of the story reads: "Stanley McChrystal, Obama's top commander in Afghanistan, has seized control of the war by never taking his eye off the real enemy: The wimps in the White House."

After news of the comments sent shockwaves through political and military circles from D.C. to Afghanistan.

This shit was repeated over and over on every major new outlet in America ( The quote I clipped just happened to come from ABC) and McCrystal was fired so obviously the White House believed it too.

[ChumpDumper]

This shit was repeated over and over on every major new outlet in America ( The quote I clipped just happened to come from ABC) and McCrystal was fired so obviously the White House believed it too.I don't see the words "dangerous cowboy" (your quotes, not mine).

I see the words "outsider who did not relate well with the administration" which is entirely different.

You failed.

[Winehole23]

McCrystal was fired so obviously the White House believed it too.It really doesn't matter whether the White House believed it or not. McChrystal's staff drunkenly belittled their civilian counterparts and the US president in front of the press. That's unacceptable.

[CosmicCowboy]

I don't see the words "dangerous cowboy" (your quotes, not mine).

I see the words "outsider who did not relate well with the administration" which is entirely different.

You failed.

You are a cretin. I don't have to construct thoughts from direct quotes from others like a fucking ransom note. Yes "dangerous cowboy" were my words but that is an apt description for someone who does not respect or follow authority, which is what McCrystal was accused of.

[ChumpDumper]

You are a cretin. I don't have to construct thoughts from direct quotes from others like a fucking ransom note. Yes "dangerous cowboy" were my words but that is an apt description for someone who does not respect or follow authority, which is what McCrystal was accused of.In what way did he not follow authority? The authority was using his plan.

Those who do not respect authority are not necessarily dangerous, but the kind of public disrespect he and his staff showed to civilian authorities was unacceptable. Disrespectful and seriously lacking in judgment are more apt and indeed universally agreed upon descriptors.

[RandomGuy]

You are a cretin. I don't have to construct thoughts from direct quotes from others like a fucking ransom note. Yes "dangerous cowboy" were my words but that is an apt description for someone who does not respect or follow authority, which is what McCrystal was accused of.

I really didn't see that in any of the coverage I have seen/heard.

The analsyts NPR talked to pretty much concluded "it was impolitic of a competant general to have said this"

No one really said anything I would say that would support a charactorization of a "dangerous cowboy".


Respectfully:

I think you are getting some "groupthink" from Fox news on this one.

The left in this case doesn't seem to be portraying him as a "dangerous cowboy" that I have seen.

If you read the entire RS article, they paint a rather flattering picture of him IMO.