McChrystal Is Summoned to Washington Over Remarks

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.

Fire the bastard, and his staff.

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

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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...

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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...

---

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"

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

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.

The military needs to overthrow the civilian "leadership."

"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."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarkReign

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarkReign

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drachen

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Homeland Security

I wasn't talking about Afghanistan, fuckface.

---

http://www.motivationalz.com/picture...tough_guys.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Homeland Security

I wasn't talking about Afghanistan, fuckface.

---

Got it, dickhead.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

He's human. He made a mistake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jack sommerset

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jack sommerset

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

---

Quote:

---

He's human. He made a mistake.

---

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 should have just flicked his wrist!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

Quote:

---

He's human. He made a mistake.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

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

---

Fixed.

Apparently he just submitted his resignation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kermit

Apparently he just submitted his resignation.

---

Another bad omen for Obama.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Another bad omen for Obama.

---

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

i wouldn't accept his resignation.

i'd fire his ass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clambake

i wouldn't accept his resignation.

i'd fire his ass.

---

You would fuck his ass, fag.

closet door opening a little wider for ya, jack?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

Not everyone shares that opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jack sommerset

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursncowboys

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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."

---

Yea, his aide says that the boss is disappointed. So?

What did McChrystal say that was out of line?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

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:

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursncowboys

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

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

---

Exactly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

So now you are against the war in Afghanistan.

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

Nice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

Afghanistan is Obama's war. He owns it.

:lmao

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

:lmao

---

Just did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

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:

Quote:

---

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/ob..._keygloss.html

Cf., obsession

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.

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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

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

Ain't we killed enough Muslims yet?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

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?

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

(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.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

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.

That only means we ain't done it yet.

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

BTW, do you think this was all worth it?

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

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.

- 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/...egy-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.