McChrystal Is Summoned to Washington Over Remarks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thomas Barnett

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.

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?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

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

---

I didn't assent to that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

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.

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

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.

dangerous cowboy? that would be Dubya.

"hope that proves to be sufficient."

:lol :lol :lol :lol GMAFB

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by z0sa

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Where is this universal agreement?

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

---

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

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.