Reply With Quote
Using your logic, what should we do about the fact that 3rd world socialist dictators love Obama.
This wasn't a Douglas MacArthur moment. Shows how petty our narcissist in chief can be.
Using your logic, what should we do about the fact that 3rd world socialist dictators love Obama.
What happened to just killing Osama/capturing him for trial? I miss that plan.
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.
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.
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).
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.
Maybe Obama is more comfortable with Gen. Petraeus.
so comfortable that all of a sudden he became a spoiled child.
Afghan politicians rally around 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?
I mean, do any of us actually care who Karzai likes?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.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.
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 -ups in the administration realized they were ing up and finally used the doctrine, putting the guy who wrote it in charge. The rest is history.
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 ers to have supported any president making the exact same decision if that president happended to be a Republican.
We all know that.
Because the alternative is much, much worse.Why are we in Afghanistan if we can't even get the government we're supposedly helping to support us?
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.
That's rather vague.
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
