Reply With Quote
So there isn't a problem with Petraeus then.
Good talk.
no...so what?
So there isn't a problem with Petraeus then.
Good talk.
Tact matters, dude. The military is not the sovereign. On the contrary. it is power's servant.
Generals do well to preserve the appearance of loyalty to civilian government. High commanders who disrespect the civilian government openly deserve to lose their posts. Period. (While US officials who diss the military may continue in office so long as the voters reelect them.) Don't like it?
Tough luck.
Last edited by Winehole23; 06-25-2010 at 03:18 PM.
I am a little disappointed that as big as our military is they couldn't find a single other qualified candidate and had to demote Petraus to fill the spot. Personally I think they are setting him up for failure and getting rid of him once and for all. I'm sure Obama and Hillary haven't forgotten being made to look like fools at those surge hearings.
Yes, because failure in Afghanistan is clearly a desirable political goal for the Obama administration. Especially to settle a perceived slight in a Senate hearing.
...I see that you are finally getting it. It will be all George Bush's fault when it happens. He's lost the right and the middle. All he has left is his hard core left and they could care less about "winning' in Afghanistan. They just want us out.
No, it is clear that Petraeus will now deliberately fail in Afghanistan to settle the slights against him in the Senate hearings, because CosmicCowboy knows personal vendettas are more important than anything. Especially national security.
No, whats clear is that Obama knows he can't win in Afghanistan so he is just half hearted going through the motions till public support shifts to wanting us out.
No, whats clear is that Obama knows he can't win in Afghanistan so he is just half hearted going through the motions.
What's clear is that you are desperately trying to spin this situation and making up to convince yourself that it is true.
What? I thought that was what the Political Forum was for!
What's clear is that you are desperately trying to spin this situation and making up to convince yourself that it is true.
C'mon CD, admit that you like sparring with me...You like a challenge.
As long as you acknowledge that's what you are doing.
I will if you will.As long as you acknowledge that's what you are doing.
I admit I like sparring with you. Unlike the idiots like Manny you at least present a challenge.
What? Scratching yer butt?
Seems plausible to me.
Changing commanders would seem to be a de facto temporizing move: Petraeus will have to rearrange things to meet his own suitabilities/judgment, as well as the inevitable political importunities (hand the ball off for victory?) of winding the war down.
If this war doesn't end politically, somehow, we're screwed.
Doubt Obama has thrown in the towel just yet.
Didn't he give Gen. McChrystal the troops he asked for last year?
Didn't he step up drone strikes in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen? Take the battle to Somalia?
The gloss of Obama as an intentional loser (or even as a half-hearted warrior) appears to be lacking in accuracy, if you go by the plain appearances. Obama's expanded the war.
Last edited by Winehole23; 06-25-2010 at 04:46 PM.
As I remember it, McChrystal asked for 40,000 and Obama gave him 30,000 (almost 6 months later) He stepped up drone attacks, then scaled them back.
So in your opinion Obama is fighting for an unconditional win?
generals (in general) always ask for more than they need.
McChrystal was summoned to air-force one for a dressing down by the CIC for previous remarks. How is it on Petreaus that this happened? I am all for accountability, but you can't expect managers to be able to predict the future with 100% accuracy.
Command was fully aware of his at ude, and he was told to keep it low-key and to keep a low profile.
All of this was in the full RS article.
no, but neither did his predecessor.
Besides, winning, unconditional or otherwise, was never stably defined for Afghanistan. , it's still pretty undefined. I doubt you could even describe what an unconditional win looks like in Afghanistan, or what steps would be needed to reach it.
Even Petraeus has publically conceded there exists no purely military solution. Everything rides on the eventual political settlement. Any military action between now and then will probably seek to maximize US leverage and influence at the parley.
Personally I think that Patreaus is there because he is the best person for the job.
I don't recall that. Can you support the claim? What kind of time-frame are you referring to here?
he should ramp them up.......even if they only hit the ground.
A military source close to Gen. David Petraeus told Fox News that one of the first things the general will do when he takes over in Afghanistan is to modify the rules of engagement to make it easier for U.S. troops to engage in combat with the enemy, though a Petraeus spokesman pushed back on the claim.
Troops on the ground and some military commanders have said the strict rules -- aimed at preventing civilian casualties -- have effectively forced the troops to fight with one hand tied behind their backs.
The military source who has talked with Petraeus said the general will make those changes. Other sources were not so sure, but said they wouldn't be surprised to see that happen once Petraeus takes command.
Petraeus spokesman Col. Erik Gunhus disputed the claim Friday, telling Fox News it's too soon to tell whether Petraeus would change the current rules. But he said it is one of many issues he'll take under consideration during his assessment after he's confirmed and after he takes over command in Afghanistan.
Any adjustment to the rules of engagement does not mean the counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan will change. President Obama stressed Wednesday -- after he accepted Gen. Stanley McChrystal's resignation in the wake of a magazine article in which he and his staff were critical of the administration -- that the change-up does not represent a shift in war policy.
Rather, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday that Petraeus, currently head of U.S. Central Command and the former U.S. commander in Iraq, will have the flexibility to reconsider "the campaign plan and the approach."
At the same news conference at the Pentagon, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen said Petraeus will be able to make tactical changes. But he said that does not necessarily mean changes will be made and echoed the president's insistence that the strategy stays as he prepared for a visit to the war zone.
"My message will be clear: Nothing changes about our strategy, nothing changes about the mission," Mullen said.
The issue is likely to be front and center in Senate confirmation hearings for Petraeus next week.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
