Reply With Quote
once is enough if it's on the record.
once is enough if it's on the record.
I'm sure if McCrystal heard the rank and their staff just under him spouting off about him and his staff like that, they'd be gone, too.
Here's where you get into fun stuff with the chain-of-command. Technically, if Petraeus was directly over McChrystal, then is going to accept partial responsibility for it. There are two things working in Petraeus' favor here though.
1) McChrystal was a general; he should've known better. It's one thing for a SSgt to take heat over something dumb his Amn does, because the SSgt should've mentored the Amn better. But a Gen pretty much knows his way around.
2) I'm assuming that Petraeus wasn't aware of the general atmosphere, and so only so much blame could be assigned to him. (I'll use a personal example here since it's easier for me to relate.) For instance, if my airman has talked often in the workplace about drinking, and then gets a DUI, my chain of command will want to know if I've looked into his drinking. Did I ask him if he always had a plan to get back before he went out? Did I talk with him about his drinking habits? Did I see any warning signs?
If leadership sees that I've done all I can to prevent any incidents, I'm mostly off the hook. But if I was just laughing it up and ignoring poor behavioral signs, then I'll get chewed out. I assume it's the same here.
Which will probably have the consequences of more friendly fire towards civilians, which will lead to negative reactions from the local populace. I'm guessing the strict ROE is why Karzai liked McChrystal. It's a no-win situation.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.
I'm still waiting for a definition of "win".
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.
It's not like people who have experience commanding entire battlefields are growing on trees. Not until we create the battle colleges from Ender's Game.
i think gen p makes sense from both a military and civilian standpoint.
in my exp in the corp world, its also common that if the owner comes into shop and see's/hears of an environment that he doesn't approve of, he is more than likely going to sack the dept/regional manager, then put a VP/president type down in place to get things running smoothly and in a way of what things are supposed to be like until he can get someone who is in that dept capable of running shop. however if it was a mid-level mgr making the mistakes then the guy in charge of the dept/region would be taking the flak.
same thing in my exp in the military. if a lt or capt mouthed off and created a culture that is not what it should be then prob all the up to a full bird would take the heat. but anyone past a col should just know better and should be replaced with a higher up to instill the right values til they get the right guy for the job or the mission is over.
My guess is that if Osama bin Laden is ever captured/killed, we would pull out and call it a 'win'. That is, as I remember it, the primary reason we went into Afghanistan...to catch him 'dead or alive' according to our last pres.
Remember W famously saying of Bin Laden "He can run but he cannot hide"?
Wanna bet?
It was true of Saddam, whom W. truly hated enough to go after tooth and nail, but not Osama, about whom he 'forgot' in his haste to go after Saddam.
Petraeus to Modify Afghanistan Rules of Engagement, Source Says
I can pretty much imagine how the conversation went when President Obama asked the General to take command in Afghanistan:
PRESIDENT OBAMA: "David, I've had to relieve Stanley of command in Afghanistan over the Rolling Stone flap and would like for you to move from Centcom into that role. Whaddayasay?"
GENERAL PETRAUS: "Sure, I'll keep my mouth shut about what I think of you and you'll stay the out of my business. First thing I do is abandon those sissy ROE's that have been getting soldiers killed. Now, let's kick Taliban ass. Later."
Already posted by CC. Linked by WH23 yesterday @4:34pm.
Echo in here?
Can't read it all.
Here's an interesting link.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/27/wo...afghan.html?hp
It's too long to clip in full but a good read.
A little clip:
Beyond that, though, Mr. Karzai’s goals vis-à-vis the Taliban are difficult to discern. Recently he has told senior Afghan officials that he no longer believes that the Americans and NATO can prevail in Afghanistan and that they will probably leave soon. That fact may make Mr. Karzai more inclined to make a deal with both Pakistan and the Taliban.
Karzai has to hedge his position against the re ed Democrat diplomacy currently being foisted on the world by Barack Obama.
Another interesting take:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/26/op...erbert.html?hp
I don't agree with all of it but agree with the main premise...either fight to win or don't fight at all.
What do you define as a "win"?
Recent history. Within the day.
Don't you check first? At least skim it, dude. It doesn't take that long.
(C'mon yoni, how hard is reading? Please please catch up.)
"re ed Democrat diplomacy currently being foisted on the world by Barack Obama"
... it's working no worse than the neo-c*nt/Repug diplomacy 2 bogus, botched wars that Magic Negro inherited.
What's the matter, Yoni. Where do you want MN to start another war?
Yoni, tell us again about those WMD in Syria, and how the US was just "following" the beloved UN resolutions (when it suits the US)
win (wn)
v. won (wn), win·ning, wins
v.intr.
1. Not losing.
I would define a win as establishing a central government strong enough to provide basic services such as roads, education, and electricity to a majority of the population.
Democracy optional, but likely necessary, and certainly desirable.
10-30 more years, with the probable need for time being at the mid to upper end of that scale.
RG, very idealistic, and HIGHLY improbable.
Why should the USA drop/waste 100s of $Bs on a medieval, corrupt, primitive backwater like Afghanistan over a few decades when the USA lets its own citizens be impoverished long-term due to lack of jobs from the enduring Banksters' Great Depression?
Why a safety net for Afghanistan while shredding the weak safety in USA?
America is insane, and ed.
Here ya go, and it's a reasonable assumption that there's nobody in Afghanistan less corrupt than Karzai. Corruption of officials by corps, capitalists, and criminals is how the world works, including USA.
"U.S. officials say Karzai aides are derailing corruption cases involving elite"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...703645_pf.html
Minus the obvious overtones, I am inclined to agree.
Afghanistan and any other hole nation in the middle of nowhere.
Let them rot in their own filth. Garbage in, garbage out, as it goes.
America has its own problems. Afghanistan's problems are not America's...at least, they werent, until we decided to spread democracy under the guise of the War on Terror.
Pearl Harbor.
September 11, 2001.
Ignoring the world is not an option.
Here is an honest question:
What if solving the problems of the Afghans ultimately helps us solve our problems?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
