home

McChrystal's Disrepect For The Chain Of Command

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 08:45:59 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Two weeks ago, I wrote that if Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who heads up the US military effort in Afghanistan, threatened to resign if his recommendations were not accepted, he should be fired. McChrystal has continued to act in an unacceptable fashion and folks are noticing:

National security adviser James L. Jones suggested Sunday that the public campaign being conducted by the U.S. commander in Afghanistan on behalf of his war strategy is complicating the internal White House review underway, saying that "it is better for military advice to come up through the chain of command."

I have stated previously that I tend to favor Gen. McChrystal's assessment of and recommendations for the situation. But his behavior has been unacceptable. I believe the White House should adopt his recommendations and then sack him.

Speaking for me only

< Public Option A Test Of Obama's Political Strength | Monday Morning Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    McChrystal's Disrepect For The Chain Of Command | 195 comments (195 topical)
    Who would we replace him with? (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 08:56:32 AM EST
    That's the problem with sacking him

    McChrystal was one of Bush's torture czars (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 04:30:33 PM EST
    How can the general public, and the military rank and file, support and respect this Bush henchman who hung subordinates out to dry for torture tactics he authorized at Baghdad's Camp NAMA (Nasty A$$ Military Area). See this ABC story about McChrystals's recent confirmation hearings: Senator Feingold Slams General's Torture Testimony.

    See also this new Esquire story: Who the Hell is Stanley McChrystal:

    In 2006, "Jeff," an elite Army interrogator, told Esquire [snip] It was a point of pride that the Red Cross would never be allowed in the door. This is important because it defied the Geneva Conventions, which require that the Red Cross have access to military prisons. "Once, somebody brought it up with the colonel. 'Will they ever be allowed in here?' And he said absolutely not. He had this directly from General McChrystal and the Pentagon that there's no way that the Red Cross could get in -- they won't have access and they never will. This facility was completely closed off to anybody investigating, even Army investigators."

    I look forward to hearing what Greenwald has to say about the latest developments.

    Parent

    Correction: the linked Esquire story (none / 0) (#177)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 05:48:13 PM EST
    appeared on May 21/09 (prior to McChrystal's June 10th Senate confirmation to head forces in Afghanistan); the ABC story is from June 17th.

    FWIW: Greenwald weighed in on McChrystal's memo, and the larger issue of perpetual war, on September 21/09:  Our war-loving Foreign Policy Community hasn't gone anywhere. (He has  links to others, including Digby.)

    Parent

    His chief of staff! (none / 0) (#6)
    by Salo on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 08:59:50 AM EST
    The guy that wrote the plan in the first place.  That is, if you trust the plan.

    Parent
    If you mean Petraeus (none / 0) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 09:18:51 AM EST
    Petraeus is tired.  He hardly slept for about two years when he was in charge of Iraq.  He is very very good friends with General McChrystal.  General McChrystal is who ran JSOC for Petraeus and is also given much of the credit for our not losing Baghdad during the surge.  General McChrystal only needs to sleep about four hours a night as well for some biological reason.  If you sack McChrystal though, I don't know how you get to keep Petraeus, and he doesn't even want command of Afghanistan.  Whatcha going to do?  Shove it down his throat?

    Parent
    General Petraeus (none / 0) (#41)
    by AlkalineDave on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 09:54:31 AM EST
    is CENTOM Commander.  He's in charge of the whole shibangabang.  It would be a loss in status to put him directly in charge and CinC of Afghanistan, so it's not even a possibility.  Sure Petraeus is friendly with McChrystal, but I don't believe that extends to bucking SecDef Gates or the President.

    Parent
    Awe come on Dave (none / 0) (#45)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 09:59:58 AM EST
    Anything is possible.  You know that :) It shouldn't even have been possible for Petraeus to take over Iraq, he was baby General back then.  Why would he take over Afghanistan though?  He would run it personally if he had to.  I don't doubt that, but he would only do that if we had no other options.

    Parent
    Hahah (none / 0) (#58)
    by AlkalineDave on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 10:29:08 AM EST
    I guess anything is possible.  Talk about being overtasked.  He would then really get no sleep.  Petraeus was the right man at the right time. - a counterinsurgency theorist with a Princeton PhD in international relations.  He's got an ego, but for a reason.  It's unfortunate McChrystal is playing politics as a General.  If Petraeus saw fit to personally instill him, he must know what he's doing.  I guess competency doesn't make up for insubordination.

    Parent
    Honestly Dave (none / 0) (#73)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 10:52:14 AM EST
    When has a General not played politics.  You don't get to General without playing politics and Generals have fought for things since the beginning of Generals.  Petraeus did it something terrible.  But see, the Bush administration didn't air Pentagon dirty laundry.  When Bush fought with a General he didn't put that in the press so that people would scream insubordination. And Generals employed by the administration didn't throw it out there either.  And if Obama can't get his act together he is going to blow Afghanistan utterly.  I still can't believe he has only met McChrystal once before this.  He is trying to run a war like he is trying to get healthcare reform passed and the same mess with happen only this time with blood and bullets.

    Parent
    I can definitely see your point (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by AlkalineDave on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 11:10:59 AM EST
    I personally dislike seeing this played out in public.   Maybe that's part of being enlisted - you want officer problems to stay between the officers.  

    Parent
    Cause officers always have (none / 0) (#131)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 12:40:52 PM EST
    stupid effing problems too I believe.  Most are very very honorable people, but they are officers because they are competitive and they want to climb ladders.  Have you ever met one single officer who did not become one specifically to climb ladders?  Sometimes their "problems" are very similar to the problems experienced by a teenaged cheerleading squad.

    Parent
    MT, the Bush admin did use 'incompetence' (none / 0) (#82)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 11:07:02 AM EST
    frequently, especially in the Fallon situation.

    Parent
    You think Obama wants McChrystal (none / 0) (#130)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 12:37:16 PM EST
    to resign and that's the reason for this leak?

    Parent
    What (none / 0) (#9)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 09:05:49 AM EST
    is your thoughts on all this? I know your feelings previously about McChrystal and what a mistake it was to hire him. You certainly were right about that.

    Parent
    I didn't even want McChrystal for this (none / 0) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 09:21:58 AM EST
    I don't know how you backtrack though from here.  His plan is in place now and he's working it.  If you put someone else in there more "conventional" they would first have to dismantle the system because it isn't very conventional.  You could replace him with the Adm running JSOC right now probably.  But I think sacking McChrystal at this point would hurt troop morale seriously in Afghanistan right now.

    Parent
    Tracy, the insights of your comments (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by KeysDan on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 11:32:13 AM EST
    are  informative for me and much appreciated. But, at the same time, confusing.  Your earlier take on McChrystal was not entirely complimentary, such as his military tactics bordering on war crimes.  Moreover, McChrystal's fuzzy role in the Pat Tillman cover-up would not seem to be propitious to troop morale. To me, an officer on the edgy side of insubordination  would not be a great role model for troops or a paradigm for our form of governance. A general, at seemingly public odds  with a president , is not wholesome for the country.   If the military policy's execution is so personalized that it can only be effectively executed by a specific general, it would seemed flawed, and if that general was harmed, perhaps,  fatally flawed.

    Parent
    If a General trhinks the Prez is (2.00 / 0) (#154)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 04:17:20 PM EST
    wrong, do you think he should just lead the troops over a cliff??

    If a President doesn't like a General's response he can fire him. But a President must first have the guts to take responsibility for the results of that firing.

    Parent

    I hate General McChrystal (none / 0) (#139)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 02:18:15 PM EST
    for what he did in Iraq.  Let's get this straight though, Obama and also Congress approved him for this mission in Afghanistan.  He testified behind closed doors as to what he was ordered to do and did do in Iraq and the people we put in power and voted into power were okay with this.  Do you understand this?  What do you want me to do about this specifically?  He is now doing what he is ordered (though it would seem not always) and he is following strict rules on human rights.  He's basically following the letter of the law to BTD's outlines of what he thought would be appropriate for a war zone.  There is strict oversight now too.  But when the rules of engagement laid out by your Commander are to bomb suspiscious people that is not illegal and that is what Obama now simply wants to do....just bomb people.  If you don't have troops on the ground you can't "detain" them for questioning....you just bomb them.  And if you do really good there won't be any witnesses to talk about how nobody was of any importance and was just blown to hell.

    Parent
    I hate General McChrystal (none / 0) (#140)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 02:18:15 PM EST
    for what he did in Iraq.  Let's get this straight though, Obama and also Congress approved him for this mission in Afghanistan.  He testified behind closed doors as to what he was ordered to do and did do in Iraq and the people we put in power and voted into power were okay with this.  Do you understand this?  What do you want me to do about this specifically?  He is now doing what he is ordered (though it would seem not always) and he is following strict rules on human rights.  He's basically following the letter of the law to BTD's outlines of what he thought would be appropriate for a war zone.  There is strict oversight now too.  But when the rules of engagement laid out by your Commander are to bomb suspiscious people that is not illegal and that is what Obama now simply wants to do....just bomb people.  If you don't have troops on the ground you can't "detain" them for questioning....you just bomb them.  And if you do really good there won't be any witnesses to talk about how nobody was of any importance and was just blown to hell.

    Parent
    Tracy, my confusion was more with (none / 0) (#146)
    by KeysDan on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 02:50:22 PM EST
    your assessment of McChrystal than that of Mr. Obama or Congress, for I valued your special insights. However, it was puzzling to note that you have gone from what you characterize  as "hate" of him in Iraq  to the point of  his being indispensable to  a successful effort in Afganistan. As they say, the cemetery is filled with indispensable people, so the real question is one of inappropriate advocacy. Indeed,   BTD stated that he agrees with McChrystal's approach to the Afghan war but that he over-stepped. And, I agree with the latter but  do have my doubts about the former.  I do not think that leaves all others, by default, in the company of the indiscriminate  bombers, whether that be other generals or the president, himself.

    Parent
    I don't have to like what someone did in the (none / 0) (#149)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 03:46:08 PM EST
    past to also understand their expertise.  What none of you who have been snagged into this bad General McChrystal bullhonk grasps is that this is about deciding the strategy in Afghanistan.  If you fire McChrystal, and he has pushed this issue because he is not getting what he needs for the mission at hand, you will not get someone of his caliber or his abilities up to the plate if this administration is still coming from a place of not sending troops to Afghanistan.  Fire him!  The only Generals who will sign on after this for this job are Air Force Generals because they all prescribe to how air superiority wins everything.  They've never looked an enemy in the face they have ever killed.  And they fearlessly $uck an ole Presidents backside.  You will get a baby one of those to be the next Myers until Afghanistan EXPLODES.  But carry on with what you are doing seeking some sort of purity.  You will find a pure $ucka$$ for a man who has never served in uniform a day in his life and has no idea of Afghanistan realities any better than Rumsfeld understood Iraq realities.  And we will get some fantastic bombing runs again like we got in Iraq too!  Wholesale bombings that make lots and lots of fresh American hating people.  But knock yourselves out.

    Parent
    People die for bad policy all the time (5.00 / 0) (#153)
    by Emma on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 04:10:02 PM EST
    People in the military die because of bad policies all the time.  Bad decisions are made, people die.  It's what the people in the military do, it's their job description.  I'm not going to be emotionally blackmailed because soldiers are in danger.  That's the nature of war.  If you don't like that job description, get the h#ll out. It's an all volunteer military.  Stop volunteering.

    All to say:  I'm pretty indifferent to hyperventilating about how much WORSE it will BE if McChrystal is FIRED and DRONES, and PEOPLE you can't SEE, and AIR FORCE GENERALS, and blah, blah, blah, blah.  So what?  What's really the quantum of difference between McChrystal's war or Biden's war or somebody else's war?  Nothing appreciable,.

    For the same reason, I'm not going to hyperventlate about McChrystal being (OMG!) insubordinate.  Who cares?  It means nothing in relation to the war in Afghanistan.

    Whether it's McChrystal, whether it's somebody else, whether it's Biden's plan, whether it's some candy-a## AF general's plan, the war will go on, and on, and on, and people will continue to die and money will continue to be spent and outrage and political maunderings will make no difference.  Nothing is going to change.

    Parent

    Emma, when you volunteer you expect (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 04:26:25 PM EST
    to not be led by idiots. You expect to have the proper equipment, supplies and training.

    And when the idiots try to take over you expect someone up the food chain a ways to stand up and say, "No."

    That is what McChrystal did about Biden's "strategy." And thank God for that.

    Parent

    If you expect that, (5.00 / 0) (#165)
    by Emma on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 04:50:12 PM EST
    then your expectations run counter to all of human history.  

    Look, I have no problem with what McChrystal did.  I also have no problem if Obama fires him.  And I have no problem if Obama doesn't fire him.  People do what they think it is necessary to do and they take the consequences of what they've done.  I understand the arguments that what McChrystal did was right or wrong or justified or unjustified and I think they're essentially meaningless except in a political pundit/horserace sense.

    The point is:  whatever the outcome of this dustup, it is not going to change our commitment to having a war in Afghanistan.  So, it's all just a tempest in a teapot.

    We, as a nation, are committed to this war and that won't change.  And since we are committed to this war, we are committed to people dying and that means we are committed to people dying "unnecessarily" -- be it through poor training, poor equipment, friendly fire, poor strategies, poor decisions, an indifferent commander, an overly committed commander, underfunding, or whatever else.  Because that is just the nature of war; war is the defining parameter of this conversation; and nothing will change the nature of war.

    It's simply not possible to train people for war so that they will not die, or provide them with equipment so that they will not die, or provide them with enough funding so that they will not die, or provide them with leaders who ensure that they will not die.  And dying is what it's all about.

    Parent

    No sh*t (2.00 / 0) (#167)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 04:57:12 PM EST
    thank you Jim.

    Parent
    You know MT (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 07:40:44 PM EST
    when I read things like Emnma wrote I just have to believe in alternative universes and that some people fall through one into ours.

    Mostly likely in their world they think that the military just loves wars and is always looking to kill people.

    All I can do is shake my head.

    Parent

    Yup, and the people that (none / 0) (#196)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 03:54:00 AM EST
    our military is most concerned about hurting with what Obama wants to do on the quick, the cheap, and the dirty are the innocent.  Not themselves for Christ sakes.  Emma probably thinks Israel is a tyrant for nondescriminate bombing, all the while arguing that that is what our military must sign up for in Afghanistan because that is what Obama wants.  Soldiers are ready to die.  They just don't like to die for hopeless irrationality and they don't like to kill people who mean them no harm.  She probably thinks soldiers enjoy killing too.  But many of the people who will be killed in the Obama plan aren't involved in Taliban/Al Qaeda violence.  An Air Force General won't care though because they live in the air and not on the ground.  An Air Force General's pilots will sleep in Turkey too after they've carpet bombed some place.  They will never have to deal with or even look at the chaos and violence they have created. Myers pilots bombed all day and then landed in Kuwait and slept in  air conditioning with sheets.

    Parent
    Wow, thanks for sharing your evil today (2.00 / 0) (#163)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 04:48:32 PM EST
    I'll be sure to share it with other military families too.  And you don't have to worry.  They will stop volunteering.  If this administration does to our forces what Bush did, the only thing you will have left is what you already mostly have left....contractors.  Once again knock yourself out.

    Parent
    Good. (5.00 / 0) (#168)
    by Emma on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 04:58:00 PM EST
    I hope people do stop volunteering and I hope everybody in the military quits tomorrow.  I mean it sincerely.  Please.  Quit.  Quit now.

    People in the military are in the business of war and there is no way to run that business efficiently, fairly, with significantly reduced danger to them, or without FUBARs of epic proportions at every level.  

    And there is absolutely no way for me to do anything that will ensure the safety of military families' loved ones and I will not be blackmailed into thinking that I'm responsible for what happens to them.

    It doesn't matter who I voted for in 2008:  we were NEVER going to get out of Afghanistan.  We're committed to being at war and you and BTD want me to get worked up about marginal change or insubordination within the military bureaucracy that's managing that commitment to war.  I won't do it.

    Parent

    Well you are one of the few (none / 0) (#170)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 05:07:09 PM EST
    people willing to tell me that my loved one is just stupid cannon fodder and actually CLAIM to have the guts and the strength to go it completely alone in a world full of dictators with lawless forces.  I'll give you that.  So you will stop paying taxes now because you won't fund an evil military?  It needs to go away anyhow?  You'll back all that up similarly to how my family has backed up its ideas of protecting this democracy?  Or you're just blowing smoke?

    Parent
    It's not me. (5.00 / 0) (#186)
    by Emma on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 07:49:06 PM EST
    I'm not responible for your husband's safety regardless of who I voted for or whether or not I give a fig about McChrystal or whether I  pay any attention to this current dustup.  I could call for McChrystal's immediate firing and I STILL would not be responsible for your husband or any other member of the military.

    IF the conditions under which the war in Afghanistan are being fought ARE that objectionable to your husband and other members of the military, then they have to figure out what THEY have to do and what THEIR responsibilities are.  

    If they are willing to continue to fight in the war under the current conditions, that is also up to them.  It's their decision about their own lives.  It' not mine.  They are the ones who are a willing part of the military and are there to keep the machine running.  Not me.

    I'm not going to play these ridiculous verbal games with you.  You know nothing about me, yet you want to make me responsible for what happens to your family.  I decline.

    Parent

    Then don't (none / 0) (#188)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 08:02:50 PM EST


    Parent
    Emma, how do you think (none / 0) (#183)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 07:37:44 PM EST
    we can survive in this world without a military?

    Parent
    In comment #163 (none / 0) (#190)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 09:28:22 PM EST
    MT states that current US forces are comprised of "mostly...contractors".

    Why do you think that is? And, if you think that's a problem, what remedy do you propose?

    Parent

    Truth hurts in many ways (none / 0) (#164)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 04:49:18 PM EST


    Parent
    You know what? (none / 0) (#166)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 04:53:42 PM EST
    You don't even need us right now.  Blackwater loads the bombs onto the drones.  What are we doing there?  We can go home.

    Parent
    That was the entire MO of the Bush era (none / 0) (#161)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 04:42:36 PM EST
    and it continues apace under Obama:
    [the public is] emotionally blackmailed because soldiers are in danger

    It's a neat trick isn't it? Our idiotic political leadership will never need public support to start a war as long as long as they manage to gain support for the continuation of a war once "soldier's lives are in danger".

    Parent

    Gesh this is getting boring (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 04:21:50 PM EST
    I again agree with you.

    But those who see Obama as The Chosen will never understand.

    Parent

    I don't understand how anybody can think (none / 0) (#162)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 04:45:18 PM EST
    that Iraq can't happen to us again. Particularly when doing all the exact same things all over again in the exact same order.  Right down to an administration demanding backside tongue washing Generals to just go bomb people and stop bothering them with making serious troop commitments and such.

    Parent
    And by the way Dan (none / 0) (#152)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 03:53:06 PM EST
    Obama and company have stated what they want to do, and that is use drones to bomb people who look funny on the drone video camera.  No soldiers needed much for that.

    Parent
    My sense is, that when all is said and done, (none / 0) (#156)
    by KeysDan on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 04:22:51 PM EST
    McChrystal will get his troops and we will continue onward, and, upward.   Indeed, the 70,000 troop request (not to mention the support people) will be just an installment on the long hard slog to a victory. McChrystal will not be fired either, his inappropriate public advocacy, if not insubordination. will be overlooked and maybe,  celebrated--if it follows Colin Powell's  DADT stunt on President Clinton.   President Obama is more likely, in the end,  to make you happier than me.  Neil Sheehan's new epic, ' Fiery Peace in the Cold War" speaks in a way to the sky bombing tug of war, literally, between Generals: Curtis LeMay and Bernard Schriever.

    Parent
    I hope so (none / 0) (#197)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 08:37:19 AM EST
    My husband comes back in April.  He could go back again in six months if he wants to, but if things continue on this road I doubt he'll go back ever.  I know what it does to people in the middle of a mission when their command, who is fighting for what is right, is given the boot.  It turns into five long months, phone calls from soldiers confused about their mission running around in circles trying to figure out what their new jobs are under the new command and the new strategy.  I experienced it in Iraq with him.  There was a depression that ran alongside him all the time.

    Parent
    The plan is to regroup in the larger cities... (none / 0) (#147)
    by Salo on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 02:51:45 PM EST
    ... cede territory to the Taliban, or whomever is fighting us at a given moment in time, and concentrate on forces in huge numbers in those cities to police the urban  populations better.

    either way that means ceding real estate to an enemy and increases in blind bombing raids at remote locations rather than having infantry driving around arresting suspects and getting ambushed on mountain trails.

    Biden just wants the bombing nationwide.  How is it that he always the suggests the worst solution at all times?

    Parent

    I have no clue (none / 0) (#151)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 03:50:23 PM EST
    He's an utter idiot. I always knew that though.  Our bombing raids since Obama took office have been increased 100 fold from Bush.  They like this approach.  I guess Joe and Barack think they can "win" something bombing the crap out of people....from drones.

    Parent
    And just for the record (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 09:14:24 AM EST
    There is a undercurrent of wanting to blacklist Petraeus and McChrystal.  When Petraeus was originally in Iraq dealing with Mosul he came well connected within the military industrial complex bureaucracy.  He got things for the area using his connections.  He paid off local war lords too and that ticked off McKiernan who was his boss and who told him that the United States Army does not pay for peace, and the fighting on this continued I'm told.  When Petraeus and his men left Mosul all hell broke loose when new troops had to take over and things were then done differently.  The locals didn't like that much.  Like it or not though Petraeus kept the peace in Mosul.  McKiernan promised Petraeus his career was ruined though and it should have been except that Iraq began going to hell quickly.  Petraeus' career was reborn because he was the only commander who seemed to have some success in Iraq and everybody was quitting before they had to take our Iraq failures into retirement with them.  I don't know how McChrystal came to obviously befriend Petraeus.  But General Petraeus and General McChrystal are considered "nonconventional" and indeed when Petraeus had McKiernan sacked I believe the wording used to explain why McKiernan sux was "too conventional" and you can't fight Afghanistan conventionally.  So understand that you have a bunch of Generals who are friends with this one and that one and who accuse each other of subscribing to "conventional" or "nonconventional" methods.  Petraeus was accussed of jumping the chain of command to get the things done that he wanted done when he was a small fry.  Wes Clarke was too when he was a slightly larger fry.  You need to be careful sacking McChrystal too because you risk destroying your troop morale.  In their eyes he is fighting for what they need.  This country has placed them in harms way and then Obama is going to leave them out there flapping in the breeze like they are some sort of public option?  Just sayin

    Part of me thinks... (none / 0) (#15)
    by Salo on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 09:30:36 AM EST
    ...that Iraq turned out okay in the end.  You would have to ignore all the casualties and cash spent on it or course, but in the end the Military was able to put down a few million Iraqi Arab Sunnis had force them to accommodate the Kurds and  Arab Shia in some reasonable way.

    I just don't know if that's possible in Afghanistan.  Iraq is kinda flat and watery and civilized/urban and modern and war enough to survive in all year round. Afghanistan is mountainous, snow bound in winter, dry and parched in summer, rural, and finally- premodern in many many ways.

    Parent

    Who said Iraq turned out "okay" (none / 0) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 09:32:28 AM EST
    in the end?  Has it ended?  I guess I missed that memo.

    Parent
    only said part. (none / 0) (#19)
    by Salo on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 09:36:20 AM EST
    and I added the caveat that you'd have to ignore the heavy costs.  it's not like Afghanistan is actually going better though.  Indeed it is significantly worse right now.  It's also probably intractable with little payback of any sort for the effort being made.

    Parent
    I haven't ignored any heavy costs (none / 0) (#25)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 09:42:14 AM EST
    Did you vote for Obama?

    Parent
    If you read any of my posts... (none / 0) (#29)
    by Salo on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 09:46:21 AM EST
    ... here or on Dkos you'll note that I immediately pounced on Obama for talking about escalation in Afghanistan in 2008's primaries. His cynical manipulation of th eanti war left made me sick then and makes me sick now.

    Parent
    Did you vote for him? (none / 0) (#35)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 09:49:25 AM EST


    Parent
    Never ask that question. (none / 0) (#42)
    by Salo on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 09:55:49 AM EST
    to anyone. There's a secret ballot.

    Parent
    Afghanistan is a 30 year occupation. (none / 0) (#24)
    by Salo on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 09:42:13 AM EST
    At the very least.  Given the aims set forth and the cultural transformation of the area that implies. Given the b*llsh*tt*ng about 100 years of war in Iraq November 2008, it's plain to see Obama was preparing for  a generation long war in Afghanistan all along.  and no one on the left noticed.

    Parent
    Nobody wants to notice (none / 0) (#26)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 09:43:05 AM EST
    But it isn't as if he didn't say so during his campaign.

    Parent
    see my comments real time (none / 0) (#30)
    by Salo on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 09:47:02 AM EST
    on his cynical manipulation of the antiwar left.

    Parent
    my my my (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 09:32:14 AM EST
    When all the "retired" military was hacking at Bush all the Left was as happy as could be.

    Now we have one answering questions in an acceptable forum, with no criticism of the Prez at all and you folks want him sacked.

    That is risible.

    In the meantime we are now in retreat in Afghanistan while Obama tries to secure the Olympics for his home buds in Chicago.

    He can't make a decision and men will die because of that. But then he has never been known for making decisions.

    Go on Obama. Do it. That will be the one sure way we can send you into retirement in 2012.

    retired versus active (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 09:39:54 AM EST
    Officers are proscribed from politics while on active duty. they are further proscribed from criticism of members of the government while on active duty.

    Once retired, they can do/say what they want, within secrecy bounds. they can offer opinions, make judgements, etc., when retired.

    Parent

    He was answering questions (none / 0) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 09:48:34 AM EST
    and he didn't criticize.

    And he is not supposed to lie.

    Parent

    your comment (none / 0) (#38)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 09:52:10 AM EST
    concerned 'retired' generals. don't bait and switch.

    Parent
    I was answering your (none / 0) (#52)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 10:20:42 AM EST
    comment re active military.

    Don't write it if you don't want it answered.

    Parent

    stick with your thesis. (none / 0) (#54)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 10:22:57 AM EST
    I answered it. Don't put words into my posts that aren't there.

    Parent
    This isn't (2.00 / 0) (#56)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 10:25:01 AM EST
    middle school debating. You wrote.

    Officers are proscribed from politics while on active duty. they are further proscribed from criticism of members of the government while on active duty.

    I answered you.

    Parent

    Oh, you certainly answered. (5.00 / 0) (#64)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 10:39:01 AM EST
    A statement you made, to an explanation of military law. I said nothing abut McChrystal. YOur statement concerned what you said were 'retired' generals. I stated current UCMJ policy. Go ahead, argue some more with yourself.

    Parent
    No one is arguing (2.00 / 0) (#74)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 10:53:31 AM EST
    And if you had answered with only your second paragraph I wouldn't have disagreed.

    Instead you wanted to make a political point. I disagree because Generals have interviews all the time. They are supposed to be honorable and speak the truth. If Obama feels he has been diss'd then he can fire him.

    I double dog dare him to do so.

    lol

    Parent

    Retreat in Afghanistan? (none / 0) (#20)
    by Salo on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 09:37:54 AM EST
    to the contrary Obama promised a f**king escalation and he's delivering one.

    Parent
    Yes Obama has delivered (2.00 / 0) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 09:49:45 AM EST
    an escalation by the radicals.

    Parent
    We have been able to escalate (none / 0) (#40)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 09:54:13 AM EST
    by employing contactors Jim.  They run them through the Benning train up with our regular troops.  They wear our uniforms.  They just don't wear a unit patch.  They wear the American flag where the unit patch goes. They are covered under the UCMJ.  That is just one of the couple of ways we have put more boots on the ground without "deploying" more troops.

    Parent
    I was, of course, (2.00 / 0) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 10:19:37 AM EST
    referring to the Muslim world's view of Obama as weak.

    Parent
    Well he certainly hasn't owned any (none / 0) (#75)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 10:54:40 AM EST
    escalation of any kind.  I think he fears standing up to the antiwar left.  I'm coming to think he fears standing up to anyone period.

    Parent
    He NEVER fears the left (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Dadler on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 11:05:05 AM EST
    He hasn't shown the least inclination to fear anything on the essentially non-existent American left.  Perhaps, and this is quite possible, he is rationally worried that escalation is going to result in simply more of the same on a larger and more destructive scale.  At this point, I ain't his biggest fan by any means, but it seems very clear to me he does not think sending more troops is a good answer.  Hell, the AFGHANS don't think it is, but we don't care about what they think, never have and never will.

    Alright, I like you too much to bicker.  Hope you have a great day, hope your family is well, wish you nothing but the best.    

    Parent

    MT wrote (2.00 / 0) (#86)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 11:15:09 AM EST
    I'm coming to think he fears standing up to anyone period.

    Welcome to the world.

    Parent

    Someone help me! (none / 0) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 09:39:59 AM EST
    I'm completely agreeing with Jim today.  Look you libs...you put Obama in office.  You voted him in and put him in charge and HE SAID that he was taking on this Afghanistan fight.  If any of you had a beef with that you should have stayed home on vote day because you voted to put people in harms way.  Now.....back up giving what these soldiers need and stop using them like some political pawn in exactly the same way Bush and his voters used them or lose my respect.  I'm fine if libs ask questions.  I'm fine if libs complain.  But you all voted for this war!  Fight it or bring everyone home now and deal with the political ramifications of doing that.  Don't hang your soldier's a$$e$ out in the breeze though so that you can clutch your pearls.

    Parent
    I would imagine many, (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by dk on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 09:53:50 AM EST
    if not most, "libs" (and here I'm talking about real people, not politicians) would choose your second option (i.e. bring everyone home).  That politicians who talk a liberal game but do not back up those words with liberal actions are contorting themselves to support a continuation of this war is a different issue.

    Parent
    Then they need to fight for that! (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 09:56:08 AM EST
    And I mean they need to fight just as hard for that as our soldiers are fighting for their lives right now because they empowered this man!  They empowered this man and he made his intentions clear.  Soldiers lives are on the line.

    Parent
    Yes, they do. (none / 0) (#47)
    by dk on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 10:03:49 AM EST


    Parent
    RETIRED means RETIRED (5.00 / 0) (#49)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 10:14:06 AM EST
    I am surprised you do not see the difference.

    Parent
    BTD...any soldier worth a spit will tell (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 10:26:13 AM EST
    you that a General fights for what his/her soldiers need.  Obama is apparently not leading when it comes to Afghanistan.  Now his inability to make hard decisions and be publicly responsible for them is going to get U.S. troops killed.  McChrystal is trying to get his forces what they need to survive and do this and he is obviously being ignored by a cowardly President.  I'm fine with what he is doing.  Remember when we all dogged Bush because he said that he listened to his Generals and gave them what they needed to win and keep our soldiers as safe as we could and we had evidence that this was a HUGE LIE. This is the same situation but at least Obama hasn't lied about listening to his Generals...yet.  It doesn't matter what party a President comes from when he/she is shafting their troops and using them for little more than political pawns...that is still a President shafting the troops and damaging lives for their political gain.  You don't find it shocking that Obama hardly knows General McChrystal and has only met him once?  How does that come about BTD?  Unless he hasn't wanted to know General McChrystal.  He is the CIC, you don't get to just ignore that when you have two wars going on.  Obama can go ahead and let all the frickin Generals at the Pentagon play blackballing games with each other or he can get with the strategy of the folks he hired and line the whole damned Pentagon out!  Bush didn't have this problem within the Pentagon and he was completely incompetent!  He was the incompetent decider.  Now it is time for the competent decider.

    Parent
    Don't faint (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 10:31:42 AM EST
    But I have your back. You are absolutely right.

    Parent
    with the exception of (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 10:41:26 AM EST
    your comments re Bush.

    Parent
    Of course Bush lover (none / 0) (#78)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 10:58:53 AM EST
    But at least you know that we can't fight wars on the cheap and we can't blackball our Generals while they are doing the fighting.

    Parent
    Be nice (2.00 / 0) (#98)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 11:26:10 AM EST
    Bush at least also knew we couldn't fight wars on
    the cheap. Shall we bring up defunding the troops?

    Parent
    He gave all my fricken money (5.00 / 0) (#102)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 11:30:12 AM EST
    to phony contractors and denied Shinseki his boots on the ground, leading to the firing of loud mouthed Shinseki.  Who happened to be right by the way.  Let us not go here today.

    Parent
    Except that maybe BTD (5.00 / 0) (#104)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 11:32:01 AM EST
    should think about loud mouthed Generals who get fired by Presidents who have never been Generals on the eve of the war the General is being so loud mouthed about.  And then the loud mouthed General turns out to be RIGHT!

    Parent
    You're not comparing Shinseki (none / 0) (#111)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 11:42:46 AM EST
    to McChrystal are you? Really? Did McChrystal answer questions posed to him by the Congress? No?

    Shinseki did.

    Two different things.


    Parent

    McChrystal did answer questions (none / 0) (#116)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 11:53:19 AM EST
    that this Congress asked him.  You are wrong BTD.  He did answer questions, but it was all behind closed doors.  That questioning is not for public consumption.  What went down with Shinseki was known about though before he went before Congress and you know that too.  It came out when he got fired.

    Parent
    You seem to not understand (5.00 / 0) (#121)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 12:12:19 PM EST
    my post.

    I really do not understand your comments in this thread at all.

    Parent

    I'm not going to dog General McChrystal (none / 0) (#128)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 12:26:43 PM EST
    for being a General to an ignoring President.  I just can't BTD.  If my husband got killed because Obama was sitting there ignoring this situation I would be one very very unhappy girl.  I've noticed some comments around today too of loved ones with serving family members complaining that Obama has ignored the Afghanistan issue long enough.

    Parent
    and really, I'm surprised that (none / 0) (#129)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 12:31:18 PM EST
    it doesn't seem like Obama was signed on to what I have seen going down.  This is all pretty strange from my perspective.  If I didn't know better I would have thought he was a golf addict or something.  Moves have already been made by a General he hired.  Then Obama finally shows up and throws the Rumsfeld doctrine on the table and walks out?  This General did not sign on to do this job so that he could fail or create even more chaos in Afghanistan than there already is.  It would also seem that Obama learned nothing from the Iraq experience.

    Parent
    When you are being shot at (none / 0) (#67)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 10:42:01 AM EST
    When your mission is to take the heat you are ordered to take in the name of your country and you zip up body bags....your fricken General fights for you or you secretly hate him to your grave!  It's true, isn't it Jim?  And then when they fire that General for fighting for you?  What happens then? If this report from this retired General is an Obama administration leak then SHAME ON THEM TOO!  And if the administration did do this, well Rahmbo and company haven't really played hardball at all but they like to think they have. Because the people they are effing with have held people while they died wearing this country's uniform.

    Parent
    It seems unfair and unreasonable (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by KeysDan on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 01:07:15 PM EST
    to hold that President Obama is ignoring or dilly-dallying on Afghanistan.  Shortly after his inauguration, he authorized addition troop deployment on military recommendation so that we now have about 68,000 Americans in that area. Troops were added, in what my seem as the cart before the horse to some, while the mission and strategy were to be reviewed/determined.  Indeed, McChrystal was a part of the change early this year. Now McChrystal is asking for 40,000 more troops, but the mission and strategy continue to be in flux.  General Jones stated on CNN that he did not belleve that Afghanistan was in imminent danger of failing to the Taliban and that the presence of Al Qaeda is very diminished. Clearly, much discussion is rightly in progress, and, as Jones stated, McChrystal's troop increases are his opinion of what he thinks his role within the strategy is. Moreover, the situation has changed with the fraudulent summer elections of Karzai, which Peter Galbraith characterized as being glossed over by the UN, to his peril.  The training idea of Afghan police is also problematic as shown by the apparent turning on American soldiers during a joint patrol.  Accordingly, it is prudent to study this a whole lot more, before adding more and more troops (if any) to die in the poppy fields of war.

    Parent
    There is a strategy (none / 0) (#136)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 01:59:18 PM EST
    It has been delivered up for weeks now.  It has even been acted on by everyone but Obama.  The thing about hiring a general is that the first day they go work they design their workspace, like all of us do.  Firing Generals is stupid unless you are dealing with a stupid General and this is not one of those.  I'd say he's frustrated but he isn't stupid and I don't think he's going to do what Obama wants done which is nothing more than bombing the crap out of people and not even looking them in the face when you do it.  You do it from drones.  Is that what you people really want?  This willful ignorance of all the cards on the table frustrates me.  Do you understand what Obama wants?  Do you understand what McChrystal wants?  Do you understand that neither of those things involves going home?  Do you understand that McChrystal seeks a long term solution and Obama just wants to bomb the crap out of people?  Do you really want a strategy of dealing with Afghanistan that involves just bombing people who seem suspicious on the drone camera?

    Parent
    Here read this (none / 0) (#137)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 02:02:07 PM EST
    Unclassified assessment....or Google....anything

    Parent
    Thanks Tracy, (none / 0) (#138)
    by KeysDan on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 02:17:00 PM EST
    but there is not a definitive strategy until the president signs off on it.   The chain of command is through the civilian leadership, including the Secretary of Defense and the President.  Even General Eisenhower had to resign his five-star commission when he assumed the presidency (it was restored after he completed his terms).  That is the way it is, and, in the case of Afghanistan, the decision is not yet unanimous in favor of McChrystal--and his over-the-top fervor is not helping, in my view.

    Parent
    MT, I read his plan. (5.00 / 0) (#142)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 02:29:16 PM EST
    I have no substantive argument about the plan, because the only parts worth arguing are redacted, such as the type of forces requested and the log support for an additional 40 thousand soldiers in two months.

    His brinksmanship in the public sphere I do take issue with. Generals get fired for such things. PAtton, McArthur being two prime examples.

    Looking through military history, one finds many cases of generals being replaced very rapidly for either comments made, stupid actions made, or even because the higher authority lost confidence in them.

    If you look at the examples from WWII, numerous commanders were relieved, either with or without cause, because their next-higher-ups didn't have confidence in them.

    The Bush years saw 6-8 admirals and generals sacked for similar behavior.

    Inasmuch as morale is affected by which 4-star is in charge, that never made much difference during my years in. My division commander, my brigade commander, my battalion commander-- yes.

    the joint commander had little or nothing (usually nothing) to do with unit morale.

     

    Parent

    Then fire him (none / 0) (#143)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 02:32:07 PM EST
    I've said my bit.  Fire him

    Parent
    Tracy, not trying to get into a fight with you. (5.00 / 0) (#144)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 02:38:45 PM EST
    However, if he said, "give me what I want or I'll resign," then he needs to be fired. Before he resigns.

    His job is to propose strategy. If his strategy isn't accepted, he should requiest relief from the assignment. However, if his strategy is accepted except for the troop increase, is that reason to resign?

    Parent

    I said fire him (none / 0) (#145)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 02:48:45 PM EST
    Look, I said what I had to say about his worth and about what he did and has done.  I don't know what more you want from me.  Just fire him.  I bet Obama doesn't though.  At least not right away.  Because unfortunately I know the expertise that McChrystal carries and I know the stark gaps in the sanity of past Generals that he bridges.  So does Congress and so does the Pentagon, and that is why he was given a pass for the war crimes Dick Cheney commanded him to preform.  But just fire him okay so that we can carry on to whatever comes after McChrystal....more stalling from Obama....some Presidential $ucka$$ who will bomb everyone to hell and then the next administration can give them a pass and talk about how they just received BAD orders from on incompetent administration....and that is why the mission failed.....SIGH.  So long as my husband remains midlevel administration he'll have a job seemingly forever.....just like the Taliban.  You know what comes next?  The exact same thing the Bush administration got to have for leadership after it had fired everyone who was competent and wouldn't $uck their butts.....$ucka$$ Air Force Generals.  I can't fricken wait.  And then everything will completely go to hell on the ground....again.

    Parent
    Keysdan (2.00 / 0) (#159)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 04:32:06 PM EST
    You're parsing when you say there is no strategy until Obama signs off... Unless you think Obama does the strategy and the military signs off.

    Parent
    You call it parsing, I call it (none / 0) (#169)
    by KeysDan on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 05:05:48 PM EST
    the responsibility of the Commander-in-Chief, as set forth in the constitution I believe.

    Parent
    Show me where the Prez (2.00 / 0) (#185)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 07:44:52 PM EST
    is supposed to tell the Generals what the strategy is.

    Parent
    Article 2, Section 2. (none / 0) (#187)
    by KeysDan on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 07:53:51 PM EST


    Parent
    Uh, the issue isn't who the CIC is. (none / 0) (#193)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 11:41:18 PM EST
    Heck, we know that. The issue is simply this.

    Do you want the Prez to do the strategy part or do you want him to be the commander???

    He is not qualified to do the strategy. He knows that. But he is fearful of turning down the military because that would make him totally responsible.

    Obama can't stand that,

    On the other hand he is fearful that he will anger his base to the point they will stay home in 2010 and 2012.

    What's a communioty organizer to do?

    Parent

    Thank you for agreeing with me (none / 0) (#198)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 08:57:49 AM EST
    but you left off the part where the generals tells the Prez that what he wants to do won't work and then refuses to let him have them lead the troops into disaster.

    That's called honor.

    Those types of disagreements are best done in private and was in the Bush administration. As I noted above, it is just as likely that McC's memo was leaked by anti-war minions as by pro war people.

    What's a community organizer to do?

    In Obama's case try and appear intelligent.

    He fooled you, didn't he!.

    Parent

    lol (none / 0) (#200)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 10:34:24 AM EST
    Felling a bit nasty this AM, eh?

    What I "think" has as much weight as what you "think," just in case you haven't thought the "think" thing through.

    And I am so glad you think a lemming like response is the proper thing to do. Thank God McC had the courage to say, "No." That is the wrong strategy.

    What ever happened to "speaking truth to power?" You folks on the Left thought it just so important and wonderful only a few years ago.

    If Obama thinks McC is over the line all he has to do is have him fired. Point of fact is that Obama is completely beyond a community organizer's depth, much less a President's.

    Parent

    Fine (none / 0) (#141)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 02:20:11 PM EST
    Be careful what you wish for

    Parent
    Most people (2.00 / 0) (#79)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 11:01:06 AM EST
    will never fully understand your point. But yes, it is right.

    Parent
    Nonsequitor (5.00 / 0) (#66)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 10:41:36 AM EST


    Parent
    Whatever BTD (none / 0) (#68)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 10:42:56 AM EST
    This isn't a legal negotiation. This is people fighting and dying.

    Parent
    Legal has nothing to do with it (5.00 / 0) (#69)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 10:46:45 AM EST
    The point was a simple one - RETIRED military officers of course can say whatever they want. They are no longer in a chain of command.

    ACTIVE military officers can not. They are in a chain of command.

    This is a simple point.

    Parent

    If you leak a General's request (2.00 / 0) (#83)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 11:10:50 AM EST
    and if you then allow him to be interviewed.

    And if he is an honorable man.

    And if he is asked a question.

    Should he lie?

    We have a political system in which the Prez controls. But the country has the right to expect our Generals to be honest.

    If Obama fires him and doesn't take his advice and if Obama is right, then Obama is a hero. If Obama's actions turns out wrong, then Obama is a bum.

    All this "the military can't criticize" refers to Lt Col's and such fomenting political opposition and such in which the Lt Col never has to take the heat... I express this poorly but I think you see my point.

    Parent

    The leakers were McChrystal's people (5.00 / 0) (#85)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 11:14:39 AM EST
    When interviewed, he should have said, indeed it should have been treated as such, CLASSIFIED.

    Discussing strategy in the newspapers is unacceptable.

    McChrystal's behavior is indefensible.

    BTW, I think he is right on the strategy and Biden is wrong.

    But there is a chain of command. the President is the Commander in Chief, not McChrystal.

    Soldiers follow orders. McChrystal's superior is Petraeus. Petraeus' superior is Mullen. Mullen's superior is Gates. Gates' superior is the President of the United States. His name is Barack Obama.

    Parent

    Can you prove that McChrystal's (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 11:29:18 AM EST
    people did that? Or that he wanted it done?

    It could just as likely been done by someone who is anti the strategy.

    And if you don't want Generals telling what they see as the truth, pass a rule.

    Parent

    Yeah right (5.00 / 0) (#106)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 11:39:05 AM EST


    Parent
    Anything in the papers was cleared (none / 0) (#90)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 11:22:39 AM EST
    by the Pentagon first BTD.  Once again, it would appear that Obama needs to be a Commander in Chief and stop treating Afghanistan as if he can pull it off in the same fashion that he can create giant chaos in health care reform.

    Parent
    That seems a doubtful assertion (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 11:24:34 AM EST
    In fact, quite the opposite. I t seems clear that McChrystal's performance in London was cleared by no one.

    I am not saying his being there in speaking - but rather what he said.

    Parent

    Every press release (none / 0) (#97)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 11:25:33 AM EST
    is cleared by the Pentagon.  

    Parent
    Answers to questions (5.00 / 0) (#108)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 11:40:09 AM EST
    Not a press release.

    Apparently, McChrystal can not be allowed to speak without prepared remarks.

    Parent

    And that was a speech (none / 0) (#100)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 11:27:46 AM EST
    And no, a General's speech is not cleared by anyone but that General.  But if you can't hear a cry for help I don't know what to do with you.  Obviously this speech was used to finally get his Commander in Chief to actually notice his needs and who he is and where he is and what his job is.

    Parent
    It was answers to questions (none / 0) (#107)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 11:39:31 AM EST


    Parent
    If you are talking about 60 mins (none / 0) (#117)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 11:58:29 AM EST
    General McChrystal cannot be televised in such a manner without Pentagon involvement.  It is absurd to even think that the Pentagon wasn't involved.

    Parent
    LONDON (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 12:03:28 PM EST
    I am pretty sure I have written that 5 times in this thread.

    Parent
    Sorry :) (none / 0) (#127)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 12:23:40 PM EST


    Parent
    Am I correct in assuming McC wouldn't (none / 0) (#93)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 11:24:04 AM EST
    have been on TV recently if the Pentagon didn't approve of his appearing there?  

    Parent
    Nothing he said on 60 Minutes was a problem (none / 0) (#96)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 11:25:18 AM EST
    What he said in London was HUGE problem.


    Parent
    Well, same question re McC in London. (none / 0) (#103)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 11:31:36 AM EST
    Did he have orders to go to London?  Permission to speak publicly?  

    Parent
    Apparently (5.00 / 0) (#109)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 11:41:00 AM EST
    Allowing McChrystal to speak is not possible anymore.

    If that is the proposed solution, then I can live with that.

    Parent

    Maybe he is the Obama admins. (none / 0) (#112)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 11:43:18 AM EST
    Axelrod/Rahm/Sibelius guy on surge in Afghan.  The President supports a public option.  The public option is a sliver, etc.

    Parent
    I have a friend who does (none / 0) (#115)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 11:48:54 AM EST
    military PR.  I know that press releases are cleared.  I would think that televised appearances would be arranged as well.  I don't think this administration works very well with the Pentagon.  In fact I think they've been ignoring the Pentagon thinking the Pentagon will run itself.  And it will but you won't like what you get.

    Parent
    When they are employed by the (none / 0) (#76)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 10:57:50 AM EST
    administration....you really honestly think this was a wise thing to air out in the open and that it wasn't intentional?  You honestly think that Bush didn't have problems with Generals?  Jesus Christ BTD, they all quit him in Iraq until he found Petraeus.  I happen to know that some Generals in Iraq yelled their lungs out a couple of times.  The President is not usually a General.  This one isn't at all.  And then he hired the General he wanted and then treats him like he is a Junior member of the House?

    Parent
    I do not understand your comment (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 11:05:11 AM EST
    You seem to be making my point - to wit, McChrystal's behavior has been unacceptable.

    The "airing out in public" was done by McChrystal. General Jones for one was not happy about it.

    Parent

    So you think that politically (none / 0) (#88)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 11:20:00 AM EST
    blackballing your Generals while they are fighting your war is a good strategy?  You think it is okay as a President to ignore your General, not make decisions in a timely manner and leave everyone out there fending for themselves in a war zone?  My point is that Generals have fought for what their troops have needed since the dawn of Generals.  If you think McChrystal has done wrong then fine.  But the White House retaliation was equally as wrong and if any more of this continues Obama will have people leaving the military in droves just as Bush did.  Bush abused the military.  This is just a different form of abuse in the eyes of the soldiers too and do not think for one minute that this isn't being talked out and about up and down the chains of command in Afghanistan right this minute too.  What those people think about their CIC matters a whole lot more in the context of this war than what you think.  But I don't think this Admin gets that at all and secondly, you always say that the Dems can do national security too.  If they don't understand what they have just done to undermine troop morale and true leadership, then I'm sorry BTD, but Dems will never do national security worth spit.  Generals have fought with Presidents in every single war.  What presidents have leaked those disagreements though to the press via another retired General in their employ?  This is pretty bad.  McChrystal may quit.  You had better think real long and hard if that would be a good thing because he fights completely different than anyone who hates him at the Pentagon does.  He fights in such a way that was the only thing that stabilized some of Iraq too when it was literally melting.  Be careful what you wish for at this point.

    Parent
    Nonsense (5.00 / 0) (#89)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 11:22:28 AM EST
    General McChrystal needs to follow his chain of command and report his recommendations through channels and follow his orders.

    What part of that do you not understand?

    Parent

    What part of Generals (none / 0) (#95)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 11:24:54 AM EST
    have discourse with their leadership don't you understand and what part of Generals will fight for the needs of their troops do you not understand?

    Parent
    What part of not having it in public (5.00 / 0) (#110)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 11:41:35 AM EST
    do you not understand?

    Parent
    Apparentaly the same part that you (none / 0) (#119)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 12:07:18 PM EST
    don't since you think the White House retaliation was just fine.  I think my man's manipulation was an honorable response to a President who was ignoring a situation he won't deal with, while all the while people's lives hang in the balance and even stand in danger because of it.  I do not find the White House's retaliation of making what it wanted public honorable at all.  That's right, my man's lawlessness is better than your man's egotistcal abuse of power.

    Parent
    So insubordination (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 12:11:38 PM EST
    is honorable now? this is new.

    Parent
    Dude, are you playing me? (none / 0) (#122)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 12:15:49 PM EST
    Now Kit Bond wants McChrystal to testify before Congress.  He says that Obama doesn't want Congress talking to McChrystal but Congress wants to hear from McChrystal.  Obama is going to have to sign onto this very very soon or he's going to look like a fool.  Bring em home or fight....but Obama wants to mess around, hang back and allow the "process" to happen :)  Well, he's going to get it :)

    Parent
    Good (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 12:17:25 PM EST
    Let him testify before Congress.

    Sounds like the place for it. As opposed to a London press conference.

    Parent

    That I can completely agree with (none / 0) (#125)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 12:21:02 PM EST
    And I do not know if there is one lick of truth to Bond's assertion that Obama doesn't want Congress talking to McChrystal.

    Parent
    That I can completely agree with (none / 0) (#126)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 12:21:02 PM EST
    And I do not know if there is one lick of truth to Bond's assertion that Obama doesn't want Congress talking to McChrystal.

    Parent
    The Pentagon is tired of (none / 0) (#124)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 12:18:33 PM EST
    Obama not dealing with this obviously.  They are playing their cards now.  Obviously this isn't just a b*otching  General.  People are calling people.

    Parent
    Bingo (none / 0) (#148)
    by Wile ECoyote on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 03:45:22 PM EST
    If I rated comments, I would rate this one.

    Parent
    BTW (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 11:23:16 AM EST
    There are no indispensable men. Not even Generals.

    Parent
    Fine (none / 0) (#92)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 11:23:48 AM EST
    History is full of bad decisions though

    Parent
    Of course it is (5.00 / 0) (#99)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 11:26:14 AM EST
    And for the umpteenth time, I happen to agree with McChrystal on the strategy.

    It is his behavior that I am criticizng and have for 2 weeks now.

    Parent

    What would you have him do (none / 0) (#113)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 11:45:00 AM EST
    What he did was unconventional.  Didn't Patton do some unconventional crap?  It got him into trouble too.  I don't think McChrystal should be fired.  You can't believe what has to be dismantled and assembled when you change commands in such a manner.  If they hired someone who will put up with Obamas stalling, they'd be a conventional style fighter who think of troop losses as a statistic.  Those guys gutted our military fighting in Iraq.  This is an all volunteer force.  You can't use them for cannon fodder anymore.  Not that many Generals out there understand many of the things that Petraeus and McChrystal and also the JSOC commander do, and they don't even want to because they kick it old school.  But obviously the Rumsfeld black helicopter doctrine isn't going to work here either and it seems that that is what Obama wants to try.  We have to have boots on the ground to stablize the region by denying the Taliban the ability to terrorize the population.  You just can't run around in choppers with special forces offing anyone they think could be a bad guy and then heading back to camp to play Xbox for the rest of the day.

    Parent
    All they want to do is make (none / 0) (#114)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 11:46:29 AM EST
    drone airstrikes on suspects.

    Parent
    Turn Afgahnistan into Obama's Viet Nam (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by kidneystones on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 07:04:11 PM EST
    MT writes...[..]

    Thanks for a whole bunch of extremely sensible posts. The entire 'Powell doctrine' thing grew out of the determination that poor morale among both Vietnamese and US troops played a major part in the disaster of Viet Nam.

    Troops won't risk getting killed for wars that nobody seems to understand. They will, however, stay and fight with honor, if they believe their commanders aren't going to allow the politicians to squander life needlessly.

    Afghanistan will be extremely challenging when done right. McChrystal has judged the current strategy a failure and wants to concentrate on protecting the population the US and Nato can.

    Canada has been fighting in Afghanistan since day the beginning alongside US and other forces. Canada has a specific goal of building 50 schools.

    Only 5 schools have been completed. The Conservative pro-Bush, pro-war Harper government which would actually like to stay in Afghanistan took a good look at Obama and his 'plan' and said 'see ya'! Canada is leaving as planned in 2011.

    You ask people in Afghanistan and Iraq to fight alongside you against their neighbors, you best understand these individuals expect the US to commit to the project.

    This is looking like the Jimmy Carter presidency all over again, only on bad steroids.

    Parent

    Turn Afgahnistan into Obama's Viet Nam (none / 0) (#182)
    by kidneystones on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 07:16:10 PM EST
    MT writes...[..]

    Thanks for a whole bunch of extremely sensible posts. The entire 'Powell doctrine' thing grew out of the determination that poor morale among both Vietnamese and US troops played a major part in the disaster of Viet Nam.

    Troops won't risk getting killed for wars that nobody seems to understand. They will, however, stay and fight with honor, if they believe their commanders aren't going to allow the politicians to squander life needlessly.

    Afghanistan will be extremely challenging when done right. McChrystal has judged the current strategy a failure and wants to concentrate on protecting the population the US and Nato can.

    Canada has been fighting in Afghanistan since day the beginning alongside US and other forces. Canada has a specific goal of building 50 schools. Only 5 schools have been completed.  The Conservative pro-Bush, pro-war Harper government which would actually like to stay in Afghanistan. Harper, however, took a good look at Obama's confusion and said 'see ya'! Canada is leaving as planned in 2011.

    You ask people to fight alongside you against their neighbors, whether in Viet Nam, Afghanistan, or Iraq, you best understand these individuals expect the US to commit to the project.
    This is looking like the Jimmy Carter presidency all over again, only on bad steroids.

    Parent

    When you vote for someone you are not (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by tigercourse on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 10:21:00 AM EST
    necessarily endorsing everything they are going to do. In many/most cases it's simply a vote for someone that you believe will be better then the other guy. I'm sure plenty of antiwar people voted for Obama because they wanted good healthcare (good luck) or a fairer tax system or better environmental policy with the knowledge that he was not going to to do what they wanted in Afghanistan, and the realization that the belief that the other factors outweighed that one. They don't lose the right to complain.

    Parent
    Thoughtlessly putting peoples lives (none / 0) (#61)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 10:35:00 AM EST
    who have volunteered to defend you in front of bullets and rpgs is a pretty serious thing to overlook for a persons own singular healthcare.  Ya'll are looking like a bunch of hypocrits at the moment.  Then to do such a thing and look for ways to begin to pull funding while our soldiers are in the middle of a fight...a fight you insured they would stay in....that is almost criminal to me.

    Parent
    I'm not looking for ways to pull funding (5.00 / 0) (#72)
    by tigercourse on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 10:50:41 AM EST
    for our soldiers. And I don't think my vote was thoughtless.

    Parent
    I didn't! (none / 0) (#27)
    by Salo on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 09:44:10 AM EST
    The only thing I wanted him to do was seriously take on the insurance industry in the US.  Foreign policy has a life of its own quite outside of party or ideological control.

    Parent
    You didn't vote for Obama? (none / 0) (#28)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 09:45:53 AM EST


    Parent
    Don't ask about how people vote. (none / 0) (#32)
    by Salo on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 09:48:04 AM EST
    I'd never ask you.

    Parent
    Why not ask? (2.00 / 0) (#55)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 10:23:13 AM EST
    It is a political discussion. Let me assure you I am proud to say I voted for McCain, even though I thought is stands on illegal aliens and global warming hoaxing to be wrong.

    Parent
    That's why we have a secret ballot. (none / 0) (#63)
    by Salo on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 10:37:35 AM EST
    we also have the lesser of the two evils to consider with McCain.

    Parent
    The secret ballot has nothing to do with (2.00 / 0) (#71)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 10:48:46 AM EST
    saying who you voted for months later.

    And yes, McCain was the lesser of the two evils.

    But to get back on subject. Obama made Afghanistan his war. He has put his team in. Now he appears to be unable to make a decision because of opposition from the anti-war Left which is part of his base. Bush didn't have that problem. So it is his man who, when asked, has spoken the truth. That his man disagrees with Biden is meaningless. Obama has to decide if he is right or wrong. If he's wrong, replace him. If he's right, do what he says.

    Both have political consequences that Obama doesn't want to face.

    Parent

    bollocks mate. (none / 0) (#87)
    by Salo on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 11:17:52 AM EST


    Parent
    I voted for him (none / 0) (#37)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 09:50:06 AM EST


    Parent
    Good for you. (none / 0) (#46)
    by Salo on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 10:02:09 AM EST


    Parent
    I didn't vote for Obama or for this war (none / 0) (#189)
    by MO Blue on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 09:14:13 PM EST
    If there was ever a chance to get Afghanistan right, it was lost years ago when they abandoned the mission there to invade Iraq. I vote for bringing the soldiers home.

    Parent
    Apples and Oranges (5.00 / 0) (#21)
    by mmc9431 on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 09:39:42 AM EST
    The Generals that were "hacking" Bush were not the commanders of the operation. That is a big difference.

    Well yes (2.00 / 0) (#62)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 10:36:30 AM EST
    I see your point

    Bush was not Obama.

    Excuse the laughter.

    Parent

    AMEN! Preach it! (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 10:14:26 AM EST


    What I want to know is (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by AlkalineDave on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 10:47:27 AM EST
    if President Obama does end up endorsing the General's plan and tries to lobby Congressional support, will the Republicans back him?  I know Senator McCain has made his position known, but what about the others.  I see them using this increasingly to blame the President of indecision while troops lives or at risk, but what if he back it?  I'm guessing he'll get their support with a bunch of criticism for being indecisive or waiting to long.  I'm just curious as to what the spin will be.

    What I want to know (none / 0) (#134)
    by mmc9431 on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 01:27:42 PM EST
    Is whether any of these fiscal responsible politicians from either side of the aisle quaetion how this escalation is to be paid for. All I've heard for the last six months is how broke we are. Are they willing to finally admit that taxes will have to be raised to support the wars? There's only so much cutting of the social programs and intrastructure that can continue.

    Parent
    The war will be paid for (none / 0) (#135)
    by KeysDan on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 01:47:41 PM EST
    by a surtax on munitions makers whose incomes are more than $250,000 per year.  That is the new rule, since all government spending must be neutral.

    Parent
    These are the longest wars... (5.00 / 0) (#77)
    by Dadler on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 10:58:15 AM EST
    ...in American history.  And we cannot even learn from history.  The military does not possess the institutional imagination to "win" this, especially when no one can even come close to defining what winning means.  Nor does the military have the tens of millions of people ready to take up arms and fight us, as do the people of the region who want us gone.  We would be better served, logically, to simply arm every village in the region to fight for themselves.  But that would mean giving up our cherished notions of our own rose-smelling sh*t.  Our motives are pure, everyone else's are not.  We always start from that point, and that means we start from a point of pure delusion from the get-go.  

    Sorry, I can't muster anything else for this but a feeling that it is out of our hands entirely.  Just get my little brother home and out of the military entirely.  

    and many of us voted for obama (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by cpinva on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 05:14:16 PM EST
    because the alternative was john "Dr. Strangelove" mcain.

    mcchrystal should be fired outright, for total ineptitude. there are only two legitimately viable options, in both afghanstan and iraq (and everyone knows it, but doesn't have the b*lls to say it):

    1. declare victory and go home.

    2. re-establish the draft, and put a million boots on the ground in both countries.

    anything else leads to defeat by attrition, which is exactly the case now. you can't win when the populace either actively supports or, is at minimum, ambivalent to the insurgents, and doesn't see the gov't as either legitimate or effective.

    this is exactly what happened in vietnam, along with an enemy willing to lose however many it took, to get rid of the french and us. this would also appear to be the taliban and al-quada position.

    bush and rumsfeld were both told this, up front, by the military. because that didn't jibe with rumsfeld's vision of "war on the cheap", this sound advice was ignored.

    sure, we could "bomb them into the stone-age", but when you're just barely out of it, that isn't a very credible threat.

    I'm good with declaring victory and (none / 0) (#174)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 05:38:21 PM EST
    going home.  Particularly now that I know the Obama plan.  Which will only do more damage all the way around.

    Parent
    But I would secretly love to see bots (none / 0) (#175)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 05:41:41 PM EST
    call for a draft.  Just for the record though, most of our volunteer military with some instruction from older soldiers will tell you that they don't want a draft.  You don't want the guy next to you on the battlefield uncertain about pulling the trigger or half hearted at best as to why he is there.  And we will have to draft women just the same....no passes just cuz you're a girl!

    Parent
    What will we do with gay people though? (none / 0) (#176)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 05:43:11 PM EST
    Okay...everybody but gay people goes to war :)

    Parent
    Draft everybody but Teh Gays (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by caseyOR on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 05:51:13 PM EST
    Well, that is certainly one way to end DADT. During Vietnam there were guys who claimed to be gay to escape the draft and gayness was a much bigger no-no than it is today. Imagine how the ranks of the LGBT community will swell when sexual orientation is the only acceptable deferment.

    I like it, MT. Brilliant political strategery.

    Parent

    it'll never happen tracy. (none / 0) (#192)
    by cpinva on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 10:11:20 PM EST
    that's what finally got the public against the vietnam war in the states, the possibility that their middle-class son might end up in an unwinnable war.

    you want to see huge anti-war protests in the US? start up the draft, and watch the crowds show up.

    btw, if someone's trying to kill you, drafted or volunteer, you start shooting back pretty quickly.

    Parent

    That would sort fix our dilemma (none / 0) (#195)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 03:31:21 AM EST
    though about being all in or all out.  The American people would demand all out.  We would not have Presidents fighting with Generals over strategy that would accomplish little else outside of just getting people killed.  I still think there is a chance that this Afghanistan business could end up coming to a close of sorts if McChrystal stands his ground about doing what is proper verses doing what is inhumane yet expedient.  Our military has learned that you just can't bomb the crap out of people and have them be okay with you, and not desire to suicide bomb you at any cost and have plenty of people ready and willing to do it.  We pounded Fallujah to dust twice and the whole Sunni triangle became an inferno of violence until we remembered how to be human beings again.

    Parent
    Is the general a Republican? (none / 0) (#1)
    by me only on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 08:52:27 AM EST
    I don't think Obama is going to want to "create" a possible contender by sacking the guy.  Considering the rest of the Republican field at this point (bad to awful) this could be a major boost to the Republicans.

    How many Generals are Democrats these days? (none / 0) (#3)
    by Salo on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 08:56:29 AM EST
    There can't be too many.

    Parent
    A lot more than you might think... (none / 0) (#8)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 09:05:42 AM EST
    but the military is strongly republican-leaning.

    Parent
    Didn't several former (none / 0) (#10)
    by me only on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 09:10:11 AM EST
    generals sign a petition to eliminate "don't ask, don't tell?"  I mean most of the military skews republican.  That should be obvious.  However, that doesn't mean that most generals toe the Republican line of the "granny state."  (No talking, thinking about or having sex, no abortions, no gays, no drugs, no gambling.)  Awfully hard to be a serious contender for the Republican nomination without toeing that line (see Guilani).

    Parent
    In my experience (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by AlkalineDave on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 09:47:40 AM EST
    there is a difference in enlisted politcal thinking and officer political thinking.  Nevertheless, this is not a political issue.  General McChrystal's accessment on how to handle the counterinsurgency is good.  Stron arming his superiors is totally unacceptable.

    Parent
    As a retired mustang (none / 0) (#150)
    by Wile ECoyote on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 03:47:35 PM EST
    I will say not much of a difference.

    Parent
    McArthur did this a lot. (none / 0) (#2)
    by Salo on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 08:55:48 AM EST
    of course.

    OTOH I think the strategy will end in a catastrophe.

    The terrain and people there are not amenable to conquest.  

    They can regroup each winter to retrain and restock. They can have willing Shaheeds from Pakistan Inexhaustably replenish their numbers during and after each summer campaign season. The camps for these volunteers exists all up and down the Indian border.

    Complicating the Complications (none / 0) (#5)
    by The Maven on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 08:59:40 AM EST
    is that Obama continues to have meetings (like the one last week in Copenhagen) directly and privately with McChrystal.  By doing just that, the president himself is managing to muddy the chain of command, leading to exactly the types of problems noted by Jones.  Presidents and field commanders ought not to be trying to discuss war strategies on their own.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#7)
    by lilburro on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 09:01:50 AM EST
    I thought his 60 minutes appearance was absurd.

    What you do, if you're Obama, is (none / 0) (#14)
    by scribe on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 09:27:46 AM EST
    reassign McChrystal.

    MY preference, and what I would do with his insubordinate a*s is this
    (1) Note that global warming is a big issue,
    (2) Note that addressing the scientific and political problems of global warming will require (a) gathering more scientific information, quickly and (b) collating that information into reports, equeally quickly,  
    (3) Note that accomplishing (2) will require someone with great organziational skills and a lot of energy,
    (4) Note that the purpose of (2) is to enable political decision-makers to make sound decisions informed by the science, thus the person chosen to fill the job defined in (3) will have to be someone used to presenting information to political decision-makers, so
    (5) To accomplish these missions, you need someone to run a headquarters and report to political leaders,
    (6) Create a headquarters for this person.

    Then, once you've created the headquarters, you assign McChrystal and his friends to it.  Put capable people in charge of this global warming project.

    But, you still have to give this headquarters a physical location.  One of the corollaries of the nine principles of war is that a commander should be close to the front, so he can easily get out there and observe what is going on with his own eyes.  Thus, the headquarters should be located where investigations of global warming are going on, or at least near the places where the investigations are going on.

    So, where are these investigations going on?  And where is the center of that investigatory effort - what military people call the schwerpunkt of the effort? Most people will agree that some of the most important climate science work is being done in two places - Antarctica and Greenland.

    So, you can have one headquarters in one of those places, or you can get a little creative with location and split the headquarters between them.  Locating them is no real problem, seeing as how the US has had a military component to its Antarctic operations since their beginning, at least since the IGY of 1958.  Likewise, we have had a miltary presence in Greenland since WWII, when it was there for ... gathering information to facilitate weather forecasting in Europe.

    I am of the school that says competition is a good thing, so I choose to have two operations, one each in Greenland and Antarctica.  And the military is nothing if not internally competitive.  They will have to compete by getting the most information and presenting it best.

    But, I'm sure writing reports is only a small thing, in terms of time, for them.  What to do with them in the rest of the time?  After all in the military (as elsewhere) the old saw "idle hands are the Devil's workshop", or something similar, plays out in spades.

    Well, the people assigned to these headquarters can get some advance preparation for their coming post-retirement careers, by participating in scientific research.  Say, on the amount of snow and precipitation falling in their respective areas.

    In other words, if I'm Obama, I send him and his insubordinate buddies to Greenland and Antarctica and order them to count the snowflakes and not come back until they've counted them all.

    Too many cows (none / 0) (#16)
    by koshembos on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 09:32:08 AM EST
    Why would we, the citizen, care about the military chain of command? For all we know the chain may be highly dysfunctional. The president is commander in chief and if he is fine with it, fine.

    We all know that the higher ranks of the military is by and large a political interest group. We really cannot afford the luxury of playing games with two cruel wars going on.

    this morning on morning Joe (none / 0) (#33)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 09:48:29 AM EST
    they were beginning the canonization process.
    Saint Stanley is coming.

    I agree but In reality (none / 0) (#44)
    by Saul on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 09:59:51 AM EST
    firing him would just be fodder for the republicans and would unite them.  It would  be easily construed by the republicans  that Obama is not that interested in winning in Afghanistan even though he might be.

    You are absolutely right. (none / 0) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 10:29:53 AM EST


    Win or Lose in Afganistan ? (none / 0) (#132)
    by jb757 on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 01:07:02 PM EST
    Presidents and commanders frequently have some disagreements over course of action. There's no reason and no time to fool around trying out new commanders. One reason I voted for McCain is so that we wouldn't be having this discussion. Do we want to win or not ? McChrystal the man to get the job done. That's why he was selected in the first place. Drones cannot win the war without significant ground action. Wake up everybody!

    And many on the Left (2.00 / 0) (#160)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 04:38:05 PM EST
    voted for Obama so we would be having this discussion.

    Parent
    That, and to further (none / 0) (#173)
    by jondee on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 05:16:19 PM EST
    marginalize the human-influenced-climate-change-is-a-hoax nutbars.

     

    Parent

    That's some photo you've (none / 0) (#179)
    by jondee on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 05:59:03 PM EST
    got up on your blog, Jim.

    Really reachin' out to those White Citizens folk these days, eh? You good ole boys are havin' a regular revival.

    Parent

    "Win or Lose" (none / 0) (#171)
    by jondee on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 05:12:06 PM EST
    "Get the job done." No occupier has been able to either of those things in Afghanistan in a thousand years. Well, alot of them have lost alot

    McCain would be up to his knees in the same sh*t storm - quagmire: only the conditions and terms of the "discussion" would be slightly different.

    Parent

    McChrystal's Disrepect For The Chain Of Command | 195 comments (195 topical)