Posted on 06/24/2010 7:53:56 AM PDT by pabianice
The military is finally telling the unvarnished truth about President Obama's dysfunctional national security team.
Oddly, Gen. Stanley McChrystal and his inner circle chose to dish dirt to a reporter for Rolling Stone, a decidedly left-wing publication that portrays the U.S. military negatively and knows as much about counter-insurgency as a 4th grader. The article that brought down the career special-operations soldier throws in the "F-word" several times, not as a quote, but to describe the author's own views.
Not included in the story is an ongoing dispute between the White House and its generals that shows why McChrystal, the top commander in Afghanistan, had grown so frustrated.
The debate centers on when exactly troops will begin leaving Afghanistan. Every time a Pentagon figure, such as Gen. David Petraeus, the overall region commander, testified that Obama's July 2011 withdrawal date does not mean the U.S. is abandoning Afghanistan, there was a White House official saying nearly the opposite.
The result is a badly mangled message to Afghan troops and villagers who think America is going to leave them to the mercies of the Taliban, which shows no mercy. Thus, McChrystal's counter-insurgency strategy of winning over the population cannot possibly succeed as long as the White House undercuts it. This is an administration that eschews using the words war or victory or winning.
(Excerpt) Read more at humanevents.com ...
McCrystal’s biggest mistake - voting for 0bama
Thanks for the link. Complete unity against the Zero.
The debate has been all about what should be done with McChristal for saying what he did, not WHY he said what he did. The WHY should be the real focus.
He's been mugged. It's up to him to change his politics.
Scarborough tired of being Mika’s poodle?
McChrystal told the truth.
Yes he did.
Our so called strategy and “policy” in Afghanistan is a losing one.
If I were Petraeus, I would have insisted on changes before taking over.
Among those changes I would have insisted on are a change in the rules of engagement for US soldiers than the current policy dictates.
Second, a major change in the operation of Afghanistan needs to take place. And by that I mean politics. Karzai must go unless he abandons his corrupt brother and his activities.
Second, Afghanistan must develop a lot of its own mineral resources rather than the drug culture and trade that has sustained it up to now. That too must change.
Third, Afghanistan must come into the 21st century and stop living in the past of long ago. This starts by nation building, eliminating the tribal mentality and developing a political system similar to that of Iraq, that is a representative government. elections held and police and security forces equipped and trained to secure Afghanistan from its enemies.
Afghanistanis must start to believe in and trust the US to develop those ideas and make them happen.
If these things do not occur, we will lose the war there.
I hope Petraeus understands that and tells that to Obama in no uncertain terms.
The General made one mistake. This is the interview he should have given after he retired.
I don’t believe for one second this was an accident. I think the General saw the writing on the wall and decided to fall on his sword.
Maybe now that there is reported to be mineral wealth in A’stan, things will change.
However, the average A’stani needs to have an immediate, direct and permanent stake in whatever delelopes or else it will turn a really bad situation... really worse
Very true. Now push that through channels. If you are still ignored, resign and state the reason why to bring public attention to your cause. But as a military man you do not air your dirty laundry about your commander in chief, even if it's this bozo.
OTOH I'm sure he knew this, and everything points to him being an honorable soldier, so I imagine the frustration level was so incredibly high he just cracked. Every man has his breaking point.
I don’t know what to think of any of this.
I’m waiting for McC to come out after the dust settles and see what he has to say.
My question at this point:
1) Is Petraeus better suited for the job?
2) Was this to (possibly) keep Petraeus from seeking a 2012 run?
FWIW, I don't think McChrystal cracked. While I agree he seems to be honorable, he is at his core, an unconventional warrior, and I suspect he views the traditions of the service and historical customs and courtesies through that lens, and is not afraid of bucking them when he sees fit.
Early on in Afghanistan, I think it was the commander of the 10th Mountain who was criticizing SF guys for wearing their beards outside the proscriptions of AR 670-1. To the SF guys, it was essential to their mission working with the local populace. McChrystal's mindset is I suspect akin to that: sometimes the rules have to be waived, flaunted, bent or broken. I think he did so deliberately, and with knowledge of the consequences, and this time he got called on it.
Islam is not going to change, and that new found wealth will end up being more money to fund the jihad.
Try this on:
Stan McChrystal is a professional strategic planner and doesn’t make decisions lightly without calculating the consequences.
He found himself in a bad position, where he could not change the conditions on the battlefield, but could not win the battle with existing conditions.
He needed to find a way to change the conditions in order to win the battle and save the lives of his troops.
If he was fired under the right conditions and Petraeus was named as his replacement, Petraeus would have extraordinary leverage to get the conditions changed. (Obama can’t fire both of them)
A tell-all expose written by a leftist journalist would get him fired.
Go figure. Maybe Stan was thinking 2-3 chess moves ahead of everybody else on this one.
That is my view as well.
McChrystal saw the writing on the wall with regard to Afghanistan with the current policy.
It had to change.
Obama is way too stubborn but then what does anybody expect because our president is an appeaser, a pacifist.
Liberals never win wars. They can start them well enough but they never win em.
... in consideration of the troop lives at stake ... he may have put his troops lives ahead of his own personal career ... with all other avenues presumably having been exhausted ... it would not have been out of character ...
Was this to (possibly) keep Petraeus from seeking a 2012 run?
I think so. He can now be saddled with the loss in Afghanistan.
OR he can turn it around and bring home victory.
with no help from that little jackal in the WH.
“Even more about McChrystal: now it can be told. The story about him voting for Obama is not contrived. He is a political liberal. He is a social liberal. He banned Fox News from the television sets in his headquarters. Yes, really.
This puts to rest another false rumor: that McChrystal deliberately precipitated his firing because he wants to run for President.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2540692/posts
It will be interesting to see what Petraeus does with this opportunity to undo our Marxist Usurping President. Afterall, nary a word was heard from him about the Afghanistan ROE or McChrystal’s attempt to fashion an award for soldiers who refrain from firing—at risk to themselves and their fellow soldiers. Not to mentioin the wisdom of annnouncing a withdrawl date before victory has been achieved.
Of course, the same can be said for the Chief of Staff for the Army and the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Please let that be the case, our nation needs a few heros.
That's not a maverick bucking of regulations, that's standard practice approved at the highest levels of the SF command.
The American way is for the military to be subordinate to the civilian. The military way is to not air your dirty laundry with your commander in public. McChrystal blew both of these. He was wrong for doing it while still on active duty, and he knows it.
>McCrystal’s biggest mistake - voting for 0bama<
I would say that if Obama is losing people like this, the military is not so much on his side.
And it's merely an example I chose to illustrate the unconventional thinking that's ingrained in the culture of SF. Sometimes it's "approved" sometimes not. MG Garrison had to go to bat for a lot of Delta guys over some questionable TDY disbursements. SF lore is full of stories of guys pushing the envelope and getting away with things their conventional counterparts wouldn't think of doing. They take it as a matter of pride; it's part of their heritage and culture.
"The American way is for the military to be subordinate to the civilian. The military way is to not air your dirty laundry with your commander in public. McChrystal blew both of these. He was wrong for doing it while still on active duty, and he knows it."
Never said I agreed with it or that he was right, but was merely making the point that it almost makes sense from McChrystal's pedigree and career path.
Civilian leaders generally lose wars, not the military.
That was true in Korea and Vietnam.
It probably remains so in today’s world.
Mostly because politicians THINK THEY KNOW BETTER ON HOW TO WAGE AND WIN A WAR BUT THEY DO NOT.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.