Posted on 10/05/2009 7:41:35 AM PDT by peggybac
The relationship between President Barack Obama and the commander of Nato forces in Afghanistan has been put under severe strain by Gen Stanley McChrystal's comments on strategy for the war.
According to sources close to the administration, Gen McChrystal shocked and angered presidential advisers with the bluntness of a speech given in London last week.
The next day he was summoned to an awkward 25-minute face-to-face meeting on board Air Force One on the tarmac in Copenhagen, where the president had arrived to tout Chicago's unsuccessful Olympic bi
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
I'm not an Obama man, in fact I can't think of a major policy he is attempting to iniate that I agree with. Having said that, I do think that McChrystal broke ranks with tradition by going public with his speech in London, stating he needs 40,000 additional troops. The correct thing for a top level general such as McChrystal to do would be to speak privately to his military leadership and/or Obama about his need for more troops. Then, if his superiors (JCS/POTUS)should not agree with him, then he has a choice, button his lip and do as ordered or resign his commission and become a civilian after which he can speak publicly to his hearts content. For better or worse, American tradition has been that the civilian executive branch has always set our military objectives and strategery. Possibly, the most obvious incident of this tradition being teste was MacArthur's challenge of Truman's management of the Korean war and his attempt to by-pass Truman by writing a letter to the Speaker of the House for permission to invade Manchuria. Consequently,as most of us know, Truman fired MacArthur for making “unauthorized policy statements”. Many Korean War vet's were on Mac's side, including my own father, but MacArthur, who had an ego about the size of Jupiter was totally out of line and the firing was necessary.
Yes, he is doing what he believes. And if Obama rejects his message, then McCrystal is faced with a difficult decision, i.e., salute and say “Yes sir,” or hand in his resignation because he does want to be part of a defeat and the needless sacrifice of brave men and women’s lives. In many ways this is going to be just a much a test for McCrystal as it is for Obama. I would hope that Petraeus would react similarly.
That’s simple — nausea — as realization sinks in.
On this I absolutely agree. Thank you for this exchange.
Simon Oliver Lockwood says:
General McChrystal’s chain-of-command goes as follows:
General Petraeus (as CENTCOM) & ADM Stavridis (as EUCOM/NATO)
Secretary of Defense Gates
President Obama
If his comments had been approved by any of the above people he is perfectly in the clear. Note that neither VP Biden nor National Security Advisor Jones are included in that list.
poster -madawaskan says:
McCrystal was for Obama’s plan before Obama was against it, or Biden became against it and now Obama is not,or sorta could be for it.
What did the people of America think Obama’s ideas for Afghanistan were?
Here is another clue-McChrystal-wrote the COMISAF trying to appeal to what he thought the Obama Administration wanted-basically McChrystal is right in the sameboat as the electorate-he believed Obama’s campaign speeches-that simple.
To start questioning the honor of the General for answering questions in that same vein of thought that has been consistent, well documented and sourced-is to allow yourself to be used to triangulate the active duty military that believe in what they are doing.
So what you are hinting at is that he is being insubordinate and acting unconstitutionally to whisper campaigns of a sudden change of stategy that is coming from “unamed sources” or loosely and just recently attributed to Biden who came up with this idea when exactly?
After McChrystal’s report….
more comments here -—>Is McChrystal Another MacArthur?
http://volokh.com/2009/10/04/is-mcchrystal-another-macarthur/
SO the loss of the Olympics was either Bush’s fault or the general’s fault!!
“...however, if they leave us no choice...”
That is from where my thinking is coming.
Thank you for your input.
The ghost of McArthur still haunts the White House...
Obama emboldened the enemy by telling the world he is unconfortable with the idea of winning. Because of this he has energized the enemy knowing it’s only a matter of time before we cut and run.
I fully expect an attack on our on soil during the anointed one’s administration.
None of these Generals will resign.
They are too political in nature, too impressed with themselves, etc. to resign. They may get fired, but they will not resign, IMHO.
The place more value on their careers and retirement to a cozy defense contractor job. The troops are far down their list of priorities.
Former Marine.
Nothing can get under Obama’s skin faster than facts and truth.
The General has a different interest in mind than does Obama and his minions. The General feels responsibile for the safey of America and the troops; Obama hates America and the troops.
Years ago someone told me to turn the sound off when Clinton was speaking. Same thing. The body language didn’t match the spiel. Some people are more attuned so they pick up the dissonance in how some present themselves. Obama, great reader that he is, has something about him that screams fake.
I think some people don’t pick up on non-verbal clues. There was a picture of an older couple listening to Hillary Clinton during the campaign. They were absolutely enthralled. They were standing, listening, enraptured with their mouths hanging open. That picture epitomized the kool-aid bunch for me.
Someone should tell a**hole Yalie Ackerman that McChrystal is responsible for 100,000 NATO troops as well as US forces. When a General sees the apologizer in chief neglecting the WORLD’s soldiers - he has a DUTY to speak up.
McChrystal is obviously not a ‘team’ player, and rule one for the ‘team’ is to hide the ‘bama’s incompetence; a herculean task at best.
Awkward for Obama because he didn't have a teleprompter to tell him what to think and say.
xkaydet65: “...it...does not matter who the POTUS is, a field or theater commander does not publicly question the orders he has been given.”
Bingo! It’s called the chain of command. Even generals are supposed to follow it.
Neither, he just doesn't want to be Obama's fall guy when Afghanistan blows up.
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.