Posted on 06/24/2010 9:28:02 AM PDT by STARWISE
Description
The story of a President, 2 Generals, the future of a war and magazine story.
The implications on the resignation of General Stanley McChrystal.
We talk to David Kilcullen, former counter insurgency advisor to David Petraeus, Eric Bates, Executive Editor of Rolling Stone, Eliot Cohen of Johns Hopkins University, Rajiv Chandrasekaran from the Washington Post and Michael Gordon of the New York Times.
Also via phone from Afghanistan with Dexter Filkins of The New York Times. We close with excerpts from past interviews with General McChrystal and General Petraeus.
God bless and protect our troops.
Obama wants to convince all states in the Middle East that America cannot be trusted. We are fickle. We do not see our fights through to the end. We turn on our friends.
The damage from Obama will last many decades in a very troubled part of the world.
~~MUST see .... PING!
There will be a majorredifinition of teh world within the next 5 years.
I thought after the first Gulf War the Middle East already believed that. I am no war expert, but I don’t see how we can win, or how we even define win in Afghanistan. What is the end game there?
I would say that in 1991, the US had a clear goal: Push Saddaam out of Kuwait.
We went in, and we accomplished that.
Afterwards, some people said, "Why'd you leave Saddam in power?"
The answer was: "Removing him was not our goal."
We might have erred there, but we had a goal, we achieved the goal, we stuck by our goal.
This is respectable behavior.
As to Afghanistan, it's not clear that we had a definite goal. If we had wanted to push the Taliban out of power, we achieved that early on -- but then we stayed on the scene and tried to do "other stuff". Well, that's kind of an endless task. And if we ever leave or stop doing "other stuff", then we look like we're giving up or running way.
A complicated business, and the US has not always made good choices. But I think Obama is poisoning the well on purpose.
Thank you STARWISE
Very interesting and informative.
I am at the 22 minute mark, having replayed many bits and pieces for clarity. There are several things quite remarkable in this video so far.
First, Obama's selection of a civilian team for Afghanistan put his managerial incompetence in the spotlight once again. His team was in conflict with our military leaders from the get-go and he should have known that was an incredibly stupid decision.
Second, it is apparent that Obama isn't as engaged as he should be and he isn't offering any leadership.
Third, and most profound IMO, Eric Bates, the Executive Editor of Rolling Stone, was explicit in describing the statements given to his mag by McChrystal and staff as being of a carefully premeditated nature. Not only were such statements NOT off the cuff...the Rolling Stone guys double checked each and every comment for accuracy and context before publishing the story.
McChrystal and staff were quite aware of what they were saying...and they were fully aware that it would cause a firestorm. Furthermore, what was reported in RS was just the tip of the iceberg in that many other statements were made "off-the-record."
It is becoming clear to me that this was part of a strategy being implemented by McChrystal. He most likely knew full-well he would either be fired or forced to resign.
It seems that McChrystal is trying to "out" the Administration for its incompetence and failure of leadership. And there may be other objectives which have yet to be revealed.
I get the sense (I might be wrong of course) that this story is far from over...
Pakistan.
It's about (or was under the Bush admin) Pakistan 1st with their nuclear arsenal potentially "falling into the hands" of an extremists over-through of the fragile government there, and Iran 2nd with their nuclear ambitions.
I agree ... it’s SO revealing... on SO many fronts.
And to see the lib reporters describe, in effect,
how disengaged and how poorly -0 is suited for
wartime leadership is telling. You can almost
sense their lack of respect for him.
The house of cards may be starting to fall ..
More and more, though .. and I’m grateful to
McChrystal for his long and devoted service ..
it appears he has surprisingly liberal tendencies,
and atypical and quirky qualities for a top military
guy.
“As to Afghanistan, it’s not clear that we had a definite goal. If we had wanted to push the Taliban out of power, we achieved that early on — but then we stayed on the scene and tried to do “other stuff”.
Sorry, whether we should have, and whether we still should, that “other stuff” IS PART AND PARCEL of the “goal”; removing the Taliban from power AND KEEPING THEM OUT OF POWER in Afghanistan. That was always a given and was never “other stuff”.
As for Iraq and the first Gulf War, NOT taking Saddam out COMPLETELY at the time WAS a mistake, a big mistake.
The excuse was some members of the “alliance” had not “signed on” for that goal, but that excuse strains the credulity of (1) the actual (nil) military importance of some of the alliance members (like Syria, or France) and (2)the actual long term impact that would have come from going ahead anyway.
Even the Saudis, who may not have “approved” of the idea in 1991, would have realized, after Saddam was out - in 1991 - that at least we had not given the Mullahs in Iran another decade to increase THEIR influence, underground, in Iraq and with Iraqi Shia expatriates in Iran.
The biggest winner in Iraq in the ten year hiatus WAS Iran. It was a mistake that proved bigger than the problems that would have arisen from removing Saddam, in the first place.
And how is our remaining in Afghanistan going to stop that? I would imagine terrorists will be able to get a hold of a “nuclear suitcase” at some point whether we are in Afghanistan or not. And how is it stopping Iran from proceeding with their nuclear plans? I think we are losing a lot of men and women for nothing.
Yep! I agree with you...the wheels are coming off.
After all is said and done, McChrystal will be remembered for this great sacrifice on behalf of his country!
He put his country above his job!
Bravo General McChrystal!
read later
O Does not want a win in Afghanistan by our troops. He wants the Taliban to win.!!!
[Mrs]T
Ping to an interesting thread and comment (I haven’t seen video but Sonof has).
The thinking there is all about (pre) position and control (as much as it can be obtained).
I can see both sides of the argument, but I personally think the U.S. should pull back ALL overseas deployment and not JUST in Iraq or Afghanistan. That would include personnel and equipment from Japan, South Korea, Germany, Britain, etc.
However, there are many who believe that if we are in the "area" with "boots on the ground" and cover in the sky's, that IF the government of Pakistan were to be seriously threatened with being overrun with the islamist extremist (who would obviously not hesitate to "push the button"), there is a large enough force that is literally "next door" making it easier and quicker to go in and assume control if need be.
I've suspected this pretty much too. The only way to get to Obama is publicly. McChrystal turned the worm on Obama and took one for the team.
Good Ping. :-)
So the belief is our military in Afghanistan could take over the government of Pakistan if necessary? Just doesn’t sound possible, nor does it sound like a good idea.
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.