Posted on 06/26/2010 10:07:23 AM PDT by SunkenCiv
David Petraeus is the real Pope of counter-insurgency and if he decides that he needs more troops and more time and more resources in Afghanistan next year, who is going to be able to gainsay him? That's Thomas P. Barnett's shrewd assessment. Obama's pledge to start withdrawing troops in 2011 is now kaput... It really is Vietnam -- along with the crazier and crazier rationales for continuing it. But it is now re-starting in earnest ten years in, dwarfing Vietnam in scope and longevity. One suspects there is simply no stopping this war machine, just as there is no stopping the entitlement and spending machine... now we have the real kool-aid drinker, Petraeus, who will refuse to concede the impossibility of success in Afghanistan just as he still retains the absurd notion that the surge in Iraq somehow worked in reconciling the sectarian divides that still prevent Iraq from having a working government... Obama will run for re-election with far more troops in Afghanistan than Bush ever had -- and a war and occupation stretching for ever into the future, with no realistic chance of success. Make no mistake: this is an imperialism of self-defense... continuing this struggle will actually increase and multiply the terror threats we face -- as it becomes once again a recruitment tool for Jihadists the world over... Maybe this is why you supported Obama -- to see the folly of nation-building extended indefinitely to the least promising wastelands on earth, as the US heads toward late-imperial bankruptcy. It is not a betrayal as such. But it is, in my view, a huge and metastasizing mistake.
(Excerpt) Read more at andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com ...
Ya know A. Sullivan claimed a decade ago to be a fiscal conservative (cut spending) and a social liberal. He may have voted for Bush the first time. But when Bush supported a marriage amendment around 2003-2004, Sullivan just went nuts. And he fell head over heels for Obama. Sullivan supports Obamacare, and seems to basically support the whole Obama agenda—the most un-conservative fiscal agenda in history. Even LBJ would have blushed at the outrageous power grabs of Obama and the Democrat party!
I truly hope not. But the Democrats and the MSM hate Gen. Petraeus. They will not say anything right now, they do not want to detract from Obama’s “brilliant” decision. But overtime they will undermine him and try to destroy his career and reputation. The administration people who were undermining Gen. McChrystal will also work to undermine Gen. Petreaus.
By the way, I though the theatrics of how McChrystal was treated was disgusting. First, he had to come to the White House without knowing what was going on and be photographed and harassed by reporters who had obviously been briefed by The White House. Then Obama making a point of meeting with him for only a few minutes to humiliate him and then the White House staff told reporters how forceful Obama was in firing him and how great a Commander in Chief he was.
It made me want to throw up. McChrystal served his country well for years in Iraq. He should have been treated with respect and not humiliated just to make Obama seem presidential.
One can only hope that Andrew finds some meaning in life and that his boyfriend's bottom grows together preventing Andrew from any gratification.
The conspiratorial side of me thinks perhaps David and Stanley may have gone fishing together recently, just the two of them. Stan offers to take the dive and David says he will take the AF job.
Patraeus really does have the Obozo between a rock and a hard place. My guess is that Patraeus demanded and got a whole lot of assurances. And I would bet they are documented. So, if he is successful (highly unlikely) then his standing in the public’s eyes gets even greater. If Obozo tries to slip the knife in Patraeus can wave the assurances in front of the camera as he turns in his resignation. If one has any notions of say taking a shot at high elected office, either one of these scenarios works well for them.
I think your apprehensiveness is well founded. My take was that this is a win/win for Obama. If it is perceived that Afghanistan is turning for the better, the press will ensure that Obama gets the credit. If Afghanistan continues to flounder due to incompetent government and we “fail”, Petraeus gets the blame. This move was all political on Obama’s part.
Right and Right. This sadly, (for the boots on the ground) is mind bogglingly hilarious.
My prayer...that GDP covers our boys behinds while uncovering BHO’s.
Quite a unique challenge.
As I said before Obama and Gates are Patraeus’ bitches. Look for Holbrooke and/or Eikenberry to be replaced. ROE will be more sensible too.
Hearing those words again would send a tingle up my leg.
;-)
I hope Petraeus’ health holds up.
Heh...
Okay, but please, from now on, don’t include “power grab”, “nuts”, “head over heels”, “blushed”, and “marriage” in the same paragraph ever again. ;’)
ram homosexuality down everyone else's throatsEw,
Have you ruled out stupidity? Oops, sorry, he’s just another partisan media shill.
Okay, and you, no more “old queen” and “goes down” in the same sentence, along with “palm of his hand” in the next. ;’)
Zero’s word is no good. Petraeus knows that. He did it because it was his duty, period.
/bingo
Thanks Mariner.
It was always only about party identity.
Thanks!
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.