The American Spectator : MacArthur Defeats Truman: The Real McChrystal Message

Text Size

Special Report

MacArthur Defeats Truman: The Real McChrystal Message

By Jeffrey Lord on 6.24.10 @ 6:08AM

Famous showdown helped GOP to landslide, shaped decades of Cold War politics.

(Page 3 of 3)

The steady decades-long decline of the once immutable idea of Democrats as the party of national security had begun. Drop-by-drop, like an acid eating away at metal, the MacArthur firing in retrospect was a turning point, putting the American Left constantly on the political defensive when it came to national security issues.

The first political blow came almost immediately. In November of 1952, Americans rejected Illinois Governor Adlai Stevenson, the Democrats’ nominee to replace the by now highly unpopular Truman. In a sign of things to come, they elected retired General Dwight D. Eisenhower — MacArthur’s one-time aide and the commander of D-Day — as president, along with a GOP House and Senate. Eisenhower ran as the anti-Communist’s anti-Communist, selecting the by now famously anti-Communist Senator Richard Nixon as his running mate.

Over and over and over again in the succeeding years, the question of how to deal with America’s Cold War enemies — the Soviet Union, the Communist Chinese, the Koreans, the Vietnamese, Eastern Europe, Berlin, Cuba and Communists in Latin America repeatedly surfaced the idea first writ large by the MacArthur firing: that Democrats could not be trusted with national security. Over time, the Truman Democrats — and their hardline successors JFK and Lyndon Johnson — would lose control of their party to the forces supporting Truman’s old intra-party foe, the pacifist-leaning ex-Vice President Henry Wallace. Their leader: South Dakota Senator George McGovern, the 1972 Democratic nominee who lost a 49-state blowout to Nixon but in the process began the finalizing of the party’s image as one of appeasement and military weakness.

WHY IS ALL OF THIS important politically today? Because the Rolling Stone article shows in vivid detail that the sentiments that first surfaced in the MacArthur firing are still alive, well and exceptionally powerful today in America’s fight against Islamic fascism. The banning of the latter phrase by an Obama administration that deems it politically incorrect is in itself a symbol of the politics launched by the MacArthur firing. Doubtless that kind of political correctness is one source of the derision that was carelessly expressed by McChrystal’s aides to Rolling Stone.

General Stanley McChrystal was wrong to be giving time to discuss his views with Rolling Stone, his aides unimaginably stupid to be so free with a reporter for a magazine with a considerable anti-war reputation. Ironically, the politics of Rolling Stone itself — indeed the magazine’s very existence — are a legacy of the anti-war sentiments that were first bubbling with progressives during the time of MacArthur’s firing.

Without doubt, the essence of what McChrystal so obviously believes — that the answer to al Qaeda is victory, not appeasement or negotiation — is what was once believed by those millions who thronged the streets of San Francisco and New York to cheer Douglas MacArthur. This is the political view that propelled the electoral careers of presidents who sided with MacArthur’s views in one form or another throughout the Cold War, from Eisenhower to George H.W. Bush. It has elected literally hundreds of senators and congressman.

From 1952 on through to the last Cold War election in 1988, the victorious candidate for the presidency was always the one perceived as the more MacArthur-like, which is to say an unrelenting foe of the Soviet Union and its various Communist allies. At a minimum the candidate had to be at least as tough as the other guy. Anything less and the candidate was simply un-electable. Even Jimmy Carter passed that test in 1976, campaigning as a tough ex-Navy officer with scorn for Gerald Ford’s supposed soft views on the Communist domination of Eastern Europe. When events proved otherwise after his election, Carter was out in an Eisenhower-esque landslide for Ronald Reagan. In addition to Carter’s failure in 1980 the MacArthur test was failed successively by Democrats Stevenson (twice), Humphrey, McGovern, Mondale and Dukakis.

Make no mistake.

The firing of General McChrystal — all constitutionally correct — will be hailed in some quarters for that reason.

But what is being missed is the real political message that came through loud and clear in the Rolling Stone McCrystal article.

The message?

That the American military thinks the Obama team is not up to the job of defeating Al Qaeda and winning a war which it is even terrified of calling by name. That those on the front line in a life-and-death struggle with a serious enemy think the President a wimp, the Vice President a blowhard, the national security adviser a “clown,” Ambassador Richard Holbrooke a man consumed by the need for relevance, and that the French act like…well…the French.

The spirit of Douglas MacArthur and his fury at what he perceived as a weakness in fighting Communism resonates through every last word of McChrystal and his impolitic aides. In fact, McCrystal himself, if you read the actual article, is extraordinarily reticent. But combined with the blunt, caustic sentiments of his aides, there is no doubt of what the troops think of the commander-in-chief and his team.

Yes, the history books give Truman high marks for firing MacArthur.

But ever after that dismissal Americans, beginning with the very next election, awarded the vast majority of political prizes of power and influence to those who echoed the heart of MacArthur’s message. Elections were won by those who, in word if not in deed, reminded them of the 71-year-old general’s headline vow: “to spend the rest of his life fighting communism.”

Yesterday, Barack Obama fired General Stanley McChrystal. Obama acolytes will hail him as another Harry Truman. Forgetting one very, very important political point at Obama’s peril. For decades to come after that fateful day in April of 1951, as winning and losing candidates came and went, there was always one very significant constant in the political results.

MacArthur always defeated Truman.

Page: < 1 23

About the Author

Jeffrey Lord is a former Reagan White House political director and author. He writes from Pennsylvania at jlpa1@aol.com.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (219) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

jd| 6.24.10 @ 6:38AM

Great article. It's obvious that at the end of the day, McChrystal won the heart of the argument here. Obama trying to show his toughness by firing McChrystal will never alter the fact that he and his underlings ARE clowns. God help our soldiers.

Mary| 6.24.10 @ 2:24PM

I do believe that McArthur's sin was that he refused to blindly obey the UN orders, since his uniform bore the US insignia, and following the UN orders got his men killed. The enemy always knew they were coming. The powers that be could not have him not following the UN! Check it out!!!

Jim| 11.19.10 @ 7:02PM

Were you there? Truman President!, MacArthur General! Learn to play chess! I don't tell the the President to kiss their keister in public!

amsron| 6.24.10 @ 3:07PM

Where was God when GW Bush( I mean President Cheney) put them in harm's way? The Grand Old Party, God's representatives on earth, didn't save them either.

Some people can't see beyond the end of their noses, ya know?

Proud American| 6.24.10 @ 3:11PM

puh-leeez. Take a look in the mirror.

John Jampton| 6.24.10 @ 3:21PM

You mean you really do not know? That explains your problem.

Christopher Holland| 6.24.10 @ 6:38PM

Not seeing past the end of your nose is one thing, but cutting it off to spite your own face is another matter entirely. Conservatives are often blind and stupid, but when it comes to national security, liberals love to indulge in self loathing and mutilation - this is much worse. If you hate your own country, why don't you leave and go to a paradise like North Korea - its a workers democracy and they have government health care. Do you want me to buy you a ticket?

I will go with the blind and the stupid, it makes a lot more sense and you get to live longer.

Slowtrot| 6.25.10 @ 8:19PM

He doesn't have to go to N. Korea, he can go to Cuba.

Ishmot| 6.26.10 @ 8:20AM

And pretty soon he can go to California!

god being barak obama?| 6.24.10 @ 7:37PM

i think god [BO] was silently cheering when the trade center went down.

Kipling| 6.24.10 @ 11:21PM

Silently?

JCfromDC| 6.25.10 @ 7:51PM

I think he was cheering when that oil rig went up, then down, too. I wonder if there was also some unseen "help" in its failure, the oil rig, that is.

jjcambell| 6.26.10 @ 3:13PM

to JCfromDC
Not heard anything new on this story.
Now as SKorea vows retaliation for NKorea's act of war,(sinking of S korean ship) evidence has surfaced that NKorea may have deployed the same type of armed military submersible against Deepwater Horizon.
Facts have also emerged that Hyandai Heavy Industries of Seoul, South Korea built the rig at a cost of $1 billion and despite insurance may have to write off significant losses. The oil rig explosion also has repercussions for the SKorean economy.
So with one attack, NKorea could have dealt a serious blow to two of its greatest enemies.
According to some reports, suspicion has fallen on a NKorean merchant vessel, the Dai Hong Dan, that left a port in Cuba the night of April 18th. The merchant vessel is the class of ship that intelligence agencies have long known can be fitted for—and has carried in the past—NKorea's two-man mini-submarines.The newest generation of the NKorean mini-sub has stealth abilities
http://www.helium.com/items/18.....on-oil-rig

Robert D. Livingston| 6.25.10 @ 2:56AM

Dear Amsron,

Let's make it simple, GO POUND SAND IN SOMEONE ELSES SAND BOX! And don't let the door hit you in the A$$!

JF| 6.25.10 @ 12:06PM

I seem to recall a number of anti-Gods (read that Democrats) authorizing the use of force in Afghanistan after 9/11. Can you say John Kerry and Hillary Clinton? I know, Kerry voted for the war before he voted against it - I guess that passes as logic for folks like yourself.

rtk| 7.4.10 @ 11:27AM

Still hung up on Bush and Cheney? I feel sorry for you. Seek help! As far as parties, obama has the highest ranking as elite socialite. Even Paris Hilton has to bow to him.

Robert Founder | 6.24.10 @ 3:11PM

RobertFounder@Gmail.Com

Let's move on to what is really important here.

There was a reason why Bush put Afghanistan on the back burner. He never really wanted to fight this "war" in the first place. For it is a "fools" war that is not really winnable for dozens of reasons. Where do we start with the listing? BTW, NONE of these factors applied, or apply to Iraq.

1. Afghanistan is several time larger than Iraq, with a much larger population.
2. It is a totally mountainous terrain favoring the Taliban.
3. It is a totally dispersed agricultural economy substantially based on growing drugs and exporting them, and fighting invaders.
4. It has NO infrastructure, and NO middle class and hence nothing to bomb, or co-opt.
5. It has a warrior population like ancient Sparta where every child is taught from birth to be a fearless warrior.
6. Its culture, government, and such has never changed much in thousands of years.
7. It is a totally decentralized society, therefore difficult for us, or anyone, to control or manage.
8. It is totally Islamic fundamentalists, with virtually no secular components.
9. It is aided and abetted by not only nuclear armed Pakistan, but by all 5 nuclear armed superpowers that it shares borders with. All 5 of these major powers are threatened by any kind of American victory, and will not allow it. Thus the Taliban has incredibly powerful allies, and that includes just about every powerful player on earth including, covertly, Germany, France and many others too alarming to name. No player in the world wants us to be able to claim a victory in Afghanistan, and all are invested in our defeat, and that includes the Democrat Wimp Party in America.
10. The logistics of supplying and maintaining our military in Afghanistan are insuperable.

FOR ALL THESE REASONS AND MORE THERE IS NO, REPEAT NO, CHANCE OF ANY SORT OF VICTORY FOR US IN AFGHANISTAN, PERIOD.

Afghanistan has always existed where bordering Empires have has spheres of influence but where no on has dominance, in that sense it is like the center of the earth where all others come together. The best we can ever hope for is to have SOME measure of influence that we have to share with a bunch of others who hate us. Pakistan, India, China, Russia, and Iran and many others with word stage pretensions.

NOTE: Iraq did not share one single one of these aspects, so no comparison is possible. This is Obama's Vietnam if not worse. By 2012 Republicans will run on the platform of "getting us out of the Afghanistan nightmare quagmire, if Democrats have not already cut and run.

TAS needs to ask me to write some articles that are actually relevant.

RobertFounder@Gmail.Com

Chalkdust| 6.24.10 @ 6:06PM

Thanks Mr. Founder. your post was much needed. The fact that McChrystal was appointed by Mr. Obama after much hand wringing, more because he brought in to the "nation building" nonsense, rather than for his war fighting abilities is attested to by the current bloody mess America finds itself in.
My advise would be to blast a few Taliban command and control centers even if that means vaporizing a few civilians, hold a milatary parade and turn the place over to the first crook that can fog a mirrow.

jeff| 6.24.10 @ 7:15PM

You could not be more correct however many of us already know the problem. What do you see as a remedy?

Robert Founder | 6.24.10 @ 9:51PM

www.ConservativeVictory.WordPress.Com
This is my response writ large:

But on a more targeted basis, we need an intelligent foreign policy that would pursue AMERICAN interests and no others. Our leaders are all bought and sold by foreign interests and therefore ignore American interests.

Plus, we have large segments of our own citizens who are disloyal to America and until we deal with that fact nothing else can save us. We have vast armies of traitors in our midst. Maybe a third of our population is disloyal to one degree or another, and there is absolutely no penalty for that disloyalty at this time.

We cannot, and should not, conquer and try to rule the world, and Afghanistan is certainly a case in point. We need to play a strong role there but not the role of mommy and daddy to these proud people.

We need to stand off to the side and buy, bribe, and threaten whoever in Afghanistan to get our interests protected. Let the Taliban rule the place, while we pick them to death from the sidelines. It is NONE of our business whatever they do with their women and children.

It is a Democrat idea that we should be making little Americans out of these, and other, people. Hell, we can't even make good little Americans out of our own people, much less those in other places.

Reagan-Bush policies were more in line with our interests. It was Clinton who gifted the Taliban and Osama to us, not Republicans. The CIA had the Talibans well in hand, until Clinton pulled them out and cut their ties there and disengaged us.

911 is the result of Clinton policies across the board of tolerating terrorism at home AND abroad. The final solution is to declare the Democrat Party a terrorist organization, and treat it accordingly as it deserves.

RobertFounder@Gmail.Com

kendra| 6.24.10 @ 10:29PM

You are so wrong. It's unwinnable now, but it wasn't unwinnable when we began. It's unwinnable now because we handled it completely incorrectly. Bush failed to mobilize the country; he failed to explain what is wrong with Islam and didn't encourage the people to understand their enemy.
Secondly, we didn't fight to win. Obama doesn't like the word "victory"; he said so during the campaign. Still, this isn't entirely Obama's fault.
When we helped install the Afghanistan and Iraqi constitution, we installed a sharia compliant one. Both their constitutions now state that no laws are constitutional if they are not sharia compliant.
Obviously, this means no democracy. This means gays will always be persecuted. Women will be treated as inferior to men. Young girls will be raped and married off. Clitorectomies will be legal. Polygamy will still be legal even when women want no part of it. All this is sharia (yes, even clitorectomies which is often misrepresented as cultural. While it IS cultural, it is also sharia).

Therefore, NOW, after all our blood and treasure, we are fighting for sharia. As of now, it's only about who will implement it.

ivanvivian| 6.25.10 @ 12:27AM

Obama loves the Afgan war because it kills more Americans than the Iraq war. He wanted McCrystal out of the way, because his plocies were hindering the deaths of more Americans. The Muslim in Obama hates seeing a living American outside of Islam.

RCV| 6.25.10 @ 6:16PM

You're a sick person.

AmericaFirst| 6.26.10 @ 5:45PM

RCV: There are three kinds of Demoncrats 1. Fools (Who will follow Imam Obummer not matter what. 2. Progressives who think communism's cool. 3 Deneficiarys-who benefit from other peoples money and don't care it's killing our country. Which are you?

Donna| 6.26.10 @ 9:52AM

Robert, Thanks for putting the Afghan war in perspective. I think it’s what American’s think at this point. For the past several hundred years, no other country has been able to prevail in Afghanistan for the reasons you listed. I am a conservative, and I want out of this war NOW!

Garyhench| 6.25.10 @ 7:41PM

Amen!

drudge ette obama| 6.24.10 @ 6:39AM

General MacArthur never would have voted for Henry Wallace (had he been on the presidential ballot) or Obama, for that matter.

McChrystal voted for Obama rather than McCain. That's all I need to know about the man. Someone needs to ask him why?

JimH| 6.24.10 @ 8:02AM

I guess he could not have voted. Otherwise, what was his choice, Obama or a squid?

Olga Bencze| 6.24.10 @ 2:31PM

Anyone with a normal mind will not vote for a
person who said when campaigning i am not going
to govern I am going to rule. Only dictators are
ruling. This Gangster in the White House, is a
Communistic Dictator, racist he really hates this
great country and he is destroying USA in a
breathtaking speed. You was a moron voting for him, McCain was a better choice.

crone| 6.24.10 @ 7:31PM

Olga , are we'' the only one to see the criminals at work IN DC ..???

gerald stephens| 6.24.10 @ 2:41PM

Goodness! That one is easy. The Squid. They are very intelligent.

The real question is, how many believe a squid is more intelligent than Obama?

Balthoff| 6.24.10 @ 3:41PM

A squid smarter than Obama??? Come on...we all know that a ROCK is smarter than Obama! He fired a four star general (McChrystal), yet he has NO military experience himself. I think that he was just looking for someone else to blame for his policies in Afganastan that are not working! And to all who voted for 'change', I hope that you are happy with that idiot that our brave men and women in the military have to call their 'Commander in Cheif'. What a joke!

CRONE | 6.24.10 @ 7:33PM

A SQUID OF COURSE , ..HOWEVER NOT SURE IF SQUID HAS A HEART , GAWD KNOWS ''O'' DOES NOT..NOR A BRAIN ..OR COURAGE ...OMG , THE WIZARD OF OZ !!..Voting for the squid !

Kratsuli| 6.24.10 @ 9:04AM

I bet he DIDN'T vote for Obama! I bet he said that to try and garner some kind of relationship with the Obamaof 2008. Do you think he will vote for him in 2010? LOL. Is he a registered Democrat? That would be interesting to know.

the dog| 6.24.10 @ 2:46PM

McCain was covered up in bad juju, Stan knew this and tool the lesser of two bad jujus.

C Le May| 6.24.10 @ 6:43AM

Any soldier that puts his life on the line for this purple-lipped poser is a fool and a chump. All US forces in Afghanistan should throw down their arms and refuse to fight. This insidious parasite Obama MUST be neutered!

drudge ette obama| 6.24.10 @ 7:00AM

Wrong approach. Wrong response. Remember we are a nation of laws, not men. Put your energy into supporting the military who must be in turmoil from this and struggle to take these graves risks with this bozo Obama in office.

Then put whatever energy and money your have left into voting the crew of idiots out of office.

Brian Mc| 6.24.10 @ 7:20AM

I suffered four years in the USAF during the Carter term. We bit our tongues and carried our gas masks. I got my honorable and got the hell out...I'd be retired by now. Good post, Drudge.

Paul Ashley| 6.24.10 @ 7:52AM

I wish that more people, military and civilian, upon realizing they are working for a corrupt and incompetent regime, would have the courage to resign and then tell the press why. I can't stand it when I see those hig-ranking officers who stay, seemingly for the perks, suck up to the corrupt to save their jobs. Witness General Casey's witless "diversity" statement in the wake of Fort Hood. These guys stay in and end up with Stockholm Syndrome.

rochester_veteran | 6.24.10 @ 2:18PM

I also served in the USAF during the Carter Era. I feel for the folks serving now with a PC wimp as their CiC. God help us...

Margaret| 6.24.10 @ 3:34PM

I served 22 years in the USAF, including the Carter years. The release of the hostages in Iran on the day of Reagan's inauguration was because Iran knew we would blow them from sand into glass! Carter, like Obama was a wimp, and the world knew it. We all were very excited to see him go.

Guinevere| 6.24.10 @ 1:43PM

Voting them out of office isn't good enough...they have to be impeached and convicted of treason and that goes for Obama, Pelosi and Reid.

Guinevere| 6.24.10 @ 1:50PM

Voting them out of office isn't good enough...they have to be impeached and convicted of treason and that goes for Obama, Pelosi and Reid.

"The Bondsman"| 6.24.10 @ 4:48PM

Finally; I've learned that I'm not the only one who Knows - That -OBAMA -is- AMERICA'S PUBLIC ENEMY NUMBER ONE; - along with his co-Conspiritors/Traitors, Palosi, Ried-and every other such DEMOCRAT; All should be IMPEACHED; IMPRIOSNED for life-and/or Exiled to- anywhere-EXCEPT a Typical democratic, FREEDOM LOVING, FULLY CIVILIZED- Nation; Perhape One of the "Third World" countries would be- most appropiate. (PS- I delt with CRIMINALS, CONN ARTISTS-and FELONS- every day for over 25 years; --puting many of them in jail /prison; --OBAMA- HAS DONE MORE DAMAGE and HARM TO EVERY LEGAL, TRUE AMERICAN- and our GRAND GHILDREN-- !!- IN ONE YEAR- THAN ALL THE CRIMINALS I DELT WITH IN 25 YEARS !

crone | 6.24.10 @ 7:40PM

Bond''... i have a rope..in fact lots of us have ropes .. , naw , hanging is to good for the ''top 100'' ..''o'' has no nothing'''except the power now , we need to take our country back ...ASAP !.

Jerry| 6.24.10 @ 2:11PM

You say that we are a nation of laws, not men. If that is so then why don't we exercise those laws and force this usurper out of our sacred POTUS office?
He violates the Constitution with every breath he takes as our phony president. When he shows ABSOLUTE proof that he is a legitimate citizen I will apologize and give him his due. Until that time I think every America-loving citizen should demand his resignation; then follow that with a trial for treason.
I am old enough to have gone through both events of which J Lord writes and I remember being in the military and all the confusion when candy-ass Truman fired MacArthur. We were nearly unanimous in our support for General Mac and sick to death of the wimp in the White House.
Had MacArthur called us to his side I really believe that nearly to a man he would have gotten us with him.
The first thing that presidents should learn is that generals are much smarter than they are on military matters and if they want the public to side with them they should be faithful to the Constitution and to reach some agreement with the generals. Obama is a traitor to our Constitution and is soft to the point of siding with Muslims and One Worlder's in the U. N. He is not to be trusted as our CinC. He will betray all of us. The generals see this and know what will happen.

James Custer McCarthy | 6.24.10 @ 2:22PM

Amen.

steven davis| 6.24.10 @ 3:02PM

obama needs to learn the lesson of truman, something that neither ne will do nor truman ever did. We can pin the the failures of Korea and Vietnam on truman. What we were never told was Korea had a greater per capita population of Christians than Los Angeles adn was called "The Jerusalem of the Orient" and that is why Mao attacked it. he couldn't stand the thought of that thron in his side. Truman never told us this. had he, Red China and Mao would have been f.u.b.a.r. in short order. Truman passed Vietnam onto Eisenhower and it ended up in Kennedy's lap. Kennedy was just as incompetent as obama is, but wasn't the rabid dog nixon was. Still, we weren't told of Ho Chi Minh saying, "Better ten innocent people are slaughtered than one counter-revolutionary be allowed to survive." Ho was a Mao-ist of the first water, but we weren't told this. Now the scion to the democrats' mis-fortune, obama, is doing the same thing with islam, al-qaida et al. We barely survived the '60's, what makes us think we will survive this? We ought to fire that kenyan and put McChrystal in the White House.

CRONE| 6.24.10 @ 7:47PM

MY SON WAS IN THE MARINES WHEN clinton came in (dragging his weenie ) ..All the old-timers'' viet nam)..Started to leave ..''c'' wanted a ''kinder 'softer military''...my SON left after 14 yrs.

Tassie| 6.24.10 @ 7:14PM

Cannot wait for Gen. McCrystal's book...Hope he tells all, especially the REAL reason his aides spilled the beans. Perhaps he should have been smart enough not to give an interview with Rolling Stone, but then again, perhaps he knew exactly what he was doing and had a unterior motive....

old white guy| 6.25.10 @ 1:56PM

a nation of laws. men make the laws, men enforce the laws, men break the laws, men change the laws. a law is a construction in many cases that exists to further an agenda. any law that restricts your freedom as a law under a dictator would do has to be broken by force of arms and you folks are rapidly approaching that point. ballots may not do it.

garyhench| 6.25.10 @ 7:46PM

I wouldn't count on the voting machines to be up and running on Election Day, folks.
In fact, I think we've seen our last national election. Amerika is so over it ain't funny.

Gr0w1er| 6.24.10 @ 10:52AM

Much as I cannot stand ANY of those clowns in the White House, I must agree with POTUS in this matter. Insubordination, even from an extremely credible source, cannot be tolerated. U.S. military members are sworn to support and defend the Constitution. Part and parcel to that oath is recognition of civilian control of the military. If a service member has issues with the present leadership, there's always the ballot box. Either that, or resign your commission and run for political office.

bill| 6.24.10 @ 2:05PM

Like most liberals who have definitive responses to issues.. THEY HAVEN"T READ the BILL/ARTICLE. There was not one statement uttered by McChrystal that was insubordinate. Just that this notoriously "Thin Skinned" in-ept CIC couldn't take any comments!

jeff m| 6.24.10 @ 4:46PM

Yes! Please read the rolling stones article & you will see: This is another example of a thin skinned bully beating up those under his power, for having the temerity to dissent.

The criticism of political hacks by soldiers who are taking casualties because of excess political restraint is surprisingly mild, and almost entirely from Mc Chrystals staff.

James Custer McCarthy | 6.24.10 @ 3:00PM

While I cannot disagree with this assessment, I have a problem as a veteran with this assessment. I was lucky(?) enough, during the Vietnam war, to find myself on the German Iron Curtain border not long after the Russians had rolled over the Czechs with their tanks. We had 12 minutes to hold things back until the NATO troops arrived. After which we would be no more. Beautiful. None of this engendered any real admiration for the current administration. So why should we expect more allegiance toward this one? Military personnel, knowing what they have volunteered for, must by definition, obey their superiors. This does not require acceptance of those orders. It only (necessarily) requires compliance. An officer in our military has not abrogated any civilian rights, but is (also necessarily) held to the higher standard demanded of our other public servants, including the President. In my humble opinion, they have both erred. Are we to accept the resignations of our best, because the best ideas are not being put forth by those in office? Better to seek resignations by those with no experience, who care nothing for either those we seek to kill or those expected to kill them.

Patrick| 6.24.10 @ 7:02PM

If the President's staffer is caught in a felony, should the President resign?
No? Then why should McCrystal go on the basis of what his staffer said (ie the truth)?

AmericaFirst| 6.26.10 @ 6:03PM

Hi Grow1er, I served in the Air Force roudly under a real America Ronald Reagan. I swore an oath to defend the US Consistution against all enemies foreign and DOMESTIC. I did swear allegiance to the UCMJ, the president or a Kenyan Fuhrer. I wish MacArthur had run against Truman for real and we could have strung up that traitor like Mussonlini (Pelosi?) The North Korea, Red China, and Communist Vietnam. Would never have existed.

Sidney Sosnow| 6.26.10 @ 8:44PM

As a military officer for 31 years, my oath of office was to defend the constitution against All Enemies Both Foreign And Domestic

Brad Nelson| 6.26.10 @ 11:55AM

Whoa There Curt Jr.!! The man whose monniker you have hijacked would ABSOLUTELY NEVER! I SAID NEVER! advocate what you just said.

"All US forces in Afghanistan should throw down their arms and refuse to fight."

That is a traiterous, sniveling, whining, passifist, defeatist, load of crapola! NEVER will the armed forces act like that, it is against everything we hold dear! You have to be a Taliban plant saying something like that! American fighting men do not fight for the resident, not president at this time, but resident. We fight for our brothers, and sisters in arms, our mothers, our sisters, our buds, our wives, sons, and daughters. We trust the fools in DC not to waste us, in some stupid police action or UN boondoggle in a faraway land, and lately are being betrayed. That is the point of this article. Truman did it, McArthur did not. McArthur wins hands down.

You can save that mutinous diaper load for the next Abby Hoffman love fest starring Cindy Sheehan. It will be much more appreciated there.

Brad Nelson| 6.26.10 @ 12:00PM

And another thing. General Curtis LeMay was a great hero, and a real American fighting machine. You, sir dishonor him and his memory by using his name for seditious nonsense you spew out here. Shame!

Brian Mc| 6.24.10 @ 6:47AM

Usually, when I get to the bottom of the first page and realize that there are more to come, I cringe and try to keep going. But, in this instance, I was intrigued to the point that I could not get to the next page fast enough...and was a bit despaired when there was no more to be read. Well done, Jeffrey.

Rebecca| 6.24.10 @ 7:31AM

I stumbled across an interesting archive from Time (Apr 23, 1951, MacArthur vs. Truman) that is a good read for those with a few minutes, because it was how the event was reported and viewed through the journalist's eyes at the time. MacArthur had a clear vision, Truman was ambiguous. I thought it had a similar parallel to yesterday's headlines.

I came away with a little less awe of Truman in that I found myself agreeing with MacArthur's strategy and wonder how Korea and the southeast would have turned out today.

A. C. Santore| 6.24.10 @ 8:53AM

Most respectfully, Rebecca, before you agree with either side, you need to stop reading articles written by either popular magazine hacks in 1951 or by MacArthur's press corps, and read something very recent by an historian who has the facts, not sycophantic media fluff.

MacArthur wanted to invade Communist China and use nuclear weapons. The legally-constituted civilian government did not. MacArthur was legally bound to obey his Commander-in-Chief. He publicly ridiculed his C-in-C. He was maneuvering to get nominated for the presidency - another forbidden act for someone in the active duty military.

I don't wonder how the southeast - or the world - would have turned out had MacArthur persisted.

cl| 6.24.10 @ 10:34AM

McArthur wanted only to threaten the use of nuclear weapons. that would have prevented the communist chinese invasion and saved american lives. truman took that threat away, there was nothing to lose for the chinese.

Daniel| 6.24.10 @ 4:57PM

You never take the hammer out of the toolbox, unless you intend to hammer something.

jrjr| 6.24.10 @ 5:22PM

Okay, take the hammer out. But I too think that it was vicious to put the bombs on the common people in Japan. A simple illustration on an atoll nearer Japan would have done the job. If not, lay it on one of Japan's remote islands. The have 6, 852 of them. There was no way that the Japanese knew how many of the bombs were available. That was two stupid decisions - irrespective of Pearl Harbor and other heinous acts.

John Westman| 6.24.10 @ 8:02PM

Perhaps jrjr you are not aware that the populations of a number of Japanese cities were warned that they were to come under bombardment. The Americans dropped leaflets giving the warning. Any civilians killed did not heed the warnings and thus only have themselves to blame. Refer; Churchill's memoirs.
Further, it is often thought that the dropping of the bombs was a warning to Russia to back off, as it was becoming clear that the Russians weren't interested in ceasing hostilities and going back to their borders.

NavyBrat | 6.24.10 @ 8:20PM

The problem with folks like you is that you have no idea about history, therefore, you have no idea about how to proceed in the present day. The Japanese, like the jihadi asshats we're fighting now, believed that it was a greater honor to die for the Emperor (God, to them). Read "Code Name: Downfall." The author escapes me, but it lays out, in detail, the projected tactics & losses that we would've suffered had we invaded the home islands of Japan. By doing what we did, we saved COUNTLESS American & Japanese lives. Even AFTER the bombs, the Kepetai (the Japanese version of the Gestapo) tried to stage a coup to overthrow the Emperor & keep on fighting, rather than surrender. On Guam, Japanese civilian that tried to surrender to Americans were shot by snipers.

This is the same resolve we face in the jihadis we're fighting today. And its the same LACK of resolve, shown by people like you, that will get more & more folks killed, unless we man up & get back in the business of actually WINNING wars. You can sit here like an infant & shake your fist at history all you want, it does no good. Our country did the right thing in WWII by dropping the bombs on Japan. And we did the right thing by rebuilding that country from the ground up. What other country on the face of the planet, or throughout history, has REBUILT the nation that they totally defeated? NONE. Take your self righteous indignation & stick it where the sun don't shine.

Shonkin| 6.24.10 @ 11:38PM

I used to think that way when I was a kid. It had a lot to do with the brainwashing we got in high school from liberal (and in some cases Communist) teachers.
Hiroshima was a target because it was the HQ of the Japanese Navy. Nagasaki was a major shipbuilding and ship repair center. They were military targets, dig?

SDN| 6.24.10 @ 12:53PM

AC, why not tell us who this "wise individual" is? Afraid we'll head out to OpenSecrets and find out that he's given money to the Copperhead Party forever?

J C McCarthy| 6.24.10 @ 3:16PM

SDN, what "wise individual"? What "Copperhead Party"? Please share your secrets with us!

J C McCarthy| 6.24.10 @ 3:16PM

SDN, what "wise individual"? What "Copperhead Party"? Please share your secrets with us!

Len Staib| 6.24.10 @ 1:52PM

I disagree with that thought. However, I recall a couple of stratagists talking about McArthur and Patton. Two great Generals. I believe that if Truman had let the Generals do there thing we would have avoided the decades long cold war that we experienced. We could have squeezed out communism with two of the best Generals that this country has ever known. I personally put McCrystal in the same level as them.

Da Monk| 6.24.10 @ 2:38PM

Thank you A.C. Santore for setting the record straight with your true historical comment. Any military person knows that when you trash or disobey your superiors you are disobdient and can face charges, be demoted or cashired. McChrystial trashed his superiors and payed the cost.

I'll say this for the General, who accepted his fate like the gentleman warrior he is. After all: "To err is human"

AmericaFirst| 6.26.10 @ 6:16PM

Hi Da Monk, What exactly did McChrystal personally say that was disloyal to Obummer? I keep hearing red herrings form the drive by media claiming he was disaloyal, how? Just exactly did the General say specifically that was worthy of dismissal? I fault him for two things 1. Voting for the illegal alient in the whitehouse, 2 for agreeing to those treasonous ROEs Rules of Engagements that require the troops don't fire back after they empty their clip into the guy next to you then throw down the weapon and say I surrender?

William Hart| 6.24.10 @ 4:59PM

As a U.S. Navy veteran of World War II I agree completely with the observations about Mac Arthur. Many servicemen at that time considered him a pompous ass who always wanted to lead the parade. He repeatedly violated the policies of the Administration as if he was the emperor. Many Democrats at that time were opposed to communism but failed to recognize how deeply those misfits had penetrated into the party. Proof of that is the replacement of Wallace by Truman. Unfortunately the leftist freaks continued to maintain influence among the Democrats until we reached the current mess that we have had imposed on us. If anyone wishes to honor an anti-communist General look to Gen. Patton. He was probably killed by the Russians because they feared him. I am well aware of the influence of the Communists at the end of WW II since I was stationed in Kodiak at the time and went with a group to rebuild an airstrip out on the Island where the Russians could come in and get Aircraft. They came and got planes and I also heard boats were given to them. This was vehemently denied in the press, probably by liberal loonies, but it did occur. Our personnel that were exposed to the Russians who came said they did not know how to flush toilets or properly dispose of toilet paper. Won't we be lucky if the Saul Alinskyites we have leading us can give us a delightful homeland like Stalin gave the Russians?

Shonkin| 6.24.10 @ 11:45PM

Patton killed by Russians? He died in an auto accident in occupied Germany. Was the knucklehead truck driver that caused the crash by turning in front of his car a Soviet agent?

AmericaFirst| 6.26.10 @ 6:19PM

Hi Shonkin, what about the bullet they found in General Patton's neck? Explain that one away!

Richard Baker| 6.24.10 @ 7:44AM

Regardless, McChrystal was relieved for allowing his staff officers comments to be made public with their criticisms of the President. While those criticisms are on the mark, allowing them to be published in Rolling Stone (?) was wrong and he was the cause of his relief. I was in an Infantry unit during the Carter years and when foreign military asked me what in the world our President was doing I would keep my opinions to myself. GEN McChrystal forgot that. Privately, ok. Publicly, no. My role model in all this is Jack Singlaub.

Kipling| 6.25.10 @ 12:29AM

Will someone please explain what law it is that gives Gen. McChrystal or anyone else in the government the authority to decide whether a reporter's story gets published or not? I don't care much for Pres. Obama or for the politics and worldview of Rolling Stone, its reporters, or its readers, but if a reporter can't report unless some general or other government official approves, then haven't we come closer to tyrrany?

Brad| 6.26.10 @ 12:20PM

Kipling,

Will someone please explain what law it is that gives Gen. McChrystal or anyone else in the government the authority to decide whether a reporter's story gets published or not?

It is called "National Security in a War Zone" A commanding general in a theatre of war has every right and a serious responsibility to control what is printed about him, his command, his staff, his soldiers, and anything else relating to the war or civilian leadership. He had every right to censor the article or to kill it. He did not, his mistake. Censorship for national security has ALWAYS been a tool in war, for every army that has existed on earth. It in the Air Force is called Operational Security, and its partner is COMMUNICATION Security. The General failed in his duty to censor the article, and was fired for that, simple.

Mimi| 6.24.10 @ 7:52AM

JEFFREY....Great history lesson and anology. WAR is a hell-hole....none can disagree. The danger to American Freedom & Liberty in today's world is more insidious and perilous than ever! The enemy is at our doorstep and have WICKED goals!!! We as a country will always strive for peace, but it must be " PEACE thru STRENGTH ". Sending out an army of soldiers with not only one but TWO hands tied behind their backs may please the " Islamist Sympathizers " presently in our White-House.... But IS WRONG!!! Thet say it's not " 2001 "....Whoa be to them!!! It is real peace we all pray and hope for. The question is, will it come thru STRENGTH or APPEASMENT. Come November we shall see!!!

MikeN| 6.24.10 @ 8:03AM

So Democrats lost elections because Truman fired McCarthur? That is a doubtful statement. Even if it did show weakness, the ongoing problem was because Democrats couldn't return to being anti-Communist.
Also, the bigger problems with regard to Communism and Democrats and the military involved Patton.

R Martin| 6.24.10 @ 8:11AM

I did read the RS article and felt the comments which started this imbroglio were a) spot-on accurate, b) somewhat insubordinate but not outrageously so, and c) typical of the grousing about bosses in every large hierarchal organization.

McChrystal is a senior military commander who is undoubtedly highly skilled in sizing-up people quickly. A man of serious accomplishments, he clearly has little time for poseurs. In his first meeting with Obama, McChrystal immediately recognized the president as a puff ball. That impression was clearly expressed in the article, and it is that revelation, I suspect, which incensed Obama and led to his actions. The president is not a man to be trifled with, especially when one points out he is wearing no clothes.

Ken (Old Texican)| 6.24.10 @ 8:16AM

Truman was a patriot.
Obama is not.

I truly wonder what our enemies are strategerizing (Rush). Are they sitting back waiting for us to crumble from within? Are they preparing the "big push" for the final toppling?

Whatever.

They forget us old American farts at their peril.

Occam's Tool| 6.24.10 @ 11:05AM

Well said, Ken. Some of us remember the dancing Palestinians on 9/11 and the cheerful violation of international law in Iran in 1979. We owe the Iranians and the Palis the back of our hand. Hard. Repeatedly. And one bright day, they're gonna get it.

Paulio| 6.24.10 @ 5:03PM

US/Iranian relations did not begin in 1979. If payback is going to occur, it's apt to include payback for our 1953 toppling of their democratically elected leader and the installation of the tyrannical shah.

Nick| 6.25.10 @ 4:25PM

Paulio,

Mosaddegh was a communist stooge who deserved to be ousted.

I, and many Iranians, are still glad he was deposed.

TheGreyPiper| 6.26.10 @ 10:25AM

Mossadegh was also a total nut. The Shah --who, btw, was on the Peacock Throne already- had fired him once because he was so unstable. And OK -- 1953. Maybe it's time to let that go? How many Iranians are actually still alive who remember 1953?

Paulio| 6.28.10 @ 12:32PM

In 1979, 1953 was not such a distant memory. If you're still angry about something that happened in 1979 (31 years ago), then isn't it reasonable for the Iranians to be pissed off in 1979 about something that happened 26 years earlier? And since Iranian/US relations have remained frozen since 1979 (apart from when Reagan was selling them weapons), how do you suppose something like that gets resolved?

Just a reality check: if a foreign country had rolled in and taken out our democratically elected leader (even if you didn't like him), you would never get over it. Expecting the Iranians to react differently is a double standard.

JP| 6.24.10 @ 8:26AM

In defense of Truman, McArthus disobeyed orders not take his forces to the Yalue River in 1950. McArthur's comments about nuking the CHICOMs were the exact opposite of what Truman was telling the UN and Mao (ie he had no desire to threaten China).

McArthur had other ideas. Not many people remember the question of , "Who lost China?". Turman was accused of being too soft on Mao even before Korea. The US and NATO didn't have the resources not the will to expand the war to include an attack on China. McArthur, fresh from his atounding victories at Inchon, deployed forces in late autumn towards the Yalu. The rest is history. Thousands of US servicemen died because of his arrogance.

Mr Lord is correct in finding the roots of the political problems that has beset the Dems and our nation. Truman left office in 1953 with poll numbers even lower than Bush's in 2009. In the case of both men, military disasters were thier undoing.

ivanvivian| 6.25.10 @ 12:33AM

Truman sent much more finances to assist the Chinese, while he [deliberately] insured that South Vietnam received rifles without the bolts. This guranteed a communist victory, always been the aim of those pulling the strings: The same ones who want to see America ultimately fail. If America is strong, it will be independent of the world rulers. This the world rulers cannot afford.

Cris Worth| 6.24.10 @ 8:31AM

Multiple Mistakes: Secretary of State Acheson's gaffe implying the Korean Peninsula lay outside our defense perimeter gave the Reds the green light. Then Truman went to the UN for help fighting the war as a police action instead of going to Congress for a declaration of war. MacArthur's hands were tied he wasn't allowed to fight all out including nuclear bombs just like our boys in Vietnam. History repeats itself again this time in Afghanistan.

JP| 6.24.10 @ 9:08AM

Chris,
North Korea was the Soviet's proxy. They trained and outfitted the North Korean Army. After Inchon North Korea was finsihed; it's army was destroyed and thier capital occupied. By October of 1950, the war was over. A declaration of war in June would have been fruitless.

The Chinese at that point were not involved. It made no political or military sense to re-deploy our forces to thier border. And I'm not sure what nuking China at this point would have gained. They invaded North Korea because they were convinced that McArthur meant what he said, and acted accordingly. Turman may have lost China, but McArthur lost North Korea. His gambit failed and thousands of soldiers died.

Cris Worth| 6.24.10 @ 9:31AM

According to the U.S. Constitution Congress is the war making body of the federal government and the President is the Commander-In-Chief. When a declaration of war was made in 1941 this country went all out to win it INCLUDING nuclear bombs. Truman and Congress sent a bad precedent by sending in the troops and allowing him to do so without a declaration of war respectively. With a declaration of war the country mobilizes and goes all to win the war including dropping nuclear bombs if necessary. When the Chinese crossed the Yalu River it became necessary. A Congressional declaration of war…Is that constitutional principle not clear to you? No U.S. wars since WWII have been declared and look what trouble we have gotten ourselves into.

JP| 6.24.10 @ 9:56AM

I fully understand your point. But the CHICOMS did exactly what Truman feared. Perhaps McArthus wished to force a declaration of war by deploying US forces north. We will never know for sure.

chuck| 6.24.10 @ 10:20AM

You are constitutionally correct sir. But can you imagine giving this CURRENT Congress war making authority...Pelosi, Hoyer, Frank, Reid for example and all the gutless Republicans, it would be laughable.

Anthony| 6.24.10 @ 9:13AM

Obama is a thin skinned, nasty, incompetent adolescent. Whatever lack of judgment McChrystal & his staff showed in this Rolling Stone interview, and there were many, the fact remains that both Obama and (Biteme) Biden are seen as laughing stocks aroud the world, except to the brain-dead left.
Obama is/was not man enough to ignore the article and put the war effort ahead of his own ego. If Bush had done this, the media would have done a 180 and called Bush thin skinned, unsure, and immature. McChrystal would be the hero and Bush the political hack.
Wow! Our country is truly Alice-in-Wonderland. God help our troops, they, sadly, are on their own with this Administration. Come to think of it, God help us all!!

Ellen| 6.24.10 @ 3:14PM

Agree. Obama is like a spoiled brat. He is arrogant and thin-skinned. No one dare disagree with this self-proclaimed Messiah. I always picture him -- if anyone dares to challenge him -- as going back to the White House to cry on Michelle's shoulder, stamp his feet, pound the table and do all the things a child who is used to being indulged does. God Help Us All.

Grzmlyk| 6.24.10 @ 9:31AM

One mitigating fact: McChrystal voted for Obama.

Anybody who voted for Obama owns a 1/52 millionth share of treason and shares responsibility for the consequent ruination of this country.

As for Obama, it's all theater. He does NOTHING that is not calculated to accrue political power for himself and his fellow thugs, even if those calculations are products of the increasingly unstable and irrational Axelrod and Soros's fevered minds.

And the Afghanistan war is nothing but the pure dog and pony show of Obama's pathetic attempts to prevent his "Afghanistan is the 'good war'" rhetoric prior to the election from ringing too hollow lest he lose independents (an already lost cause, that).

Despite what David Brooks thinks, Obama's sharply-creased pant leg won't produce victory in Afghanistan; in fact, our president is taking us down to defeat. Afghanistan is unwinnable as currently constituted - as history has shown.

We should turn the region into glass, if you get my drift. But we won't; beyond the drone attacks and the occasional half-hearted military operation - hobbled by feckless rules of engagement and the diplomacy of vanity-fueled naivete - lies appeasement, which is of a piece with Obama's holistic vision for Islam's future.

Appeasement is surrender on the installment plan.

But, hey, America's loss is Obama's gain. I mean, which side do you think he's is REALLY rooting for, anyway? Just take a look at the gulf spill.

Yesterday, while on the stair, I met a president who wasn't there.

He wasn't there again today -

Gee, I wish he'd go away.

Ned| 6.24.10 @ 10:54AM

I *always* look for your byline, Grzmlyk... spot on once again. Anyone wishing to understand this "administration" need only read these lines:

"As for Obama, it's all theater. He does NOTHING that is not calculated to accrue political power for himself and his fellow thugs, even if those calculations are products of the increasingly unstable and irrational Axelrod and Soros's fevered minds. "

Although you perhaps give Soros a bit too much credit.

Grzmlyk| 6.24.10 @ 11:56AM

Hi Ned: Thanks.

You may be right about Soros, but some days I think he's the pied piper calling the tune for all of these Keystone Communists.

Remember those kinder, gentler days when we all thought the worst US president was Jimmy Carter, and we couldn't conceive of a more incompetent, wrong-headed, feckless, ideologically skewed fool in office?

No more!

ivanvivian| 6.25.10 @ 12:38AM

You totally underestimate Soros and his hooded wizards!

Ellen| 6.24.10 @ 3:17PM

Agree -- and loved your reference to part of a childhood prayer.

NavyBrat | 6.24.10 @ 9:47AM

As the son of a Navy officer, I learned a long time ago that an officer can have his own opinions about the powers that be. They just can't voice them. McCrystal & his idiotic aides shoulda known better.

I read an interseting theory from one of my fellow Town Hall posters yesterday. Now, with Petraeus in charge of Afghanistan, he will be the fall guy for when the Obama admins. lack of will to fight results in anything less than victory. They (the libs) will then hope to pin that failure on Petraeus in the event that he ever decides to run for President.

Like I said, this is someone else's theory, but I can't help but think that there's some validity to it. Here's hoping that Petraeus would resign before letting these chumps in the admin hang him out to dry.

Sheila| 6.24.10 @ 9:52AM

Well said, Grzmlyk. Anyone who owns a share of the last election's treason deserves to at least lose his job - and his mortgage, and his healthcare (I said the same in my '09 Christmas letter). No, I don't feel his pain. Whether McChrystal voted for Obama or not, merely saying that he did and then being so feckless as to give an interview to Rolling Stone indicates he is not fit to lead men. There was a Byron York piece yesterday noting the intense frustration of our troops in Afghanistan, who carry laminated cards instructing them not to patrol anywhere they might come under fire. We're determined to snatch defeat here, hobbling our fighting men and demanding they patrol with unloaded weapons while our "ally" Pakistan coordinates with the Taliban via its ISI. I grieve for every American suffering there on behalf of a treasonous government and an (at best) ignorant populace. Let all those insisting we brought "democracy" and "liberation" to Iraq ("we root for anyone who is against America") go and offer their lives to bring modern, representative democracy to a tribal, feudal, Islamic land. Meanwhile, I'll wait for you to declare "peace is at hand" and pray someone pushes the button.

Grzmlyk| 6.24.10 @ 10:03AM

I'm with you, Sheila.

So now our directive to our armed foces in wartime is, "Do whatever you must - but don't hurt anybody or wreck anything or do anything the enemy might interpret as disrespectful. Now go out there and NOT win!"

What's wrong with this picture?

Why not just take the army out and put the Peace Corps in there? Or maybe every last member of the SEIU?

Cannon fodder's all those idiots, fools and crooks are good for anyway.

Gr0w1er| 6.24.10 @ 11:07AM

Current in-theater ROE (Rules Of Engagement) are downright egregious, if not laughable. Compared to this, the Vietnam war was a piece of cake.

Grzmlyk| 6.24.10 @ 12:02PM

Seriously, after our spoiled brat in chief's many comments about being "uncomfortable" with victory, I'd like to ask him: What, in your mind, is the purpose of our nation's armed forces?

But I know the answer:

1) to provide the appearance that our "leader" has testicles; and
2) to carry out humanitarian aid missions.

I think current rules of engagement require our personnel, when finding themselves face-to-face with an enemy combatant, to precede the obligatory Miranda warning with the phrase, "Who needs a hug?"

And I love the new uniforms Obama just approved - you know, the ones that have flourescent targets painted on the front and back.

After all, to make it difficult for enemy snipers with inferior rifles to hit our soldiers would be unfair and culturally insensitive.

Old Soldier| 6.24.10 @ 9:56AM

The article left out several important events.

After WWII, Truman and his horrid Secretary of Defense, Louis A. Johnson, gutted the conventional forces of the American military. They scrapped and mothballed much of the Navy, tried to dissolve the Marine Corps, and they scrapped or sold off the WWII Army inventory instead of storing it. The U.S. was incredibly unprepared to fight a conventional war in 1950. They assumed they would just use nukes.

MacArthur meanwhile was playing Shogun and NOT training his Eighth Army. It doesn’t take a lot of funds to keep Infantry troops trained but Mac and his staff of toadies couldn’t be bothered. They would just use nukes in the next war.

MacArthur was simply following his bosses plan when he decided to use nuclear weapons.

Both Truman and MacArthur were terribly derelict in their duties. Both should have been relieved. MacArthur should have been relieved for gross incompetence when he ignored all intelligence reports and allowed his forces to be ambushed by to gigantic Chinese army groups.

Ned| 6.24.10 @ 11:00AM

Don't recall where, but I recall reading a snippet about the start of the NorK invasion of the south... and that one of the things that allowed them to succeed was the lack of allied air cover... because Sec Johnson had had 250 nearly new P-38s stationed in Japan chopped to tinfoil with axes.

Old Soldier| 6.24.10 @ 11:58AM

That sounds like Johnson's stupidity in action. There are stories of American Soldiers and Marines scrounging through American scrap yards and Pacific battlefields for abandoned tanks and equipment - and rushing to get them fixed up enough to use in Korea. It was pathetic.

Truman, Johnson, and MacArthur presided over the U.S. Army's worst defeat of the 20th Century and its longest retreat in history.

FTM| 6.24.10 @ 10:18AM

I hate to be the one to bring this up but General Colin Powell resigned from President Bush's Administration rather than endorse the President's policy of war in Iraq. General Powell's remark being something to the effect of, "If you break it, you bought it." Something like that anyway.

The common denominator here being the way that military officers are supposed to react to policy decisions rendered by civilian political officials. General Powell did it the right way and General McChrystal did it the wrong way. Both Military officers reacting to what they see as compounded bad political policy.

What basically you're looking at is this, the American military is designed from the ground up to destroy the military of an industrialized opponent. The American Military has failed miserably in the role of "Peacekeeper." Our guys don't like those silly blue, "Shoot Me Here" helmets. Our guys thrive is a no holds barred bar fight. They don't win hearts and minds too well, they're all about hurting people and breaking things.

The history of warfare is based on innovation. A force equation becoming out of balance due to an innovation on one side of the equation. That innovation can only be met with innovation in order to bring the equation back into balance. Inequality bringing on warfare, equality restoring peace or ending the war. The Germans invented the Blitzkrieg but the exposure of their supply lines to precision bombing was the counter to the Blitz.

We're fighting a bunch of illiterate goat herders. The strategy in Iraq was to attract these people to one place and kill them. It worked on a grand scale but doesn't prevent resurgence. Afganistan is different because it is so hard to move around in, I don't think that the Iraq strategy will work in Afganistan.

Honestly, if you look at a map, Iraq and Afganistan have Iran, the real enemy bookended. That's what this is all about. Iran is the real enemy here.

Now, if I had this to do in the spirit of military innovation, in order to win the war against international terror I would give these folks exactly what they want. The militant Moslems want no werstern influence, let 'em have it. No western medical technology, no western power generation technology, no military technology, in effect, no western technology at all under any circumstances. No commerce or travel from a Moslem country to a civilized nation under any circumstances. No WHO, no UNICEF, no Peace Corps. These folks want to live in the seventh century, let them. I'd say that after three or four generations of eighty percent infant mortality rates and Sahira law, stoning women to death for getting raped and the like I'd say that maybe these savages will decide that modern western civilization isn't all that bad and decide to grow up as a culture. The ones that are left that is. I'd say that in the typical middle eastern country after four or five generations of no western influence there'd be a lot of real estate available.

That's my take on all of this anyway, in kind of a roundabout way. We're fighting World War IV right now, the first step is to acknowledge that we are indeed fighting World War IV, WWIII being the Cold War. You know about WWI and WWII. In order to win this World War we have to innovate the way that we fight wars, again. What we did to win the last World War won't work again, that's why the equation is out of balance.

Bohemond| 6.24.10 @ 12:47PM

"General Colin Powell resigned from President Bush's Administration rather than endorse the President's policy of war in Iraq."

That was RETIRED General Powell, serving as Secretary of State; and his objection could hardly have been to the war itself, since he supported it (famously, at the UN) and didn't resign until 2005. And his resignation wasn't voluntary, either; Andy Card asked for it on behalf of the President.

FTM| 6.24.10 @ 4:07PM

Really? I didn't know tha General Powell was asked to resign. But still, General Powell followed the tradition of resigning in the event of a strong disagreement with the boss.

Roy| 6.27.10 @ 9:21PM

Even that I don't buy. The war started in April 2003 and he resigned after Bush's reelection(January 2005).

In 2003, he might have disagreed with the war but he never really did anything about it - he positioned himself so that if it went well he could take credit and if it went badly he wouldn't take the blame. If he had resigned in 2003, Bush could have appointed a SecState that was 100% behind his policy(John Bolton!). Of course Bush probably would not have since he liked to sabotage himself by putting enemies in crucial positions.

DLJ584| 6.24.10 @ 2:44PM

"Now, if I had this to do in the spirit of military innovation, in order to win the war against international terror I would give these folks exactly what they want. The militant Moslems want no werstern influence, let 'em have it. No western medical technology, no western power generation technology, no military technology, in effect, no western technology at all under any circumstances. No commerce or travel from a Moslem country to a civilized nation under any circumstances. No WHO, no UNICEF, no Peace Corps. These folks want to live in the seventh century, let them. I'd say that after three or four generations of eighty percent infant mortality rates and Sahira law, stoning women to death for getting raped and the like I'd say that maybe these savages will decide that modern western civilization isn't all that bad and decide to grow up as a culture. The ones that are left that is. "

Reminds me of a joke that circulated a few years ago:

The Canadian Prime Minister, Uncle Sam, and Osama bin Laden were walking on a beach, and found a Genie in a bottle. Upon being released, the Genie granted each of them 1 wish.

The Canadian, citing the rich fertile fields of Central Canada, wished that they be forever rich, fertile, and productive, and the Genie made it so.

Osama bin Laden, now a resident of Afghanistan, asked for a wall, 1 mile wide and 1000 feet high, around his new home country, to keep the Infidels out, and that he be transported home immediately - and the Genie made it so.

Uncle Sam then asked the Genie "Is that wall really 1 mile wide, 1000 feet high, completely surrounds Afghanistan, and Osama is inside that wall?" The Genie replied that it was so.

Uncle Sam then said "Fill it with water" - and the Genie smiled and made it so.

Frank Natoli| 6.24.10 @ 10:52AM

Yes, Harry Truman is the patron saint of tough talking Democrats. And like everything else Democrats say, it's a lie.

Clay Blair's "The Forgotten War" makes the mind of Harry Truman painfully clear. He and his State Department had decided that the U.S. line of defense in the Pacific ended with Japan Korea. To wit, minimal forces were present in South Korea, any forces of substance were based in Japan, and there was no armor anywhere. Additionally, there had been a furious demobilization of the U.S. military after the end of World War II, personnel and materiel. In a rare, rare case, there had been an "admirals' revolt" with high level resignations over Truman's decimation of USN [when's the last time we saw that happen?].

And then, one day, the North attacked the South. The North, who wasn't "told" that armor was useless in Korea, was attacking with masses of former Soviet World War II T-34s. The scant American forces were being pushed back into what became the Pusan perimiter, bazooka teams being their only "offense" against the T-34s.

And then Truman changed his mind.

Among other aspects of the U.S. response, it was necessary to winch knocked out Shermans from their Pacific island graveyards, ship them to California repair depots, get them running again, and ship them back to the South before it was too late.

For all his faults, George W. Bush fought the most significant military action to a victorious conclusion since World War II. That is not going to happen in Afghanistan with the people that the electorate chose in November 2008.

martin j smith| 6.24.10 @ 11:14AM

I agree with the preemis of this aritcle. McC neither liked Obama personally or as commander in chief. Not for some arbitrary reasons but because obama's appeasement policies were cou8nterintuitive and extreme wrong stretegically. McC did not want to be a social worker, but is a soldier. And that is his job. I suspect that he would have like to go before a mike and state exactly what he thought of Obama and end with his resignation. Instead he did this indirectly. McC was not so much sorry as regretful that he had to take this necessary step. But besides that there more than regret, I suspect there real anger and the direction the war on terror is being fought. I hope McC does not fade away. but becomes some one who speaks aout more openly about issues regarding our national security. Naturally he would have to leave the militaruy altogether. Perhaps someday he will.

Ellen| 6.24.10 @ 3:25PM

General McC asked for 30,000-40,000 troops -- it took four months for The "Annointed One" to reply and then sent only 20,000. We cannot get rid of the arrogant, self-centered, egotistical guy -- he needs more time for golf -- let us see that he gets it.

Richard| 6.24.10 @ 11:15AM

May I say, firstly, I have been of a conservative political leaning since Johnson/Goldwater. I have voted in every election since Nixon/Humphrey and have never voted for a Democrat, in any capacity, in these many years. No one can accuse me of leftism. Douglas MacArthur was a pompous egomaniac who, as a member of the armed forces, was sworn to give allegiance to the civilian Commander in Chief. His defiance was inexcusable and he was rightly and justly bounced by the man, let us not forget, who had the brass balls to make an invasion of the Japanese homeland a moot point by dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Eisenhower was nominated in preference to MacArthur (who would have loved the nomination to sate his super-ego) and won the election because: one, he was a recognized hero and, two, the American people saw the willow-weeded, liberal back bone of Adlai Stevenson.

JS| 6.24.10 @ 1:16PM

On the contrary, no military man or woman is sworn to allegiance to the Commander in Chief. They are sworn to uphold the Constitution and obey lawful orders. There is no swearing of allegiance to any one particular person or office. Not that I'm disputing your claim that McAurthur was a pompous ass, because I happen to agree with you.

Old Soldier| 6.24.10 @ 1:29PM

Yep - I took the oath a couple of times. Don't remember anything about the CINC in there, just the Constitution.

Blackwatch| 6.24.10 @ 2:56PM

Yeah, personal allegiance to the leader was what Adolf was all about. We don't worship our leaders here.

Not even obummer deserves personal allegiance.

DLJ584| 6.24.10 @ 3:16PM

The oath I took was to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, and to obey the laws thereof, and to obey the lawful orders of the officers appointed over me. The Constitution establishes the President as the Commander-In-Chief of the Armed Forces, so you ARE swearing to obey his lawful orders.

You don't have to like them, you don't have to like the CinC, but as long as they do not require you to violate Federal Law, you either obey or face the consequences. And the regs that limit how you express your dislike of the CinC are lawful orders.

So as much as I may agree with the sentiments expressed, I cannot say the president was not justified in accepting McChrystal's resignation.

I can wish that the President had been more of a MAN, given the General a strong public rebuke, and sent him back to do his job, starting with disciplining his loose-lipped aides.

But that would be like praying to win the Lottery without buying a ticket.

Ms. Jones| 6.24.10 @ 3:56PM

For the record: The wordings of the current oath of enlistment and oath for commissioned officers are as follows:

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

So, enlisted personnel take an oath to obey the orders of superior officers, including the CIC, but enlisted officers merely swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC. Interesting, yes?

Ken Roberts | 6.24.10 @ 5:08PM

Just assumed that if I as a enlisted man took the oath that the officers over me would have to also , I guess there is a lot to learn out there. all the laws that we have today it would be impossible for one person to know them all and I am sure we all break the law on a daily basis without knowing it . I will check it out I thank you for the lesson in government today , you have a nice day .

Derek Leaberry| 6.24.10 @ 11:43AM

Think of the long view. Truman's sacking of MacArthur led to two terms of Eisenhower, a lock-in of high taxes, the recession of 1957-58, the Democratic landslide of 1958 and twenty years of liberalism.

theduke| 6.24.10 @ 12:49PM

That's a bit of a stretch. I think it was ordained that international leftism would reach a nadir at some point. It's appeal to the simplistic and delusional around the world was great and its contradictions less than apparent. I think Lord's analysis, which basically paints American liberalism as conflicted with a double standard and prone to appeasement vis vis international leftism in all its forms, is more accurate.

Harrison | 6.24.10 @ 12:22PM

Interesting article. There will always be issues as long as military commanders answer to civilians. That said, the General would have done better to keep his opinions to himself until after he left his post.

Paul Petersen| 6.24.10 @ 12:44PM

I think this article is gives the exact reason McChrystal and his team ran their mouths to the Rolling Stone. Stanley could have politely resigned and gone into retirement in obscurity. He chose to go out in a blaze of glory getting fired like McArthur.
Getting to McChrystal's level requires political as well as military smarts. I think the General saw that there was no way to win Afghanistan within the restrains established by the Obama team.
The proof of this being a calculation will be how the General behaves in retirement. A book will be a given and most likely very telling. But if he shows up on a ballot somewhere then we know how he was playing the game here. He was using Obama to boost his name recognition since he figured he could not do it with the loosing hand being dealt him by the President.
Pete

JP| 6.24.10 @ 1:04PM

What is asounding is that General McChrystal actually agreed with the President on most social issues. Marc Ambinder from the Atlantic put to rest the gossip that McCrhystal went to Rolling Stone to get fired in order to allow to run in 2012. McChrystal wasn't fibbing when he said he voted for Obama.

What is ironic is that another figure from the Bush Administration is being called upon to get Obama out of this mess. We will see if the President allows General Petraeous to do his job.

Old Soldier| 6.24.10 @ 1:34PM

Gen. McChrystal has been a ward of the state since the age of 18. His tune might change now that he will be paying for the house he lives in, the car he drives, and the food he eats.

theduke| 6.24.10 @ 12:44PM

Well done. A coherent historical narrative worthy of Paul Johnson.

Bob in Western NY| 6.24.10 @ 12:49PM

Nice article - Talk about "turning points." A good family friend, a career officer, always felt Korea was the truning point of America. He passed too soon to see the effects of something more important than the military - a revitalized US economy.

It's clear to me that the US has ups and downs. Yet, I doubt we are past our turning point of greatness. And, our military's greatness is a function of American propserity. That, in turn, is a result of our holding on to free market economics as much as possible.

So, I would say, in 2010, that the real turning point was Ronald Reagan when he got the American economy hitting on all 8 cylinders and the G7 asked him to enlighten them on how they too could create prosperity. The idea man behind Reagan was Milton Friedman.

Alan| 6.24.10 @ 1:02PM

An ominous story of Truman and MacArthur. To this day the U.S. is still in Korea in a war which is still officially not over.

Is this the future of Afghanistan?

Nathan Bickel | 6.24.10 @ 1:04PM

Too bad for the liberals that Obama felt he had to prove his political and presidential manhood by ousting General McChrystal.

BHO has now repeated history, as your excellent commentary, intimates. In the process, he has sacrificed his fellow Democrats, all for the sake of feeding his narcissistic ego and in defense of the office for which he has failed to show genuine eligibility......

SIRJASON| 6.24.10 @ 1:13PM

Barack Hussein Obama, AKA Barry Soetoro and the old grey haired political hack “Joe” in the video (firing McChrystal) are the people who should have received their marching orders on 3 November 2008! Robert Gates should have declined to extend his service as Secretary of Defense for Obama.

Would that have happened NONE of these professional, political, progressive, parasites would be destroying our country and trampling on our most cherished and revered documents i.e. our Declaration of Independence, our Constitution and our Bill of Rights!

We have a Judge Martin Feldman in Louisiana who PLUGGED OBAMA's moratorium! Now some of these professional, political, parasites need to grow some brass ovaries or brass gonads or brass cajones, standup in the well of the House and Senate and scream..."I am mad as hell and I am not going to take it anymore!"

By what authority Sir, do you provide the "We the People...", the Senate and the House that has allowed you, Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., to occupy the Oval Office?

Tim*| 6.24.10 @ 1:16PM

From National Review Online : The Corner :

"Now it can be told," elaborates Marc Ambinder at the Atlantic "The story about [McChrystal] 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.".................

Rick Magee| 6.24.10 @ 1:21PM

Gen. Douglas MacArthur said that we should invade China by way of Manchuria and defeat them while we could, as we were going to have to fight them one day anyway. He proposed the use of Nuclear Weapons only as a threat. The A-Bomb was still fresh in China's mind. MacArthur quoted "An Old soldier never dies, he just fades away." He refused to run for President and he would have won hands down! Trumen was still under the influence of the Council on Foreign Relations a Progressive offshoot of the Illitists and Bilderberg that is in effect our secret Government.

Old Soldier| 6.24.10 @ 1:38PM

I doubt MacArthur would have won. His colossal ego and colossal failures in Korea would have sunk him.

Ron Stephenson| 6.24.10 @ 1:27PM

An interesting read, and all this was never discussed in any classes I took in history. The liberals that populate the institutions of higher learning have done a magnificent job of revising history to suit themselves. These days, liars simply say they 'mis-spoke'. Really? Smart people know what they are saying most of the time, and when their 'truth' gets challenged, they merely back down and try to ask us to forget what was said. I am so sick of all the two-faced opportunists we call our congressional leaders that I plan on voting only for new people I have never heard of on the ballot. Money and power is a powerful, intoxicating mix, and few can resist it's charms. Disgusting!

murph | 6.24.10 @ 1:27PM

What idiocy.

This wasn't about communism or McCarthur or any of the other pathetic straws you're trying to clutch after.

McChrystal and his staff did something stupid.

Find me a company where you can trash the boss in a major media outlet and keep your job.

You think the military didn't have issues with Pres. Bush's leadership or strategies?

The smart ones did their carping within the chain of command. People like Adm. Fallon did not - and got pushed out as a result.

Truman, McCarthur and the Red Menace have no relevance whatsoever.

Kenny| 6.24.10 @ 1:29PM

CORRECTION: Matt Ridgeway replaced MacArthur upon dismissal by Truman, not Mark Clark. The latter replaced Rdigeway later after Ridgeway had repaired much of the damage wrought by MacArthur's incompetence (failing to see the coming Chinese invasion).

Darren | 6.24.10 @ 1:35PM

This article is way off base. Calling it Islamic fascism just makes it harder to explain to people that we really are implementing an elected kind of fascism here. Forget about these idiots half way around the world. It is the US govt that is here, now oppressing us. It is they (the US govt) that we have to stand up to. Stop ignoring the 800 pound gorilla in the room.

BTW, we've already lost overseas, face it & bring the troops home already.

Dixie Pixie| 6.24.10 @ 1:38PM

Mr Lord I respectfully disagree.

General McChrystal's situation is in no way related to the MacArthur / Truman affair.

General MacArthur had several orders of magnitude of earned gravitas greater than General McChrystal. General McChrystal has not stated and supported a controversial publicly held political position in defiance of the President. Nor is there a public ground swell in support of General McChrystal like there was for General MacArthur.

The only thing the McChrystal affair proves is Washington paper “bullets” are far more dangerous than real bullets.

Cuffs| 6.24.10 @ 1:56PM

Please read MacArthur's farewell speech at
West Point. He served a puppet president who
was just as bad a Obama. A puppet to be sure.
As I recall Chiang Kai Chek was disarmed
"with a stroke of a pen".

Nancy| 6.24.10 @ 2:22PM

Obama and his staff will go down in history as the WORST; mark my word. Like Gerald Celente, I am a political Athiest, but I know a man when I see one, McChrystal is certainly that. Obama on the other hand, I'm not sure what he is.

Ellen| 6.24.10 @ 3:32PM

I agree that the General should not have spoken as he did -- especially to a liberal journalist. Obama could have proved himself to be the man he pretends to be -- he should have read the General the "riot act." and then refused his resignation. The empty suit in the White House had his feelings hurt -- poor baby.

Always right| 6.24.10 @ 2:33PM

Also remember that Mac Arthur and McCarthy were both correct; Communism was a threat to the world and communists had infiltrated the highest levels of America's political structure. And now they have done it again!! Plus ca change, plus ce le mem chose.

"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." ~ Dwight D. Eisenhower

Old Sailor...| 6.24.10 @ 2:33PM

What the hell else would you expect from a real black-ops commander? These guys are on the sharp, pointy edge of the sword and doing the yeoman's job of making the war go our way.

Can no-one cut them any slack when things go against the grain of a war-fighter?

I guess the "politically correct" thing to do is fire the guys that make things happen when they mistake a reporter for an ally, not a lay-about leftie that's out to bring down whomever opposes his sick, twisted point of view.

As a "retired military" guy - if the general leads, I'll follow.

Whichever way that wants to go.

NeilBJ| 6.24.10 @ 2:34PM

A bit of personal history:

I was a very young 10 years old when MacArthur was fired. I, of course, was oblivious to the politics of the day, but I was not oblivious to the sentiments of my parents and the community in which I lived. The message came through to me and to many other kids that Truman was a "bad" guy.

I lived in the era of the Saturday afternoon matinee at the local movie theatre. The afternoon show began with a newsreel. Whenever a piece about Truman appeared on the screen, all the kids in the theatre began to shout in unison, "LSMFT -- Lord, Save Me from Truman."

That was, for those who don't remember, a takeoff of the Lucky Strike Cigarettes slogan, "LSMFT -- Lucky Strike Means Fine Tobacco."

skyking| 6.24.10 @ 2:53PM

wow lots O comments; but just how can a man with no birthcertificate fire a general of the Army?
and where are the loyal citizens like mr Pearl/ who is valinetly attempting to ask this guy Where is your birth certificate?
And we lost in Korea; we lost in vietnam;why are we fighting (loeing our troops) in Afganistan ?

Ellen| 6.24.10 @ 3:37PM

What does an enemy do when he knows that on a specified date soldiers will return home? Bet they have the date circled on their calendars. Never heard of anyone in a fight saying he would fight on until a future date and then stop -- no matter what the circumstances.

JP| 6.24.10 @ 4:46PM

Just think of all those Afghans who have been cooperating with us...they are so screwed.

A. C. Santore| 6.24.10 @ 6:51PM

"And we lost in Korea"? You've been listening to lefty-loon historians. North Korea invaded South Korea with the intention of taking it. The U.S. and U.N. allies pushed them all the way across the original border. MacArthur then twisted the Chinese tail by pushing them to the Yalu, where he publicly disagreed with the official policy of the U.S. about going on to war with China.

The Chinese pushed us almost all the way back south, whereupon we pushed them back to the original border.

How did we lose? N. Korea started a war of aggression and we stopped it, returning to the status quo.

Only a MacArthur dupe would suggest that we lost. HE lost.

Mac-101| 6.24.10 @ 2:56PM

People: There may be more to this than what appears. The good general voted for President Obama and is domestic liberal. He also is a big CFR member I believe.

General Petraeus is a CFR dude and aledgedly attended the last Bildberger metting.

This could be just a ploy to allow President Obama to circumvent the july 2011 pullout. If the General doesn't complain about the ROE that are KILLING our troops then we know it is a sham.

The entire struggle to have a National Afghan government rule ALL the tribal areas is rediculous. The Afghans are a 7th century tribal culture which HATES ouside government imposed by other tribes, let alone have dirty Kaffirs enforcing it!

JP| 6.24.10 @ 4:45PM

General Petraeous earlier this afternoon endorsed again Obama's July 2011 withdrawl date. Something seems amiss...

ABNCP| 6.24.10 @ 2:57PM

McChrystal is a four star General Officer. He is not a stupid man. No one raises to that rank that is an idiot. He is also a Special Forces General, a direct action warrior. There is no way the man would let this well known left wingnut reporter for Rolling Stone for God's sake, become embeded with his staff and not understand the type of information that would be coming out of any article he wrote. Why would he allow his staff to let their real feelings about this incompetent boob we have as our temporary President and his administration be heard by this guy? The General certainly knew what the outcome of that article would be. There has to be something going on here. Again, I refuse to believe McChrystal is stupid. So what is the agenda here? Maybe the General felt he was not able to support the current administrations Afgan policy but didn't want to just retire. I mean the troops can't just leave. So he set the whole thing up so he would be fired. If that's the case buckle your chin strap, there may be some real fireworks coming down the road.

Siegfried X| 6.24.10 @ 3:09PM

I think the incident shows that McChrystal had too many stars on his shoulders, that he was too immature for the highest levels of command. He would have been better off staying a fighting one-star general who never spoke with the media.

Media management is part of being a four-star, and McChrystal just didn't have what it takes.

Anna| 6.25.10 @ 12:28PM

He managed the media brilliantly. Who remembers the press releases of generals who resign in a conventional manner? I've thought since the first that his intended message was "If I go out, eff you wimps" in a way in which the world cannot miss. What better publication to pick than Rolling Stone to get the message out there in barracks language?

And I believe the long-term political repercussions will be similar to those Jeffery Lord outlined above.

George| 6.24.10 @ 3:14PM

ABNCP I concur, this is a seasoned warrior with a real understanding of politics within and without. I find myself re-reading this article and wondering what's up next. Our fearful leader, Obam..aaaa, will be stopped but will it be too late?

martin j smith| 6.24.10 @ 4:11PM

So given that oath takenincludes orders from the President, it seems only logical that the only alternative for a commander in charge who disagrees with policy is to resign. The question is how and what way would produce the most bang for the buck in terms of getting the "message out" of the discontent with how the war is being waged--difficult indeed. Though I certainly do not claim to be a mind reader I think in a way McC did the best he could

Ms Jones| 6.24.10 @ 4:49PM

The oath includes orders from above ONLY for the enlisted personnel; officers like McChrystal do not. They merely swear to uphold the Constitution. See my comment above for the full text of the oaths.

Standfast24| 6.24.10 @ 4:39PM

I view this as a "tempest in a teapot" as it was silly to remove a general b/c of a magazine article. Only in a press and image obsessed white house would this happen. It was planned in advance as government does not move this quickly- this was another "campaign type" media event.
Obama tries to show that he is tough and will come off looking less Presidential when all is said and done.
The Truman decision may have been the original crack, but the aftermath of 1968 and Vietnam made the modern Democratic party what it is today- party of submissive foreign policy, ashamed of America and pining for an EU-UN type global world order.

Ken Roberts| 6.24.10 @ 5:01PM

It goes deeper than Obama it is permeated all though out our government; they are nothing but well to do financiers who would sell their brother out for a dime, we have no class nor do we have any character in the whole house , it would take an entire sweep to clean up this mess in 2010 , we must clean as much of the swamp as we can this time and try harder to look past the media in their attempts to cover Obama, they have committed treason . Pelosi is insane with liberalism she has no concept of real life. Reid goes along because he is money hungry and the rest are just crooks looking for the next deal. Now there are a few good ones in the house but not enough to sway any votes or get anything done, hopefully they will stay and fight with the new ones that come in; but people do your own work in digging and vetting because I can tell you all now that the media will follow their star no matter what and will not report the truth. Check them out for your self, it is not if they have cheated on their wives so much as the money trail will lead you to a conclusion on a candidate more than any other item. Trust not the news media .

jack carlson| 6.24.10 @ 5:19PM

While many applaud Truman's refusal to allow MacArthur to drop the Bomb on the Korean peninsula, just think how many millions of innocent people have died because of that decision. Truman should have used the same calculations that he did for Hiroshima versus an invasion of Japan. The casualty counts aren't even close!

jrjr| 6.24.10 @ 5:26PM

FDR, Henry Wallace, Woodrow Wilson, LBJ, Reid, Pelosi - not a dime's worth of difference between them and Obama.

Larry M. Southwick| 6.24.10 @ 5:28PM

Yeah, right. That "public trust" in conservatives to better protect the US in time of war requires the public to also believe that such protection is important during an election cycle.

Last time out, the media made sure the war on terror got last billing. Our guys did not do much better to raise public awareness. Even now, I doubt we'd get a "war vote" surge. The media has encouraged a "get out of Afganistan" and a "get out of Iraq" mantra that makes all of Mr. Lord's points irrelevant.

Few in the public see terrorism as an important concern these days.It's blind stupidity, but that's the way it is. When was the last time you saw anything that reminded us of the seriousness of the radical Islamic threat, of 9/11, of recent attacks?

Al-Quaida's spokesman, Adam Gadahn came out with a most terrifying pronouncement a week ago. So who remembers that? It was on these pages.

He in essence said they have have not killed enough Americans yet.

He also found Obama's efforts to reach out to Muslims ludicrous, rediculous and irrelevant. We conservative take joy in that, but the other side just uses such pronouncements as proof the big O is getting their attention and only needs to work harder on his message.

Nope, guys. Until there is another real life "big one", kiss off the War on Terror as being an issue in any election. Just listen to how the media is spinning the McCrystal event as a big plus for the big O.

Larry M. Southwick
Cincinnati

PJ| 6.24.10 @ 5:41PM

Obama does not handle criticism well. When you consider the sheer volume he has been getting lately, you just know that it infuriates him. So when it comes from a source he has some control over, you had to know Damn Well he would exercise whatever control and punitive consequences he could. Criticism is not only unacceptable, it is “forbidden”!
After all, you can't criticize the Messiah!
OK, Sarcasm aside, (For Now) McChrystal had to know, (Or should have known.) that this would be the likely outcome of such open criticism. However, he spoke his mind honestly; as well he not only should have, but Had Too! If he hadn't, not only would his frustration and anger fester within, (Thereby worsening the problems.) He would also leave himself wide open to becoming a “Scapegoat" for Obama when his policies (Or Lack thereof.) regarding Afghanistan "Failed Miserably"!
Bottom line, he did the only thing he could and chose a bad outcome over a worse one. At least he got to speak his mind, and resign with dignity.
I, for one, would love to see him retire now, and "run for office"!
That would be Awesome!! Then he could see about changing some of the idiocy that raised the issues in the first place.

Rod Davis | 6.26.10 @ 1:41AM

More than likely you don't know that the strategy that is being applied in Afghanistan was developed by General Petraeus and General McChrystal - that is why McChrystal was sent to Afghanistan with the blessings of Admiral Mullen and Secretary Gates.

Having your command taken away from you is the greatest insult that can ever be bestowed upon a commissioned officer. McChrystal's father was a General and I am sure his Father is not happy with his conduct as well.

Afghanistan is America's new Viet Nam - Obama inherited Bush's fiasco. The war in Afghanistan was all but over when Bush and Rumsfeld turned to Iraq and gave the Taliban second life.

The corrupt polices of Mr. Karzai have made it a certainty that Afghanistan will be Viet Nam all over again and here is why...

1. The leadership of the Afghanistan government is corrupt. There is no credibility with any of the elective officials currently in office.

2. Without a standing Army, their is little chance of controlling the country-side and repelling the insurgency crossing the border out of Pakistan.

3. There is no local police authority in the provinces outside of the major cities. Law and order is at the whim of Tribal leaders who have just as much disdain for Karzai and his government as they have for the American infidels.

4. We are fighting this war with an all volunteer force. Some of these men are on their fourth and fifth tours of duty in Afghanistan and Iraq. A tremendous toll on our human resources.

Since there is little interest by the Afghan people in fighting those who have joined the Taliban because they may be from the same tribe, or belong to their family; there is no interest in being a soldier or policeman - without them, you have little chance of withdrawing from Afghanistan and leaving a stable government to carry on.

The American public, in its naivety, can't began to understand the gravity of the obstacle of ripping victory from this war. There is plenty of fault to be laid at the feet of many within the scope and range of time that has been consumed by this war - let alone the mounting dead.

We will not win this war unless the four outlined objectives are met. We have beat ourselves. We had a chance to bring home the bacon, but turned aside to pick flowers elsewhere - what a pity, all those that have given their all and all for nothing!

Nick| 6.26.10 @ 12:50PM

Mr. Davis,

Thank you for giving us the Micheal Moore view of Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom.

We hardly ever see this point of view expressed here at TAS.

bernardo| 6.24.10 @ 6:37PM

Truman was right to fire MacArthur. That was a major event in US history. Obama's firing of McChrystal will not be. The general and his staff showed incredibly bad judgment in speaking frankly about the buffoon in the White House and the punks who work for him to a hostile journalist. However, there is no evidence they were undermining the president's policies (whatever they are on any given day) or going over his head to appeal to the American people through the press. So, a less arrogant and more self confident and fair minded man might have cut the general some slack. However, the firing had more justification than most of the other things Obama does.

david| 6.24.10 @ 7:23PM

I'm as conservative as anyone here but let me ask all of you a simple question. Define "victory" as it refers to Afghanistan. And someone tell the class which western power has ever achieved it there and why you think we're going to succeed while others like Alexander the Great (no slouch in the generalship department) failed. I mean, if you say, defeat the Taliban, I'm sorry, they didn't attack us. Al Queda did. Are we not at this point winning battles there that maybe we shouldn't be fighting in the first place?

The relevance to the current discussion? We're told McCrystal was committed to victory. I've been closely following the progress of this war and I don't really know what that means and I bet most of you don't either and I am equally convinced that we can put half a million troops in there like we did in Viet Nam and we're not going get a result that much different. Once again, if the Russians, ruthless as they were, couldn't beat these guys, then someone tell the class why you think we can. Because we're the "GOOD" guys? So were the British and one of their armies got destroyed down to one man who was sent back to India with the message "leave us alone." Good advice perhaps.

James D. Pruett| 6.24.10 @ 8:21PM

It is NOT correct that Truman appointed "another heroic World War II general, Mark Clark -- the David Petraeus of his day -- to take MacArthur's place in Korea". Matthew B. Ridgeway, the brilliant former commander of XVIIIth Airborne Corps in WWII, took command of 8th Army when MacArthur was recalled; Mark Clark succeeded Ridgeway, AFTER the situation had been restored.

Jeffrey Lord| 6.24.10 @ 11:40PM

James D. Pruett...

I stand guilty of fast forwarding. You are correct. But the point stands. Ridgeway...and then Clark...were the Petraeus of the day. The real issue - the political impact of removing MacArthur - holds true.

Ian Smith| 6.24.10 @ 9:04PM

Very good article, however I also read an Op-ed piece by Andrew McCarthy in NRO (This Mission Is Not McChrystal Clear, Oct. 2009) that argues that Gen. McChrystal's strategy in Afghanistan has more to do with winning the hearts and minds of moderate Muslims than defeating our enemies (Al-Queda & The Taliban).
McCarthy also asks the question is it worth fighting a war in which our strategy is not to destroy our enemy? Avery valid point.

Robert Founder| 6.24.10 @ 10:29PM

Afghanistan Quagmire

Let's move away from the trivial and on to what is really important here:

There was a reason why Bush put Afghanistan on the back burner. He never really wanted to fight this "war" in the first place. For it is a "fools" war, that is not really winnable for dozens of reasons. Herewith is the list:

BTW, NONE of these factors applied, or apply, to Iraq.

1. Afghanistan is several times larger than Iraq, and with a much larger population that is completely different from Iraq.
2. It is an incredibly mountainous terrain favoring the revolutionary Taliban.
3. It is a economically fragmented and dispersed agricultural economy substantially based on growing drugs and exporting them, making babies and fighting invaders.
4. It has NO infrastructure, and NO middle class and hence nothing to bomb, co-opt or use.
5. It has a warrior population like ancient Sparta where every child is taught from birth to be a fearless warrior. They literally make their own guns by hand, and they are excellent.
6. Its culture, government, and such. Hasn’t changed much in thousands of years.
7. It is a totally decentralized society, therefore difficult for us, or anyone, to control or manage, or enlist in any way.
8. It is totally Islamic fundamentalist, with virtually no secular components.
9. It is aided and abetted by not only nuclear armed Pakistan, but by all 5 nuclear armed superpowers that it shares borders with. All 5 of these major powers are threatened by any kind of American victory, and will not allow it. Thus the Taliban has natural built-in incredibly powerful allies, and that includes just about every powerful player on earth including, (covertly,) Germany, France and many others too alarming and scary to name. No player in the world wants us to be able to claim a victory in Afghanistan, and all are deeply invested in our defeat, and that includes the Democrat Wimp Party in America which is the most anti-American entity in the world.
10. The logistics of supplying and maintaining our military in Afghanistan are insuperable. One reason we have so few soldiers in there is we just can’t feed and supply many more.

FOR ALL THESE REASONS, AND MORE, THERE IS NO, REPEAT NO, CHANCE OF ANY SORT OF VICTORY FOR US IN AFGHANISTAN, PERIOD.

Afghanistan has always existed where bordering Empires have has spheres of influence, but where no one country has dominance, in that sense it is like the epi-center of the earth where all others come together.

The best we can ever hope for is to have SOME measure of influence that we have to share with a bunch of others who hate us, including Pakistan, India, China, Russia, and Iran, and many others with word stage pretensions.

NOTE: Iraq did not share with Afghanistan one single one of these aspects, so no comparison between the two is possible. This is Obama's Vietnam if not worse. By 2012 Republicans will run on the platform of "getting us out of the Afghanistan nightmare quagmire,” if that is Democrats have not already cut and run.

But on a more targeted basis, we need an intelligent foreign policy that would, in general, pursue AMERICAN interests and no others. Our leaders are all bought and sold by foreign interests and therefore ignore American interests.

Plus, we have large segments of our own citizens who are disloyal to America, and until we deal with that fact nothing else can save us. We have vast armies of traitors in our midst. Maybe a third of our population is disloyal to one degree or another, and there is absolutely no penalty in sight for that disloyalty at this time.

We cannot, and should not, conquer, and try to rule, the world, and Afghanistan is certainly a case in point. We need to play a strong role there but not the role of mommy and daddy to these proud independent people.

We need to stand off to the side and buy, bribe, and threaten whoever we need to in Afghanistan to get our interests protected. Let the Taliban rule the place, while we pick them to death from the sidelines. It is NONE of our business whatsoever what they do with their women and children.

It is strictly a Democrat idea that we should be trying to make little Americans out of these, and other, people. Hell, we can't even make good little Americans out of our own people, much less those in other places.

911 is the result of Clinton policies across the board of tolerating terrorism at home AND abroad. The final solution for America is to declare the Democrat Party a terrorist organization, and treat it accordingly as it richly deserves.

RobertFounder@Gmail.Com

Mac-101| 6.25.10 @ 8:27AM

Great commentary, You can't stess enough though, that they hate the other Tribes, Clans, Vilages, National Government, ALMOST as much as they hate the infidel!

C.C.| 6.24.10 @ 11:50PM

Absolute and utter 'Neo-Con' Nonsense.

This Phony 'War' on 'Terror' bears little, if any, resemblance to 50 years ago.

How's that I dare say?

Think for a moment, what the reaction of a President Truman would have been to KNOWN enemies attacking and bringing down the financial center of the U.S. - in addition to killing 3,000 civilians?

That right there pretty much sums it up.

We knew and know who these Arab 'terrorist' are, what countries they come from and hide in or about and who their allies are. We've known it since at least the 1967 Arab/Israeli war.

So, tell me again, what was our Great Leader's response to the attacks 10 years ago?

Dust off those memory banks...

"We will bring them to Justice..."

Remember that line. Like, repeated Multiple Times...?

So here we are, 10 years later - But all we need is a few more $Trillion dollars - and we'll win!...

You have really bought it hook, line and sinker if you fall for a piece of tripe like this piece.

Hk40cal| 6.25.10 @ 10:46AM

Rumor has it Gen. McChrystal is an FDR type.... The onions to kill, kill and kill the enemy, BUT, Deep down inside he is a "progressive"... and that is dangerous.
Mr. Lord forgot to mention the little unknown factoid about "Tail-gunner Joe"... The only man Blacklisted by history..... Joe McCarthy was correct in his assumptions...... He was not first evil man to bring these charges. Sen. Dies brought them in the late 30's.... those of you who don't believe me....... read the Venona papers or simpler yet. Read the book: Blacklisted by History, the untold story of Joe McCarthy.
If Mr. Lord is going to invoke Joe McCarthy, then there is truth too all he comments Gen. McChrystal 's aids are making.... All he attacks on Gen. McChrystal are not different that those on Patton and MacArthur..... two Generals that fought war's to win.....
MacArthur, wanted to fight the Chi'coms, Patton wanted to push the Soviets back to their borders...

Gary| 6.25.10 @ 11:02AM

What don't they hate? I agree with FTM: let's remove all western influence from the lives of these Satan-worshippers (who do you think Allah REALLY is?), disallow their travel to our wonderful countries, and let 'em wallow in their stupid, made-up, sharia nonsense that pretends to be part of a real religion. Islam is a Heresy. Mohammed was a heretic. Let 'em wallow in self-designed filth for a couple of thousand years.

Nick| 6.25.10 @ 11:06AM

I don't mean to be picky, but I must quibble with some here who have characterized Gen. McCrystal's, and his staff's, actions as "insubordination."

Insubordination is disobeying orders or not recognizing the authority of a superior. The general did not do that.

As far as I know, there is no reg in the UCMJ that forbids those in uniform from criticizing their superiors. "It is a soldier's right to complain."

However, general officers are like all officers of the federal government, and serve at the pleasure of the president. President Dither can fire whomever he wants.

But, General McCrystal was not insubordinate.

Ginger| 6.25.10 @ 1:06PM

I totally agree. Gen. McChrystal & his staff gave their opinions. Opinions that, in my opinion, were correct & downright funny. But suckybaby Obama can't handle anyone telling anything close to the truth about him. He could have done as Lincoln did when one of his generals outright insulted him. He could have set his personal ego aside, discuss the matter with McChrystal, get it straightened out, forgive & forget & let the General do his job. Obama is an egotistic, immature, domineering, petty little boy. He knows nothing about military matters. He knows nothing about anything. HE should be fired, not McChrystal.

Rod Davis | 6.26.10 @ 12:57AM

ART. 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice - CONTEMPT TOWARD OFFICIALS (http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/ucmj/blart-88.htm )

Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Here is something else to consider... those serving within the command of an officer do their superior a disservice by making comments derogatory in nature against those same people named in the UCMJ's Article 88. Make no mistake, McChrystal is lucky to have just be allowed to walk away - he is guilty of having done similar acts on two previous ocassions.

Those is a position to know the severity of McChrystal conduct are in full agreement with Obama on this matter... namely: McCain, John Boehner, and many other Republican leaders.

McChrystal's conduct was egregious and despicable; to condone it and remark that the President was an egotistically immature, domineering and petty boy tells me one thing - you were never in service to our country.

Of course, the other thing that is plan for all to see... you really think that Obama is a 'boy'. One thing is certain, McChrystal certainly knows who isn't a boy!

Nick| 6.26.10 @ 12:37PM

Mr. Davis,

Thanks for the info on Article 88. I was unware of this reg, obviously.

I also stated that President Dither can fire whomever he wants for whatever reason he wants.

But, General McChrystal's, and his staff officers', conduct was not "egregious" or "dispicalble." If it was, why weren't they court-martialed?

Nick| 6.26.10 @ 12:43PM

Also, one man's "comtemptuous remarks" can be another man's "critical remarks" or "joke."

It would be a hard case to prove, in my opinion.

Ginger| 6.27.10 @ 1:16PM

Obama doesn't know what he's doing. I said, "little boy", as in CHILD. Don't even think of bringing race into my remarks. It's a 'mountain out of a molehill' situation, a 'tempest in a teapot. I think Gen. McChrystal wanted out. And Barry O. is very thin skinned no matter what you say. He said, "but I won't allow division". Give me a break! That's all he's done is divide.

HPax| 6.25.10 @ 2:26PM

September 2008 a video-tape broadcasted by an USA television company showed reverend J .Wright in relation to B. Obama. What Wright and then Obama stood for, was made clear all over the USA. Convincibly. All USA citizens or at least most of them could then have known who Obama was. Really.

To no avail. A ample majority voted pro BO. My whole life I will never stop wondering about it, and deploring it. I love the USA, will keep doing it. I know deeply what we Europeans owe to that wonderful nation. But the choice of Obama as a president of the USA is almost unforgivable, and surely unforgettable.

HPax The Netherlands

Rod Davis | 6.26.10 @ 12:34AM

"A ample majority voted pro BO. My whole life I will never stop wondering about it, and deploring it. I love the USA, will keep doing it. I know deeply what we Europeans owe to that wonderful nation. But the choice of Obama as a president of the USA is almost unforgivable, and surely unforgettable."

The majority of us that voted for Obama did so because we certainly didn't want more of the failed policies that eight years of Bush had laid to rest at our feet.

You want to find fault with the leadership of this President, do so with the knowledge of what his predecessor accomplished - absolutely nothing!

Bush declared a recession within the first quarter of his presidency without the qualifying criteria to properly do so - in other words, he lied and continued to lie throughout the eight years he was in office. He declared a recession it as a signal to his cronies so that they could began to destroy our unions, out-source our jobs, and destroy the middle-class of America. Of course, you wouldn't know that because your country is socialistic and you saw nothing wrong with the destruction of our democratic way of like.

By your admission, you have no idea what is to be an American. We have choices and one of them is to vote against the party that takes us from a point of prosperity to a full-blown recession in the less than a decade. Thank God for those choices; thank god that enough of us were not stupid enough to give the Republicans four more years to finish the job of slaughtering our precious nation.

skeeter| 6.29.10 @ 3:38AM

Obama's destruction of this country can have two possible rationale. 1) total incompetence or 2) malevolent intent to destroy the US way of life.
Never has the American electorate put into the Oval office such a man/child. Never have we seen uncertainty nurtured by the White House in a way to drive investment elsewhere. Bush doesn't even make the chart when compared to Obama's profligate spending - spending that had NO positive impact. "Slaughtering our precious nation"? Look in the mirror. Your vote has done that. And you don't even have the sense to reassess in the midst of failure.

And here you are, despite the evidence, continuing to chant "hope and change." You simply are another piece of evidence of the total failure of our public education system. Or perhaps, you are simply a racist.

Howard| 6.25.10 @ 2:45PM

I thought Matthew Ridgeway replaced MacArthur, not Mark Clark.

Skip| 6.25.10 @ 3:47PM

Love the article and the analysis Mr. Lord, but I must quibble with your take on Mark Clark. His uncanny ability, during his command of Allied Forces in Italy, to make the absolute worst decisions at the worst possible moments with the greatest loss of American lives, is legendary. Clark succeeded in (eventually) ousting the Nazis from Italy only when the long-unused 10th Mountain Division was deployed to clear Huns from the Gothic Line north. That the 10th crossed the Po River first was no coincidence. Veterans of the Italian Campaign will proudly tell you that they defeated the Nazis despite having Mark Clark as their Commander.
To your point re: the current decisive actions of our ass-kicker-in-chief and the perception amongst the troops in the field; you nailed it.

Larry| 6.25.10 @ 6:12PM

Well, count me, as always, in the camp that demands we seek "victory" instead of appeasement against the Islamic radical elements of the world. The only problems are: (a) what do we mean by "victory"; and (b) how exactly do we accomplish it without blowing up the whole planet in the process. The Cold War had its rabbit trails and dead ends. Vietnam is just one example, as is Korea (it was Eisenhower who actually ended the Korean War). So that is always the number one question.

We have already made one strategic error in this newest conflict by focusing on Iraq and getting bogged down in Afghanistan; meanwhile, Iran and Syria reek havoc elsewhere in the Middle East through their lackey Hezbollah. Now, I hear Hezbollah is developing relationships with the drug cartels in Mexico. Hmm. Are we so focused on Afghanistan that we don't see who and what is coming in the back door?

Larry| 6.25.10 @ 6:13PM

Sorry - I meant "wreak havoc." Bad spelling.

Bobby| 6.25.10 @ 7:33PM

Truman: Dope Benedict Arnold the Second.

Pete Godbey| 6.25.10 @ 10:14PM

General McChrystal is a renown leader and diplomat, but his comments were inconsistent with his pass superlative performance. This has given the military haters in congress, white house and state department fodder to say I told you so the military is not behind our national resolve to win at war, “It is their fault, after all they get paid a lot to die for our country and the best medical care”. In fact there is a lot of blame to pass around. General MAC gave our opponents political advantage by speaking truths. By law he could have face a courts-marshal. The election in November 2010 is to, too important to blow over a foul mouthed general, Republican congressman with a loose zipper or tea party anger. The national press is waiting with space on the front page to print a comment is worth activating liberal voters and discouraging moderates and conservative to remain home on election day. That happened in November 2008 and look at the result!

Rod Davis | 6.26.10 @ 12:16AM

If General McChrystal spoke the truth regarding the people he disparaged... "Joe Biden", did you say bite me, then I, and the millions of other service retirees must have been idiots for not doing the same thing to the Presidents in office while we were in service.

Make no mistake, Obama wouldn't have made the fool mistake of going to war in Iraq when he could have wrapped up an already defeated Taliban in Afghanistan. I was so darn mad that two war fronts were being opened simultaneously that I could have screamed and have been heard from my house in Maryland all the way to the White House in D.C. What was worse - he lied to do it. Everyone of us that had handled nuclear weapons during our tour of service knew that there were no WMDs in Iraq and so did Bush and Cheney; yet, they chose to drive this country to ruin for personal gain and profit. You can't contumaciously condone that and still call yourself a lover of this country.

The Republican Party has demonstrated over the pass eight years just what a responsible group of leaders should not have done. President Bush spent more money in eight years than any other President in the history of this great country, but the conservatives within this country don't see where that is a bad thing.

Bush started and then left for his successor two wars, a national deficit that appears to have ripped the breathe out of our economy for some time to come, and misused the very institution that he refused to complement with his reluctance to serve during the Viet Nam War.

Your Party wants to give BP free rein to dump the responsibility for paying for an oil spill that should never have happened had the moratorium on offshore drilling that Bush's Father put in place remained in place. Bush lifted the moratorium with disastrous results just like everything else that he tinkered with during his eight years of corruptive destruction.

May God have mercy on us and this country if another conservative/Republican ever gets the type of control of this country as we have seen in the previous decade!

Gary| 6.25.10 @ 11:03PM

When I read the MacArthur biography "American Caeser" about 20 years ago I came to the conclusion that MacArthur was, frankly, nuts. I came to the same conclusion about McChrystal about 2/3's of the way through the Rolling Stone story. Neither had any grasp of the paramount need of the military to be and to be seen to be fully subject to the elected civilian authority of the President at all times. Their own egos and lack of judgement did them in. Read the Rolling Stone story and tell me that you want that kind of behaviour from your top generals.It can't be done with a straight face.

Nick| 6.26.10 @ 4:12PM

Gary,

I wan't that kind of behavior from my top generals.

........................Still have a straight face!

Robster| 6.26.10 @ 10:29AM

To our own peril we forget the main thing that the only reason to be involved in an armed conflict aka war of any kind is to WIN. Otherwise, don't even go there. Our buffoons, in either the Obama Administration or our neutered Congress, have forgotten altogether what victory actually means. We haven't a snowball's chance in hell of victory in Afghanistan or anywhere else for that matter when we are not there to win in the first place. And our policymakers either know it and approve of the countless number of American warrior deaths, or have forgotten that there is only one objective in war; total, absolute crushing dfefeat of the enemy, just like in WWII in both theaters. But with an imposter for a President, who is neither willing to define our real enemies as enemies, using whatever words fitting to describe them, (which he won't use either) and who cannot possibly grasp the idea of an America as victor, we're doomed to failure. Our policymakers are to blame, not our Soldiers nor their leaders. We will not win because our policy is not designed to give us victory. It is however designed to just not let the other guys, our enemies, win. Ironically, that is just the strategy that will give them victory. We will leave , they'll still be there, and after a short time, we'll fight them again. Just look at Iraq since Desert Storm. Bush # 1 and Colin Powell's failure to achieve complete and utter defeat of Saddam Hussein the first time resulted in Operations Iraqi Freedom 1 through what, 6? MacArthur/Truman all over again, and forever will it be until our national leaders decide to win, totally and unmistakably, meaning, our enemies will never rise to fight us again. Goodnight, America if it doesn't change soon! I just hope that everyone realizes that we're still fighting the Chinese, Russians, and Iranians, et al all over the place. And we just might be for a very long time.

Gary| 6.26.10 @ 3:24PM

You wouldn't know it from Robsters letter but George W. Bush/Dick Cheney lead the US into war in both Afghanistan and Iraq and had conduct of those wars for about 7 years before handing that mess and the economic chaos of 2005 to 2008 to Obama. Those are the FACTS!

Tenn Slim| 6.26.10 @ 5:46PM

"The message?

That the American military thinks the Obama team is not up to the job of defeating Al Qaeda and winning a war which it is even terrified of calling by name. That those on the front line in a life-and-death struggle with a serious enemy think the President a wimp, the Vice President a blowhard, the national security adviser a "clown," Ambassador Richard Holbrooke a man consumed by the need for relevance, and that the French act like…well…the French.
Amen and Good Nite
Semper Fi
End
WE WILL PREVAIL

Margie| 6.26.10 @ 6:39PM

A hearty Amen to your truthful post, Tenn Slim,

The Army Aviator| 6.27.10 @ 7:46AM

I don't know anyone in Afghanistan who thinks that Obama and his crowd of Chicago Thugs has the cajones to actually win this war! The "Rules of Engagement" we are compelled to adhere to, in the prosectution of the war is a complete farce. The "rules" set forth by Obama, Hollbrooke and other Liberal Socialist dweebs, are not in anywya designed for US to win. They are designed for the Taliban to win and fill body bags with US soldiers. Obama has NO CONCEPT of what he's doing, never did. Pray for us.

Gary| 6.27.10 @ 11:34AM

And Bush/Cheney knew what the were doing!!! Come on! Grab a clue!

Harry Lewis | 6.27.10 @ 2:40PM

Your historical analogy is seriously flawed. Obama is no Truman, and McCrystal, no MacArthur. Truman's first conflict with Stalin came only a few months after the end of the Second World War, when the Soviets sent a tank army (of U.S.-made tanks, no less!) to occupy northern Iran. Truman threatened to nuke the Russians if they didn't pull out. (The U.S. had a nuclear weapons monopoly at the time). Stalin backed down.

Although a liberal on domestic policy, Truman was a Democratic hawk on foreign policy and the military. Throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, U.S. Democrats were long known as the "war party"-- they started virtually every war in which the U.S. was engaged after Andrew Jackson's presidency, including the Civil War. By contrast, Obama has never been a foreign policy or military hawk.

The rift between Truman and MacArthur involved a serious matter of war strategy-- whether or not to invade Communist China after China intervened in the Korean War. MacArthur espoused such a strategy, publicly undercutting Truman. The Obama-McCrystal dustup was over McCrystal's intemperate remarks, together with members of his staff, about Obama and his White house team, made to a reporter.

There is no real historical comparison between the two situations, except that the principle of civilian control of the military was vindicated.

silence doogood| 6.27.10 @ 7:04PM

Obama's goal is the overthrow of the US Government, the Constitution and the imposition of a murderous, totalitarian regime.

duck| 6.28.10 @ 2:50PM

Actually, the Obama government has declared that United States citizens are the enemy, not Islamic extremists or anyone else.

Below is the list in Obama's rehash of the Homeland Security.....

Snip===============================

The Department of Homeland Security released an "extremism" report that warned local law enforcement officers nationwide to watch out for "potential terrorists" including those who:

* Oppose abortion

* Oppose same-sex marriage

* Oppose restrictions on firearms

* Oppose lax immigration laws

* Oppose the policies of President Obama regarding immigration,
citizenship, and the expansion of social programs

* Oppose continuation of free trade agreements

* Are suspect of foreign regimes

* Fear Communist regimes

* Oppose a "one world" government

* Bemoan the decline of U.S. stature in the world

* Are upset with loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs to
China and India, and more

Gary| 6.29.10 @ 8:49PM

I don't think so buddy. This is the "big Lie" technique articulated by Herr Goebells in 1928. Why are the extreme right soooo Stupid?????

duck| 7.2.10 @ 12:01AM

Actually, I got the list from the left wing Huffington post site. I just looked and they have taken it down.. but, they do have another story on how everyone should be on the lookout for those evil right wing conservatives,,,,

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....86834.html

Try a search for "
Your request is being processed...

Homeland Security Report Warns Of Rising Right-Wing Extremism" and you will find that just about every news outlet and blogger has some story about the evil right and their terrorist tactics plus how the government is handling this dire situation.....

Why is the extreme left so000 gullible ????

oldpapjoe| 7.4.10 @ 10:47AM

MacArthur's ego got in the way of his strategic view, which was to defeat Communism by going on the offensive, starting in Korea. He knew that Containment was ultimately unworkable and impracticable (it was a defensive posture that eventually lead us to "defending" South Vietnam). The same idiots who brought us Containment (Democrats) are now trying to sell us on not naming our enemy which is radical Islam--it is not "extremism" (and they thought the phrase Global War on Terror was stupid!). Until we publicly say that radical Islam is our enemy and is unacceptable, we will get no where. At its heart, radical Islam can be linked to Wahhabism, right in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan and Pakistan. This particular branch of Islam is our enemy plane and simple. Why? Because radical Muslims have told us over and over and over again. From the bombings in Kandahar to 9-11. We just don't want to listen.