-
Pushing Israel to War
February 6, 2012 | 381 comments
-
Obama's Helter-Skelter Strategy
January 30, 2012 | 124 comments
-
SOTU Sitrep
January 23, 2012 | 97 comments
-
Bane Capital and the GOP's Dark Night
January 16, 2012 | 96 comments
-
Obama Scissorhands
January 12, 2012 | 140 comments
Loose Canons
McChrystal Lite Becomes Petraeus
President Obama did what he had to do -- except clarify the strategy or make victory more likely in Afghanistan.
President Obama did what he had to do in relieving Gen. Stanley McChrystal of command yesterday. But despite the appointment of Gen. David H. Petraeus to succeed McChrystal, Obama did nothing to clarify the strategy or make victory more likely in Afghanistan.
Obama had to fire McChrystal because the general was a repeat offender. Last October, when Obama was deliberating McChrystal's request for a troop surge into Afghanistan, McChrystal made an unusual speech to the IISS think tank in London, publicly -- though not directly -- pressuring the president to accept his recommendations.
As a result of that speech, Obama ordered McChrystal to join him on Air Force One, where he chewed the general out. After the Rolling Stone article was leaked, Obama had to either fire McChrystal or abdicate his control over the Afghanistan conflict.
Announcing that he would replace McChrystal with Petraeus, Obama insisted that this was a change in personnel not policy. And taking a line from the Beatles, he called on his national security team to come together. He said he welcomed debate on his team but wouldn't tolerate division among them. But he will tolerate -- even encourage -- vagueness in what the goal in Afghanistan is.
Obama himself is entirely vague. In his announcement of McChrystal's relief, he said, "We have a clear goal. We are going to break the Taliban's momentum. We are going to build Afghan capacity. We are going to relentlessly apply pressure on Al Qaeda and its leadership, strengthening the ability of both Afghanistan and Pakistan to do the same."
Gen. Petraeus, in his congressional testimony last week, said that Obama's plan to begin withdrawing troops from Afghanistan in July of next year was "etched in stone" but seemed to contradict himself in saying that the rate of withdrawal would be dependent on "conditions on the ground."
Petraeus was, along with McChrystal, the architect of Obama's nation-building plan. And, like McChrystal, he was uncharacteristically vocal last year in pushing Obama into it. Last September -- while Obama was pondering McChrystal's recommendation -- Petraeus said that our goals in Afghanistan will have to be changed -- meaning adjusted downward -- if the president rejected the strategy revisions and increased resources he and McChrystal said were needed.
But after that, Obama decided on a "McChrystal lite" strategy, granting the general 30,000 more troops, less than the 40-60,000 he'd asked for. And Obama imposed the timeline for withdrawal. Now, in his speech yesterday, Obama seems to have -- as Petraeus predicted -- adjusted our goals downward.
The goals Obama set for Afghanistan -- like the jobs "created or saved" by the Obama "stimulus" last year -- are meaningless. They are political, and not susceptible of objective measurement. How can you "break the Taliban's momentum" in a way that they cannot recover it in a day, a month, or a year? You can't, because the Taliban -- as McChrystal's April report on the war said -- are supported by Iran and other Islamic nations. What we "break" today, they repair tonight like the North Vietnamese did a generation ago.
Obama has put Petraeus in an impossible position. As Sen. Christopher Bond (R-Mo) said yesterday, "General Petraeus is an outstanding military leader, but even he can't win in Afghanistan if the President continues to insist on an arbitrary withdrawal date -- a fact our enemies are counting on and our allies fear."
Though Petraeus has been involved with the Afghanistan strategy from the outset, it was McChrystal who had the relationship with Afghan President Hamid Karzai and the direct command of daily operations for the counterinsurgency. Even Petraeus will have to take some period of time to get up to speed, making the "etched in stone" deadline of July 2011 impossible to meet.
And Obama didn't solve the problems that drove McChrystal to distraction. Special envoy Richard Holbrooke will still flit in and out, as will Amb. Karl Eikenberry. Both reportedly have awful relationships with Karzai and complicate the issues that confound the inconstant operation of NATO troops in Afghanistan. (Remember that McChrystal's staff, in the Rolling Stone piece, had some pointed comments about the ISAF force, saying the acronym stands for "I Suck at Fighting" and "In Sandals and Flip-flops.")
Petraeus takes over at a time when the fight isn't going our way. The big operation in Marjah was -- as McChrystal characterized it -- "a bleeding ulcer," and the even larger operation to drive the Taliban out of Kandahar city was delayed by McChrystal until this fall to allow time to fix what's going wrong in Marjah.
At the same time, all of our allies -- including Karzai -- may be losing faith in the fight. Less than two weeks ago, the New York Times reported that Amrullah Saleh, now former chief of Afghani intelligence, said that Karzai had lost faith in America's and NATO's ability to prevail over the Taliban. Dutch troops are withdrawing this summer and others will follow. New British PM David Cameron has said that British troops won't remain there a day longer than necessary. That's politically necessary, not militarily.
Obama plans a major review of the Afghanistan effort in December. That, unofficially, is Petraeus's deadline to show what McChrystal once called "irreversible momentum" toward success in Afghanistan. But the only irreversible thing in war is time. And time is very short for Gen. Petraeus.
It's entirely likely that six months from now President Obama will declare that the Taliban's momentum has been broken, and that the abilities to resist terrorism of the Afghan and Pakistani governments have been strengthened. On that basis, he may declare that the troop withdrawal from Afghanistan can be accelerated.
The only question remaining then will be whether David Petraeus will have the strength of character to resign rather than become a party to such a lie. I've met Petraeus many times. I believe he's a better man than that.
About the Author
Jed Babbin served as a Deputy Undersecretary of Defense under George H.W. Bush. He is the author of several bestselling books including Inside the Asylum and In the Words of Our Enemies.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (65) | Leave a comment
Leave a Comment
More Articles by Jed Babbin
More Articles From Loose Canons
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/06/24/mcchrystal-lite-becomes-petrae
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Progressive Derangements
- Religion Is Not the Enemy
- Bowling Alone
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
drudge ette obama| 6.24.10 @ 6:41AM
Put McChrystal in charge of the Gulf Spill.
L. Ross| 6.24.10 @ 9:40AM
Best Idea Ever!
George S| 6.24.10 @ 11:14AM
How does this benefit Obama?
drudge ette obama| 6.24.10 @ 6:43AM
Petraeus accepted because of the troops. That's it. He won't be screwed with by Obama this time around. Obama can't survive another loss of a manly man. He can shed 1,000 Rahm Emanuels without a sweat, though.
C Le May| 6.24.10 @ 6:44AM
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!
Ryan| 6.24.10 @ 7:59AM
Remarkably short-sighted. Those men don't fight for a President.
They fight for US.
L. Ross| 6.24.10 @ 9:42AM
While Curtis Le May is indeed spinning like a turbine in his grave over what has happened to the military, I don't think he would approve of your suggestion.
Fred Friendly| 6.25.10 @ 10:51AM
You have a valid point there. Why risk your life for a fraud of a president and his venal policies?
maverick muse| 6.24.10 @ 7:58AM
I won't accept the rationale of Obama apologists.
Obama has been passively aggressively screwing McChrystal all along. Obama won't communicate effectively with his general, and won't take calls from his general. So the CinC is to blame for making his own Afghan mess. As far as the sarcastic remarks published, the unnamed source "quotes" amount to the bias of the Rolling Stoned reporter. And Obama's immediate public outrageous tantrum proved the critical truth. Obama ordered the report and then NEVER gave McChrystal the necessities stipulated therein.
Doubling down now is too little too late from TARDY Obama, 18 months into his Afghan war. McChrystal needed 40,000 troops 18 months ago in order to be able to turn back the Taliban within 12 months that expired 6 months ago. So of course, Obama fires McChrystal in order to allow Obama a fresh start, as if Americans have no memory of his immature and irresponsible abuses towards our military to date.
RCV| 6.24.10 @ 11:34AM
We needed those extra troops in Afghanistan when GWB was President, but instead he invaded Iraq in a fit of pique because Sadaam had tried to assassinate his Dad. We're still paying for his cowboyism in lost lives and treasure, and Israel is paying because of the strengthened Iran that now dominates the region.
LiveFreeOrDie| 6.24.10 @ 12:51PM
When was the call for troops to Afghanistan before the invasion of Iraq? Your time-line is a bit skewed. Bush Bush Bush...your record is broken RCV please change it.
RCV| 6.24.10 @ 2:37PM
Are you kidding? Here's James Fallows in The Atlantic, October 2004, one of a chorus of voices:
"Because of that shift, the United States succeeded in removing Saddam Hussein, but at this cost: The first front in the war on terror, Afghanistan, was left to fester, as attention and money were drained toward Iraq. This in turn left more havens in Afghanistan in which terrorist groups could reconstitute themselves; a resurgent opium-poppy economy to finance them; and more of the disorder and brutality the United States had hoped to eliminate. Whether or not the strong international alliance that began the assault on the Taliban might have brought real order to Afghanistan is impossible to say. It never had the chance, because America's premature withdrawal soon fractured the alliance and curtailed postwar reconstruction. Indeed, the campaign in Afghanistan was warped and limited from the start, by a pre-existing desire to save troops for Iraq."
Alan F| 6.24.10 @ 7:33PM
Not THE James Fallows who wrote speeches for Jimmy Carter? The guy whose response to your current incarnation of POTUS making the most amateurish speech I've ever witnessed from someone with millions invested in PR overkill was:
"Thus my untutored reaction from the other side of the world is: Sigh."
Certainly not that journo.
RCV| 6.24.10 @ 10:52PM
But every single word in that article is absolutely spot-on, which is why you resorted to an ad hominem attack instead of a logical argument.
Tinmouth| 6.24.10 @ 11:13PM
Afganistan is a far more difficult place to fight than is Iraq; but Iraq was a far more dangerous player in the Middle East than Afganistan ever will be. Bush was right.
LiveFreeOrDie| 6.25.10 @ 2:23PM
I must concede that we could have used troops in Afghanistan. The rest of your original post was speculation and drivel (cowboyism, fit of pique, assassinate daddy, etc)
wholesale| 9.8.11 @ 10:26PM
Yes, I agree with you.
xk3y
martin j smith| 6.24.10 @ 7:59AM
My view: McCrystal wanted out. I strongly suspect he cannot stand Obama ( both personally and as commander in chief ) and so he made it. Could he have been more direct about it--I don't know. Could he have said: I am giving president Obama notice of my resignation because I disagree with his war policies ? He would not have looked cool. either. Was this planned and premeitated ? Yoour guess is as good as any. But, I cannot help but think that allowing a Rolling Stone " reporter" shoot the bull with those in the know cannot be just an accident or a mistake. There are no coincidences.. Thus, indeed from Obama's point of view as commander in chief he had to go. But As I say McCrystal wanted to go with much relief yet despair as well.
LiveFreeOrDie| 6.24.10 @ 12:55PM
"My view: McCrystal wanted out."
This was my first thought. Today's top brass don't get where they are by making huge PR blunders. They gain and maintain their positions by playing ball and (unfortunately) watching their political P's and Q's. This was too big of a 'mistake' for me to believe it was an accident.
BD57| 6.24.10 @ 4:55PM
I don't know how getting cashiered for insubordination looks "better" than simply resigning. There's been too much information coming from conservative sources which suggests McCrystal's not the most savvy PR guy in the world.
The "Devil's Advocate" case is this - even if the boss is a PR dunce, how does he not have people working for him who are smarter than that?
Whoever sold him on the idea that letting someone from "Rolling Stone" follow him around, etc. was a good idea - - - well, I don't want that person giving any of our military leadership any more advice.
LiveFreeOrDie| 6.25.10 @ 2:31PM
"There's been too much information coming from conservative sources which suggests McCrystal's not the most savvy PR guy in the world. "
There's no right or wrong here only speculation. I disagree entirely with those "sources." You don't pick up your first star without being PR savvy let alone your 2nd, 3rd etc.
carnot| 6.24.10 @ 1:29PM
that is one theory floating around: suicide bombing.
maverick muse| 6.24.10 @ 8:04AM
Wimpy C le May is an absolute ingrate. No doubt le May voted for Obama, against the elder statesman and old vet McCain.
Our troops protect our collective American ass, regardless of the occupant in the Oval Office. It's the Constitution and families and our country that inspire our finest youth to participate in the rigorous military life. Whereas, Presidents come and go during a military career.
L. Ross| 6.24.10 @ 10:32AM
While I agree with you about C Le May, I have to disagree with you regarding McCain. While I agree that he would be better at prosecuting the war in Afghanistan than BHO, I feel he was the weakest of the Republican candidates. He has relied on his years of suffering as a POW to mask his personal shortcomings as a pilot (personally responsible for 3 navy jets destroyed), as a RINO, as a temperamental whack job, crippled wife abandoning failure as a GOP candidate.
Dustoff| 6.24.10 @ 1:03PM
L.Ross
Look I'm no McCain fan, but read up on the jets he crashed. It's not quite what you think.
PS. I fly too.
L. Ross| 6.24.10 @ 4:01PM
I appreciate what you're saying, I have read up on his accidents. I didn't include the Forrestall (not his fault), or when he got shot down (not his fault). However, he splashed one during flight training, splashed another after running into power lines over Spain, and a third due to a flameout after a football game flyby. For most pilots, item number 2 (powerlines over Spain) would be the end of their flying and military careers.
Becky| 6.24.10 @ 8:16AM
Eikenberry and Holbrooke do not want Karzi in power. That is why Karzi doesn't work well them. Don't know if/how that changes if they don't.
Obama is suffering two Katrinas this spring: the oil spill and the general spill. Like Katrina revealed a poorly operating LA/NO, these two are revealing where Obama is weak: as a real crisis manager, and a military leader. I am beginning to think he is lazy at his job and cannot afford it because of the personnel he has surrounded himself with.
A historian once wrote that our wars don't go well until the president takes command; not only did Lincoln fire McClellan (he said if McClellan wasn't going to use the Army, he would like to borrow them), he read up on military history/strategy, and made frequent visits to the field and telegraph office. Considering the technology at the time, he was way ahead of Obama in understanding his war, and generals. For the last year and one half I almost forgot we were fighting a war overseas. Press coverage seems minimal and the president seems to only talk about what interests him: healthcare and cap and trade. Wonder what piece of legislation he's going to need to handle this crisis? Is Patreaus a defacto war czar?
maverick muse| 6.24.10 @ 8:58AM
Yes. But perhaps by maintaining the mute on Afghan fiasco publicity, Obama won't distract Congress from his Cap and Trade, Immigration comprehensive amnesty legislative agendas.
maverick muse| 6.24.10 @ 9:16AM
Obama would never read up on military history/strategy or make frequent personal visits to the Afghan battlefields.
Still, it's eerie comparing Obama with Lincoln, how they measured against each other.
Obama already overuses the modern equivalent of the telegraph, with his solo overexposure in the MSM. Lincoln's telegraphed messaging from the battlefields would also have been one way texting. Yet Obama fails to regularly communicate directly with the MSM in press conferences, afraid of ideological exposure through a real question. During Lincoln's day, however, the citizenry as visitor guests barged into the White House during business hours to have their say.
Like Lincoln, Obama over extends executive privilege with a readiness to negate the Constitution and go so far as to use the military against US citizens.
Recognize the Coast Guard interference against Louisianans battling the oil gusher. Not satisfied halting law enforcement in America, Obama maliciously interferes with what the Coast Guard, and the Border Patrol legally and regularly would accomplish to protect and aid us.
Given internal conflicts, both Lincoln and Obama managed to mute criticism from the press. Lincoln shut down and burnt critical news organizations. Obama, who demands unanimity with his own ONE VOICE, rather than closing the press, is attempting to buy the press (with OUR taxes) to seal the deal as his Marxist mouthpiece (as if the MSM isn't already).
Obama to declare MARTIAL LAW as Lincoln did will have gone too far, but the citizenry would have waited too long to demand his impeachment for that to transpire. We yet exist in the wake of the Clintons' murder victims burnt by federal authorities outside Waco, TX at Mount Carmel without a trial and without evidence. Testing public opinion waters to find how far beyond the limit he can go "because he could [Clinton]", Obama has begun his own long arm constitutional abuses against "Christian militias" targeting conservatives and veterans for DHS surveillance, relying on the DHS to fabricate evidence for prosecution.
Alan F.| 6.24.10 @ 7:38PM
Mr Obama's only point of comparison to your historical hero President Abraham Lincoln is in owing a black hat also. Anything past that is American Idol PR leakage.
maverick muse| 6.24.10 @ 8:22AM
Double down on the same plan, WHICH same plan? The McChrystal Report? No. Obama's scheduled pull-out of troops; most likely. What Obama says rarely if ever confirms what Obama does.
Petraeus has no more reason to expect Obama's support than McChrystal had. Sure, Obama will have Petraeus report to Congress annually. So what does that have to do with what the Oval Office is directing behind closed doors calling Soros, for instance.
I never understood the expectations from the Oval Office for American soldiers sent into a guerrilla war to win the hearts and minds of our former Taliban allies, Islamic Jihadists in tribal Afghanistan. Considering the corruption in Washington, our military could well be fighting Soros' [global Marxist elitist'] war propagandized as America's war given American rationale, like fighting over there so we don't have to fight here (note well no DHS or US Military fight to destroy the Mexican drug terrorists' fortresses on US hilltops overlooking Tucson and Douglas, Arizona). Vast deposits of rare gems, minerals and oil accompanied with poppies pull with more politico-economic power than this potus recognizes being intrinsically vested within the American citizenry who still cling bitterly to the US Constitution, Obama's bane.
Ken (Old Texican)| 6.24.10 @ 8:30AM
Jed,
If you see General Petraeus, please ask him for me to husband our troops. We are most certainly going to need them once this nincompoop gets de-elected.
In the meantime, the wimps in the Whitehouse will simply throw them away.
JP| 6.24.10 @ 8:59AM
The big difference between the Iraqi Surge of '07 and the "surge" of 2010 is the occupant in the Oval Office. Smarting from stunning mid term defeats in 2006, and with a rapidly deterioating situation in Iraq, Bush finally took charge. He orderd an "independent review" of the Iraq War (whom reccomendations he ignored); Bush fired Rumsfeld and installed Gates. Bush's orders were clear : defeat Al Qaida and other insurgents; support the locally elected government, and do it now. Bush promised Gates that he would give him all the political support he needed. Finally, Bush fired General Casey, and Gates appointed Pretraeous. Bush gave Gates and Pretaeous thier marching orders.
In what turned out to be one of the most rapid operations in recent memory. Pretraeous executed an almost flawless counterinsurgency operations. He got a big assist from Amb Crocker.
In contrast, Obama has been all over the place. In his rare public statements, he speaks like a Neocon. But his actions (or lack of attention), and politcal appointees tell a different story. Unlike Bush, he allowed his subordinates to frame the political endgame. This has always been a touchy subject, as most Presidents do not have the expertise to run and manage military operations. A President must not give his military missions they are unable to complete. But just the same, it is up to a President to call the shots. Remember, back in Sept 2001 General Franks told Rumsfeld it would be July 2002 before an Afghan invasion force would be ready. Bush to his credit demanded that the DOD move immediately. Bush refused to accept Frank's reccomendations. Rumsfeld circumvented CENTCOM and went with the Special Forces Command instead. As it turned out, CENTCOM did come up with 5-6 divisions, but only after the Special Forces operators took control. Obama appears to lack that kind of determination. Both in 2001 and 2007, Bush showed that he could function as a forcefull CIC. It remains to be seen if Obama has this same capability.
The chickens have come home to roost. President Obama is obviously in way over his head. Yes, he can give a good speech on occaison. Yes, on occasion he can act Presidential. But, he lacks both the political and executive skills the job demands.
General Petraeous cannot overcome these deficiencies. And Obama can no longer outsource this war to others.
maverick muse| 6.24.10 @ 9:11AM
Excellent thoughts.
"Bush promised Gates that he would give him all the political support he needed."
Lest we forget, Bush gave Rumsfeld all his political support as well.
"Rumsfeld circumvented CENTCOM and went with the Special Forces Command instead. As it turned out, CENTCOM did come up with 5-6 divisions, but only after the Special Forces operators took control."
Special Forces were then under McChrystal's command.
Obama has completely screwed everyone with his abusively stubborn ignorance and vanity. One step in place, doubling down 6 steps backwards.
Au Contraire| 6.24.10 @ 9:33AM
The Afghan war strategy is a legacy inherited from the Bush administration and crafted by the COINistas in the Army like Petraeus and McChrystal. Read the Rolling Stone article all the way through. The final 3-4 pages lays out why troops on the ground can't stand McChrystal or any of these theoretical generals crafting rules of engagement that handcuff soldiers doing the "fighting."
Thanks to the neocons, we are not even in a real, winnable war. We're stuck in a nation-building quagmire. Obama's big mistake was not getting the hell out of that shithole as soon as he entered office. I'm sure that fool Hillary "Golda Mier" Rodham had something to do with that decision.
JP| 6.24.10 @ 11:50AM
Au Contraire,
The military strategy came from Obama and his inner circle of DOD advisors. McChrystal handed the President his own formal policy letter back in August, which the President rejected. It Obama 3 months to put together his own strategic policies, which he signed and handed to McCrhystal in December -this included the July 2011 withdrawl date. The President owns the policy and the results. You seem blissfully unaware of the simple fact that the war really began to go wrong in late 2008. We've suffered more casulties in Afghanistan in 18 months than we did in the previous 4 years combined.
Like most Dems, you can't seem to get out of the campaign mode and accept the fact that it is Obama that is President, not Bush.
Zbigniew Mazurak| 6.24.10 @ 1:48PM
I don't like the Dems any more than you do, but Au Contraire is right. To your entire post, I'd say, AU CONTRAIRE!
The military strategy under which the US military is operating in Afghanistan was personally authored by Petraeus, not by Obama or his advisors. It was personally written by Petraeus and dubbed the Counterinsurgency Strategy (AKA the COIN Strategy).
This Petraueusian strategy, wholly endorsed by McChrystal and proposed by him to Obama, entails appeasing the local population and nation-building ops rather than fighting. It's a vain nation-building strategy.
And if you had actually READ the RS article, you'd have known that the troopers deployed in Af. hate McChrystal because of the ridiculous Johnsonian restrictions he imposed on them (e.g. the ban on night raids, home searches unsupervised by the ANP, and air attacks). His Johnsonian restrictions are guarantees for an American defeat.
Nick| 6.25.10 @ 8:17PM
Mr. Mazurak,
Bzzzzzzzzz! Wrong!
Generals Petraeus and McChrystal wanted 60,000 troops. President Dither DITHERED (hence the name) for 6 months, and only gave them half the troops they wanted.
Also, it is the JAG corps that is tying the hands of the troops with inane rules of engagement. The same thing happened under President Bush in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Unless, President Dither is ordering the ROE like LBJ did. Just what we need, a hybrid of Carter and Johnson. We're dooooooomed!
ZM| 6.27.10 @ 4:05AM
Nick, thank you for proving that you don't know what you're talking about.
Firstly, Petraeus and McChrystal did not request 60,000 troopers. They requested 20,000 soldiers as a minimum, 40,000 men as the middle option (which McChrystal said was his PREFERRED option), and 60,000 men as the "high-end" option (although McChrystal made it clear that he didn't believe he needed that many troopers). Obama gave him 30,000 soldiers and European countries pledged another 10,000 men.
The truth is that McChrystal did not need a single additional trooper. By September 2009, he ALREADY had enough soldiers to win the war (100,000 men from all NATO countries combined). The truth is that McChrystal is an idiot, and he demanded additional 40,000 troopers to defeat a band of primitive Taleban militants. If he couldn't defeat them with 100,000 men, he wouldn't have beat them with 140,000 men. The Russians deployed 150,000 soldiers to Afghanistan, and guess what? They were decisively defeated. No amount of troops and no surge will determine the winner of this war.
As for the restrictive Rules of Engagement (ROE), they were written and imposed on American troopers PERSONALLY by McChrystal, not by JAG or Obama. It is McChrystal who wrote and instituted these rules, and he even met with his soldiers several times to try to explain these ridiculous Johnsonian ROE - to no avail, because the men who served under him rejected his pretexts and his fantasies about "winning the hearts and minds of the Afghan population".
You're an ignorant commenter biased in favor of Petraeus and McChrystal. According to your fantasy, these 2 guys can do nothing wrong, and everything bad is the fault of someone else. Sure, Obama is one of the worst Presidents America has ever had, and YES, he is the second incarnation of Dhimmi Carter, but that doesn't change the fact (documented by the RS) that it was McChrystal who wrote and instituted these ROE.
carnot| 6.24.10 @ 1:32PM
yes indeed. read the article. and, in the end, who do you think ultimately dicitates ROE?
BD57| 6.24.10 @ 5:06PM
"Inherited from the Bush Administration ..."
Bullcrap. Obama's been president since 1/20/09. He's no victim and "everyone else" isn't to blame - not the Bush Administration, not the "neocons", not the "Coinistas."
From what I've read, I'm no fan of McCrystal's rules of engagement either - even if I understand what motivates them, they seem to put our troops at more risk than ought to be necessary to do the job.
THE issue, though, isn't rules of engagement or Karzai's government - it's Iran & Pakistan.
The Iranian government and the Pakistani ISI both have a significant interest in America suffering defeat in Afghanistan.
Our strategy amounts to bailing water out of a bathtub while we leave the faucet on full blast - eventually the faucet wins.
If we want to win, we have to shut off the d*** water.
BD57| 6.24.10 @ 5:06PM
"Inherited from the Bush Administration ..."
Bullcrap. Obama's been president since 1/20/09. He's no victim and "everyone else" isn't to blame - not the Bush Administration, not the "neocons", not the "Coinistas."
From what I've read, I'm no fan of McCrystal's rules of engagement either - even if I understand what motivates them, they seem to put our troops at more risk than ought to be necessary to do the job.
THE issue, though, isn't rules of engagement or Karzai's government - it's Iran & Pakistan.
The Iranian government and the Pakistani ISI both have a significant interest in America suffering defeat in Afghanistan.
Our strategy amounts to bailing water out of a bathtub while we leave the faucet on full blast - eventually the faucet wins.
If we want to win, we have to shut off the d*** water.
Occam's Tool| 6.24.10 @ 7:56PM
Au Contraire,
Congratulations on your Soccer team doing so well!
Rodham Clinton is a PLO hugging imbecile who has been (probably accurately) labelled an antisemite by no less an authority than Jackie Mason. How does she get the nickname "Golda Meir ?" (Illiteracy undermines arguments.)
Christopher Holland| 6.24.10 @ 8:07PM
What is 'a real, winnable war'? There is no such animal - everybody who ever lost a war thought it was winnable, otherwise they would have stayed out of it in the first place.
It is ridiculous blaming Bush, or the man in the moon for this horrible mess. Obama is the President, he volunteered for the job, he told everybody he was the smart guy from Harvard who knew everything - not like that stupid George Bush. The buck is on his desk whether he likes it or not - he doesn't, he is a coward who hates taking responsibility. If he can't win then he should get out, and if he won't do that and he stays where is, wasting time and lives on a lost cause, then he is a failure, doesn't deserve to be re-elected and probably won't be. Obama is an incompetent loser, he can't pull the skin off a soggy rice pudding.
buckeyeman| 6.24.10 @ 10:37AM
It's mildly amusing to see the fool in the Black House unravelling but sad to think our troops face danger with an ass-clown as "commander-in-chief". McChrystal deserved to be fired - for voting for Obama.
Grinding machine| 6.24.10 @ 9:12PM
As far as the sarcastic remarks published, the unnamed source "quotes" amount to the bias of the Rolling Stoned reporter. And Obama's immediate public outrageous tantrum proved the critical truth. Obama ordered the report and then NEVER gave McChrystal the necessities stipulated therein.
carnot| 6.24.10 @ 1:34PM
as one who served a full career (and by no means an Obama supporter): the Prez did the right thing in the immediate context. McC should have been fired.
Molly| 6.24.10 @ 2:49PM
IMO the reason for the firing should have been for McChrystal even letting Rolling Stone reporters anywhere near him.
ONTIME| 6.24.10 @ 3:38PM
McChrystal may have fallen on his own sword but I can assure you it is not fatal and when he stands again he will have the spear that is pointed at Barry's chest. That one year baloney is just like G.B.'s "Read my lips" Petraeus knows this and both of these generals are far smarter than Barry and his gang of thugs, time for them is running out and my fondest hope is that Barry's consistent obstinance will be his downfall before the end of this year...why wait until next summer?
Retired Coastie| 6.24.10 @ 4:54PM
Could McChrystal's interview (and subsequest resignation) been a deliberate strategy by him to get out of the no-win situation he found himself and his command in? First of all, military success is directly coorelated to level of political will the national command authorities have to win. He found himself in an under-resourced war. The troop level he asked for was cut by his commander in chief and the NATO allies (yes, I know - hardly allies) were reluctant warriors if not outright cowards at best. Second, the political chain of command appears to be interfering in the rules of engagement. All of us are hearing about the unreasonable handcuffs being placed on our troops (Vietnam anyone?) who try to close with the enemy and kill them. It's insane. Third, General McChrystal appears to have been stuck with a State Dept. team that resembles the Larry, Moe & Curly approach to diplomatic influence, representation and acumen (Hillary, Holbrooke & Eikenberry). Fourth, He was being undercut by the whitehouse staff. It was Jonathan Alter or another recent book author that printed excerpts that showed the whitehouse staff taking shots at McChrystal.
For more perspective...read Col. Summers book.
On Strategy: A Critical Analysis of the Vietnam War by Col. Harry G. Summers
Peter McGrath| 6.24.10 @ 5:30PM
Does anyone on this thread have a working memory? Back in 2007, during one of those intermittent days when he actually discharged his duty as a U.S. Senator, our current POTUS trashed Petraeus and the surge strategy. In so many words, the now CMC (Chief Moral Coward) told Petraeus to his face that the failure of his strategy in Iraq was a foregone conclusion.
Now look. Goof Ball has appointed the same guy, Petraeus, and adopted the same strategy, he so blithely denigrated a few short years ago.
Hey, 2007 was just political theatre, as he and the rest of his slimy Democrat cohorts decided to use the war for political advantage. The very concept was, and is, abhorrent, corrupt, and utterly demoralizing to our brave troops on the ground.
Now the shiftless poltroon is, incredibly, in charge of the whole enchilada and, whadda you know, this guy Petraeus ain't so bad after all.
"Hey, Davey Boy, you know I didn't really mean it back then - I was in campaign mode and carrying water for the Move-On syndicate. I promise we'll get along great now. Let's go kick Taliban A--!" So now sez our very own smiling Chief Wahoo.
Sickening. My heart goes out to Petraeus, who now must bite his tongue and take direction from this awful, reprehensible excuse for a POTUS, let alone a man. In any other context, the General would mop the floor with this useless tool.
Gr0w1er| 6.24.10 @ 7:41PM
Having to operate under the current Afghan ROE reminds me of a piece of dialogue uttered by John Terry's 1/LT Lockhart in"Full Metal Jacket": "...We've been served a sh#t sandwich and we're all gonna have take a bite...".
jstwndring| 6.24.10 @ 7:20PM
Yeah, I like how the Obama apologists here again, blame Bush, citing how this whole Afghanistan strategy belonged to Bush and his generals, including McChrystal. Well, last I checked, McChrystal was requesting 60,000 more troops which Obama, after months of delay, denied. You see, you can't have it both ways. You can't lament the lack of resources that the Afghan effort recieved under Bush, and then, in the same post, defend Barry's actions while he is refusing his own general's request for..................more resources.......wtf? Make up your mind.
Randy Handbag| 6.24.10 @ 9:27PM
The President did the right thing...and didn't I hear the President said something to the effect, "debate is fine, division is unacceptable."
Armond "Si" Simmons| 6.25.10 @ 12:49AM
Upon learning that one of Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal's aides had dissed Commander-in-Chief Barrack Obama in an upcoming Rolling Stone profile, many opined that, without question, someone was about to be replaced.
Well, it happened!
And then, many were relieved that Gen. David H. Petraeus would possibly become the replacement!
Sadly, many then learned that there would be no presidential impeachment and that Gen. Petraeus would be replacing Gen. McChrystal.
Nick| 6.25.10 @ 11:09AM
Mr. Simmons,
Ha-ha! Excellent!
carlos ortega| 6.25.10 @ 8:14AM
Very interesting. Cut to the chase, ? do we want to win the war ? if yes then put the boots on the ground and change the ROE. If no, then get our troops out of there and go home, the taliban are at least like the people there (who most likly hate and fear them) but they blend in. Another vietnam is not what we need, politicians stick their fingers into military plans and generally do not do well at it. There is a lot of documentation that germany would have won their war if hitler had left the generals run it, maybe nobama could read a little history. He seems weak because he IS weak.
Ken Roberts| 6.26.10 @ 10:18PM
I can't say what happened; only speculate which is what most are doing here today. Obama in my opinion is not interested in the war or any conflict, he has so much to do on the home from like sue states and go against the experts when it comes to stopping the oil leak . Obama would let the Taliban start a school up on the street in any large city , they could enlighten all of us how peaceful and caring they are . As far as war goes Obama has no experience and he has no one around him that understands the total horror that war is , they think it is something we do when we run out of anything to do to keep from getting bored . Folks it is a total shame that we have an administration that has no expertise in anything except organizing garbage cans within the community and forcing bills through that are illegal and unconstitutional. It is a shame that we lose people in Afgagnistan and for what? so some politician can sit at home in their easy chair with the air on and complain about how it is going. I remember a saying that Patton stated and it was placed on the wall of our barracks in 1962; "may the fires of hell forever burn on the flesh of the man who says I can't". I have another saying similar to that and it is, " may the fires of hell forever burn on the flesh of those that use our military for personal gain.