-
America in Transition
May 18, 2012 | 312 comments
-
Doing Security the Israeli Way
January 15, 2010 | 45 comments
A Further Perspective
McChrystal’s Secret Rebellion
Was the General rejecting his own rules of engagement?
One big question that hangs over the quick end of General Stanley McChrystal’s mission in Afghanistan: Why would a West Point and Kennedy School of Government graduate who runs eight miles a day, sleeps four hours and is smart as a whip ever do something so dumb as to talk to a Rolling Stone reporter?
Well, maybe he wasn’t so dumb after all. Reading the accounts of McChrystal’s last months on the job, I think it is clear the general had become so conflicted about the rules of engagement he was imposing on his troops that he finally said “The hell with it. Let Rolling Stone run with this story and see what happens.”
The clues are all in the Rolling Stone article (which the magazine — sickeningly — is billing on its website as “the article that changed history”). The key section deals with the new rules of engagement (ROE) that McChrystal had begun to impose on his troops. The average infantryman was reacting with a mounting sense of betrayal and anger. Some described the new regimen as “being handcuffed.” Rolling Stone reporter Richard Hastings reports one GI writing McChrystal to ask, “Why are we not allowed to defend ourselves?”
As C.J. Chivers of the New York Times reported in an article entitled “Warriors Vexed By Rules For War” the new rules have shifted risks from Afghan civilians and away from the Taliban, on to Western soldiers. They are about everything but force protection. Although McChrystal helped design the rules and could certainly defend them on intellectually, seeing how they are actually playing out in the field must have been painful for a man trained in the '70s, under the mantra “an officer takes care of his men.” Chivers’ article appeared in the Times the same day as the story of McChrystal’s resignation. Things were obviously coming to a head. Even more suggestively, the first reports to emerge since General David Patraeus replaced McChrystal say the new commander may be revising the rules of engagement.
The new ROE generally require much more caution and many, many more verifications from superiors before a soldier is allowed to use lethal force. When the rules aren’t restrictive, they are risk averse — which is just as frustrating to trained warriors. Soldiers in Afghanistan told Hastings they now carry cue cards reminding them to “Patrol only in areas that you are reasonably certain that you will not have to defend yourselves with lethal force.” What, one wonders, would be the need to patrol in an area where you wouldn’t at some point run the risk of defending yourself with lethal force?
According to the new Counterinsurgency Field Manual, penned largely by General Petraeus in 2007, protecting civilian populations is the cornerstone of any effort to defeat an insurgency. But there is a growing problem in Afghanistan — one that McChrystal may not have foreseen when he unfurled this winning-hearts-and-minds strategy. According to many accounts, the Taliban are starting to game the system. They exploit Western decency by surrounding themselves with women and children, knowing this will slow our advance. There are even accounts of Taliban deliberately creating civilian casualties — which only creates more bad press and causes our troops to become more cautious. They know once we cause civilian casualties, we scale back.
An eloquent cri de coeur has come from Brigadier General Moheedin Ghori, the commander of the Afghan brigade. Ghori told the AP, “Especially in the south of Marjah, the enemy is fighting from compounds where soldiers can very clearly see women or children on the roof or in a second-floor or third-floor window. They are trying to get us to fire on them and kill the civilians.”
In an article last February entitled “Civilians in Crosshairs Slow Troops,” Wall Street Journal reporter Michael M. Phillips described a scene where Marine captain Anthony Zinni spent 45 minutes on the phone with military lawyers in Las Vegas before deciding not to call an air strike against four Taliban planting roadside bombs for an approaching Marine convoy. The Taliban had brought children into the area with them. “The last thing I want to do is kill kids,” said Zinni. But the consequence was to put his own troops at greater risk.
This is the brave new world of warfare in which the old school warrior McChrystal was trying to navigate. My guess is that he had begun to find the whole thing intolerable. That’s the only reason an otherwise seasoned warrior would ever put himself on the firing line with a reporter from Rolling Stone.
About the Author
Stephanie Gutmann is the author of The Other War: Israelis, Palestinians and the Struggle for Media Supremacy (Encounter, 2005).
Letter to the Editor View all comments (70) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Stephanie Gutmann
More Articles From A Further Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/06/28/mcchrystals-secret-rebellion
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Gabby Giffords Poisons the Well
- Celebrating Our Lady of Paris
- A Panoply of Beauties
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 4:12PM
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Peter| 6.28.10 @ 7:10AM
Poilitically correct rules of engagement are why we will never win a war in Afghanistan, or any other place for that matter regardless of who is in charge of the effort.
And besides, there's no war in Afghanistan; over there we've taken on mission impossible of trying to build a somewhat democratic nation in that tribal, backward, and ultra-corrupt society.
Juan| 6.28.10 @ 11:11AM
Of course civilians were not killed in WW II etc.
LOL at LIBTARDS
blackknights 1802| 6.28.10 @ 7:46AM
Interesting perspective. Is this why Obama, in his photo-op at the White House, made his first point that “this isn’t about” the policies that he set forth in the war. Apparently this incident is directly related to Obama’s policies. A progressive’s war strategy “Let’s play nice with the enemy and we will talk them into submission.”
Cabermon| 6.28.10 @ 12:21PM
I think Obama's strategy is to talk continuously to our enemies and bore them to death.
Rebecca| 6.28.10 @ 7:48AM
Obama views war as a legal matter, so the need for a police force, not a military. Pretty soon they'll be handing out seat belt tickets and ignoring the larger problems like our police do here.
Jeremiah| 6.28.10 @ 7:51AM
In the end we cannot hope to prevail with these savages who will eagerly sacrifice their own innocents for public relations purposes until we adopt a new rule. Let civilians know that if Jihadists hide among them, they better do one of two things: toss the jihadists out or get out themselves because once we locate the jihadists we are coming and killing.
As the jihadists believe they can't go to heaven and get their 72 virgins if their corpse is soiled with pig's blood, it would also be a useful show of our resolve if we announed that we had contracted with pork producers and ordnance manufacturers to embed a capsule of pork blood in every bullet and missile we use from here on out.
Finally, our national leaders rightfully note that these Jihadists have no single nationality that we can attack in retaliation for an attack on us. That is true. This is assymetrical warfare on steroids. That does not mean that there is nothing important to all Jihadists. Announce that a major attack on one of our cities will mean that Medinah will shortly be reduced to a smoking pile of radioactive rubble and mean it.
And all those Palestinians who like to dance in the streets in celebration when Americans are murdered, as on 9-11? Well, CNN can serve a useful purpose by showing us where to scramble the fighter jets for a strafing run the next time we are hit.
The most effective weapon that the jihadists have against us right now is not their rockets, mortars or even the nukes they so eagerly seek to obtain. It is our own civilized restraint. Respond to them with disproportionate and overwhelming force and you take that weapon away from them. Will the Arab street explode? Perhaps - but it should have exploded against the jihadists if Islam were genuinely a 'religion of peace.' When it explodes smack them hard, too, and they will react as they did to the old Soviet Union's shows of provocative force - with cringing cowardice. They are bullies and like all bullies are only brave so long as those they bully are inferior or restrained. We are not inferior.
Retyrd Geye| 6.28.10 @ 10:54AM
Ding ding ding! We have a winner!
It starts with understanding the enemy. We (Americans) don't. In our moral relativist way of thinking we can't for the life of us (literally) understand how these ragheads are willing to die for their "religion." If we spent a little more time reading the koran instead of watching Michael Jackson tributes we might understand these people are not going to stop until they win or we win.
Wayne Farrar| 6.28.10 @ 11:06AM
Two thumbs up. As for the Western nations, we will never have peace with these people until we have utterly broken their will to make war.
UpChuck.Liberals| 6.28.10 @ 8:56PM
Sadly there is only one way, given their history and a religion that relishes death. That is to wipe most of them off the face of the earth and start from scratch. With the mineral wealth that's been found that 'country' will be in the middle for another century or until our Dear Leader negotiates the terms of our surrender.
RAMIII| 6.28.10 @ 2:17PM
Watch the 1988 movie "The Beast" for insight on this whole Afghanistan thing. The Soviets attack an Afghan Village and the results are quite revealing on what we are dealing with here. Our entertainment based culture cannot comprehend the severity of the situation.
Melvin| 6.28.10 @ 8:01AM
Welcome to the world people. What is happening to us PR wise with the media showing whaling Afghan mothers, and relatives due to American military savagery has been happening to the Israeli Defense Force for how many years now?
Shoot, the Palistinians, Hamas, and Hezbollah are well known in media circles in staging made for prime time death scenes to be filmed by a willing media to boost their ratings by who could demigod Disraeli the worst.
How many times have the world seen dead Palistinians at the hands of the IDF fall out of a casket during one of the funerals dirges of wailing, and crying and the the thrashing of the bodies against the deceased casket, only to have the deceased pick himself up from the ground and hop back in the casket to continue his funeral?
Palestinian headscarf wearing future lawyers from Duke University in NC constantly host the Palestinians and Hamas so that they can spew their propaganda of Israeli military savagery. Too bad these future lawyers fail to see dead Palestinians hop back into their caskets after a staged death scene with dead bodies imported from who knows where.
Now the same thing is happening to us, from the motion pictures studios of Iran, who have staging battle scenes to make us look like blood thirsty child killers.
Too bad Americans are too stupid to differentiate between the real and the fabricated. But then again maybe I'm asking too much from a Nation who is absorbed with reality TV.
WeR1| 6.28.10 @ 8:13AM
Makes one wonder what would have happened if the Nazi's had simply allowed Jewish children to play on the beaches of Normandy, rather than putting them in concentration camps? Would that have stopped the invasion?
Louis Jenkins| 6.28.10 @ 8:28AM
A note card that says "Only patrol in areas we your reasonably certain you won't have to defend yourselves. (?)" That's the death nell of US forces. If Petraeus is re-writing some of the defensive policies hopefully that will be the first item that he gets rid of. But will he?
crookedwren| 6.28.10 @ 8:36AM
Wonder why Democrats refuse to win a war -- at least in the past 50 years.
crookedwren| 6.28.10 @ 8:39AM
I don't know, though. Rolling Stone? Really?
Wouldn't there be a better way to do this?
I'm still suspicious about this writer and his patter to the military.
Still, the good General IS a liberal -- and voted FOR Obama. That gives me pause.
Ludicrous seems to thrive in the Land of the Democrats.
Bob K.| 6.28.10 @ 9:20AM
Actually, it was the best way to do it. "Rolling Stone" is a member, is it not, of the "4th Estate." An unelected, elite part of our government, albeit in it's own view, which is reinforced by the other 3 Estates, the Clergy, the Regime and us poor commoners.
He went to one of the least regarded members of the 4th Estate and as a result got the most publicity about it from their more highly regarded colleagues.
Ted| 6.28.10 @ 8:58AM
I am not buying the argument. Was something more than meets the eye going on? Probably. But this? If he didn't agree with the ROE, he could change it. If the ROE came from higher (such as the President), and he was seeing that the ROE were causing unneccessary U.S. and Allied casualties, he could have asked to change them. If the request was denied, he could then have tendered his resignation. Why resort to the Rolling Stone gambit, which only made him look like a fool who got relieved?
Margie| 6.28.10 @ 9:16AM
I'd really like to hear from McChrystal himself. Did he allow himself to go out like this, or was it a set-up? The way Obummer brought him before the public and shamed him made me sick. Obummer is the most shameful President in history besides Bill Clinton. The True Judge will will give him his day as well.
Is McChrystal a repentant Liberal, all brought on by having to face the reality of the insanity that is Leftist ideaology so head on? I certainly hope so. Perhaps he will write a book.
Bill| 6.28.10 @ 9:36AM
Gen. Douglas MacArthur: "In war, there is no substitute for victory."
Retired Guy| 6.28.10 @ 9:45AM
I wonder how many conservative pom-pom/flag wavers here actually served?
Anyway McChrystal is a moron. Anyone who believes in COIN is. It is not working. He himself even said in the article that it works in "think tanks" but on the battlefield? Not so much.
McChrystal is such a jerk-off and knew he was losing the war and this was the only way to save his sorry hide. He didn't have his daddy to save him like his daddy's name did at West Point and early in his career. Some things daddy can't fix. His own troops don't like him or the failed COIN he peddles. They die while he and his band of merry men get to go get drunk and crack wise in Paris. How nice. So what better way to save a little face by getting himself fired?
Not only that but he voted for the Kenyan. I mean that should tell you all you need to know about a supposed "smart" guy like McChrystal.
Margie| 6.28.10 @ 9:49AM
Heh, I take it you're not a conservative pom/pom flag waving American?
Retired Guy| 6.28.10 @ 10:34AM
As someone who's pledged my life to defend the Constitution I don't really feel the need to justify myself to you Margie. I can almost predict the response, but here goes.
No Margie, I don't pledge allegiance to a piece of colored cloth. I've pledged my life to defend the Constitution. There's a difference. If you can't see that or deliberately fail to understand it, its really not my problem. My comment about "pom-pom wavers" is directed at those Republicans who automatically support any d-bag in a uniform. Maybe if they ever actually served under d-bags and had to deal with their BS they would feel differently. Better yet, maybe if they had to patrol without say body armor while the d-bag who put those ROEs in place is out getting wasted in gay Paris, they wouldn't be so quick to defend said d-bag.
As far as being "conservative" goes, I don't label myself. If being a believer in a strict interpretation of the Constitution makes me "conservative," then so be it.
Retyrd Geye| 6.28.10 @ 10:48AM
(Try again. It seems if you stray from the herd mentality and/or question conservative sacred cows your username gets banned).
Forgot to ask you but does that make me "American" enough for you Margie?
Margie| 6.28.10 @ 11:00AM
I was just going to your derogatory use of the term. Liberals usually do that, mocking us as such. It seemed to me that you musn't think of yourself as such if you consider cheering on America a mockable offense.
I saw no one cheerleading on McChrystal, anyhow.
But thank you for your service to our great country. I do appreciate it, sir.
Retyrd Geye| 6.28.10 @ 3:59PM
Margie, imagine you were watching a football game with me and my favorite team was playing. Now imagine if my team's coach kept calling the same play over and over and it wasn't working. Now imagine if my team was losing 35-0 and the coach was still calling the same play over and over and it wasn't working, but yet I was cheering nonetheless.
Would ya think I was a little, I don't know, blind?
"Cheering America" is one thing. "Cheering" blithely along while our supposed enlightened class leaders send our young people out to die is criminal. McChrystal is a moron. COIN is just like Socialism. Works well in theory, until you start actually trying to implement it in the real world, among, you know, real people.
Trying to use COIN against frigging muslims should get McChrystal thrown in Leavenworth IMHO. Nothing short of total devastation to muslims will ever end this war. McChrystal and all his ilk have proven they just don't have the stomach or the 'nads for it.
Margie| 6.28.10 @ 5:01PM
I certainly agree with you about the Socializing of the Military and share your utter disgust with those who have contributed to it.
As for McChrystal I will refrain. (See my post at 9:16, last paragraph).
I also think Jed Babbin's article today is right on. If you haven't read it, I'd suggest it. I'd like to know your thoughts on it.
Thanks for your reply.
God bless you.
JP| 6.28.10 @ 10:48AM
Actually, it did work in Algeria during the Algerian Civil War in the late 1950s. Two French officers came up with the ideas, methods, and tactics and used them with great success. General Petraeous translated thier ideas in the late 1990s.
But, I should add the French gave up on Algeria despite winning the Civil War. This was before arabic nationalism hit the streets. De Gaulle simply believed it was no longer in the French interests to carry on.
In the end it is always the political that decides things. The 2007 Surge was a smashing success in that it destroyed Al Qaida in Iraq, and neutralized Sadr's militias. For short period of time Sunni and Shia pols behaved themselves. But COIN never removed the influence Iran has on Iraqi Shias. It was never Petraeous' intentions of doing so. And that is the rub. The hatred between the Shias and Sunnis would make the hatred between 15th Century Calvinists and Catholics in the UK look tame in camparison.
Afhanistan is a totally different situation. The power always laid in the tribal chieftans and not anyone person. Iraq is a cosmopolitan wonderland in comparison to Afghanistan. Of course, Karazai is corrupt; they all are. Our mistake was to think that Karazai because of his education and background is any different than some Pushtan leader. The roots and memory of these tribes go back eons. No amount of education will ever change that.
Retyrd Geye| 6.28.10 @ 10:57AM
If it worked so well "arab nationalism" wouldn't have been able to "hit the streets."
How'd it work in Viet Nam?????
JP| 6.28.10 @ 11:40AM
But arab nationalism didn't occur in Algeria until after the French were gone. Up until the 1980s, Catholic Algerians were still a large minority (as were the Copts in Egypy).
COIN actually began to work under General Abrams. But by then, the political future was already sealed. Nixon campaigned under the rubrics "Peace with Honor". Nixon never seriously contemplated using COIN in Vietnam as he was determined to leave at al costs. At the height of the Vietnam conflict in 1967, 500,000 servicemen served there. By 1970, less than half that amount, and by 1972 less than 100,000 remained. General Abrams never had the political cover he needed. After Tet in 1968 it was all over.
Retyrd Geye| 6.28.10 @ 12:25PM
JP, the point I am trying to make was that if COIN or whatever iteration it was back then worked so well, there wouldn't have been a void for "arab nationalism" (aka islamism) to fill after the French left.
In Viet Nam it was called "hearts and minds," right? Yeah that didn't work then and it doesn't work now. 500,000, 1,000,000 troops wopn't make a difference. What WOULD make a difference is actually identifying the enemy and then waging a war based on the enemy's belief system, values, etc. Instead we decide how to wage war first without consideration for islam. Big mistake.
Ted| 6.28.10 @ 4:50PM
Not necessarily true RG... No matter whether you "win" a war militarily or not, if the political will is non-existent, you will still lose the war. The quick French exit from Algeria created the vacuum there for "Algerian" nationalism. Prior to 1954 there really wasn't a unified sense of Algerian nationalism. The different peoples / tribes were not a unified political entity.
As far as Viet Nam goes, we did try to win the hearts and minds on a very small scale compared to the conventional military solution we applied. It was not so much a failure of COIN per se, but a failure to recognize that the conventional military strategy we applied there would not work because it was not a conventional conflict.
You make an excellent point about waging war without identifying the enemy and without considering Islam. While our leadership has stated we are not in a war with Islam, our enemies have declared that this is a religious war to them.
AMENBRO| 6.28.10 @ 5:20PM
FOORKING A PUSS_AYYES
Can we not agree that the FRENCH, save for exuberant degeneration of anything American,,
havent hardly the intestinal fortitude to endure waiting for the next course in a PRIX FIX meal.
Not until AMERICA as in YOU & ME grow some hair on the old sack and start kicking some inordinate EUROPEAN arse around the negotiating table will the nonexistent ARAB street cease to be a factor in nobodies mind except MADELAINE ALBRRITE-LESS, CLINTONS, and the actual ARAB STREETS those same EURO-HOLES allowed to metastasize.
Just call me RUN ON SAM from ALABAM
Joe D| 6.28.10 @ 10:13AM
You are correct, Peter. We need to let the military be the military. Collateral damage happens in war. That is unfortunite. However, we are there to help the majority. We sacrifice and they will have to also to win against the evil fundamentalist musilim terrorist. "Freedom is not Free".
buckeyeman| 6.28.10 @ 11:09AM
McChrystal's bungling just aggravated the mess. If he disagreed with The Muslim's war policy he should have resigned and delivered a scathing rebuke to the insane approach to fighting such a "war". He would have been seen as a principled soldier whose refused to command his troops into disaster. Instead he comes off as an insubordinate buffoon and the rest of us are left to speculate on his assessment of the policy. I don't care if he runs 50 miles a day and only sleeps for five minutes. If he voted for Obama he is a FOOL.
Gr0w1er| 6.28.10 @ 11:23AM
The more I find out about the current in-theater ROE makes me believe the military has become risk-averse to the application of deadly force. If that's true, then why the hell are they there? All they end up doing is providing juicy targets for the Taliban. Hell of a way to 'fight' a war.
jstwndring| 6.28.10 @ 11:57AM
Soooooo. Here we go again! The DemocRats are doing to us in the middle-east what they did to us in Vietnam: Making the rules of engagement so restrictive and dangerous to OUR OWN MEN, that we end up losing. You traitorous left-wing Marxist p.o.s. make me sick.
jstwndring| 6.28.10 @ 12:09PM
Also, I don't give a rat's ass if civilians get killed. You don't send the military in to be nice. You don't send the military in to be politically correct. You don't send the military in to "win the hearts and minds" of our enemy. You send the military in to kill the enemy. If civilians get in the way, tough. If these morons on the left can't figure that out, then we as voters need to make sure that they are never given command of the armed forces again. If the name on the ballot has a "D" after it throw 'em out this November!
Thom| 6.28.10 @ 12:24PM
Every time you try to turn a military combat force into a police force things go badly for the military force. We had some experience with that back in 1773. Defensive wars are by their nature grossly inefficient use of forces. We outnumbered both the Cong and NVA in South Vietnam and surrounding border states. When you add the ARVN and SEATO Allies we grossly outnumbered the in country enemies there but still lost. Romans had to deal with a similar problem and they fell too. The wounds we are inflicting are self inflicted. We’ve redefined war in political terms and continue to lose wars in military terms, the only meaningful terms for the sacrifice of blood and treasure we expend. Until we rediscovery the meaning of “war” and operate accordingly we will continue to lose.
Having some insight into the Afghanistan I have a pretty good take on what motivates those people. Thus far we haven’t given them a clear cut choice. As a culture they’ve been at this a while and what they understand as the choices are a less complexity worship based than our lawyer based methods of war. Live or die, choose a side, your choice. In a nation with an $800 per capita income and 8 Billion national GDP the bulk of the country already sees the Taliban winning. We don’t have the will, the right strategy or force levels to accomplish what the common Afghan already knows what has to be done. Takes about 15-17 years to grow another Taliban, we don’t seem to understand that calculus any longer.
Eddie| 6.28.10 @ 12:49PM
Retyrd Geye, I am on the same page as you are Sir! I understand and agree with your logic. I believe people just don't understand that these loons will sacrifice anything including family in
obediance to their 5th century religious teachings.
Northern Rebel| 6.28.10 @ 12:57PM
Dixie, if you're out there:
Here's another perspective on the reason the General did Rolling Stone, not the other way around.
I don't believe he is so naive, as to get played by a bunch of latte drinking, pot smokers. Maybe I jumped the gun criticizing his honor, and his lust for the limelight, and the accompanying tell-all.
Maybe he did what he did to protect his troops, and defend them to his death. maybe he was willing to destroy his career, in order to save the lives of his soldiers.
Nothing I have heard about him indicates that he is anything less than a great American, and a fine soldier.
However, anyone who thinks a couple of shiftless journalist wannabes pulled the wool over General McChrystal's eyes, doesn't fully understand what it takes to become a General in the United States military.
I'll bet you the book comes out, before the end of the year.
CHEERS!
RAMIII| 6.28.10 @ 2:46PM
NR,
You may be on to something here. Most difficult decisions are misunderstood by those who not on the inside of the situation. It takes great courage to permit injury to yourself for the sake of others, you may well have pegged it. I'm not sure about the book thing though, he may not want to damage those who are still in harms way.
John II| 6.28.10 @ 2:58PM
I hope you're right, Reb.
General McChrystal? Are you there, sir?
Don't forget, if you need a ghost writer for the book. THE BOOK! I am willing to write, I am waiting to write, I am wishing to write. (Notice the skilled flow of bilabial approximates in the rhetoric: that's the Welsh in me, sir.)
A Scotch-Irish bestselling blockbuster ghosted by a Welshman. It can't lose!
FeralCat| 6.28.10 @ 3:26PM
Smart people as well as dumb ones can be fooled. Sometimes it is easier to fool someone who is smart as they can be overconfident in their abilities.
Dixie Pixie| 6.28.10 @ 7:35PM
Greetings Northern Rebel
The whole question hinges on who knew why the “Rolling Stones” reporter was assigned to profile General McChrystal. With knowing who authorized the reporter to interview the General and staff every thing is speculation. I fear the back-story will never be known.
So speculation we must. Here is for the amusement of conspiracy buffs is what I call Conspiracy Theory #295.
CT#295+++++++++++++++++
A high ranking flag rank officer at Central Command is convinced his brilliant but arrogant subordinate officer must go for the good of the Army. However the General in question has given no cause for dismissal other than losing a war.
So Central Command green lights a far left reporter writing a magazine notorious for its hit pieces to follow the General around on a daily basis. Naturally the reporter writes a article which inflames a notoriously thin-skinned President. As a result the General is history. The USCENTCOM Commander then takes over the Generals command to finish the war his way with a US Army victory.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Your guess is as good as mine 'Northern Rebel'. You might like to come up with Conspiracy Theory #296 and then let someone else come up with CT#297.
On an another matter, You never answered my question on if you were ever at “Old Miss”.
Please send a reply at your convenience.
Dixie Pixie| 6.28.10 @ 9:03PM
Just in from O'Reilly Factor on Fox.
Bernie Goldberg is convinced General McChrystal was burned on orders from the “Rolling Stones” editor. He used the authors own words to back up his position.
O'Reilly on the other hand stated a position that the “Rolling Stones” reporter was a weasel who burned on reflex alone.
Margie| 6.28.10 @ 1:44PM
I highly recommend Jed Babbin's article here today~ "Coin-ing the SGO", as well as this one. It gives an excellent perspective too. NR~ it's really great.
Kent Lyon| 6.28.10 @ 2:39PM
This is McChrystal's way of saying, "Take this job and shove it!" The July 2011 deadline combined with the ROE have created an impossible situation. McChrystal didn't want to lose his war. He knew he couldn't win with the constraints imposed. He'd rather be sacked. Plus, he agrees with his men, the ones actually fighting the war and risking and sacrificing their lives, not his Commander in Chief who gives not a hoot for his men, only his own political skin, thin though it may be. We'll find out if Petraeus can right the situation. He could only do that if he got Obama to commit to abandoning the July 2011 deadline. We'll know if Obama announces an end to that deadline in the near future. But of course, Petraeus would finese the discussions re: "conditions on the ground". But the problem is that perception becomes reality, and unless Obama reverses himself publicly and strongly on the deadline, in an Winston Churchill fashion, Petraeus cannot win. No one can. "To fight the impossible war...."
John II| 6.28.10 @ 3:15PM
Don't count on the Professor's pulling a Churchill--he doesn't have it in him.
You CAN count on him, however, to pull a weasel in garish political dressing if a new "narrative" is forced on him. And I can't help wondering on what conditions Petraeus agreed to take on the gruesome chore. The Professor is way out of his league already, and he'll be needing more than cheap political operators to burnish his image.
Somewhere down among the ranks I'm guessing that General Petraeus is now called by the new moniker "General Save-His-Ass."
Videbimus quod videbimus. (That's Latin. It means "Good gawd, we've got an emotional 15-year-old for a President!")
FeralCat| 6.28.10 @ 3:09PM
"According to the new Counterinsurgency Field Manual, penned largely by General Petraeus in 2007, protecting civilian populations is the cornerstone of any effort to defeat an insurgency. But there is a growing problem in Afghanistan -- one that McChrystal may not have foreseen when he unfurled this winning-hearts-and-minds strategy. "
Petraeus and McChrystal's beloved "COIN" strategy as applied to Afghanistan is a gigantic fraud on a par with Al Gore's AGW. The contention that with it we are going to reform the Islamic fundamentalism and tribal culture of that Muslim cesspool is utterly absurd.
FeralCat| 6.28.10 @ 3:12PM
Yahweh, David Petraeus and Stanley McChrystal
Would never okay the way you do your thing
Ding ding ding, ding, ding, ding
And you’ll get yours, David Petraeus and Stanley McChrystal
Coddlin' and even sidin’ with that Islam stuff like you do
Boo hoo hoo, boo hoo hoo
Where have you gone, General George S. Patton?
Our nation turns its longing eyes to you
What’s that you say, David Petraeus and Stanley McCrystal?
You have banished ‘ol Blood and Guts far away
Hey hey hey, hey hey hey
Coo coo ca-choo, Mr. Pentagon
Mohammad appreciates you more than you will know
Woo woo woo, woo woo woo
Allah blesses you, yes, Mr. Pentagon
He may grant some small temporary mercy to those infidels who their own mislead and betray
Hey hey hey, hey hey hey
FeralCat| 6.28.10 @ 3:21PM
To expect McChrystal or Petraeus to denounce their beloved COIN fraud would be like expecting Al Gore to denounce his beloved AGW fraud.
martin j smith| 6.28.10 @ 4:14PM
I heard that McC was a lib and created these rules of engagement himself. Or, was he "asked" by BHO to create them ? Of this I am unclear. If he was "asked" by BHO then I could see why McC has had enough.
AMENBRO| 6.28.10 @ 5:09PM
WELL WELL WELL
LETS SEE, how do i say this without getting banned censored or excoriated by the mostly equally vapid multitude assemblage,
FOORK IT,,how many years of education, initials at the end of your name & cross reference from equally vapid folks, after-wards wringing of your hands during the ensuing sleepless nights did it take for you to come to the GALL DARN OBVIOUS sir.
Northern rebel| 6.28.10 @ 7:18PM
RAMIII:
Good point, unless he feels he can undress the folks who put ridiculous engagement restrictions on those willing to die for our safety, and do it from their ivory towers, while serving expensive wine to spouses who aren't proud of their country.
Wow that's a long sentence!
Dixie Pixie | 6.28.10 @ 8:08PM
Yes it was long, but worth it.
PS... I left a reply to your 6.28.10 @ 12:57PM post.
John II| 6.28.10 @ 10:28PM
Stanley McChrystal was born in 1955, when the Milton Berle Texico Theater was just running out, when Gunsmoke was just getting started, when Oklahoma was moving from Broadway to the cinema, when Laurel and Hardy reruns and Flash Gordon serials from the 1930's were influencing such permanent adolescents as George Lucas and Steven Spielberg on Saturday TV matinees, when MGM's version of "Ben Hur" was in its early production stages, when Ernest Borgnine made his reputation with "Marty," and, above all, when Don Siegel made "Invasion of the Body Snatchers," anticipating the era of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
Do any of you realize what this means?
It means that Stanley McChrystal finished his stint at West Point AFTER America lost her first war, in Vietnam.
It means that Stanley McChrystal is a baby-boomer.
It means . . . it means . . . well, I don't know what the hell it means, but I just wanted to ask if anyone else does.
Margie| 6.28.10 @ 11:03PM
Well one thing it means is that he still has something good left inside of him. Especially if he watched those Father Knows Best re-runs. Heh.
Yosemeti Sam| 6.29.10 @ 2:22AM
It's all BPs' - fault!
LOL.
General McChrystal espied how the
Commander of erstwhile South Chicago military ops fame was handling the war against oil spillage - the political way.
Deduced thereby that the Afghanistan circumstance was equally politically - oily.
Time for a bailout - himself! No need to jeopardize parenthetically - a pension!
Regardless of intrepretations - McChrystal may have 'realized' the Faustian political bargain he'd made with an early alignment with a proverbial ... baby ass-kicker!
Taliban adults were another story - of engagement! Must make nice! So the flatulent UN scum would shower smiles broadly in approval.
So, McChrystal wasn't gonna take no stinging arrows - sword if one will - to besmirch his hitherto 'honorable' service to America. Wasn't gonna let no LBSM-PEN1-adorned cinematic street organizing South Chicago warrior
fix his career wagon axles - to run smoothly after an proximate politcally orchestrated debacle in Afghanistan.
Perhaps McChrystal - with time on his hands - may ferret out the whereabouts of that Mao Zoo Dung Christmas tree Ornament.
In the interests of national security!
4me2no1| 6.29.10 @ 11:14AM
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/a.....ing_slogan
"How 'hearts and minds' came to be."
"Winning hearts and minds of our enemies"became fashionable when (Profiles in Courage) JFK worked his propaganda on America to war in Vietnam, and LBJ certainly endorsed that premise, as did the "compassionate" potus George W. Bush to engage America into wars in the Middle East. Upon Obama's inauguration, he inundated the military with his own laundry list endorsement of obligations to win the hearts and minds of Islamic jihadists in his initial address as CinC that was supposed to be a pep talk to our troops. It is Obama who initially supported Karzai, and Karzai who demanded the Karzai 12 Rules of Engagement. McChrystal was ordered to compose a report that would stipulate how to "win the Afghan war" by playing nice with the native tribal civilization comprised of embedded Taliban who DON'T WANT US THERE and considers America to be the "Great Satan". Bribing only lasts as long as politicians endorse and appropriate tax funds to bribe the Taliban, and only so long as the dollar maintains value globally.
Given our domestic and the international direction into global bankruptcy, exactly how long will the American presence be tolerated by the Taliban?
Is Petraeus sent there to oversee our troops departure or the perpetuation of an unending war in the Middle East? Either or both, depending on Obama's change of mind and extenuating circumstances?
maverick muse| 6.29.10 @ 11:30AM
General Petraeus answered advance questions submitted to him by the Senate Armed Services Committee:
"The security situation in Afghanistan remains tenuous, with instability fueled by a resilient and still confident insurgency, tribal tensions, political challenges, and competition for influence in the future."
McChrystal's diversion of troop effort redirected within urban centers would have enabled Taliban permeation in the mountain regions within the tribes.
Too bad there weren't the 40,000 initial report's additional troops sent 18 months ago, so that 20,000 could have been directed in both directions, 20,000 urban and 20,000 rural. That single 12 month window of opportunity to abort the Taliban power in Afghanistan using 40,000 additional troops also expired months ago.
The CIA that initially advanced the rationale for US military engagements against both Afghanistan and Iraq has now publicized Obama's failure, regardless of how they word it, as if to enable the MSM to blame McChrystal who functioned according to Obama's outward though deceitful directions supposedly endorsing McChrystal's report.
Now Kissinger drops his bomb in the news making Americans fear to pull out from Afghanistan.
How well does Gen.Petraeus function with a saboteur potus? Horrible situation, worsening by the moment.
LarryG| 6.29.10 @ 6:07PM
It's been a long time and it was a different time so I'm not sure how things work in today's military but I think they haven't changed all that much. Our ROE's in Viet Nam came from McNamara whom I never saw out in the paddies. Roe's are political decisions and would not likely to come from the field commander. My sense here is the ROE's in question came straight from Obamarrhoid's mouth and McChrystal simply had no way to be effective under their restrictions so he found a way out without quitting straight away. All they did was get more people killed and maimed - our people. In Viet Nam we simply figured out how to get around them. Simply put, we returned fire before asking permission and misrepresented the nature of incoming fire when we asked permission. Goes a long way to survival and battlefield success. Warfare is not a Hollywood production - a guy could get killed out there, not that Obamachump would care.
LarryG| 6.29.10 @ 6:11PM
One more thought: How do poppies react to Agent Orange?
Richard Baker| 6.30.10 @ 7:56PM
Kill 'em all and let God sort it out.
imsteph| 6.30.10 @ 8:57PM
He voted for Obama (at least he claims to have). He got what he asked for. Fundamental transformation of not only America-but its military as well. When the dream turns into a nightmare, the best thing you can do is wake up. Maybe that is what MC did.
guo | 7.1.10 @ 5:17AM
www.wmvconverterformac.com