Obama rejects Afghan war options

[XBoxWarrior]

Seems like he wants a 'way out'.

Quote:

President Barack Obama does not plan to accept any of the Afghanistan war options presented by his national security team, pushing instead for revisions to clarify how and when U.S. troops would turn over responsibility to the Afghan government, a senior administration official said Wednesday.
~snip~
Military officials said Obama has asked for a rewrite before and resisted what one official called a one-way highway toward war commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal's recommendations for more troops. The sense that he was being rushed and railroaded has stiffened Obama's resolve to seek information and options beyond military planning, officials said, though a substantial troop increase is still likely.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_us_afghanistan

He may send more young lives, but he is definitely weighing his options.

Good on him for being able to think...Cheney will be on Sunday shows screaming "ditherer"!

[Sporanox]

Actually, he's just waffling while our undermanned force sits there, still fighting.

McChrystal gave him an accurate synopsis of the situation on the ground and a summary of what exactly it would take to correct it. Obama's response? "Uh..."

Nobody can accuse McChrystal of being afraid to speak his mind, a criticism that was leveled at much of the brass during the heights of Iraq. He's saying what he really believes. So what's the holdup?

[quadraginta]

Originally Posted by Sporanox

Actually, he's just waffling while our undermanned force sits there, still fighting.

McChrystal gave him an accurate synopsis of the situation on the ground and a summary of what exactly it would take to correct it. Obama's response? "Uh..."

Nobody can accuse McChrystal of being afraid to speak his mind, a criticism that was leveled at much of the brass during the heights of Iraq. He's saying what he really believes. So what's the holdup?

As heretical as it might seem to suggest, but maybe what he believes could be wrong.

His opinion isn't the only one. From the same article cited above ...

Quote:

Eikenberry, the top U.S. envoy to Kabul, is a prominent voice among those advising Obama, and his sharp dissent is sure to affect the equation. He retired from the Army this year to become one of the few generals in American history to switch directly from soldier to diplomat, and he himself is a recent, former commander of U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

The unbroken two century long track record of everyone failing to win in Afghanistan by sending in more troops, in spite of fervent support of the idea by some of the military minds involved at those times, could also present something of a precedent.

[Sporanox]

Originally Posted by quadraginta

The unbroken two century long track record of everyone failing to win in Afghanistan by sending in more troops, in spite of fervent support of the idea by some of the military minds involved at those times, could also present something of a precedent.

You know, Eikenberry isn't the only one in opposition. (He also isn't the one specifically appointed to make this sort of recommendation; that would be McChrystal; but let's leave that aside for a moment.) A lot of people seem to take a similar stance. Afghanistan will not be won by military means, they say.

THEN WHAT ARE WE STILL DOING THERE?

Let me tell you. Obama is caught in a Johnson moment. He's a Democratic president who, in his case, tried to earn some tough cred by trumpeting Afghanistan as "the good war." He can't pull out now, or else he'll be exposed as the craven opportunist he very well may be. So, like Johnson, he's continuing a conflict against OpFor. Unfortunately, due to his aforementioned insincere beliefs, he doesn't have a real commitment to the mission and so will leave the current force there to fight a mission he believes they can't win.

Not. Leadership. Obama '12!

[Unabogie]

Originally Posted by Sporanox

You know, Eikenberry isn't the only one in opposition. (He also isn't the one specifically appointed to make this sort of recommendation; that would be McChrystal; but let's leave that aside for a moment.) A lot of people seem to take a similar stance. Afghanistan will not be won by military means, they say.

THEN WHAT ARE WE STILL DOING THERE?

Let me tell you. Obama is caught in a Johnson moment. He's a Democratic president who, in his case, tried to earn some tough cred by trumpeting Afghanistan as "the good war." He can't pull out now, or else he'll be exposed as the craven opportunist he very well may be. So, like Johnson, he's continuing a conflict against OpFor. Unfortunately, due to his aforementioned insincere beliefs, he doesn't have a real commitment to the mission and so will leave the current force there to fight a mission he believes they can't win.

Not. Leadership. Obama '12!

What kind of leader fails to take into account new information? What kind of leader appoints someone to write a recommendation and then follows the recommendation whether or not it makes sense? What kind of leader refuses to demand a timeline for ending hostilities?

Not this leader.

So what kind of country would criticize its leader for reacting to new information, rejecting piss poor advice, and demanding a way out as part of his plan for a war that he didn't start?

I suspect the right wing will howl over this but the majority of the people will support it.

[Praktik]

Originally Posted by Sporanox

Actually, he's just waffling while our undermanned force sits there, still fighting.

McChrystal gave him an accurate synopsis of the situation on the ground and a summary of what exactly it would take to correct it. Obama's response? "Uh..."

Nobody can accuse McChrystal of being afraid to speak his mind, a criticism that was leveled at much of the brass during the heights of Iraq. He's saying what he really believes. So what's the holdup?

Why rush?

Winter is setting in and fighting season wont start again til the spring - seems to me this is a natural moment that allows for some serious consideration.

[XBoxWarrior]

Originally Posted by Sporanox

THEN WHAT ARE WE STILL DOING THERE?

And that is, the 64,000 dollar question...the one that was NEVER asked in the last >7 years. I find it refreshing that he is able to think for himself, ask questions, and make informed decisions. He could have just agreed with the warmonger McChrystal, sent another 40,000, and gave a presser sayin', "I'm the decider".

Personally I hope he chooses to cut bait, put a fork in it, and call it done.

The "War on Terror" can be won with the same efficiency as the "War on Drugs", both brought to you by self-righteous Xtians...

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by XBoxWarrior

He could have just agreed with the warmonger McChrystal, sent another 40,000, and gave a presser sayin', "I'm the decider".

Fail right out of the (X)box here, since he just apparently pointed out, by responding with "your staff estimate isn't good enough, give me better options." That is what the Deciders do. It is what Presidents do to generals with some frequency.

Your "McChrystal warmonger" is a pathetic jab at a better man than you. XBoxWarrior needs to learn what irony is.

Quote:

Personally I hope he chooses to cut bait, put a fork in it, and call it done.

Plenty of people share your sentiments.

Quote:

The "War on Terror" can be won with the same efficiency as the "War on Drugs", both brought to you by self-righteous Xtians...

Another cup of fail. I guess you are going to reload your save point now ...

[Praktik]

Well I think that last point is probably more valid than his other ones Darth... after all if we take the language of the "war on terror" seriously, then how could you ever defeat a tactic?

Is there really a point where America will no longer be threatened by enemies who lack a state with which to mobilize an army and thus turn to asymmetrical means?

The only thing that will bring that day to fruition is when America, after a long and serious decline, is no longer involved in other countries.

There's a reason the terrorists haven't targeted Luxembourg. When America is like Luxembourg, there will be no need for a war on terror.

[leftysergeant]

Originally Posted by Sporanox

Nobody can accuse McChrystal of being afraid to speak his mind, a criticism that was leveled at much of the brass during the heights of Iraq. He's saying what he really believes. So what's the holdup?

Obama is waiting for someone to come up with some other idea than to throw more troops into the meat grinder.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Praktik

Well I think that last point is probably more valid than his other ones Darth... [/i]?

Given that it isn't a point ...

Quote:

The only thing that will bring that day to fruition is when America, after a long and serious decline, is no longer involved in other countries.

There was a small neoisolationist movement in the early 1990's when the Cold War had ended. Libertarians and others seemed to jump on that rhetorical band wagon, which was part of why Bush 41 didn't go into Bosnia. Also why it was so hard for Clinton to go there, and Rwanda.

While its aim wasn't complete withdrawal, the sentiment you can count on resurfacing is "we are not the world's policemen." The two wars President Bush undertook has relit that sentiment in some sectors. You can expect to see a further "we are not the world's policemen" sentiment grow as Obama's administration continues.

Quote:

There's a reason the terrorists haven't targeted Luxembourg.

Their money is in banks there, as is the money of many a drug lord.


DR

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

Obama is waiting for someone to come up with some other idea than to throw more troops into the meat grinder.

Here's one:

The Pentagon announced TODAY the formation of a new 500-man elite fighting unit called the United States Redneck Special Forces
(USRSF)

These gents will be dropped off in Afghanistan and will be given only the following facts about the Taliban and terrorists:

1. The season opened today.
2. There is no limit.
3. They taste just like chicken.
4. They don't like beer, pickups, country music, or Jesus.
5. They are directly responsible for the death of Dale Earnhardt.

The Pentagon expects the problem in Afghanistan to be over by Friday.

Applications are available at your local Wal-Mart sporting goods counter.

Yes, it is an old joke, but I like to recycle, to save the planet.

DR

[Praktik]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

There was a small neoisolationist movement in the early 1990's when the Cold War had ended. Libertarians and others seemed to jump on that rhetorical band wagon, which was part of why Bush 41 didn't go into Bosnia. Also why it was so hard for Clinton to go there, and Rwanda.

While its aim wasn't complete withdrawal, the sentiment you can count on resurfacing is "we are not the world's policemen." The two wars President Bush undertook has relit that sentiment in some sectors. You can expect to see a further "we are not the world's policemen" sentiment grow as Obama's administration continues.

No - I'm just taking a long-long-long view of things. When America's power is superceded and it no longer has the capacity to influence things, or has "vital interests" that span the globe, terrorism will not be as much of an issue...

I dont think the isolationist view of things will ever have a chance of dominating in America as long as it retains the material capacity and wealth necessary to influence global affairs.

But like all empires, its clock will run out one day...

[Unabogie]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

Your "McChrystal warmonger" is a pathetic jab at a better man than you.

That's a very bold statement. On what do you base this on? Do you know XBox personally?

I will say that what we do know about Stanley is not so great.

He participated in the cover-up of Pat Tillman's death.

Quote:

The parents of slain Army Ranger and NFL star Pat Tillman voiced concerns Tuesday that the general who played a role in mischaracterizing his death could be put in charge of military operations in Afghanistan. In a brief interview with The Associated Press, Pat Tillman Sr. accused Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal of covering up the circumstances of the 2004 slaying.
"I do believe that guy participated in a falsified homicide investigation," Pat Tillman Sr. said.

As far as I know, the poster you insulted did not participate in a falsified homicide investigation.

Next, Stanley oversaw torture.

Quote:

In 2006, Human Rights Watch released a major report based on dozens of interviews with soldiers who had witnessed the interrogation of prisoners in Iraq. "No Blood, No Foul" revealed that the elite forces conducting the interrogations at Camp Nama and two other locations, known (among other names) as Task Force 121, committed systematic abuse of prisoners at other facilities across Iraq, leading to at least three deaths. Whether or not he was present during the actual abuse — and it seems unlikely that he would need or want to put himself in that exposed position — as commander of JSOC, Stanley McChrystal oversaw them.

Perhaps you and I have differing opinions about what makes a person "better" than another, but on planet Unabogie, torturers and fraudsters don't earn the accolades.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by Unabogie

Perhaps you and I have differing opinions about what makes a person "better" than another, but on planet Unabogie, torturers and fraudsters don't earn the accolades.

Evidently on planet Unabogie, people don't understand the idea of comparatives like "better," if you've got a blanket rule that no torturer is "better" than anyone else, at all.

[Sporanox]

Great scott...did you just use the term "planet Unabogie?"

As for the rest of the responses in this thread, here's the only explanation I've seen. Obama's sent his favored man down there, his man brought back a recommendation based on those inconvenient facts on the ground, and finally Obama says "I don't like the sound of that" (commitment) "so I'm going to wait until somebody comes up with a different idea"

Obviously, Obama doesn't have much experience in this regard. That's kind of why he asked for an evidence-based recommendation. Now he's trying to adjust the facts to fit the picture. Wonderful.

[Sporanox]

Originally Posted by Praktik

Why rush?

Winter is setting in and fighting season wont start again til the spring - seems to me this is a natural moment that allows for some serious consideration.

Wars still march on in winter. That's a fact. Besides, he had this information months before, and guess how many times he's met with McChrystal? Around twice so far.

[Praktik]

Originally Posted by Sporanox

Wars still march on in winter. That's a fact. Besides, he had this information months before, and guess how many times he's met with McChrystal? Around twice so far.

Yes wars go on in the winter, but my point, which is well understood by experts on Afghanistan and the military and the Taliban, is that the lion's share of fighting occurs in the warmer months when transportation is easier.

Hence every year we've heard about a "Spring Taliban Offensive".

It should be clear that with an approaching winter, the dire necessity of sending more troops is well, not so dire.

Clearly, he should have his decision made and implemented by the spring.

[Praktik]

Originally Posted by Sporanox

Great scott...did you just use the term "planet Unabogie?"

As for the rest of the responses in this thread, here's the only explanation I've seen. Obama's sent his favored man down there, his man brought back a recommendation based on those inconvenient facts on the ground, and finally Obama says "I don't like the sound of that" (commitment) "so I'm going to wait until somebody comes up with a different idea"

Obviously, Obama doesn't have much experience in this regard. That's kind of why he asked for an evidence-based recommendation. Now he's trying to adjust the facts to fit the picture. Wonderful.

Where's the evidence that he's trying something so crass as "adjusting the facts to fit the picture?" Sounds to me like you pulled that one out of your _____

You do understand that the general was tasked to give advice on the theater in Afghanistan, but that a President has the whole globe to worry about, right?

Obama has to compare the situation in Afghanistan with all of America's interests and find the right solution that balances it all out...

The advice of the general is coming from a rather narrow perspective when you look at it like that.

[XBoxWarrior]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

Your "McChrystal warmonger" is a pathetic jab at a better man than you. XBoxWarrior needs to learn what irony is.

Perhaps you should google up the phrase "double entendre"...then rethink my handle.

I personally hope McChrystal gets handed his retirement papers for going public with his "I need 40,000 more troops, or the sky will fall" BS. Exactly what have we accomplished in Afghanistan in the last 8 years besides installing a puppet leader that leads not?

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Unabogie

That's a very bold statement. On what do you base this on?

On what it takes to lead SOF units, versus internet warriors.

Quote:

I will say that what we do know about Stanley is not so great.

"We" is a curious royal pronoun, in this case, oh most noble "King of Planet Unabogie."

Quote:

He participated in the cover-up of Pat Tillman's death.

Really? That's an interesting take. Gen McChrystal was CJSOTF at CENTCOM when Tillman died in Afghanistan. I've followed the Tillman case, and was never happy with how the Army handled it in re the public affairs angle. I'll take another look at Mr Tillman's comments later, and Pat Tillman's chain of command.

Quote:

Perhaps you and I have differing opinions about what makes a person "better" than another,

Indeed.

Obviously, President Obama, and the Congress, who had a good hard look at this man's record before they chose him to replace General McKiernan a year or more early, disagree with you, and do not find him to be a "torturer," nor much of anything else unsavory. They had plenty of people to choose from, to include leaving the commander at the time in command.

The King of Planet Unabogie isn't in that loop, nor does he have the facts on what qualities General McChrystal display that makes people respect him.

Nor are you interested, apparently.

What various SOF TF's did in Iraq I won't comment on, thence lies derail.

Quote:

I personally hope McChrystal gets handed his retirement papers for going public with his "I need 40,000 more troops, or the sky will fall" BS. Exactly what have we accomplished in Afghanistan in the last 8 years besides installing a puppet leader that leads not?

Your non sequitur is noted, between sentences one and two.

As to his walking papers, this is more ignorance and hyperbole. McChrystal's comments in an approved media event were not the sort of insubordination that MacArthur laid on Truman. I have my own opinions on how PR events should and should not be run, but I am not in charge. I am also not convinced this "controversy" wasn't deliberately set up (I am looking at you, Secretary Gates ) as a trial balloon to see what would float, politically, for the President's strategic choices. You may note he hasn't made them yet. (Glad he's not in a rush).

You see what you want to see.

DR

[Unabogie]

Originally Posted by Sporanox

Great scott...did you just use the term "planet Unabogie?"

As for the rest of the responses in this thread, here's the only explanation I've seen. Obama's sent his favored man down there, his man brought back a recommendation based on those inconvenient facts on the ground, and finally Obama says "I don't like the sound of that" (commitment) "so I'm going to wait until somebody comes up with a different idea"

Obviously, Obama doesn't have much experience in this regard. That's kind of why he asked for an evidence-based recommendation. Now he's trying to adjust the facts to fit the picture. Wonderful.

My goodness, did you just use the term "great scott"?

So, you made up a story for which you have zero evidence, and then conclude that your story depresses you?

It seems to me from the evidence at hand that President Obama asked for an assessment from all quarters and then used that assessment as a jumping off point for further analysis, because it's his goal to not stay in Afghanistan forever. Apparently, there are those who never want to leave, otherwise, they'd never be upset about formulating goals and plans to ever leave. Apparently, some people, like Thomas Friedman, think that “Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business.” Apparently to you, thinking things through is a sign of weakness. While jumping in without looking is strength as long as you talk tough and "show the world we mean business".

Odd.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Sporanox

Wars still march on in winter. That's a fact. Besides, he had this information months before, and guess how many times he's met with McChrystal? Around twice so far.

There are teleconference and satcom capabilities in the CENTCOM AOR. The President need not meet in person to have a face to face with his various commanders the world over.

FWIW: In 1995 I was involved with a Telecom (from the European AOR) that reached the elephants in DC. I was glad to be a horse holder, not a primary briefer. The topic was Bosnia. (The pres wasn't in that one, but Sec Def was). The year is 2009. Things are easier, comms wise, than way back then.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Unabogie

It seems to me from the evidence at hand that President Obama asked for an assessment from all quarters and then used that assessment as a jumping off point for further analysis, because it's his goal to not stay in Afghanistan forever.

Looks that way.

Quote:

Apparently, there are those who never want to leave, otherwise, they'd never be upset about formulating goals and plans to ever leave. Apparently, some people, like Thomas Friedman, think that “Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business.” Apparently to you, thinking things through is a sign of weakness. While jumping in without looking is strength as long as you talk tough and "show the world we mean business".

Who are you talking to here, Sporanox, Thomas Friedman, or your subjects on Planet Unabogie?

Focus would be nice.

[XBoxWarrior]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

As to his walking papers, this is more ignorance and hyperbole. McChrystal's comments in an approved media event were not the sort of insubordination that MacArthur laid on Truman. I have my own opinions on how PR events should and should not be run, but I am not in charge. I am also not convinced this "controversy" wasn't deliberately set up (I am looking at you, Secretary Gates ) as a trial balloon to see what would float, politically, for the President's strategic choices.

Sounds all conspiracy like sir....and also, really. [/palin]

If McChrystal truly believes that adding 40,000 + troops is the one true answer, then either he gets fired, or he resigns with dignity, but he should not be the one running a show that he disagrees with.

Either way Obama is the CIC and he gets to make the call, and I'm glad we have a CIC that can actually think...and doesn't cut brush.

[Unabogie]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

Looks that way.


Who are you talking to here, Sporanox, Thomas Friedman, or your subjects on Planet Unabogie?

Focus would be nice.

I thought it was clear that I was talking about a mindset which certain people have. Among the group with that mindset would be the both of them, but of course it is not limited to them.

I'd answer your other post, but you really made a mess of the quote tags. (ETA: You fixed them! Nice.)

Also, I'm glad everyone got a kick out of "Planet Unabogie".

[Unabogie]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

Your non sequitur is noted, between sentences one and two.

As to his walking papers, this is more ignorance and hyperbole. McChrystal's comments in an approved media event were not the sort of insubordination that MacArthur laid on Truman. I have my own opinions on how PR events should and should not be run, but I am not in charge. I am also not convinced this "controversy" wasn't deliberately set up (I am looking at you, Secretary Gates ) as a trial balloon to see what would float, politically, for the President's strategic choices. You may note he hasn't made them yet. (Glad he's not in a rush).

You see what you want to see.

DR

This isn't my quote you're refuting, which would explain the non sequitur.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I heard a radio caller a week or so ago say something like Obama is like a green-horn lieutenant questioning the judgement of a career general on military matters. (The caller was, IIRC, an army sergeant or similar non-com rank.) One of the radio panelist quickly responded that of course the caller has the chain of command backwards. The POTUS is the commander-in-chief of all the armed forces, so Obama is clearly McChrystal's superior officer. The reason for placing this high rank on a person who is elected for a relatively short term (and who may or may not have military experience) is to avoid the likelihood of a military dictatorship).

Since American Government is a required course in all U.S. high schools, I wonder how the caller managed to achieve her rank without a diploma. You'd think someone in the army would at least know the command structure.

Sadly, I think McChrystal's thinking is very similar to that of the caller.

Also, I wonder how many current McChrystal fans were the same people who said things like, your president, right or wrong, deserves our full support and obedience during the Bush misadministration.

[Giz]

Originally Posted by Praktik

Yes wars go on in the winter, but my point, which is well understood by experts on Afghanistan and the military and the Taliban, is that the lion's share of fighting occurs in the warmer months when transportation is easier.

Hence every year we've heard about a "Spring Taliban Offensive".

It should be clear that with an approaching winter, the dire necessity of sending more troops is well, not so dire.

Clearly, he should have his decision made and implemented by the spring.

Hmmm, sounds like we should attack them while they have difficulty in redeploying... i.e. in the winter

[XBoxWarrior]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

Also, I wonder how many current McChrystal fans were the same people who said things like, your president, right or wrong, deserves our full support and obedience during the Bush misadministration.

But wait.....Bush was, "The Decider", he made the 'decisions' that Cheney told him to, and his followers never doubted.

I find it surprisingly refreshing to have a CIC that cares about more than politics in this case. Clearly sending more fodder was a politically 'safe' move (even us anti-war peeps would have understood), yet he chose to 'think', or as some would say, "dither".

[Sporanox]

Originally Posted by Praktik

It should be clear that with an approaching winter, the dire necessity of sending more troops is well, not so dire.

It is interesting how you belittle the conditions there. Not so dire, indeed. Where are all the "Afghanistan isn't so bad now" articles?

Originally Posted by Praktik

Obama has to compare the situation in Afghanistan with all of America's interests and find the right solution that balances it all out...

What is the pressing outside factor that would merit such waffling?

Originally Posted by Unabogie

I thought it was clear that I was talking about a mindset which certain people have. Among the group with that mindset would be the both of them, but of course it is not limited to them.

Problem is, those who would like to send more troops aren't jumping feet first into the unknown. We're following up on one of the most thorough assessments made since this war began some eight years ago. Your mischaracterization is noted.

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

Also, I wonder how many current McChrystal fans were the same people who said things like, your president, right or wrong, deserves our full support and obedience during the Bush misadministration.

Sure, we're going to obey him, and those of us that support our armed forces won't just let them dry up. Nobody said we have to be in lockstep with him.

[parky76]

I voted for Obama...twice.

I think he is a good President. A million times better then Bush and a thousand times better then McCain would have been.

I totally support his efforts for health-care reform, reducing nuclear arms, and regulating the banking industry.

...however, I believe that General McCrystal's advice and judgemant should be respected. I do not support Obama's rejection of expert military requests.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by XBoxWarrior

I find it surprisingly refreshing to have a CIC that cares about more than politics in this case. Clearly sending more fodder was a politically 'safe' move (even us anti-war peeps would have understood), yet he chose to 'think', or as some would say, "dither".

I remember listening to someone criticize someone else's praise for Dubya. He pointed out that the praise was strictly for being "decisive" and not for making good decisions. He said it's like praising Bush for the fact that he didn't once blink while driving us all head-on full speed to collide with a wall.

Originally Posted by Sporanox

Nobody said we have to be in lockstep with him.

I'm sorry but that's not true. I distinctly remember people (I'm thinking in particular of yahoos calling into a radio program and the counter demonstrators I met on the street) saying exactly that. I also remember being accused of committing treason and of being a terrorist for expressing criticism or disagreement with Bush's decisions.

Sorry--I think I instigated a derail here. I'm merely pointing out that people's attitude toward the authority of the president as commander in chief have sure changed since Obama was elected.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by parky76

...however, I believe that General McCrystal's advice and judgemant should be respected. I do not support Obama's rejection of expert military requests.

So you think the president has to obey the wishes of the generals? Surely it is his duty to make the decisions, even if that means rejecting the "expert military requests" of some members of the military. In other words, if you think Obama always has to accept these requests, they're actually orders and not requests, and again the chain of command is upside-down. (I for one don't want a career general to become the effective commander-in-chief.)

At any rate, I think the problem Obama had with McChrystal was not so much his request or his advice, but the fact that he went public with his opinions on the matter in an attempt to force Obama's hand.

[parky76]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

So you think the president has to obey the wishes of the generals? .

nice job putting words in my mouth.

no, I do not believe that it is the President's role to kow-tow to the Generals.

but I believe that the requests of a proven, successful, and highly distinguished General should be respected.

I let the politicians deal with politics..and the Generals deal with war.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by parky76

nice job putting words in my mouth.

You said:

Originally Posted by parky

I do not support Obama's rejection of expert military requests.

So that means you think Obama ought not reject these requests. How does that differ from saying he ought obey them?

Quote:

no, I do not believe that it is the President's role to kow-tow to the Generals.

I never said anything about kowtowing. I only pointed out that the president is the commander in chief, and therefore he is McChrystal's superior. It is McChrystal who must obey Obama's orders and not the other way around.

Quote:

but I believe that the requests of a proven, successful, and highly distinguished General should be respected.

OK--so does "respect" mean "obey"? If not, what does it mean?

You said above that you don't support Obama's rejection of these requests. If he ought not reject them, then doesn't it follow that he ought obey them?

Quote:

I let the politicians deal with politics..and the Generals deal with war.

Surely you're not saying that there is no politics in war?

At any rate, what you're suggesting is contrary to the U.S. Constitution which clearly states in Article II Section 2:

Originally Posted by U.S. Constitution

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices,

[Praktik]

Originally Posted by Sporanox

It is interesting how you belittle the conditions there. Not so dire, indeed. Where are all the "Afghanistan isn't so bad now" articles?

What is the pressing outside factor that would merit such waffling?

Yet more evidence that engagement with you is probably not worth the effort.

Why would you deem my comments "belittling"?

Of course, the overall situation may be deemed dire, but you betray your ignorance of realities in Afghanistan if you are scoffing at the fact that every year since the war began fighting during the winter tapered off before resumption in the spring. Your willingness to mischaracterize my words speaks not only to a lack of understanding on how warfare in Afghanistan is conducted, but to a disengenuous and unwillingness to engage in this discussion with good faith.

I was speaking not to the overall Afghan situation as "not dire', but the immediate need to send troops right away.

As for other "outside factors"? How about everything else in the whole world!

The President of the United States has to worry about Somalia, Iraq, Pakistan, the interplay of other powers like India, China, Russia and Europe and the ways they may help or hinder American interests. There's North Korea, the need to maintain American preparedness for future action due to unknown contingencies. Budget worries, strain on the military... the list goes on and on. He has to worry more generally about what American interest is being served in Afghanistan and how best to serve it - and what other interests may be jeopardized by escalation there.

it was really a very simple point and most people with a minimal awareness would be able to grasp it: President = Big Picture, the general = narrow focus on Afghanistan.

As such the General's advice with respect to the narrow issue of Afghanistan should be counterweighted with a bird's-eye view of global issues and protecting American interests everywhere.

Sometimes these perspectives will diverge.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by XBoxWarrior

Sounds all conspiracy like sir....and also, really. [/palin]

If McChrystal truly believes that adding 40,000 + troops is the one true answer, then either he gets fired, or he resigns with dignity, but he should not be the one running a show that he disagrees with.

You presume that this interactive process is over. You presume wrongly. Play is continuous. President Obama wants this guy to run the show, but that doesn't mean President Obama has to give the general everything he asks for. The general is right to ask, and when asked his candid opinion, he is right to offer it. But he doesn't have a right to expect that all he asks for will be granted, nor do I find any evidence that he does.

Quote:

Either way Obama is the CIC and he gets to make the call,

Yep, President Obama is now the Decider.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Unabogie

This isn't my quote you're refuting, which would explain the non sequitur.

The non sequitur observation was a response to xboxwarrior, IIRC.

Originally Posted by xbox

Sounds all conspiracy like sir

No, politics and strategy. Play is continuous.

DR

[XBoxWarrior]

Originally Posted by parky76

I let the politicians deal with politics..and the Generals deal with war.

The problem in this case is, there is No War...just an idea, that called 'terror' that we are fighting. No one can surrender, no one can win/lose, only people can continue to die for naught. We have no defined objective in this mess, never have, never will...it's time to come home. The ghost of Bin Laden will forever haunt the American people, but neither McBush nor McChrystal will be serving up his head on the American platter of 24hr news.

It's over.