McChrystal to Obama... "Go F*CK YOURSELF"!

Quote from CaptainObvious:


Note to all Generals:
Your opinions are not being solicited.
More...

Actually, I think the opinion of the Generals are invaluable (meaning "men in the field") for tactical expertise. If McChrystal was not given the chance to voice his concerns among his peers or strongly objected to policy, he should have resigned his commission and spoken as a private citizen. As a soldier, that would be the honorable path.

Unless the policy is 100% tactical, I don't see how he could imagine that his own viewpoints could cover all bases to bring about a successful outcome, since besides the battles, there is plenty of international politics involved too.

He sounds a bit like McClellen might have been like during the Civil War.
 
Past performance shows the military does quite poorly when micromanaged (hobbled) in the field by arbitrary political machinations and lawyers.


If it's a war let's treat it like one, if not our troops have no business there.
 
What it take Obama to respond to McChrsytal when he requested more troops, 4 months?

What it take Obama to respond to McChrystal trashing Obama's ego, 1 weekend?

Lesson- you want action from Obama you need to first call him out for the big baby he really is.
 
Quote from Trader7793:

Generals do not get to determine who is an enemy...no matter if they are foreign or domestic. This will be a very different nation if Generals begin to make up their own determinations about who the enemy is. That would be the end of our freedoms.

General McCrystal did not fall on his sword for honor. He damaged his own reputation and disgraced himself. He spent the last few days apologzing for his own petty remarks. There is certainly nothing honorable about that. He could have used just a little bit of good judgement and made an honorable protest resignation...that would have had some good and lasting effect, but he blew that opportunity and now most Americans do not know what his exact point of protest was...they just know his juvenile comments about his superiors.

Remember, the President gave McCrystal most of what he wanted for Afghanistan...he rejected Biden's plan and went with the surge. McCrystal probably had some legitimate concerns about how the strategy was being implement and what resources were being allocated, but that is almost always the case.

Ultimately the American people will have to decide if they really want to remain significantly engaged in Afghanistan. You would think that an organization like NATO could mount a sustained effort over 25 years, if necessary, to wear down and defeat a group like the Taliban. It may mean only keeping 40,000 troops on the ground and using Afghanistan as a permanent live fire training ground for the entirety of NATO forces. The Taliban remain a threat to almost all sane people around the world and letting them run a country again will eventually become a problem for the West again. If a group like the Taliban is able to defy and eventually chase NATO out of the country, then it will be impossible to continue the world policeman role the US has been doing for the last 50 years. Most wars of the future will probably be these counter-insurgency struggles and our enemies will try and wait us out, especially if we continue to demonstrate a lack of staying power.
More...

Pretty good analysis, although I think reasonable people can differ about the wisdom of a 25 year engagement. I am still trying to understand why we have troops in places like Germany, Japan and Korea, so I'm not really in favor of extending the empire.

We can no longer afford to be the world's policeman. Doing so encourages other countries not to pull their fair share and also foment resentment.

As for McChrystal, I think he would be a poor choice for conservatives to rally around as the anti-Obama. He claims to have supported and voted for Obama. As noted above, he was fired, not for any principled differences with the administration, but for shooting his mouth off in a highly unprofessional and injudicious manner in front of a reporter.

The strategy we are pursuing in afghanistan is his strategy. He may have some quibbles about how long it took obama to approve it and obama not being willing to send the entire U. S. Army there, but he was foolish to advocate a strategy that required such a commitment.
 
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

"... The strategy we are pursuing in afghanistan is his strategy. He may have some quibbles about how long it took obama to approve it and obama not being willing to send the entire U. S. Army there, but he was foolish to advocate a strategy that required such a commitment.
More...

Disagree.

He asked for 30-40,000 more troops. 6 months later, he got a fraction of that.

The "rules of engagement" there are like fighting with one hand tied behind your back.

He felt handcuffed and saw too many of his command being killed.. all along trying to win a "politically correct" war. That's BULLSHIT!

Either you're "in it to win it", or you should not be there.. I think McChrystal vented his frustration... and personally, I agree.
 
Quote from bugscoe:

What it take Obama to respond to McChrsytal when he requested more troops, 4 months?

What it take Obama to respond to McChrystal trashing Obama's ego, 1 weekend?

Lesson- you want action from Obama you need to first call him out for the big baby he really is.
More...

Obama was spot on in delaying sending more troops. Why? Becuase commitment of more troops will not win the war, even if half the US military is sent over there. If your opponent is employing guerrilla tactics no amount of men, advance in militray technology will win that war. And the enemy can sustain it for 100years.
 
Quote from Lucrum:

So he was wrong for sending more troops after the delay then?
More...

Yes was wrong on bad advice - because all that a one guerrilla tactician needs to fight a war with 1000 men is an AK 47 and a Grenade. The 1000 men will not win.
 
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

Pretty good analysis, although I think reasonable people can differ about the wisdom of a 25 year engagement. I am still trying to understand why we have troops in places like Germany, Japan and Korea, so I'm not really in favor of extending the empire.

We can no longer afford to be the world's policeman. Doing so encourages other countries not to pull their fair share and also foment resentment.

As for McChrystal, I think he would be a poor choice for conservatives to rally around as the anti-Obama. He claims to have supported and voted for Obama. As noted above, he was fired, not for any principled differences with the administration, but for shooting his mouth off in a highly unprofessional and injudicious manner in front of a reporter.

The strategy we are pursuing in afghanistan is his strategy. He may have some quibbles about how long it took obama to approve it and obama not being willing to send the entire U. S. Army there, but he was foolish to advocate a strategy that required such a commitment.
More...

We are not the "world's policeman" and rarely if ever have been. Any protections our allies (read vendors) receive is incidental. Our bases and troops are out there to protect our supply chains. We actually couldn't care less the type of government in those far flung places, so long as it (or the people under it) do not intefere with the free flow of resources to our industry. That's why certain calamities are completely ignored by our government, and other calamaties are immediately addressed. That's why a ruler is our friend one decade and a "madman" the next, or vice versa.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top