• Welcome to the new NAXJA Forum! If your password does not work, please use "Forgot your password?" link on the log-in page. Please feel free to reach out to [email protected] if we can provide any assistance.

Gen McChrystal

Darky

NAXJA Forum User
Location
29 Palms, CA
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...Stanley-McChrystal-speech-on-Afghanistan.html

The relationship between President Barack Obama and the commander of Nato forces in Afghanistan has been put under severe strain by Gen Stanley McChrystal's comments on strategy for the war.


By Alex Spillius in Washington
Published: 7:00AM BST 05 Oct 2009

AFg_1472215c.jpg
US General Stanley McChrystal Photo: AFP/GETTY


According to sources close to the administration, Gen McChrystal shocked and angered presidential advisers with the bluntness of a speech given in London last week.
The next day he was summoned to an awkward 25-minute face-to-face meeting on board Air Force One on the tarmac in Copenhagen, where the president had arrived to tout Chicago's unsuccessful Olympic bid.



In an apparent rebuke to the commander, Robert Gates, the Defence Secretary, said: "It is imperative that all of us taking part in these deliberations, civilians and military alike, provide our best advice to the president, candidly but privately."
When asked on CNN about the commander's public lobbying for more troops, Gen Jim Jones, national security adviser, said:
“Ideally, it's better for military advice to come up through the chain of command.”
Asked if the president had told the general to tone down his remarks, he told CBS: "I wasn't there so I can't answer that question. But it was an opportunity for them to get to know each other a little bit better. I am sure they exchanged direct views."
An adviser to the administration said: "People aren't sure whether McChrystal is being naïve or an upstart. To my mind he doesn't seem ready for this Washington hard-ball and is just speaking his mind too plainly."
In London, Gen McChrystal, who heads the 68,000 US troops in Afghanistan as well as the 100,000 Nato forces, flatly rejected proposals to switch to a strategy more reliant on drone missile strikes and special forces operations against al-Qaeda.
He told the Institute of International and Strategic Studies that the formula, which is favoured by Vice-President Joe Biden, would lead to "Chaos-istan".
When asked whether he would support it, he said: "The short answer is: No."
He went on to say: "Waiting does not prolong a favorable outcome. This effort will not remain winnable indefinitely, and nor will public support."
The remarks have been seen by some in the Obama administration as a barbed reference to the slow pace of debate within the White House.
Gen McChrystal delivered a report on Afghanistan requested by the president on Aug 31, but Mr Obama held only his second "principals meeting" on the issue last week.
He will hold at least one more this week, but a decision on how far to follow Gen McChrystal's recommendation to send 40,000 more US troops will not be made for several weeks.
A military expert said: "They still have working relationship but all in all it's not great for now."
Some commentators regarded the general's London comments as verging on insubordination.
Bruce Ackerman, an expert on constitutional law at Yale University, said in the Washington Post: "As commanding general, McChrystal has no business making such public pronouncements."
He added that it was highly unusual for a senior military officer to "pressure the president in public to adopt his strategy".
Relations between the general and the White House began to sour when his report, which painted a grim picture of the allied mission in Afghanistan, was leaked. White House aides have since briefed against the general's recommendations.
The general has responded with a series of candid interviews as well as the speech. He told Newsweek he was firmly against half measures in Afghanistan: "You can't hope to contain the fire by letting just half the building burn."
As a divide opened up between the military and the White House, senior military figures began criticising the White House for failing to tackle the issue more quickly.
They made no secret of their view that without the vast ground force recommended by Gen McChrystal, the Afghan mission could end in failure and a return to power of the Taliban.
"They want to make sure people know what they asked for if things go wrong," said Lawrence Korb, a former assistant secretary of defence.
Critics also pointed out that before their Copenhagen encounter Mr Obama had only met Gen McChrystal once since his appointment in June.
 
Last edited:
Why is it that I sleep better at night when there's a Military (or ex-Military) person, or one favorable to the Military, in the White House? The only thing rogue nations seem to respect is an iron hand in command, or at least on the right button. When Joe Biden, lackey that he is, said that this 'young President' would be tested, that's probably the only words of truth that ever passed through his lips. And when situations like the meeting between McChrystal and our Dear Leader arise, it just hammers home to our enemy that there is dissent among our leaders. Not a good thing.
Eisenhower was a Soldier. Kennedy earned his stripes. Carter was a pussy-cat, although a nice guy, and there were those who took advantage of the situation. Maybe the 'ballsiest' of our leaders weren't the best on domestic policies, but things are easier to work out when we're not being hammered from by outside influences. And this latest event doesn't show a strong, united front to those who would do us harm. It's a shame that the old warhorse that the Repubs threw up at the last election, John McCain, seemed to have his best days behind him, but having been the person he was, and all that he'd gone through, would be in a much better state of mind with military matters. I bet that the people running the operation wouldn't be chasing him all over the world begging for the assets to complete their mission.
 
Military service should be a pre-requisite to be Commander-in-Chief.....

Would you hire a chef to manage a baseball team?
 
Military service should be a pre-requisite to be Commander-in-Chief.....

Would you hire a chef to manage a baseball team?

How about a community organizer to manage your team?:confused1
 
Either way, you'll lose :D
 
The good thing is that GEN McChrystal was being blunt and direct.

The bad this is that the only greater sin in this world is being correct (and I get the feeling he is, indeed, correct.)

Go figure.

Barry calling him into AF1 for a little face-to-face chat sounds a lot like what happens when small children play one parent against the other. Until there's a unified front in our military leadership (chain of command or no,) things are going to get worse instead of better...
 
....why do you think Adm Fallon retired early from his position as Cdr, US Central Command? Wasn't much unification under Bush either, especially when Rummy was SecDef....that guy is flippin' retarded.
 
....why do you think Adm Fallon retired early from his position as Cdr, US Central Command? Wasn't much unification under Bush either, especially when Rummy was SecDef....that guy is flippin' retarded.

I never said it was merely limited to Barry - just mentioned him as the most recent example. Why do you think our foreign affairs have been so fscked up of late?
 
Hillary? :D

I wasn't trying to disagree with you....came out wrong - just showing another example of what happens when people don't see eye to eye. Too bad the CiC won't "retire"....
 
Hillary? :D

I wasn't trying to disagree with you....came out wrong - just showing another example of what happens when people don't see eye to eye. Too bad the CiC won't "retire"....

I wasn't sure - thought I should explain...

And, has Hillary had enough time to botch things up badly? I'm not inclined to think so - there's been more than a year of fsckwittery going into this situation as it stands! (I may not hold any degrees in the subject, but I'm inclined to think that even I would do better as SecState than Hillary. As long as I get the backing of POTUS when I'm trying to do anything...)
 
I don't think many people take her seriously.....that and I'm sure she annoys the shit out of people.....I think Bill would have made an excellent SecState, too bad he wasn't eligible....
 
I don't think many people take her seriously.....that and I'm sure she annoys the shit out of people.....I think Bill would have made an excellent SecState, too bad he wasn't eligible....

Bill not eligible due to being prior POTUS? Besides, I still have trouble with the idea of putting him in charge of anything more important than a White Castle...
 
I said it before, Sadam lost, Iraq lost, Afghanistan lost, our military lost, the only winners here are the politicians.
McArthur had this same problem with Truman.
 
I said it before, Sadam lost, Iraq lost, Afghanistan lost, our military lost, the only winners here are the politicians.
McArthur had this same problem with Truman.

Nobody can screw up a good war better than a politician, except maybe the media.
They just can't seem to get a simple process straight in their minds and follow the protocols. Politicians declare war, the military fights and wins (hopefully) and then the politicians deal with the aftermath.
As long as the politicians try to control every facet of the process and the amateurs (Politicians) are in charge, things are bound to be fubar'ed.
 
WWNSD

What would Norman Schwarzkopf do? :D
 
http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed7/idUSN06445064

Obama has a difficult decision to make here……..pulling back forces and relying on drones and spec-ops teams could send a message to the Taliban and Al’Queda that they’ve won….. the question I have is, can this war be won, with a 40k troop surge?

:dunno:

McCrystal seems to think it can be done and I’d have to trust this over a President that continues to vilify the US and wants to neuter the US military.
 
My point exactly.....if we aren't there to win, with a clear objective and goal of what "win" is, then why are we there?

When I've posed this question before, I've heard answers such as "we're there to stabilize the region" or to "erradicate the Taliban".....how do we measure this?

What goals must we reach to call our presence in Afghanistan a success...or Win?
Where are we on the "win" scale?
Will 40,000 more troops allow us to achieve a "win"?
Is there a better allocation of our military resources?

I'm sure these questions and others are being discussed by the White House and the Joint Forces Commanders.....curious to see how this is going to shake out........
 
Back
Top