McChrystal betrays us, (not Petraeus!)

[Feanor]

Obama was right to accept McChrystal's resignation. Distainful public remarks about the Commander in Chief and his advisors are insubordination ipso facto. He's luck not to be courtmartialed.

The remarks go beyond "poor judgement" coming from a person of McChrystal's undoubted abilities: they show contempt for the legitimate role of a high military commander in a democratic system where civilian leadership sets policy. If McChrystal didn't feel he could follow the CiC's lead capably and with good conscience then he should have quietly resigned for "personal reasons", not publically bad-mouthed the President and his advisors.

[bobsticks]

Yeah, because your right to free speach ends with a career in the military and Obama's experience as Commander and Chief of the Illinois National Guard makes him infallible.

[Hyfi]

Yeah, because your right to free speach ends with a career in the military and Obama's experience as Commander and Chief of the Illinois National Guard makes him infallible.

No, because there should not be a different code of conduct for the grunts and tops dogs. It would have sent a bad message to the enlisted and everyone else.

[bobsticks]

No, because there should not be a different code of conduct for the grunts and tops dogs. It would have sent a bad message to the enlisted and everyone else.

I doubt Bill considered this when crafting his missive. His hatred for the U.S. Military Industrial Complex seems all-encompassing and pervasive.

[Rich-n-Texas]

I doubt Bill considered this when crafting his missive. His hatred for the U.S. Military Industrial Complex seems all-encompassing and pervasive.

Doesn't stop with the military 'sticks, but we already knew that.

Whatever. He's just trolling anyway.

[bobsticks]

Doesn't stop with the military 'sticks, but we already knew that.

Whatever. He's just trolling anyway.

Whoah there nelly furtado...I don't share the same wholesale view of Feanor's posts that you do. I don't think as you do that he hates Americans or America. I take most of his posts as a cautionary tale and fully respect his right to disagree with me or rail against perceived inequities. He's lived alot of years and has some wisdom and his concepts are based on facts as he understands them. The same cannot be said for many of the rabble-rousers of AR.

That said, this particular posts raises my guile because I think our President has done far more to endanger our troops and negate our intents in that critical part of the world than a few mean words from a decorated soldier.

I also don't understand what he means when he scribes "betrays us".

[Feanor]

I doubt Bill considered this when crafting his missive. His hatred for the U.S. Military Industrial Complex seems all-encompassing and pervasive.

Au contraire, 'Sticks. I was very much thinking of the effect on the troops and still more so of the encouragement to our mutual enemies, the Taliban and El Qaeda. Let's not forget that Canadian troops are fighting in Afganistan and that the US commander on the ground is effectively the overall commander of Canadian and other NATO troops in that country -- hence the "us", ma'man.

By the way, these rules aren't just for the military. Publically bad-mouthing the company would have been grounds for dismissal in any organization I've worked for.

[bobsticks]

Au contraire, 'Sticks. I was very much thinking of the effect on the troops and still more so of the encouragement to our mutual enemies, the Taliban and El Qaeda. Let's not forget that Canadian troops are fighting in Afganistan and that the US commander on the ground is effectively the overall commander of Canadian and other NATO troops in that country -- hence the "us", ma'man. .

I think the President did far graver damage to the cause when he announced on television his optimal timetable for withdrawal. Nothing like tipping the enemy off, eh?

By the way, these rules aren't just for the military. Publically bad-mouthing the company would have been grounds for dismissal in any organization I've worked for.

True, so true...I doubt McChrystal planned on furthering his career. I strongly suspect that he felt he was departing with a "shot over the bow"....

[markw]

No, because there should not be a different code of conduct for the grunts and tops dogs. It would have sent a bad message to the enlisted and everyone else.

No offense, but you have no idea what you're talking about here. The military has different rules than civilian life, particularly for those high ranking individuals in the public spotlight.

As much as I agree with what the guy said, he was not allowed to make it public, or so the laws go.

But, Obama should realize that he had the perfect man in there for that job. The locals respected him. Getting rid of him may come back to haunt him.

[Hyfi]

No offense, but you have no idea what you're talking about here. The military has different rules than civilian life, particularly for those high ranking individuals in the public spotlight.

As much as I agree with what the guy said, he was not allowed to make it public, or so the laws go.

But, Obama should realize that he had the perfect man in there for that job. The locals respected him. Getting rid of him may come back to haunt him.

I know you are having fun taking shots at me lately but go back and re-read what I wrote.

The word civilian was not there.

What I was trying to say was, and I paraphrased a recent interview I heard on NPR, was that when a lower level military individual does something similar, he gets reprimanded. If a high ranking officer does the same thing, he should face the EXACT same consequences.

[markw]

I know you are having fun taking shots at me lately but go back and re-read what I wrote.

The word civilian was not there.

What I was trying to say was, and I paraphrased a recent interview I heard on NPR, was that when a lower level military individual does something similar, he gets reprimanded. If a high ranking officer does the same thing, he should face the EXACT same consequences.

No offense, but you have no idea what you're talking about here. The military has different rules for low-ranking enlisted personel and high ranking officers in leadrship position, particularly those individuals in the public spotlight.

As much as I agree with what the guy said, he was not allowed to make it public, or so the laws go.

But, Obama should realize that he had the perfect man in there for that job. Getting rid of him may come back to haunt him. The locals respected him and he did look out for the men underneath him as best that he was allowed.

Now, to add a little forward motion to this thread, for a bit of what they were probably biitching about, click here.

Remember, LBJ looked at soldiers in Viet-nam as if they were those little plastic soldires we played with when we were young.

[3LB]

Mark, if the next lowest ranking officer under McChrystal had publically scoffed at any decisions made by McChrystal, then that guy would have been reprimanded harshly and prolly transfered immediately. I served 6 years in the military and one of the first things I learned, there is no right or wrong, only rank. The sanctity of rank has always been upheld despite even the most dire of acts. I am not surprised that McChrystal was relieved of his command. No one who has ever served should be surprised. This incident shows very poor decision making on the part of McChrystal. He definitely knew better. He left Obama no choice but to do what he did.

[Geoffcin]

I've moved this tread to the "Steel Cage". From now on please use this for all the politics/religion threads. Thanks guys!

[3LB]

I've moved this tread to the "Steel Cage". From now on please use this for all the politics/religion threads. Thanks guys!

why? this is one of the few times that we're all, for the most part, in agreement.

Get us out of Afghanistan now.

either unleash the dogs of war or get the fluck outta there.. now!"

The bottom line is Afghanistan is an unwinnable war. We are wasting soldiers and money fighting it just to save our face, a face that will not be saved when all is said and done.

thing is, Americans always want to be perceived as the "good guys" and win the war. This is another instance where we can't have our cake and eat it too. We aren't really willing to do what it would take to win there. Sometimes you just gotta cut your losses.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

why? this is one of the few times that we're all, for the most part, in agreement.

Get us out of Afghanistan now.

+1 on this comment, I was completely baffled at the move.

thing is, Americans always want to be perceived as the "good guys" and win the war. This is another instance where we can't have our cake and eat it too. We aren't really willing to do what it would take to win there. Sometimes you just gotta cut your losses.

We are also dead afraid of being seen as weak in front of our enemies. It is this kind of pride that always gets our fanny in a crack. Sometimes it is better to be looked at as wise and smart, than just a prideful bully with very large guns.

[markw]

"Eight Arab, five Pakistani and two Afghan militants were killed when bombs they were making exploded prematurely inside a mosque in eastern Afghanistan, the interior ministry said on Sunday."

Click here for more details.

Boy, talk about being hoisted by ones own petard. Now, I really don't have problems with suicide bombers. I just don't like when they take others with them.

Remember, we have to give them two weeks notice before we raid a house...

[3LB]

We are also dead afraid of being seen as weak in front of our enemies. It is this kind of pride that always gets our fanny in a crack.

Vietnam kinda blew holes in the theory that we'd always win because our hearts were good and pure and God (the blonde one) was always on our side, and that we'd surgically invade your country, kill they bad guys and give your children leftover spam and chocolate bars on the way out... The backlash from losing gave us a complex for a decade and made Pres. Carter (a former US Navy officer) afraid to use it even when he needed to. The whole Iran hostage crisis was blamed on Vietnam failure, since we showed the willingness to back out in disgrace, we made ourselves vulnerable to third world terrorism (of course the part where we secretly backed ruthless blood-thirsty dictators in the Middle-East, not to mention the ones in Central and South America, had nothing to do the third world's growing hatred of us).

[Feanor]

...

The bottom line is Afghanistan is an unwinnable war. We are wasting soldiers and money fighting it just to save our face, a face that will not be saved when all is said and done.

thing is, Americans always want to be perceived as the "good guys" and win the war. This is another instance where we can't have our cake and eat it too. We aren't really willing to do what it would take to win there. Sometimes you just gotta cut your losses.

And the other thing is, to "win" the Afgan war in military terms would be to loose it, arguably.

There are 1.3 billion Muslims in the world and their problem with the West is that many of them perceive that we are waging a war on Islam. To conduct an unlimited military action in, say, Afganistan, would be to confirm this perception to the rest.

The biggest contributing factors have been past mistakes of American and British foreign relations. These mistakes go away back: they include the UK's Balfour Declaration, unconditonal support of Israel, the Suez invasion, support for the late Shaw of Iran, and more recently, the invasions of Afganistan and Iraq. Of course we can't make the past go away, however we need not only to not repeat past mistakes, but also to remedy them in some degree.

[Hyfi]

unconditonal support of Israel.

That's pretty much it in a nutshell. And all this crap will never end as long as the US remains firm on this issue.

And just exactly what does the US get in return from Israel? Nothing that I see. Enlighten me.

[Feanor]

That's pretty much it in a nutshell. And all this crap will never end as long as the US remains firm on this issue.

And just exactly what does the US get in return from Israel? Nothing that I see. Enlighten me.

The value of Israel as a Western ally has depreciated considerably since the end of the cold war -- in fact it's pretty close to zero.

[bobsticks]

And just exactly what does the US get in return from Israel? Nothing that I see. Enlighten me.

I really enjoy Israeli couscous. It's a great alternative to heavy starches and can be flavored in many truly spectacular ways.

[Ajani]

Very interesting thread, Feanor. So here are my thoughts on a number of the points discussed so far:

1) McChrystal had to be fired. Obama would have zero credibility as Commander-In-Chief, if he allowed a subordinate to publicly disrespect his administration. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with the boss, but for McChrystal to allow his men to show such utter contempt for the Obama administration is absurd. The only reason to allow such contempt to breed is if you plan to overthrow your boss, and since I doubt that was McChrystal's intention, then I just don't see why he allowed it.

2) Afghanistan hates America (OK, that's a generalization but I think you all get the basic point): So there is no point hanging around and trying to be "heroes". Cut your losses and let them sort themselves out.

3) Historically, America has had way way way too much involvement in the affairs of foreign countries: Arming and training psychotic A$$-Clowns around the world, during the Cold War and then casually withdrawing from those regions when Russia stopped being a threat to America. So there are legitimate reasons why foreign countries have issues with America, but that does not excuse those countries for harboring terrorists intent on killing Americans...

To give you an example of how difficult it would be for America to win the "hearts and minds" of many foreigners, consider my humble little country: Jamaica. We just had a month long war in our capital city to capture and extradite our most dangerous drug kingpin to the US. The US wanted him, so we had to hand him over. Great. Here's the issue: Where do Jamaica's gangs and the Kingpin (Dudus) get their guns from? We don't make guns in Jamaica. Worse yet, examine the history of when the Kingpin's father rose to power in the 70's. During a period when our government was openly planning on turning Jamaica into a Democratic Socialist state and strengthening our relationship with Cuba, all of sudden the opposition gangs found an influx of US guns... hmmm...

There is no way for the US to suddenly win over hearts and minds of foreigners, when many of us are worse off for prior US involvement in our affairs. The best approach would be to focus on protecting US soil and leaving other countries the hell alone. Let the Afghans kill themselves in civil war, since that's what their people want to do...

[Feanor]

Very interesting thread, Feanor. So here are my thoughts on a number of the points discussed so far:

1) McChrystal had to be fired. Obama would have zero credibility as Commander-In-Chief, if he allowed a subordinate to publicly disrespect his administration. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with the boss, but for McChrystal to allow his men to show such utter contempt for the Obama administration is absurd. The only reason to allow such contempt to breed is if you plan to overthrow your boss, and since I doubt that was McChrystal's intention, then I just don't see why he allowed it.

2) Afghanistan hates America (OK, that's a generalization but I think you all get the basic point): So there is no point hanging around and trying to be "heroes". Cut your losses and let them sort themselves out.

3) Historically, America has had way way way too much involvement in the affairs of foreign countries: Arming and training psychotic A$$-Clowns around the world, during the Cold War and then casually withdrawing from those regions when Russia stopped being a threat to America. So there are legitimate reasons why foreign countries have issues with America, but that does not excuse those countries for harboring terrorists intent on killing Americans...

To give you an example of how difficult it would be for America to win the "hearts and minds" of many foreigners, consider my humble little country: Jamaica. We just had a month long war in our capital city to capture and extradite our most dangerous drug kingpin to the US. The US wanted him, so we had to hand him over. Great. Here's the issue: Where do Jamaica's gangs and the Kingpin (Dudus) get their guns from? We don't make guns in Jamaica. Worse yet, examine the history of when the Kingpin's father rose to power in the 70's. During a period when our government was openly planning on turning Jamaica into a Democratic Socialist state and strengthening our relationship with Cuba, all of sudden the opposition gangs found an influx of US guns... hmmm...

There is no way for the US to suddenly win over hearts and minds of foreigners, when many of us are worse off for prior US involvement in our affairs. The best approach would be to focus on protecting US soil and leaving other countries the hell alone. Let the Afghans kill themselves in civil war, since that's what their people want to do...

I think I agree with you basically on all points. Although I can't speak specifically to your suggestion that US operatives armed Jamaican gangs.

[Ajani]

I think I agree with you basically on all points. Although I can't speak specifically to your suggestion that US operatives armed Jamaican gangs.

The problem for the US is that whether they were directly involved or not, the guns still came from the US. So they will always be blamed by many persons for that. Afghans would have to resort to killing each other with sticks and stones, if they didn't have US and Soviet machine guns at their disposal.

[bobsticks]

The problem for the US is that whether they were directly involved or not, the guns still came from the US. So they will always be blamed by many persons for that. Afghans would have to resort to killing each other with sticks and stones, if they didn't have US and Soviet machine guns at their disposal.

Well, if those "many persons" insist on not blaming the people that use the guns at least they should be specific about blaming the U.S. weapons manufacturers of the weapons. Blaming all 308 million of us is stereotypical...and ignorant.