It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Styki
I'm not sure of what Obama should do to McChrystal.
Obama is not weak if he chooses to let things be. There are a few things which everyone who chooses to speak on the matter must take into account.
First, if Obama was to fire McChrystal then that would require a change of command. For anybody who has never served in the military, this is huge. I can't even begin to understand all the impacts that something like this would have, but I think I have a better understanding than most.
Second, this is now a political decision. The conservative media is going to side with McChrystal. We all know that anybody with conservative tendencies will fall in line on that side. This is the first decision that Obama is going to make which truly puts this war in his hands.
Third, if any demotion takes place that would destroy McChrystal's career/life. He is military and has been for most of his life, there are personal factors to take into consideration.
I will say that we can kind of see what's coming by looking at what has already taken place. By acknowledging the situation before the article is released the article is being downplayed a bit. Before this article hit's the shelve we can expect this situation to be resolved.
Originally posted by mothershipzeta
I'm sure he'll have a job at Fox News lined up before the ink on his resignation is dry.
And Obama can't win in this situation - he either accepts his resignation and we hear the right-wing lose it, saying that "Obama's ego" is going to lose Afghanistan, or he allows him to stay and they say Obama is denigrating the position of Commander-in-Chief by allowing officers to question his judgment.
There isn’t very much in the Rolling Stone article requiring an apology from General McChrystal, the man in charge in Afghanistan who has been summoned to the White House. If he does resign, it should not be because of perceived slurs against the White House. They’re not there.
There was a copy of the article available online until recently, which I’ve read, and some excerpts and a news report about it here and here. Basically, the general – or “THE RUNAWAY GENERAL” as he is hysterically referred to – has been the victim of journalist hype. It is the magazine’s editors that call the White House “wimps”, and it is the author that uses almost every f-word in the piece, gratuitously, gratingly, and not while quoting anyone. The only f-word used by someone else is a Brit saying how much some people love McChrystal’s habit of showing up on patrol.
Let’s be clear: Barack Obama may still want McChrystal to resign. The general gave long, close and after-hours access to a journalist and also apparently made no complaints when Rolling Stone sent him a pre-publication copy. That this represents poor judgment, and that this is not the first instance of his poor judgment, is indisputable.
But of the inflammatory quotations and asides, I think it is safe to say they’re mostly ill-judged wisecracks. One in particular from a McChrystal aide about Joe Biden is specifically meant to be a joke. McChrystal also laughs about not wanting to open an email from Richard Holbrooke, and exhibits a reluctance to have a posh dinner in France. Some aides need to wash their mouths out. That really is about it.
There is very little in the piece that would back up the “runaway” angle. There is almost no difference in policy mentioned between the army and the White House. McChrystal comes off as one of the few people actually building bridges properly with Afghanistan’s difficult government. And it would hardly be the first time that a general and a president have not got on like a house on fire.
If anything, the case for dismissing McChrystal is strengthened by what the article exposes as his failure to win over the hearts and minds of his own men. There is considerable doubt among ordinary soldiers that counterinsurgency is the right strategy, and their commander does not come out of confrontations with them very well. But for insulting behaviour towards the administration? Look elsewhere.
Originally posted by Xtrozero
Originally posted by Styki
I'm not sure of what Obama should do to McChrystal.
Coming from a person with 28 years in the military, Obama should fire him on the spot...any military person will understand why.
Originally posted by piddles
reply to post by Stormdancer777
oh well if rolling stone said it's okay, it must be fine
I can go to my job and talk trash about my boss with my coworkers and if my boss finds out, I'll tell him Rolling Stone magazine said it wasn't a big deal
"I was selling an unsellable position." For the general, it was a crash course in Beltway politics – a battle that pitted him against experienced Washington insiders like Vice President Biden, who argued that a prolonged counterinsurgency campaign in Afghanistan would plunge America into a military quagmire without weakening international terrorist networks. "The entire COIN strategy is a fraud perpetuated on the American people," says Douglas Macgregor, a retired colonel and leading critic of counterinsurgency who attended West Point with McChrystal. "The idea that we are going to spend a trillion dollars to reshape the culture of the Islamic world is utter nonsense.
By midnight at Kitty O'Shea's, much of Team America is completely #faced. Two officers do an Irish jig mixed with steps from a traditional Afghan wedding dance, while McChrystal's top advisers lock arms and sing a slurred song of their own invention. "Afghanistan!" they bellow. "Afghanistan!" They call it their Afghanistan song.
McChrystal steps away from the circle, observing his team. "All these men," he tells me. "I'd die for them. And they'd die for me."
Whatever the nature of the new plan, the delay underscores the fundamental flaws of counterinsurgency. After nine years of war, the Taliban simply remains too strongly entrenched for the U.S. military to openly attack. The very people that COIN seeks to win over – the Afghan people – do not want us there. Our supposed ally, President Karzai, used his influence to delay the offensive, and the massive influx of aid championed by McChrystal is likely only to make things worse. "Throwing money at the problem exacerbates the problem," says Andrew Wilder, an expert at Tufts University who has studied the effect of aid in southern Afghanistan. "A tsunami of cash fuels corruption, delegitimizes the government and creates an environment where we're picking winners and losers" – a process that fuels resentment and hostility among the civilian population. So far, counterinsurgency has succeeded only in creating a never-ending demand for the primary product supplied by the military: perpetual war. There is a reason that President Obama studiously avoids using the word "victory" when he talks about Afghanistan. Winning, it would seem, is not really possible.
Originally posted by Helmkat
I must admit to confusion...
....
You have to ask yourself how exactly we were left like this, in debt up to our necks, faith shattered. Is it really Obama's issue? or is it Cheney's legacy? was this by accident or plan. Perhaps its the failing education system that has left America in ever growing ignorance, distracted and apathetic.
Maybe we are just reaping what we sow.
We are all to blame for this mess.
All of us.
Point a finger at yourself first before you blame another.
[edit on 22-6-2010 by Helmkat]