- Location
- Wasatch Range
Petraeus chosen to succeed McChrystal
-
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. Stanley McChrystal
- Thread starter YELLAHEEP
- Start date
Sniggs
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Western Washington
Fall guy for administrative foul up. Typical HNIC move.
fscrig75
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Burkburnett/Lawton
The question wasn't for you, but since....
There is no loss of reality, IMO. Leaders at all levels think about the lives they are risking with each mission that is run, whether it is the TM LDR thinking about his fire team or the DIV CDR thinking of a TF everyone thinks about the lives lost.
Its the lower level E1-E4 that think they are the only ones thinking about their Battle Buddies. In reality all leaders struggle in their own way with the loss of lives that they are directly responsible for. Just because you don't see struggle on the 1SG or CSM's face doesn't mean they don't struggle, Leaders put on the game face and make things happen. Its not easy but it's what needs to be done.
AI brings up a very good point. Anyone on the CG's staff could be quoted as being an advisor/staff. But in reality it could a pissed off PVT that is sick of flying all over the place and his only goal in life is to make sure the General's ACUs are clean.
I haven't read the article but the simple fact remains, the CoC was broken and something that sounds like personal opinion is now national headlines. I agree with the CG that we need more troops in Afganistan, but I disagree with his actions in trying to get the troops. Telling his story to CNN/Rolling Stone is not going to improve the situation in Afganistan, if anything it will make the situation worse. Gen McChrystal gets fired and some General that doesn't rock the boat takes over. Only time will tell.
After reading the article it's very clear to me the "Advisor" was not an "advisor".
The language he used in that "interview" was not something an advisor would say. I think this is from a joe just bsing. I also don't think a advisor would refer to the general as "the boss".
McChrystal has held his tongue alot of times during his 34 year career he is smarter then this.
The rolling stones writer knew what he was doing in this article and he will be payed well for it.
The language he used in that "interview" was not something an advisor would say. I think this is from a joe just bsing. I also don't think a advisor would refer to the general as "the boss".
McChrystal has held his tongue alot of times during his 34 year career he is smarter then this.
The rolling stones writer knew what he was doing in this article and he will be payed well for it.
Boatwrench
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Petaluma, CA
Really? She failed once to make it to the big office and I doubt she would be allowed by the DNC to challenge the current president.
Has a sitting president ever been challenged in a primary race?
Not that I am aware of in my lifetime.
I don't think either the Dems or the GOP would go for it.
YELLAHEEP
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Littleton, Colorado
Interesting to hear recent details that are surfacing about the "interview"....... that it was more just the reporter jotting down things heard while he was "stuck" with McChrystal's staff during an airport delay or something like that. Doesn't sound like he actually did a sit-down, scheduled interview....
Shitty deal regardless. I don't think he should have had to be removed in order to fix the problem. Obama just comes across as even more of a pinhead now. Piss him off? Get canned. Shouldn't be that simple. There hasn't been word one about McChrystal being inneffective or deficient in his abilities, nothing about him NOT doing everything he was told to do. He had a few moments of MINOR insubordination that clearly was a product of frustration.
Shoulda been disciplined and sent back to work. As an American, and taxpayer, McChrystal is the kind of guy I want out there.
Shitty deal regardless. I don't think he should have had to be removed in order to fix the problem. Obama just comes across as even more of a pinhead now. Piss him off? Get canned. Shouldn't be that simple. There hasn't been word one about McChrystal being inneffective or deficient in his abilities, nothing about him NOT doing everything he was told to do. He had a few moments of MINOR insubordination that clearly was a product of frustration.
Shoulda been disciplined and sent back to work. As an American, and taxpayer, McChrystal is the kind of guy I want out there.
- Location
- Wasatch Range
Things to think about.........there is nothing to prevent her from resigning in December 2010, especially if the DNC see Obama as a liability by then.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Andy Martin says “Today is the start of the Hillary Clinton for President campaign”
Martin says Obama has now assumed complete ownership of a failed military strategy, and that the real beneficiary of his decision to remove Stanley McChrystal will be Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
(NEW YORK)(June 23, 2010)
I first went to Afghanistan exactly thirty years ago, in 1980, to link up with the anti-Soviet Mujahideen. One of my closest associates, an Afghan native, was later killed by the Northern Alliance. Afghanistan has been on my stove, sometimes on a front burner, sometimes on a back one, for over three decades.
Earlier today I posted a column that suggested President Obama should not fire General McChrystal. Getting rid of McChrystal was the easy way out. But the easy out today will doom Obama’s presidency in 2011-2012.
While the cable TV bobbleheads, most of whom have never been to Asia, cackle on about Obama and “civilian control of the military,” which was never even remotely a concern with General McChrystal, I am going to provide you with the type of insight that formed the core of my bestselling book, “Obama: the Man Behind the Mask.”
The big winner today: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
I will write later in greater detail about why our strategy in Afghanistan is a failed approach. But anyone reading today’s papers and watching today’s “analysis” knows “Obama’s War” is doomed. As I said earlier today, while I supported General McChrystal as a loyal officer, I believe Vice President Joe Biden was right on the policy.
Can General David Petraeus now save Obama’s flawed policy?
That is doubtful. Petraeus may also take a hit as a result of today’s shift in command. Petraeus came out of Iraq as a hero, and he has been supervising our Central Command since then. He is a competent officer. But even a military genius can’t rescue a failed strategy. My guess is that Petraeus’ star will also be tarnished. I would not be surprised to see Petraeus retire in January. He may hang on, but he may decide to hit the silk and get out before July, 2011.
So why is Clinton a winner? No one has mentioned her in any of the news analysis today. Why am I out there alone?
Most “analysts” on cable TV are not analysts at all. They are parrots who are told to respond to the immediate issue. They have never engaged in long-term strategic thinking and political analysis.
Clinton was the only member of Obama’s team that was not criticized in the Rolling Stone article. She has been an outstanding team member because she follows orders and does what she is told. And she obviously knows better than to have a reporter join her entourage.
The July, 2011 withdrawal date which was agreed on as Obama’s “policy” last year was a compromise between the “McChrystal Plan” and the “Biden Plan.” Biden lost the strategic debate, and he was rewarded with the consolation prize of a withdrawal date that is illusory.
McChrystal may have been the one who got fired today, but the more interesting battle took place last weekend when Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said the July, 2011 date was flexible. The result: there will be a rigid “withdrawal” in July, 2011, but the army will be retreating, not leaving after a victorious campaign.
Gates contradicted Biden. Both of them are civilians:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38779.html
Where does this leave Obama? The left is restive. Obama is drifting. Congress will be in the hands of the Republicans. Normally dropping a president after one term would be disastrous for a political party. Hillary Clinton is the only person with the stature to replace Obama as a presidential candidate without causing a Democratic Party meltdown. Clinton may not be able to win the White House, but she will be the only Democrat who can revive a party tainted by Obama’s incompetence and hubris.
When this columns ends up on Hillary Clinton’s desk, as inevitably it will, her reaction? “Dang,” she’s going to say. “Andy again. He almost perfectly timed my resurgence during the 2008 campaign. How does he do it?” In 2008, Clinton started to fight back against the Kenyan pipsqueak, but it was too late. This time around, the McChrystal decision makes it clear that it is too late to save Barack Obama.
Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic Party’s nominee in 2012.
http://contrariancommentary.wordpre...the-big-winner-in-general-mcchrystal-shakeup/
Last edited:
- Location
- Wasatch Range
Obama's actions further solidify his push towards a Socialist dictatorship.
Name one thing that he has done in his Presidency that is in concert with the Will of the People?
fscrig75
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Burkburnett/Lawton
Funny thing, I was talking with one of my students the other day and he was saying that Biden may get removed as VP and HRC be put in his place for the up comming campaign.
From talking with him a little bit his family is tied in the with Texas Republican party.
- Location
- Rainy side of Washington
Cash for Clunkers, unfortunately. Many people I know who had slightly-outdated vehicles and were already considering buying new ones were crowing about the fact that they could get so much money back for their crappy old car.
Oh, and telling the DEA to stop bothering with marijuana charges on small-timers or whatever it was. I don't recall the details but pretty much he told them to worry about the hard stuff not pot. Most people I know were either in favor of that, or ambivalent.
I don't see removing McChrystal as a push towards socialism, such things have happened before, but I do see the idiotic healthcare bill, the bailout, and the response to the crisis in the gulf as such.
EDIT: oh yeah. Cap and tax. If that isn't a push towards a socialist dictatorship, I don't know what is. :bs:
Last edited:
I share your same thoughts here.
- Location
- Albuquerque
You both can't be serious. The President cannot have the military undermining his authority. If he did, it would be the first step towards a military coup. Our Founding Fathers held civilian control over the military as one of the most important issues to be addressed in the Constitution. It is never the place of an active duty service member to disparage any of our elected officials, NEVER. You guys do a disservice to our Constitution with this ridiculous talk about how the President is a pinhead or moving us even further towards socialism because he fired McCrystal. In this case, I believe that he did more to keep us from going toward a socialist dictatorship than anything else he's ever done, and I fully support him on this despite my disagreement with his other political directions.
.40CalPatriot
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Westminster, CO
You really think the majority of the US Military would protect the US Government if the people decided to overthrow it?
RichP
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Effort, Pa
Hopefully if that ever happened they would stay out of it, close the gates on bases and stand down. Federal law enforcement on the other hand would get involved. I don't know what it would look like, a million people marching on Washington and seizing all three houses with their members, booting them out of office and putting new ones in, don't know.
Can't do it now but if you asked any of the bonus marchers how they felt about the US Army after what they did to them and their families that never went away and those were WWI vets too.
- Location
- Albuquerque
That's not the point. I served in uniform. I still consider myself a Marine. And regardless of political affiliation, I would have never fired on U.S. civilians in an organized revolt against the government.
The point is that the military needs to be and should be faithful to the civilian leadership that has been elected by the People. And regardless of the political affiliation of the Administration elected at the time, it is NEVER the place of the military to dictate political policy to the government, that's our job as civilians.
- Location
- Rainy side of Washington
I suppose the deciding factor on this is "how many". This has happened before, see Harper's Ferry. That was only 21 people. See also the recent "Hutaree" incident involving a bunch of nutcases.
If thousands rose up, or even more, yeah, I would hope the military would stand down.
- Location
- Albuquerque
The Hutaree arrests were carried out by Law Enforcement, not the military. That's just not the job of the military. And as for Harper's Ferry, well didn't they forcefully 'invaded' a military fort? I would call that self defense, but that's just me.
I would never follow an order to fire upon U.S. civilians if I were in uniform still. Those people are my 'bosses'.
- Location
- Hartsville, South Carolina
Wasn't McChrystal the replacement for Petraeus when he was not getting the job done? I really thought McChrystal was what was needed over there. :banghead: I would be interested in knowing what other members of the military that are active and doing the job think of it all. Sounds like the article was typical bs slung a certain way to sell issues. :gonnablow
Similar threads
