6 replies to this topic

[Hostile]

Personally I don't know much about McCrystal or his service record. But let me knit a story for you.

1) 2007 MoveOn.org launches an ad in the New York Times calling General Patraeus "General Betray Us." The NYTimes runs the ad (gee I'm surprised.)

2) Congress passed a resolution condemning the MoveOn.org ad by a vote of 72-25.

3) One of 3 of US Senators who didn't bother voting: Barack Obama. Obama decided to not vote on anything 164 times out of a choice of voting 214 times as a US Senator. That kind of record should get any Senator fired through non-re-election. Why stick around for re-election as a Senator? Go right to the US Presidency.

4) 6/23/10 - Barack Obama appoints General Patraeus as the General in Charge of the war in Afghanistan.

5) Rinse and repeat.

[Phil]

Well, from what you could read in the media, Petraeus does seem to be the better commander anyway. McChrystal wasn't able to achieve any lasting success in Afghanistan, while Petraeus apparently did an outstanding job in Iraq, especially as the commander of the 101st in Mosul. I've always wondered why he wasn't the one who was actively leading the troops in Afghanistan; he's worth more there than in Central Command.

Plus, McChrystal was just plain stupid and should be fired for that. You don't openly insult your own administration as the commander, no matter what you think. Afghanistan resembles Vietnam enough already, there's no need to lose the media and public opinion battle also.

Edited by Phil, 23 June 2010 - 08:41 PM.

[Vortigern]

All I know about them is that Petraeus has a good name, whereas McCrystal sounds like a Scottish lap dancer. Now, I've never seen any Scottish lap dancers attempt to lead military campaigns, but my gut feeling is they wouldn't do so well.

[Námo]

Link to the article in Rolling Stones, that triggered the resignation of Gen. Stanley McChrystal:

The Runaway General (6 pages).

The article has the remarkable subtitle: "Stanley McChrystal, Obama's top commander in Afghanistan, has seized control of the war by never taking his eye off the real enemy: The wimps in the White House"

The journalist Michael Hastings, who spend several weeks with Gen. Stanley McChrystal and his staff, was quoted in Danish news yesterday saying that the article mirrored the troops frustration with the administration in the White House, and should be seen as a "clear signal to president Obama".

Michael Hastings also says, that he believes this was in fact a deliberate attempt of airing their frustration.

[Pasidon]

If I know anything about that lingering puss spill (Obama) is that his decisions are never based on professional brain cells, if he has any, but personal ones. I always fail to hear him actually do something that doesn't effect his glory or moronic plans, but I do know McCrystal has been trying to pull troops out for quite awhile for whatever reason we want too. My coin is his firing is based on his war effort and how it was not fulfilling the almighty agenda of the executive rats. I can only hope this decision leads to more beautiful bloodshed... pleasing me and ticking off the weaklings who voted him in.

[Phil]

You only got like everything wrong...

I'll leave out the Obama bashing because it that's just pure opinion anyway.
Firstly, McChrystal was not trying to pull the troops out so soon, he was the one who request additional reinforcements that Obama reluctantly granted. During this whole campaign, he pretty much got everything he wanted. I'm not saying he can't think the civilians in the White House aren't idiots, but it's not like he was left out.
Secondly, it was stated time and again that this is in fact not a policy change. In other words, he was fulfilling the agenda of the executive rats and Petraeus will largely do the same.

I don't believe Obama is very happy about this, either. Switching commanders in such a situation is hardly ever positive. Sometimes it's just the only thing you can do. The military develops its very own dynamic (which isn't necessarily bad, just dangerous) and when a general starts acting against his civilian superiors, you simply need to fire him. It's a matter of making sure the democratically elected leaders stay in charge and not the military.
So in this respect: hats off to the US, where, even though the military is very powerful, the final power always lies with the civilians. In a lot of countries this wouldn't be possible, even in some "developed" ones (Turkey, Thailand, ...).

[Hostile]

Once he completes his retirement he'll write a book and make millions. Obama did him a favor.