Top General In Afghan War: US Envoy Betrayed Me [Archive]

LongWire

06-22-2010, 04:09

Not sure why he thought that they would cut him any slack.......But that's why I don't make the big bucks........
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/us_and_canada/10372558.stm

The top US commander in Afghanistan has apologised for his role in a magazine article that mocks senior Obama administration officials and diplomats.

Gen Stanley McChrystal said the article in Rolling Stone showed "poor judgement" and a lack of integrity.

In the article Gen McChrystal said he felt betrayed by US ambassador to Kabul, Karl Eikenberry.

The general's aides mock Vice-President Joe Biden and say Gen McChrystal was "disappointed" in President Obama.

The apology came as a US congressional report said the US military had been giving tens of millions of dollars to Afghan security firms who were channelling the money to warlords.

'Clown'
The Rolling Stone article - The Runaway General - is due out on Friday but Gen McChrystal has quickly sought to limit the damage.

He said in a statement on Tuesday: "I extend my sincerest apology for this profile.

"It was a mistake reflecting poor judgement and should never have happened."

He adds: "Throughout my career, I have lived by the principles of personal honour and professional integrity. What is reflected in this article falls far short of that standard.

"I have enormous respect and admiration for President Obama and his national security team and for the civilian leaders and troops fighting this war and I remain committed to ensuring its successful outcome."

Nato spokesman James Appathurai said on Tuesday that the article was "unfortunate" but that the organisation's Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen had "full confidence in General McChrystal as the Nato commander and in his strategy".

The BBC's Quentin Sommerville in northern Afghanistan says the article highlights the long-suspected divisions between the US military and administration officials.

One of the main targets of the article appears to be Mr Eikenberry.

Gen McChrystal says he felt "betrayed" by the ambassador during the White House debate on troop requests for Afghanistan.

The general says: "I like Karl, I've known him for years, but they'd never said anything like that to us before.

"Here's one that covers his flank for the history books. Now if we fail, they can say, 'I told you so'."

Gen McChrystal also appears to joke in response to a question about the vice-president.

"Are you asking about Vice-President Biden?" McChrystal asks. 'Who's that?"

An aide then says: "Biden? Did you say: Bite Me?"

Another aide refers to a key Oval Office meeting with the president a year ago.

The aide says it was "a 10-minute photo op", adding: "Obama clearly didn't know anything about him, who he was... he didn't seem very engaged. The boss was pretty disappointed."

Gen McChrystal himself says: "I found that time painful. I was selling an unsellable position."

Another aide refers to national security adviser, James Jones, as a "clown stuck in 1985".

Of an e-mail from US special envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan Richard Holbrooke, Gen McChrystal says: "Oh, not another e-mail from Holbrooke... I don't even want to open it."

Last year's Afghan strategy review by the new president was detailed and drawn out, with Gen McChrystal finally getting an additional 30,000 US troops from Mr Obama.

Analysts say Gen McChrystal disagreed with the pledge to start bringing troops home in July 2011.

The Rolling Stone article reflects the fraught nature of the diplomatic process in Afghanistan.

On Monday, it was reported that the UK's most senior diplomat in Afghanistan, special envoy Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles, was taking extended leave amid reports of clashes with senior Nato and US officials.

Meanwhile the US congressional report says trucks carrying supplies to US troops allegedly pay Afghan security firms to ensure their safe passage in dangerous areas.

The convoys are attacked if payments are not made, it is alleged.

Bill Harsey

06-22-2010, 05:07

The best quotes may be yet to come in the Rolling Stone thing and if true are well said.

Then there's that pesky protocol thing...

Richard

06-22-2010, 05:35

Soap opera drama. Nothing to see here. Moving along.

Maybe not. :confused:

An Obama administration official says the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan has been summoned to Washington to explain his controversial comments about colleagues in a recent interview.

The official says Gen. Stanley McChrystal has been directed to attend the monthly White House meeting on Afghanistan and Pakistan in person Wednesday rather than over a secure video teleconference, so he can discuss his comments with President Barack Obama and top Pentagon officials.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/06/22/us/politics/AP-US-McChrystal-Enemies.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

This would be an opportunity for a GO to resign on principle, retire, and become an ardent critic of an administration's policies.

And so it goes...

Richard :munchin

Paslode

06-22-2010, 06:46

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/22/AR2010062200813_pf.html

Gen. Stanley McChrystal coming to Washington to explain anti-administration comments

By Ernesto Londoño
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, June 22, 2010; 8:18 AM

KABUL -- The top U.S. general in Afghanistan was summoned to Washington for a White House meeting after apologizing Tuesday for flippant and dismissive remarks about top Obama administration officials involved in Afghanistan policy.

The remarks in an article in this week's in Rolling Stone magazine are certain to increase tension between the White House and Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal.

The profile of McChrystal, , titled the "Runaway General," also raises fresh questions about the judgment and leadership style of the commander Obama appointed last year in an effort to turn around a worsening conflict.

McChrystal and some of his senior advisors are quoted criticizing top administration officials, at times in starkly derisive terms. An anonymous McChrystal aide is quoted calling national security adviser James Jones a "clown," who remains "stuck in 1985."

Referring to Richard Holbrooke, Obama's senior envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, one McChrystal aide is quoted saying: "The Boss says he's like a wounded animal. Holbrooke keeps hearing rumors that he's going to get fired, so that makes him dangerous."

On one occasion, McChrystal appears to react with exasperation when he receives an e-mail from Holbrooke, saying, "Oh, not another e-mail from Holbrooke. I don't even want to read it."

U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry, a retired three-star general, isn't spared. Referring to a leaked cable from Eikenberry that expressed concerns about the trustworthiness of Afghan President Hamid Karzai, McChrystal is quoted as having said: "Here's one that covers his flank for the history books. Now if we fail, they can say, 'I told you so.'"

A U.S. embassy spokeswoman said she had no immediate comment on the piece.

The story also features an exchange in which McChrystal and some of his aides appear to mock Vice President Biden, who opposed McChrystal's troop surge recommendation last year and instead urged instead for a more focused emphasis on counter-terrorism operations.

"Are you asking me about Vice President Biden?" McChrystal asks the profile's reporter a at one point, laughing. "Who's that?"

"Biden?" an unnamed aide is quoted as saying. "Did you say Bite me?"

Lt. Col. Joseph Breasseale, a U.S. military spokesman, said McChrystal called Biden and other senior administration officials Tuesday morning in reference to the article. "After these discussions, he decided to travel to the U.S. for a meeting," the spokesman said in an e-mail.

A senior administration official in Washington said McChrystal had been summoned to the White House to explain his remarks. The general will attend a regular meeting on Afghan-Pakistan strategy scheduled for Wednesday. Normally, he would have participated in the session via videoconference.

The magazine hits newsstands Friday and could be posted online earlier in the week. The Washington Post received an advance copy of the article from its author, Michael Hastings, a freelance journalist who has written for the Post.

"I extend my sincerest apology for this profile," McChrystal said in a statement issued Tuesday morning. "It was a mistake reflecting poor judgment and it should have never happened."

The timing of the piece could hardly be worse. Amid a flurry of bad news in Afghanistan and a sharp rise in NATO casualties, U.S. lawmakers and senior officials from NATO allied countries are asking increasingly sharp questions about the U.S.-led war strategy.

Dutch and Canadian troops are scheduled to pull out within the next year. And the White House has said it will start drawing down U.S. forces next July.

The magazine story shows that McChrystal is also facing criticism from some of his own troops who have grown frustrated with new rules that force commanders be extraordinarily judicious in using lethal force.

A few weeks ago, according to the magazine, the general traveled to a small outpost in Kandahar Province, in southern Afghanistan, to meet with a unit of soldiers reeling from the loss of a comrade, 23-year-old Cpl. Michael Ingram.

The corporal was killed in a booby-trapped house that some of the unit's commanders had unsuccessfully sought permission to blow up.

One soldier at the outpost showed Hastings, who was traveling with the general, a written directive instructing troops to "patrol only in areas that you are reasonably certain that you will not have to defend yourself with lethal force."

During a tense meeting with Ingram's platoon, one sergeant tells McChrystal: "Sir, some of the guys here, sir, think we're losing, sir."

McChrystal has championed a counterinsurgency strategy that prioritizes protecting the population as a means to marginalize and ultimately defeat the insurgency. Because new rules sharply restrict the circumstances under which air strikes and other lethal operations that have resulted in civilian casualties can be conducted, some soldiers say the strategy has left them more exposed.

June is on track to be the deadliest month for NATO troops in Afghanistan since the war began nearly nine years ago. At least 63 NATO troops have been killed so far this month, including 10 who died Monday in a helicopter crash and a series of attacks.

In his statement, McChrystal says he has "enormous respect and admiration for President Obama and his national security team."

"Throughout my career, I have lived by the principles of personal honor and professional integrity," the general said. "What is reflected in this article falls far short of that standard."

dr. mabuse

06-22-2010, 08:40

Richard

06-22-2010, 08:50

...his golf excursions ( during the oil leak at that ). :mad:

And that's relative to the price of Lung Ching in China how? :confused:

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Utah Bob

06-22-2010, 09:07

Interview with the top rated hard news publication Rolling Stone? Sure why not? How about a music video too?
Brilliant!
:rolleyes:

WASHINGTON - The top U.S. commander in Afghanistan has been summoned to Washington to explain derogatory comments about President Barack Obama and his colleagues, administration officials said Tuesday.

The move came hours after General Stanley McChrystal apologized for comments by his aides insulting some of President Barack Obama's closest advisers in an article to be published in Rolling Stone magazine.

In the magazine profile, his aides are quoted mocking Vice President Joe Biden and Richard Holbrooke, the special U.S. representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here

The first victim in the growing controversy was the Pentagon's PR official who set up the interview with McChrystal. NBC reported that Duncan Boothby, a civilian member of the general's public relations team was "asked to resign."

According to administration officials, McChrystal was ordered to attend the monthly White House meeting on Afghanistan and Pakistan in person Wednesday rather than over a secure video teleconference. He'll be expected to explain his comments to Obama and top Pentagon officials, these officials said.

President Obama was described as "furious" about the remarks while the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen told McChrystal of his "deep disappointment" in a conversation late Monday, a spokesman said.

Video
‘Poor judgment’
June 22: Sen. John Kerry wonders about his ability to have a relationship with Obama and the rest of the National Security staff.

The Daily Rundown
Sen. John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said Tuesday that he had confidence on McChrystal's ability as a general. However, he said the issue was whether the article would impact his ability to have a relationship with Obama and the rest of the National Security staff.

Kerry, speaking on MSNBC's "Daily Rundown," described the remarks in the article as a "mistake," and "poor judgement" by the general and some of his staff. He declined to say whether McChrystal should step down.

In Kabul, an Afghan government spokesman said President Hamid Karzai backed the general. "The president strongly supports General McChrystal and his strategy in Afghanistan and believes he is the best commander the United States has sent to Afghanistan over the last nine years," Waheed Omer told Reuters.

Entire article is here. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37839756/ns/us_news-military)

dr. mabuse

06-22-2010, 09:13

wch84

06-22-2010, 09:25

I'm mystified by the General and his staff. Poor SA in regard to Rolling Stone, perhaps? I subscribed to Rolling Stone a few years ago, being a music lover and all. Needless to say, I canceled my subscription after the first year. Every issue saw a new article bashing President Bush, the military, etc. Very little music coverage and way too much politics for a magazine supposedly covering the music industry.

Rolling Stone is the absolute worst media source that General McCrystal and his staff could have granted access to. By the accounts I've read about McCrystal and his discipline, I have a hard time believing this was a mistake. We're a year out from the self-imposed drawdown date that the POTUS dictated. (Warning: speculation ahead) Perhaps McCrystal sees the writing on the wall and wanted a way out?

LongWire

06-22-2010, 09:53

Perhaps McCrystal sees the writing on the wall and wanted a way out?

I'm guessing that you don't know the General very well, or at least don't understand how General's operate. In the very least being fired by the POTUS is not something, that I would think, that General McChrystal would want on his resume. One doesn't work so long and hard as someone like Gen McChrystal, just to throw it all away and blame it all on the media. Regardless of anyone's take on the Politics, Gen McChrystal would fall on his own sword before going out of his way to get fired like this.

Utah Bob

06-22-2010, 09:56

Maybe not.

This would be an opportunity for a GO to resign on principle, retire, and become an ardent critic of an administration's policies.

And so it goes...

Richard :munchin

Exactly what I was thinking. Walk into the Oval Office resignation in hand.:mad:

The Reaper

06-22-2010, 10:13

Exactly what I was thinking. Walk into the Oval Office resignation in hand.:mad:

I suspect that he has already done that.

It will be up to the POTUS whether to accept it or not.

TR

Richard

06-22-2010, 10:16

The oil leak referral was an askance view at grumblings over the BP exec at the yacht races while oil is gushing, but, IIRC, P'BO has plenty of time for golf.

Sorry - I missed the sarcasm in your original statement - I think the lack of pink font and use of an angry emoticon threw me.

I wasn't aware the topic lanes were narrowing so much around here.

They aren't - that's just a perception on your part in this instance. ;)

Richard

head

06-22-2010, 10:37

The Reaper

06-22-2010, 10:43

I've read the RS article. Most of the damning statements were from his aides telling the reporter what their "Boss" had previously said about the politicians in charge of this war. Perhaps Gen. McChrystal thought that only he was on the record - either way, the article makes him look like a rogue general trying to bully Washington into adopting a failed strategy and, at the end, the author even hints that VP Biden had the right gameplan all along. I kinda feel bad for the General, but I scratch my head when trying to figure out what he must have been thinking to let this happen...

DubyaDubyaDubya.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/119236

You know, maybe they let him sit around as an embed till the point where they started to think he was a potted plant or even a buddy?

Obviously, they said a lot of things that should not be said in front of a reporter. Surprisingly candid and unprofessional for McChrystal and his staff.

The real question at this point is whether Obama can afford to cut him away and put another guy in, increasing his buy-in to the success or failure of OEF. Does he want to own the problem any more than he already does?

We will soon see....

TR

head

06-22-2010, 10:57

You know, maybe they let him sit around as an embed till the point where they started to think he was a potted plant or even a buddy?

Obviously, they said a lot of things that should not be said in front of a reporter. Surprisingly candid and unprofessional for McChrystal and his staff.

The real question at this point is whether Obama can afford to cut him away and put another guy in, increasing his buy-in to the success or failure of OEF. Does he want to own the problem any more than he already does?

We will soon see....

TR

No question that the reporter is talented in gathering information... from the last people you would imagine - men, I assume, who have worked on the flipside of the coin.

If President Obama sticks with McChrystal, the reason for failure in Afghanistan will be percieved as the lack of support/cohesion from his subordinates, the POTUS' lack of leadership, and the POTUS will receive much of the blame for not replacing him.

However, if he replaces McChrystal, he will be able to cast more blame on McChrystal's strategy and it will also allow him to extend his impossible Jully 2011 deadline due to giving time for the replacement to implement whatever new vision is decided...

abc_123

06-22-2010, 14:28

What if Gates pulls the trigger? Will that insulate the WH and allow the President to fence sit?

The SecDef came out with comments today that included:

""I read with concern the profile piece on Gen. Stanley McChrystal in the upcoming edition of 'Rolling Stone' magazine. I believe that Gen. McChrystal made a significant mistake and exercised poor judgment in this case. We are fighting a war against al Qaeda and its extremist allies, who directly threaten the United States, Afghanistan, and our friends and allies around the world. Going forward, we must pursue this mission with a unity of purpose. Our troops and coalition partners are making extraordinary sacrifices on behalf of our security, and our singular focus must be on supporting them and succeeding in Afghanistan without such distractions. Gen. McChrystal has apologized to me and is similarly reaching out to others named in this article to apologize to them as well. I have recalled Gen. McChrystal to Washington to discuss this in person."

Roguish Lawyer

06-22-2010, 14:53

Amazing that this reporter could spend that much time with GEN McChrystal and his staff and still be so completely uninformed. Well, maybe not.

Utah Bob

06-22-2010, 15:16

LarryW

06-22-2010, 15:34

When I hear about the Gen'ls "staff", aren't we talking about senior O5's and O6s? Maybe an O7 thrown in for good measure...possibly Air Force or Marine or Navy Senior officers, maybe even Canadian or British "staff"? Are all these people politically illiterate? I have a problem beleving the Gen'l wasn't aware of the exchange. And furthermore, what's Rolling Stone magazine dong in A-stan anyway? What next? Road & Track? Good Housekeeping? Field & Stream? :eek:

Pete

06-22-2010, 15:56

were the statements true?

Don't see much chatter about that one.

Utah Bob

06-22-2010, 16:06

Well Newsweek has decided he needs to go. And they're experts.
I guess that's all she wrote.

Source (http://www.newsweek.com/2010/06/22/why-military-code-demands-mcchrystal-s-resignation.html?GT1=43002)

Why Military Code Demands McChrystal's Resignation

The most important issue at hand in the furor over Gen. Stanley McChrystal's acerbic comments in Rolling Stone is the central one in a democracy: civilian control over the military.

As upset as certain military officers have been with the Obama White House—as much as they like McChrystal's can-do spirit—this was a seriously can't-do moment. No one can quite believe that McChyrstal would be so stupid as to give this interview, which McChrystal himself this morning conceded in a statement was "bad judgment." One retired but informed military source I reached speculates that McChrystal will offer his resignation and President Obama is likely to accept it. I can't independently confirm this, but it sure sounds right to me. The only caveat is that Obama operates on his own timetable, not the media's. He will take his time and make a decision based on what he thinks is best for the overall effort in Afghanistan. He won't sack his commanding general unless he—with Defense Secretary Bob Gates's advice—thinks he is now more a liability than an asset to the war effort, which McChrystal himself described as a "bleeding ulcer."

View a gallery of the longest--and shortest--American wars.

The reason McChrystal must go is that this isn't his first time in trouble for talking out of school in a way that can fairly be described as insubordinate. Last fall, McChrystal gave a speech in London and afterward was asked if he could support the Biden Plan: fewer troops for Afghanistan, with a stepped-up use of Predator drones. He said "no." In other words, the commanding general in the region was saying that if the president sided with the vice president, he couldn't support the policy. Many in the White House last year viewed this as insubordination.

Obama met McChrystal on Air Force One on the tarmac in Copenhagen to discuss the incident. The president decided that McChrystal had been naive about the media and true blame lay with Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. As I recount in The Promise, Obama pushed back hard. He summoned Mullen to the Oval Office upon returning to Washington and dressed him down for allowing McChrystal to box him in—telling him he wanted that conduct changed "here and now." When I later asked the president if he had been jammed by the Pentagon, he replied, "I neither confirm nor deny that I was jammed by the Pentagon."

This time it's clearly not Mullen's fault, which is why he's not likely to be a McChrystal ally. He is more likely to view Gen. David Rodriguez (or perhaps another senior general) as a suitable replacement. Having been burned once by Stanley McChrystal, the president probably will not allow himself to be burned again. The military code—and American democratic traditions—all but demand that he accept the general's resignation of his command.

LongWire

06-22-2010, 17:00

Damn.....Even the TB are now using it as an IO Win..........

Sigaba

06-22-2010, 17:01

Source is here (http://cnn.site.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=Obama+%27angry%27+after+reading+McChrystal%2 7s+remarks+-+CNN.com&expire=&urlID=429284852&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2010%2FPOLITICS%2F0 6%2F22%2Fgeneral.mcchrystal.obama.apology%2Findex. html%3Fhpt%3DT1&partnerID=211911).Obama 'angry' after reading McChrystal's remarks
By the CNN Wire Staff
STORY HIGHLIGHTS

* NEW:McChrystal has submitted resignation, Joe Klein says
* Gibbs says 'all options are on the table' in deciding McChrystal's fate
* Obama 'angry' after reading McChrystal story
* Rolling Stone article appears to show McChrystal as strongly critical of the administration

(CNN) -- President Barack Obama was "angry" after reading Gen. Stanley McChrystal's remarks about colleagues in a Rolling Stone article, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Tuesday.

McChrystal -- the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan -- has been recalled to Washington to explain his actions to the president. He is expected to meet with Obama in the Oval Office on Wednesday, Gibbs said. Gibbs refused to speculate about McChrystal's fate, but told reporters "all options are on the table."

McChrystal has already submitted his resignation, Time magazine's Joe Klein told CNN Tuesday, citing an unnamed source. CNN is working to confirm Klein's information.

The White House will have more to say after Wednesday's meeting, Gibbs said. He noted, however, that McChrystal did not take part in a teleconference Obama had with Afghan President Hamid Karzai and other top officials on Tuesday.

The "magnitude and graveness" of McChrystal's mistake in conducting the interview for the article were "profound," Gibbs said. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said McChrystal had "made a significant mistake and exercised poor judgment."

Several elected officials have strongly criticized McChrystal but deferred to the president on the politically sensitive question of whether the general should keep his position. A couple of key congressmen, however, have openly called for McChrystal's removal.

McChrystal apologized Tuesday for the profile, in which he and his staff appear to mock top civilian officials, including the vice president. Two defense officials said the general fired a press aide over the article, set to appear in Friday's edition of Rolling Stone.

"I extend my sincerest apology for this profile. It was a mistake reflecting poor judgment and should never have happened," McChrystal said in a Pentagon statement. "Throughout my career, I have lived by the principles of personal honor and professional integrity. What is reflected in this article falls far short of that standard."

In the profile, writer Michael Hastings writes that McChrystal and his staff had imagined ways of dismissing Vice President Joe Biden with a one-liner as they prepared for a question-and-answer session in Paris, France, in April. The general had grown tired of questions about Biden since earlier dismissing a counterterrorism strategy the vice president had offered.

"'Are you asking about Vice President Biden,' McChrystal says with a laugh. 'Who's that?'"

"'Biden?' suggests a top adviser. 'Did you say: Bite Me?'"

McChrystal does not directly criticize Obama in the article, but Hastings writes that the general and Obama "failed to connect" from the outset. Sources familiar with the meeting said McChrystal thought Obama looked "uncomfortable and intimidated" by the room full of top military officials, according to the article.

Later, McChrystal's first one-on-one meeting with Obama "was a 10-minute photo op," Hastings writes, quoting an adviser to McChrystal. "Obama clearly didn't know anything about him, who he was. Here's the guy who's going to run his f---ing war, but he didn't seem very engaged. The Boss (McChrystal) was disappointed."

The article goes on to paint McChrystal as a man who "has managed to piss off almost everyone with a stake in the conflict," including U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, special representative to Afghanistan Richard Holbrooke and national security adviser Jim Jones. Obama is not named as one of McChrystal's "team of rivals."

Of Eikenberry, who railed against McChrystal's strategy in Afghanistan in a cable leaked to The New York Times in January, the general is quoted as saying, "'Here's one that covers his flank for the history books. Now if we fail, they can say, "I told you so.'"

Hastings writes in the profile that McChrystal has a "special skepticism" for Holbrooke, the official in charge of reintegrating Taliban members into Afghan society and the administration's point man for Afghanistan and Pakistan.

"At one point on his trip to Paris, McChrystal checks his BlackBerry, according to the article. 'Oh, not another e-mail from Holbrooke,' he groans. 'I don't even want to open it.' He clicks on the message and reads the salutation out loud, then stuffs the BlackBerry back in his pocket, not bothering to conceal his annoyance.

"'Make sure you don't get any of that on your leg,' an aide jokes, referring to the e-mail."

Both Democrats and Republicans have been strongly critical of McChrystal in the wake of the story. House Appropriations Committee chairman David Obey, D-Wisconsin, called McChrystal the latest in a "long list of reckless, renegade generals who haven't seemed to understand that their role is to implement policy, not design it."

McChrystal is "contemptuous" of civilian authority and has demonstrated "a bull-headed refusal to take other people's judgments into consideration."

Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-North Dakota, became the first member of the Senate Democratic leadership to call for McChrystal to step down, telling CNN that the remarks were "unbelievably inappropriate and just can't be allowed to stand."

Senate Armed Services Committee chairman Carl Levin, D-Michigan, deferred to Obama on the question of a possible McChrystal resignation. He said the controversy was sending a message of "confusion" to troops in the field. I think it has "a negative effect" on the war effort, he said.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman John Kerry, D-Massachusetts, urged a cooling off period before a final decision is rendered on the general. My "impression is that all of us would be best served by just backing off and staying cool and calm and not sort of succumbing to the normal Washington twitter about this for the next 24 hours."

Sens. John McCain of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Jim Webb of Virginia -- also key senators on defense and foreign policy issues -- were each strongly critical of McChrystal's remarks, but noted that the general's future is a decision for Obama to make.

Karzai weighed in from abroad, urging Obama to keep McChrystal as the U.S. commander in Afghanistan. The government in Kabul believes McChrystal is a man of strong integrity who has a strong understanding of the Afghan people and their culture, Karzai spokesman Waheed Omar said.

A U.S. military official said Tuesday that McChrystal has spoken to Biden, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Adm. Mike Mullen and other officials referenced in the story, including Holbrooke, Eikenberry and Jones.

An official at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul said Eikenberry and McChrystal "are both fully committed" to Obama's Afghan strategy and are working together to implement the plan. "We have seen the article and General McChrystal has already spoken to it," according to a statement from an embassy official, making reference to McChrystal's apology.

"I have enormous respect and admiration for President Obama and his national security team, and for the civilian leaders and troops fighting this war and I remain committed to ensuring its successful outcome," McChrystal said in the closing to his apology.

Rolling Stone executive editor Eric Bates, however, struck a less optimistic tone during an interview with CNN on Tuesday.

The comments made by McChrystal and other top military aides during the interview were "not off-the-cuff remarks," he said. They "knew what they were doing when they granted the access." The story shows "a deep division" and "war within the administration" over strategy in Afghanistan, he contended.

McChrystal and his staff "became aware" that the Rolling Stone article would be controversial before it was published, Hastings told CNN Tuesday. He said he "got word from (McChrystal's) staff ... that there was some concern" about possible fallout from the story.

Obama tapped McChrystal to head the U.S. military effort in Afghanistan in the spring of 2009 shortly after dismissing Gen. David McKiernan.

CNN's Suzanne Malveaux, Barbara Starr, Dana Bash and Alan Silverleib contributed to this report.

Richard

06-22-2010, 17:16

Lead story on the major news networks tonight - the 'fox' was apparently 'in the henhouse' for so long due to the Icelandic volcano's closing of the European airspace and he couldn't leave.

Here's the front page for tomorrow's Stars and Stripes.

McChrystal forces Obama into a no-win situation

President Barack Obama faces two grim choices on Wednesday: Fire Gen. Stanley McChrystal and risk looking like he’s lost control of the war in Afghanistan. Or keep him and risk looking like he’s lost control of his generals.

http://www.stripes.com/news/middle-east/afghanistan/mcchrystal-forces-obama-into-a-no-win-situation-1.108154

Could this Rolling Stone article be the real reason GEN Petraeus was stressed and fainted before Congress last week? :rolleyes:

If McChrystal is releived/resigns - any thoughts on who'd be his replacement...or is this one of those situations like we used to experience whenever the Soviet Premiership changed hands? :confused:

And so it goes...

Richard:munchin

alright4u

06-22-2010, 17:52

abc_123

06-22-2010, 19:27

were the statements true?

Don't see much chatter about that one.

If they are denied and called "misquotes" or "misinterpretations" that doesn't necessarily mean that they are not true. But, when no sort of rebuttal is offered, well that speaks volumes.

Ret10Echo

06-22-2010, 20:00

Every been in one of those "We won't let you quit and we aren't going to fire you" jobs?

Perhaps the General did not care to be the one to lower the American flag and depart IAW the "rigid timeline".

An exit strategy.

(this of course is a massive stretch)

Penn

06-22-2010, 20:29

Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in a statement that "it would be a grave mistake" to allow the controversy over the article to distract attention from the war effort. "Now is not the time for Washington to be sidetracked by chatter," Kerry said. "Everyone needs to take a deep breath."

Kerry as peace maker; You now are 100% assured that the General stays, and the WH redirect the possible failure on to the General/Military, thereby, clearing the path to the 2012 elections with a story that allows"The O" to side step responsibility. The prize isn't Afghanistan, its being reelected and having the ability to create policy.

head

06-22-2010, 20:41

So could Biden have had the right plan all along, or is that just the author's opinion...?

You can sense that it is the author's opinion.

From what I recall, VP Biden's plan was to have his cake and eat it too - he wanted to start decreasing troop levels in A-stan and abandon COIN/FID, but still support the war by increasing the use of drones and CT assets. IMO, this would've just turned into a bigger game of "Whack-a-mole" worse than what we are already doing.

As for the author's opinion, his opinion on counterinsurgency strategies means as much to me as Britney Spear's opinion on alternative fuel sources.

SF18C

06-23-2010, 00:01

akv

06-23-2010, 00:38

I worked for Stanley and his professionalism, patriotism and selfless –service are beyond reproach! Hmmmm… how to say this, I think Stan KNEW/KNOWS exactly what he was doing all along! Stan is very astute to reporters, the press, and the scuttlebutt. His SA is Jedi-like! I think this is a one man exit strategy from a no-win situation combined with red star clusters over the problem area!

This makes sense. McChrystal's writings seem to indicate a shrewd, disciplined, and calculating mind. I think the choice of Rolling Stone is actually a deliberate shot at Obama's " Rock Star" image. IMHO, the General decided he wasn't going to get the support or the time he needed from this administration, he knows his adversary is a patholgical Narcissist and will bite. ( In contrast to Obama's tizzy, imagine if the POTUS instead of taking the bait, showed some real leadership and just said, " ahh it's a tough war, My man Stan is just blowing off some steam")

Instead, McCrystal has decided to go out with a bang to catch the attention of the American people, and pin the outcome of this war to this administration, He knows there will be a media frenzy, this was an ambush. Obama will look like a loser any way you cut it. He put McChrystal in charge, he can't control him, what a loser, or if they reconcile, then he looks even weaker. At the end of the day maybe this ludicrous pledge to leave by 2011 is addressed.

So maybe I need a pointy tinfoil cap, but I think the General decided to fall on his sword, is trying to setup better ROE for his replacement, and is trying to cost Obama a second term on the way out.

Dozer523

06-23-2010, 06:49

This makes sense. To gain that much spin the rotation of the universe will have to be reversed.
So maybe I need a pointy tinfoil cap . . . Most definitely.
No one is that Machiavellian. This is the same General who kicked ass and took names in the Green Bean coffee shop (how Patton-esque)
Run off at the mouth general and his Imperial staff. (MacAurthur-esque).
I can barely wait for his "Old Soldiers Never Die . . .

JAGO

06-23-2010, 06:53

I would like to think Stan planned all of this, but I doubt it. My two cents:

Over the years the PAOs have always come up with media plans that usually ended up with bad results (think Jessica Lynch, Pat Tillman, and all the other times you would have hoped the reporter is objective, but they get their jabs in anyway).

Newsweek reported RS (their old reporter) approached Stan's "people" (read PAO) and somehow got in. For the life of me, back in the old days nobody in a command position would trust letting RS or any other similar "journalist" into the circle and even object to having them rammed down the command's throat. My be is, that with the current admin, RS enjoys more of "mainstream" status amongst "journalists". At times I remember, DoD or DA would jam a major ("credible") news source down our throats - but every time bad things happend in one sense or another (typically OPSEC violations - TTP or C2 relationships) and stuff got into the public domain that we couldn't counter or comment upon, because that would only highlight the info.

RS had reservations about the war and hoped to validate those. I am sure that was their intent going in....

RS got in, in Paris. The staff was drinking and they "mentioned" stuff they shouldn't. A big mistake. When it was time to leave Paris, RS was stranded by the volcano eruption and my bet is that the PAO allowed RS to continue to trail. Big mistake. Soon, staff started to overlook RS in the AO (big mistake) RS was able to approach staff during down time and brought up "what you said back in Paris" and develop add'n details. Staff should have refused further comment.

My guess is RS got a couple of 15-30 minute interviews with Stan and a couple of candid comments (that were nevertheless still respectfull to the NCA and POTUS).

The reporter then was able to "weave" the staff comments a(ttributed by staff to Stan) along with those remarks he acutally made, into a typical piece critical of the war effort. The staff comments "sexed up" the article and even though RS is left leaning - they still are after big $. The reporter got them that.

Sadly this has happened before - and is all too typical of how we shoot ourselves in the foot.

Bottom line: Never trust a commie, never trust an ex-wife, and never, ever trust the press.

Again, I hope I am wrong. If this is not a cluster f... but rather part of a grander plan, I will be really happy. Stan is a good man.
v/r
phil

akv

06-23-2010, 07:23

No one is that Machiavellian.

Fair point, history shows IKE and Truman made the right calls in Sicily and Korea respectively, I guess we will see how Obama is judged in time.

craigepo

06-23-2010, 07:32

Defender968

06-23-2010, 08:18

It would be a helluva way to kick off a political campaign.

That thought crossed my mind as well, if he gets relieved and retires, he'd be in a unique position to call into question the presidents leadership in a time of war....and that's a very powerful base to build a campaign....not saying that's what's happening, but given Obama only spoke with General McChrystal once in the first 70 days he was in office and then took over 2 months to approve his own chosen general's request for additional troops.. those two facts coupled with the quotes about the president appearing "unprepared", and also seemed "intimidated" by military brass....could be very shrewd and calculated IPB....or it could be just a hell of a lot of coincidences...either way the damage has been done to this administration, and as others have said time will tell why.

Dozer523

06-23-2010, 08:41

That thought crossed my mind as well, if he gets relieved and retires, he'd be in a unique position to call into question the presidents leadership in a time of war....and that's a very powerful base to build a campaign.... There's an idea not unique to America.
An American General disagrees with the civilian leadership, takes it public, gets canned or quits in a huff, finds political backers and thinks he has traction to set things right, runs for office and wins.
When has that ever happened?

Team Sergeant

06-23-2010, 09:48

It would be a helluva way to kick off a political campaign.

I like the way you think.....

Stan for Prez.....

Sounds good.

olhamada

06-23-2010, 09:50

I like the way you think.....

Stan for Prez.....

Sounds good.

I agree. The GOP certainly needs a good candidate.

But one question bugs me - according to RS, the good GEN voted for Obama? What the heck? :confused:

greenberetTFS

06-23-2010, 10:13

It would be a helluva way to kick off a political campaign.

Agreed,this just maybe what he's planning................;););)

Big Teddy :munchin

Richard

06-23-2010, 10:24

It would be a helluva way to kick off a political campaign.

Didn't work too well for Wes Clark. ;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Green Light

06-23-2010, 10:37

I like the way you think.....

Stan for Prez.....

Sounds good.

Not for me. I remember the last time someone formerly from JSOC worked in the WH. Remember Linda Tripp? :D

Something here went horribly wrong. I agree that it probably started with the PAO. Their job is to screen and protect the boss while getting the correct message out. Having a reporter around too long, too much is just asking for something to be said/done in an unguarded moment. Even O-10s get pissed and blow off steam. His inner circle should all be trusted agents. The quotes I read seemed to be coming from staff officers who were talking second hand. Ever seen a staff guy with an ego that needed to be stroked? Yeah.

These guys failed the boss IMO. He's going to have to fall on his sword - you can't be quoted in public not agreeing with the civilian side. That's why Honduras has golpes de estados and we don't The civilian heads of the military make the policy and we salute.

It's too bad. I thought he had a better than even chance of pulling off a win in A-stan, though not a WW2-style total victory.

sf11b_p

06-23-2010, 11:23

AP is reporting the General has been relieved and the President has chosen General Petraus as replacement.

SF18C

06-23-2010, 11:23

Looks like Stan is out of a job...Dave Petraus is going to run AFG.

Roguish Lawyer

06-23-2010, 11:25

I like the way you think.....

Stan for Prez.....

Sounds good.

Unelectable, not even close. Given the changes in our culture and the nature of politics today, I don't think we will ever elect another General as President unless we get invaded and the candidate saves the country.

Richard

06-23-2010, 11:46

The announcement is being made right now by the POTUS accompanied by VP, SecDef, Chmn JCS, and CINC CENTCOM.

Here's the AP piece:

President Barack Obama sacked Gen. Stanley McChrystal as his top commander in Afghanistan and will replace him with Gen. David Petraeus, head of U.S. Central Command, a senior administration official said.

McChrystal was pushed out over his blistering remarks about administration officials, quoted in a Rolling Stone magazine interview.

After an Oval Office meeting with McChrystal in the morning, Obama huddled with his war advisers and planned to announce his decision on the general's fate to the nation at 1:30 p.m. EDT in the Rose Garden.

The official spoke only on condition of anonymity, because the president's announcement was not yet public. Petraeus has been McChrystal's boss, overseeing the wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq from Central Command. Before that, he led President George W. Bush's surge of troops into Iraq that was credited with turning that war around.

Last week, there was concern about Petraeus when he slumped at the witness table while testifying at a Senate hearing about the war in Afghanistan. He recovered quickly and a spokesman said the general likely was dehydrated and jet-lagged from his travels.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBAMA_MCCHRYSTAL?SITE=ORROS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

And so it goes...

Richard :munchin

Snaquebite

06-23-2010, 11:59

olhamada

06-23-2010, 12:09

I'm waiting for the "real" bottom line. O stated he "accepted McChrystal's resignation".

Did McChrystal simply resign or was the resignation asked for and therefore fired? IMHO there's a big difference.

The honorable thing to do would be to simply resign - walk in to the Oval Office with resignation in hand. As he is a man of integrity, I bet that's what he did - at least I hope so.

Richard

06-23-2010, 12:11

Did McChrystal simply resign or was the resignation asked for and therefore fired?

No 'simply' over an issue like this one at that level - my bet is SecDef told the GEN he was finished - and to write the resignation and the POTUS would accept it.

And so it goes...

Richard's $.02 :munchin

head

06-23-2010, 12:24

President Obama now has an excuse to extend the July 2011 deadline - a date which General Petraeus has not been supportive of anyways.

This will cause any admin to think twice about appointing Generals with the words "Special Forces" on their shoulders.

I hope one of the first thing General Petraeus does is conduct a review of the ROE restrictions currently in place and how his subcommanders are implementing them.

Nightfall

06-23-2010, 12:38

Not a fan of this rag, but in my reading about this, I thought this was kind of funny in the BP light earlier mentioned - sounded like something from The Onion:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sean-carman/administration-to-try-to_b_622135.html

Administration to Try to Stop McCrystal with Junk Shot

As President Obama prepared this morning for his fateful meeting with General William McChrystal, word leaked out of the White House that the Administration will attempt a "junk shot" to stem the catastrophic flow that has been gushing from the General.

The gushing flow coming from General McChrystal, which has apparently been spewing uncapped for years, only came to light this week, in a profile in Rolling Stone Magazine. Experts described the flow as an intense, high-pressure mixture of hubris, vitriol, and opprobrium -- three substances that are common in the environment but that can become explosive when mixed together, especially in volatile regions of international conflict, and also in international diplomatic and political circles. Those experts also said they have never seen a mixture of these substances flowing at such intensity and volume from a United States general in wartime.

And, what is worse, there doesn't seem to be any way to stop it.

"This hole has been gushing for years," one officials said, "and we've tried everything to contain it. Right now, the junk shot is our only hope."

"If this doesn't work," the official added, "this thing could keep spewing to the end of an Obama term."

The procedure, which is modeled on the failed attempt to plug the BP well in the Gulf of Mexico, would involve lowering a large pipe into General McChrystal's throat, and then forcing a combination of thick muds through the pipe, in the hope of counteracting the high-pressure flow that is rising from General McChrystal's gut and forcing its way out of his larynx.

"If that doesn't work," one official said, "we may try to mix in other items, like golf balls, pieces of rubber, maybe a medal of honor or a citation, anything we can get down there, really."

My history isn't the best, but didn't Patton and MacArthor both go down in a similar fashion? I hate it for the guy, but I concur with the earlier comments concerning that pesky protocol thing....

MtnGoat

06-23-2010, 12:59

You know, maybe they let him sit around as an embed till the point where they started to think he was a potted plant or even a buddy?

That is exactly what must have happen!!!!

echoes

06-23-2010, 13:07

Utah Bob

06-23-2010, 13:17

Sir,

Thank you for your post. It puts all I, as a civilian, need to know about this topic, into perspective.

My simple question is this...Why didn't Our "CIC," listen to the General? He is The General! I do not understand WTH Our non-military serving President thinks he knows more about...THAN THE GENERAL!:rolleyes:

Maybe someone here can enlighten me....

Holly

Presidents, Kings, Dictators, etc. frequently think they know more than their generals where warfare is concerned.
History is full of examples

Sigaba

06-23-2010, 13:25

Source is here (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/statement-president-rose-garden).

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
June 23, 2010
Statement by the President in the Rose Garden
Rose Garden

1:43 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon. Today I accepted General Stanley McChrystal’s resignation as commander of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan. I did so with considerable regret, but also with certainty that it is the right thing for our mission in Afghanistan, for our military, and for our country.

I'm also pleased to nominate General David Petraeus to take command in Afghanistan, which will allow us to maintain the momentum and leadership that we need to succeed.

I don't make this decision based on any difference in policy with General McChrystal, as we are in full agreement about our strategy. Nor do I make this decision out of any sense of personal insult. Stan McChrystal has always shown great courtesy and carried out my orders faithfully. I've got great admiration for him and for his long record of service in uniform.

Over the last nine years, with America fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, he has earned a reputation as one of our nation’s finest soldiers. That reputation is founded upon his extraordinary dedication, his deep intelligence, and his love of country. I relied on his service, particularly in helping to design and lead our new strategy in Afghanistan. So all Americans should be grateful for General McChrystal’s remarkable career in uniform.

But war is bigger than any one man or woman, whether a private, a general, or a president. And as difficult as it is to lose General McChrystal, I believe that it is the right decision for our national security.

The conduct represented in the recently published article does not meet the standard that should be set by a commanding general. It undermines the civilian control of the military that is at the core of our democratic system. And it erodes the trust that’s necessary for our team to work together to achieve our objectives in Afghanistan.

My multiple responsibilities as Commander-in-Chief led me to this decision. First, I have a responsibility to the extraordinary men and women who are fighting this war, and to the democratic institutions that I've been elected to lead. I've got no greater honor than serving as Commander-in-Chief of our men and women in uniform, and it is my duty to ensure that no diversion complicates the vital mission that they are carrying out.

That includes adherence to a strict code of conduct. The strength and greatness of our military is rooted in the fact that this code applies equally to newly enlisted privates and to the general officer who commands them. That allows us to come together as one. That is part of the reason why America has the finest fighting force in the history of the world.

It is also true that our democracy depends upon institutions that are stronger than individuals. That includes strict adherence to the military chain of command, and respect for civilian control over that chain of command. And that’s why, as Commander-in-Chief, I believe this decision is necessary to hold ourselves accountable to standards that are at the core of our democracy.

Second, I have a responsibility to do what is -- whatever is necessary to succeed in Afghanistan, and in our broader effort to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda. I believe that this mission demands unity of effort across our alliance and across my national security team. And I don’t think that we can sustain that unity of effort and achieve our objectives in Afghanistan without making this change. That, too, has guided my decision.

I’ve just told my national security team that now is the time for all of us to come together. Doing so is not an option, but an obligation. I welcome debate among my team, but I won’t tolerate division. All of us have personal interests; all of us have opinions. Our politics often fuels conflict, but we have to renew our sense of common purpose and meet our responsibilities to one another, and to our troops who are in harm’s way, and to our country.

We need to remember what this is all about. Our nation is at war. We face a very tough fight in Afghanistan. But Americans don’t flinch in the face of difficult truths or difficult tasks. We persist and we persevere. We will not tolerate a safe haven for terrorists who want to destroy Afghan security from within, and launch attacks against innocent men, women, and children in our country and around the world.

So make no mistake: We have a clear goal. We are going to break the Taliban’s momentum. We are going to build Afghan capacity. We are going to relentlessly apply pressure on al Qaeda and its leadership, strengthening the ability of both Afghanistan and Pakistan to do the same.

That’s the strategy that we agreed to last fall; that is the policy that we are carrying out, in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

In that effort, we are honored to be joined by allies and partners who have stood by us and paid the ultimate price through the loss of their young people at war. They are with us because the interests and values that we share, and because this mission is fundamental to the ability of free people to live in peace and security in the 21st century.

General Petraeus and I were able to spend some time this morning discussing the way forward. I’m extraordinarily grateful that he has agreed to serve in this new capacity. It should be clear to everybody, he does so at great personal sacrifice to himself and to his family. And he is setting an extraordinary example of service and patriotism by assuming this difficult post.

Let me say to the American people, this is a change in personnel but it is not a change in policy. General Petraeus fully participated in our review last fall, and he both supported and helped design the strategy that we have in place. In his current post at Central Command, he has worked closely with our forces in Afghanistan. He has worked closely with Congress. He has worked closely with the Afghan and Pakistan governments and with all our partners in the region. He has my full confidence, and I am urging the Senate to confirm him for this new assignment as swiftly as possible.

Let me conclude by saying that it was a difficult decision to come to the conclusion that I’ve made today. Indeed, it saddens me to lose the service of a soldier who I’ve come to respect and admire. But the reasons that led me to this decision are the same principles that have supported the strength of our military and our nation since the founding.

So, once again, I thank General McChrystal for his enormous contributions to the security of this nation and to the success of our mission in Afghanistan. I look forward to working with General Petraeus and my entire national security team to succeed in our mission. And I reaffirm that America stands as one in our support for the men and women who defend it.

Thank you very much.

END
1:51 P.M. EDT
One can only imagine what the president might have said had he found GEN McCrystal's remarks personally insulting.

For comparison. Source is here (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/print.php?pid=14058).• Harry S. Truman
Statement and Order by the President on Relieving General MacArthur of His Commands.
April 11, 1951

[1.] Statement by the President:

With deep regret I have concluded that General of the Army Douglas MacArthur is unable to give his wholehearted support to the policies of the United States Government and of the United Nations in matters pertaining to his official duties. In view of the specific responsibilities imposed upon me by the Constitution of the United States and the added responsibility which has been entrusted to me by the United Nations, I have decided that I must make a change of command in the Far East. I have, therefore, relieved General MacArthur of his commands and have designated Lt. Gen. Matthew B. Ridgway as his successor.

Full and vigorous debate on matters of national policy is a vital element in the constitutional system of our free democracy. It is fundamental, however, that military commanders must be governed by the policies and directives issued to them in the manner provided by our laws and Constitution. In time of crisis, this consideration is particularly compelling.

General MacArthur's place in history as one of our greatest commanders is fully established. The Nation owes him a debt of gratitude for the distinguished and exceptional service which he has rendered his country in posts of great responsibility. For that reason I repeat my regret at the necessity for the action I feel compelled to take in his case.

[2.] Order by the President to General MacArthur:

I deeply regret that it becomes my duty as President and Commander in Chief of the United States military forces to replace you as Supreme Commander, Allied Powers; Commander in Chief, United Nations Command; Commander in Chief, Far East; and Commanding General, U.S. Army, Far East.

You will turn over your commands, effective at once, to Lt. Gen. Matthew B. Ridgway. You are authorized to have issued such orders as are necessary to complete desired travel to such place as you select.

My reasons for your replacement will be made public concurrently with the delivery to you of the foregoing order, and are contained in the next following message. (See attached Statement by the President.)

Dozer523

06-23-2010, 13:47

Source is here (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/statement-president-rose-garden).One can only imagine what the president might have said had he found GEN McCrystal's remarks personally insulting. You forgot to switch to pink.
Wait for what Robert Gates has to say, remember the guy Stan replaced? (Me neither) same fate awaits Stan.
Except -- his real 15 minutes of fame. Meet the Press, Sunday. Be there, Aloha.

BrainStorm

06-23-2010, 13:53

Herdbull

06-23-2010, 14:17

We have a long history of fighting generals who were politically challenged. General McChrystal does not seem to be one of them. I choose to believe that he is being sly like a fox. His endgame is beyond my powers of prediction.

Coincidentally, I am about 50 pages from the end of Hazardous Duty by John Singlaub. I can not help but think of the similarities between Carter/Singlaub and Obama/McChrystal.

mark46th

06-23-2010, 15:07

Now that the general has been officially fired, he will probably become an effing 'Rock Star'( I have to give credit for that term to a guy on Hugh Hewitt yesterday). He should hire an agent for book deals, speeches, talk shows. If I owned a radio or TV network, I would offer him his own show...

Richard

06-23-2010, 15:17

Presidents, Kings, Dictators, etc. frequently think they know more than their generals where warfare is concerned.
History is full of examples

You mean like Washington, Jackson, Harrison, Taylor, Grant, and Eisenhower? ;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Richard

06-23-2010, 15:38

And so it goes...

Prime Minister David Cameron says a British general is temporarily taking charge of NATO-led forces in Afghanistan following the ouster of American Gen. Stanley McChrystal.

President Barack Obama accepted McChrystal's resignation Wednesday and nominated Gen. David Petraeus to replace him.

The prime minister said the British deputy commander of ISAF, Lt. Gen. Nick Parker, has assumed command "pending Gen. Petraeus's confirmation by Congress."

In a statement, the prime minister's office said Cameron had spoken to Parker on Wednesday and the general had told him that the mission in Afghanistan "would not miss a beat" during this period.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/afghanistan/2010-06-23-british-general-nato_N.htm?csp=YahooModule_News

Lieutenant General Nick Parker was commissioned in 1973. After early service in the Infantry he commanded the 2nd Battalion the Royal Green Jackets from 1994-1995.

His staff training includes the Army Staff Course in 1986 and the Higher Command and Staff Course in 1996. He has held two staff appointments in the Ministry of Defence. He commanded 20th Armoured Brigade from 1997 to 1999, this included some time in Bosnia, and he was GOC 2nd Division and Governor of Edinburgh Castle from 2002-2004. He has been both the Deputy Commandant (1999-2001) and the Commandant of the Joint Staff College (2004-2005).

Recent operational tours include the commander of UK Joint Task Force and advisor to the President of Sierra Leone in 2001 and Deputy Commanding General (UK) Multi-National Corps Iraq from August 2005 to February 2006. He took over as GOC Northern Ireland in July 2006, UK Commander Regional Forces in August 2007 and took over as Deputy Commander ISAF in November 2009.

http://www.isaf.nato.int/en/about-isaf/leadership/lieutenant-general-sir-nick-parker.html

Richard :munchin

Utah Bob

06-23-2010, 17:27

In a statement, the prime minister's office said Cameron had spoken to Parker on Wednesday and the general had told him that the mission in Afghanistan "would not miss a beat" during this period.

Yes. Should be up to speed in a nosh old chap.

Organizing a brilliant unit right now to run the blighters back into their Wog holes. I say, what about a name? Col. Smythe-Carruthers had an idea over a glass of Port last evening in the Officer's mess.

"The Light Brigade", was his suggestion. "Simply Wizard, Reggie", Said I.:rolleyes:

Barn Owl

06-23-2010, 18:18

I wish the news media wasn't so quick to confuse his departure with dishonor. It would be hard to find a Commander with a longer list of HV targets serviced / secured. We will never know exactly how many of our worst enemies rot in prison cells or shallow graves because a unit led by General McChrystal placed them there.

He deserves a monument.

Barn Owl

Richard

06-23-2010, 18:41

Ye olde adage - "One ah-s**t =..."

And so it goes...

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Bill Harsey

06-23-2010, 19:21

I've never typed in "pink" for sarcasm here so pretend it's being done now.

The good news is Rolling Stone magazine has saved the world from an out of control United States military by conducting a thorough in depth investigation into the actions of the wild cowboy General McChrystal.

My prediction is (turn the pink off now) Rolling Stone will get a Pulitzer prize for this piece of work and the award will be presented in the White House at a large gala event.

Those for whom everything is provided have the luxury of condemning those who provide, White House included.

Mitch

06-23-2010, 19:36

Presidents, Kings, Dictators, etc. frequently think they know more than their generals where warfare is concerned.
History is full of examples

Yes - but throughout history - probably only a small fraction of Battle Generals had it right; most had it wrong, persistently wrong. If and when they succeeded, it was just as likely because the other guy ran out of beans, bullets or boots on the ground first.

The fact that eventually a General comes along that “has it all figured out” and wins the battle and wins the war, is because the lessor ones before him kept getting relieved. Is this another case of that – don’t know? But thanks to Stan’s mouth, it doesn’t matter. He has regulated himself to languish in history’s slag heap – soon to be just barely remembered, or not remembered at all. Unless…………………….

incarcerated

06-23-2010, 19:59

Looks like Stan is out of a job...Dave Petraus is going to run AFG.

Who replaces Petraeus at CENTCOM, now that he is effectively being demoted?

Peregrino

06-23-2010, 21:01

Who replaces Petraeus at CENTCOM, now that he is effectively being demoted?

You noticed that too, huh? :munchin

Richard

06-23-2010, 21:18

Statement by General Stanley McChrystal

This morning the President accepted my resignation as Commander of U.S. and NATO Coalition Forces in Afghanistan. I strongly support the President’s strategy in Afghanistan and am deeply committed to our coalition forces, our partner nations, and the Afghan people. It was out of respect for this commitment -- and a desire to see the mission succeed -- that I tendered my resignation.

It has been my privilege and honor to lead our nation’s finest.

http://www.defense.gov/Blog_files/Blog_assets/Statement_General_McChrystal.pdf

Who replaces Petraeus at CENTCOM, now that he is effectively being demoted?

I would think it's situational for the short term - Petraeus has a good DCINC at CENTCOM and, therefore, might wear both hats for awhile until a more definitive solution is arrived at here. As for the long term...:confused:

And so it goes...

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Utah Bob

06-23-2010, 21:39

I read somewhere that Petreaus will not be wearing two hats.
Can't find the source now.

afchic

06-24-2010, 04:52

Being overseas with a foreign military while all of this has been going on is quite enlightening and reminds me of why I am so greatful to be an American. More time was spent today discussing this with O5, O6 and a couple of O7s Than our mission at hand and brought to light why we are such a great country.

Yes a mistake was made and a high ranking officer was fired. But no one died because of it. There will not be a power vacuum because of it and the general is free to live out his life however he chooses. That could mean taking his show on the road or living quietly and not discussing the issue ever again. Either way he has the freedom to do as he pleases without worrying about his life expectancy or that of his family.

JAGO

06-24-2010, 05:05

...and the RS reporter (Hastings) is out there trolling for his next "take down" in Afghanistan. Hopefully everyone is forwarned.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/06/23/mcchrystal-writer-now-embedded-in-afghanistan/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wsj%2Fwashwire%2Ffeed+%28WSJ. com%3A+Washington+Wire%29

v/r
phil

Pete

06-24-2010, 05:34

A little bit on just who was who advising him.....

"McChrystal Gaffe Spotlights New Breed of Media Adviser"

http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/mcchrystal-gaffe-spotlights-new-breed-of-military-media-adviser/19527871

"..........Precisely how Boothby ended up representing McChrystal is unclear, but the military in recent years has often hired former journalists from prominent newspapers to serve as "media advisers" and "strategic communications" experts, often working independently of uniformed public affairs officers. Rather than answering media queries or providing information to the public, they often work to pitch stories directly to the media or to set up interviews outside the normal public affairs operations..................."

at the end

"....Pietropaoli said he worries that in the quest for strategic communication, the military may have lost sight of the primary role of public affairs, "which is to communicate effectively to maintain the trust and confidence of the American people who give us their tax dollar and their most precious resource, their sons and daughters to go in harm's way on their behalf."

That role, according to Pietropaoli, is the No. 1 job of public affairs. "It's like 'Star Trek' and the prime directive," he said................"

Ive2010

06-24-2010, 08:11

I'm not politically savy, but do you guys think anything good could come out of this fiasco, I'm hoping it can!!!!:confused:

ZonieDiver

06-24-2010, 08:26

I'm not politically savy, but do you guys think anything good could come out of this fiasco, I'm hoping it can!!!!:confused:

How about this: high-ranking individuals, who SHOULD know better in the FIRST place, will learn to keep their big mouths shut.

Utah Bob

06-24-2010, 08:37

How about this: high-ranking individuals, who SHOULD know better in the FIRST place, will learn to keep their big mouths shut.

Yup. Should be a wake up call to all senior officers.
Reporters are NOT your friends!

Ive2010

06-24-2010, 08:46

Thinking bigger picture. Hope its not in vain!!!!

BrainStorm

06-24-2010, 11:01

I'm not politically savy, but do you guys think anything good could come out of this fiasco, I'm hoping it can!!!!:confused:

It would be interesting to know what kind of deal Petraeus was able to get to take over this responsibility. He took a step down. Obama gave a key assignment to someone who he and Hillary demonized during the election.

Obama was forced to enunciate clearly his goals for Afghanistan. He did not cross the line and admit that this downsizing deadline is conditional. But his position will make him less able to resist anything Petraeus says he needs.

jw74

06-24-2010, 11:15

It would be interesting to know what kind of deal Petraeus was able to get to take over this responsibility. He took a step down.

I doubt Petraeus made a deal of any kind. Some people see a need and actually step up to the plate for the good of the nation.

But his position will make him less able to resist anything Petraeus says he needs.
Yeah right. Surely Obama is now honor bound to the General.:rolleyes:

BrainStorm

06-24-2010, 11:21

Yeah right. Surely Obama is now honor bound to the General.:rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

I doubt honor has any place in Obama's character. But he just may have painted himself into a political corner where he has to support Petraeus.

It appears the both the New York Times and Google have scrubbed their sites of evidence about the "General Betray Us" ad. Further evidence, IMO, that Petraeus is receiving the liberal establishment's support.

Think Chess not Checkers. Think several moves ahead. I'm intrigued.

mark46th

06-24-2010, 11:47

Utah Bob- You said it! Reporters are not your friends!! Once again, a lesson learned in the Vietnam War is ignored/forgotten.

Sigaba

06-24-2010, 12:03

I doubt Petraeus made a deal of any kind. Some people see a need and actually step up to the plate for the good of the nation.FWIW, Eliot Cohen <<bio (http://www.sais-jhu.edu/faculty/directory/bios/c/cohen.htm)>> agrees with you. On last night's broadcast of PBS's Newshour, he bristled at Jessica Matthew's suggestion that GEN Petraeus would need some sort of political incentive to do his duty as an American soldier. He said:Knowing David Petraeus, I think, like Stan McChrystal, in this respect, he's just a good soldier. And if the president looks him square in the eye and says, I need you to take this job, you don't set conditions for the president.*

____________________________________________
* Source is here (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/jan-june10/mchrystal2_06-23.html).

BrainStorm

06-24-2010, 12:20

Ah PBS. I sometimes watch the "Public Brainwashing Service," but try to limit it to the science stuff.

Sigaba

06-24-2010, 12:31

Ah PBS. I sometimes watch the "Public Brainwashing Service," but try to limit it to the science stuff.Readers of this thread can judge for themselves who offers a more persuasive analysis of Patreaus's motivation and professionalism.

plato

06-24-2010, 12:45

I'm not politically savy, but do you guys think anything good could come out of this fiasco, I'm hoping it can!!!!:confused:

I hope so.

If the respect that this nation has for it's soldiers is as great as claimed in surveys, at least *some* of its citizens are equally focused on whether the current administration is as screwed up as the GEN said it is. If more people take a step back from blindly believing in B. Hussein Obama, it's a "good thing", IMHO.

I understand "the code" as well as most, I believe. And it's natural that we, here, would discuss that code since it is very much a part of us.

However, I never took an oath to uphold The Administration. I swore to uphold the Constitution, and I take that oath to mean that I swore to fight for The Nation.

I can see a man of integrity choosing to make a sacrifice to point out areas of the war effort that need fixing, for the good of The Nation.

Curmudgeon, one each, old, olive drab. :D

Sigaba

06-24-2010, 12:58

If the respect that this nation has for it's soldiers is as great as claimed in surveys, at least *some* of its citizens are equally focused on whether the current administration is as screwed up as the GEN said it is. If more people take a step back from blindly believing in B. Hussein Obama, it's a "good thing", IMHO.IMO, the question of questions is what is the basis of civilians' respect for the warriors that protect our freedoms? Does that respect come from a genuine understanding (to the extent possible) of the cultures, values, and professionalism of the armed services? Or is that understanding shaped more by the myriad images in mass popular culture?

Counsel

06-24-2010, 13:52

What will happen to the staff of Gen. McChrystal ? Are their careers over too?

The Reaper

06-24-2010, 14:04

What will happen to the staff of Gen. McChrystal ? Are their careers over too?

IMHO, anyone accurately quoted in that article saying something negative about the civilian leadership to the reporter should now be radioactive.

TR

Dozer523

06-24-2010, 15:28

What will happen to the staff of Gen. McChrystal ? Are their careers over too? I bet they're sitting in the Green Bean at Eggers trying to drown their sorrows in a triple shot Mocha Frapachino or doing some last minute shopping at the "Big" PX at Bagram (getting as many rugs as will fit in a duffle bag).

Seriously, like all minions they're trying to figure out who's fault this is.

It's their own fault . . . they failed to protect their boss from himself.

spherojon

06-25-2010, 09:18

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128095611

The nation's top military officer, Adm. Mike Mullen, arrives in Afghanistan on Friday. His mission: to reassure U.S. troops about the change in command there.

Two days after President Obama replaced Gen. Stanley McChrystal with Gen. David Petraeus, the focus now is on how to move forward with the war strategy that depends on military officers and their civilian partners working together.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, defended Obama's decision to replace McChrystal. Sitting next to Gates, his civilian boss, during a news conference Thursday, Mullen's message could not have been clearer.

"We do not have the right, nor should we ever assume the prerogative, to cast doubt upon the ability or mock the motives of our civilian leaders, elected or appointed," he said. "I think it is vital for us to remember that if we lose their trust and confidence for any reason, it's time to go."

McChrystal lost his job because the comments he and his aides made — which were quoted in Rolling Stone magazine — revealed a rift between him and his staff on the one side and the civilian leaders who define the war policy on the other.

Military-Diplomatic Ties

One of the people singled out: U.S. Ambassador in Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry.

The tension between McChrystal and the man who was supposed to be his partner was a poorly kept secret. As McChrystal became the primary U.S. contact with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, the relationship between the general and the ambassador fractured.

"The importance of one mission, one team cannot be overemphasized in the counterinsurgency operations," says Zalmay Khalilzad, who served as U.S. ambassador in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

He says the partnership between the top diplomat and the top commander is a precondition for success, especially in counterinsurgency, a strategy where the lines dividing military missions from civilian ones are often blurred.

This is an opportunity to see if a team that is functional can be put together, with Gen. Petraeus in the lead. If not, what other changes need to be made — because a lot needs to happen in a short time given that time line of July of next year.

- Zalmay Khalilzad, former U.S. ambassador to Iraq and Afghanistan

He points to his own experience working alongside military commanders in both war zones. In Afghanistan, Khalilzad and his counterpart even made sure their offices were next to each other.

"We met at least once a day. Sometimes there were obvious tensions, clearly, but I think at the end of the day we recognized that this was more important than any one of us or any one of the institutions," he said.

A Good Example

There is one recent example of a military-civilian relationship that most experts agree was exceptional: Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker worked together in Iraq and oversaw the strategy that became known as the surge.

In 2008, Gates called the Petraeus-Crocker team a "superb model of military-civilian partnership, and one that should be studied and emulated for years to come."

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) went even further, suggesting that they should be brought together for one more tour.

"We might suggest that consideration be given to reuniting the Crocker-Petraeus team," he said.

That may be wishful thinking by McCain, as Crocker is retired from the Foreign Service. Still, McCain and others on Capitol Hill say while McChrystal had to go, more change is needed.

"We still have concerns about the civilian side of it, and the nonmilitary side of this equation," he said.

Khalilzad agrees.

"This is an opportunity to see if a team that is functional can be put together, with Gen. Petraeus in the lead," he said. "If not, what other changes need to be made — because a lot needs to happen in a short time given that time line of July of next year."

That's when Obama has said he wants to begin withdrawing some U.S. troops from Afghanistan.

Doing so could depend on whether the new military command in Afghanistan and the U.S. diplomats there can make peace with each other and take the fight to the enemy.

Sigaba

06-25-2010, 09:27

Two days after President Obama replaced Gen. Stanley McChrystal with Gen. David Petraeus, the focus now is on how to move forward with the war strategy that depends on military officers and their civilian partners working together. Has America ever had a strategy that didn't depend upon cooperation between civilians and professional officers for its ultimate success?

jw74

06-25-2010, 09:40

We are at a point where a WH administration is either constantly spewing meaningless sound bytes (bites?) or they are assumed to be hiding something. Ahh the elusive middle ground of only talking when there is something to say.

Richard

06-25-2010, 11:05

Gates, Mullen Comment on McChrystal Situation

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=59776

And so it goes...

Richard :munchin

Sigaba

06-25-2010, 11:41

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs announced this morning that the First Lady will host a gathering of local school children who will help her remove images of recently sacked General McChrystal out of every photo in which he appears with the president.

When asked about the propriety of the event, Mr. Gibbs replied: "I appreciate your concerns, but do understand this: the kids will not only use safety scissors, the older students will get a voucher for Adobe Photoshop Elements."

Richard

06-25-2010, 12:25

The new CENTCOM CDR?

http://www.tradoc.army.mil/Bio.htm

Richard :munchin

echoes

06-25-2010, 13:04

I hope so.

If the respect that this nation has for it's soldiers is as great as claimed in surveys, at least *some* of its citizens are equally focused on whether the current administration is as screwed up as the GEN said it is. If more people take a step back from blindly believing in B. Hussein Obama, it's a "good thing", IMHO.

I understand "the code" as well as most, I believe. And it's natural that we, here, would discuss that code since it is very much a part of us.

However, I never took an oath to uphold The Administration. I swore to uphold the Constitution, and I take that oath to mean that I swore to fight for The Nation.

I can see a man of integrity choosing to make a sacrifice to point out areas of the war effort that need fixing, for the good of The Nation.

Very well said sir, and thank you for your service. This post serves as yet another eye-opening theory of this entire drama, IMHO.:munchin

IMO, the question of questions is what is the basis of civilians' respect for the warriors that protect our freedoms? Does that respect come from a genuine understanding (to the extent possible) of the cultures, values, and professionalism of the armed services? Or is that understanding shaped more by the myriad images in mass popular culture?
May I humbly ask, Why is that the question of all questions? Honestly, you are far more intelligent than me, but am curious if you are honestly asking if civilians who support Our Armed Forces do so because of extensive research, or, of being so dumbed down, do so because they like the Pop Culture Image of them?

How about Civilians' respect comes from respect of our elders, and being taught to respect those who fight in wars, so that we can be Free here in America? What is wrong with that choice, and why was it not one of yours in your original question?:munchin

You asked....so JMHO...[/B]Holly

Sigaba

06-25-2010, 13:06

The new CENTCOM CDR?

http://www.tradoc.army.mil/Bio.htm

Richard :munchinWhile researching GEN Dempsey, I stumbled upon this nugget. <<LINK (http://www.ausa.org/publications/ilw/ilw_pubs/LPE/Documents/LPE09_4W_b_11172009.pdf)>>

Enjoy....;) (Go ahead. You can trust me; I've never provided a link that induces incredulity and other associated emotions. That is, at least not on this BB.)Entire post.The choice you describe is included in the original question. As for a choice being "wrong" or "right", that would depend largely upon the one doing the choosing.

The reason why it is "the question of questions" is because the answer (if it is knowable) refocuses ongoing discussions about the growing rift in civil-military relations from strategic and political culture to mass culture. YMMV.

ZonieDiver

06-25-2010, 13:26

While researching GEN Dempsey, I stumbled upon this nugget. <<LINK (http://www.ausa.org/publications/ilw/ilw_pubs/LPE/Documents/LPE09_4W_b_11172009.pdf)>>

Enjoy....;) (Go ahead. You can trust me; I've never provided a link that induces incredulity and other associated emotions. That is, at least not on this BB.)

Major Groves is SO full of crap that his eyes have got to be brown!

Richard

06-25-2010, 14:49

MAJ Groves' bio can be found here by going to the USMA web-site, scrolling down to the good MAJs pic, and clicking on Bio:

MAJ Bryan Groves, Special Forces / Foreign Area Officer (FA48C), Bio
Instructor (Int'l Relations), MA (Yale University)
SS465 Terrorism and Counter-Terrorism

http://www.dean.usma.edu/departments/sosh/7_Faculty/faculty.htm

Richard :munchin

akv

06-25-2010, 14:56

IMO, the question of questions is what is the basis of civilians' respect for the warriors that protect our freedoms? Does that respect come from a genuine understanding (to the extent possible) of the cultures, values, and professionalism of the armed services? Or is that understanding shaped more by the myriad images in mass popular culture?

Leave it to a historian to ask a deep question...;)

IMHO, it depends on which civilians, where, and when they lived. Is popular culture, like art representative of the values of a society, or a precursor towards likely paths? I think American civilians were closer to a genuine understanding ( to the extent possible) in times of great military peril, ie the US Civil War or WW2. I personally only know one soldier who has served in Iraq, I like to think of myself as patriotic and reasonably informed, but it is clear having lived mostly in NYC and California the military is generally the farthest thing from the minds of most folks I know. I knew the world beyond our shores could be Hobbesian, but it took 9/11 and burying friends for me to grasp the threat, and thus appreciate and remind myself of the sacrifices of our troops confronting it. There is a wealth of knowledge and wisdom on this site, however the TAPS posts constantly humble and remind me of the real price of freedom. Current popular culture seems filled with stale modernist cliches. Basically, everything is ok, which is an excuse to lead a superficial shallow existence. Folks will pay lip service to " I support the troops" just as politicians say " I support the children" but it seems to me the image of our military is often portrayed negatively in current popular culture, and the average civilian does not take the time to dig deeper, I do think most Americans would be grateful if they they took the time to think about it. Perhaps it is different for folks who live in San Diego, San Antonio, or Virginia Beach etc.

In contrast during WW2, it seemed the whole country was in uniform, men were ashamed not to serve, everyone had friends and loved ones serving, and many knew and were personally affected by those who didn't make it home. Most any civilian could sense the sacrifices servicemen were making and the dangers our republic faced. During the Civil War a businessman in NYC probably had it figured out had the Confederates won at Gettysburg, things could have changed very quickly for the republic.

I wonder if the shift toward an all volunteer force, despite obvious benefits, displaced understanding and familiarity for our military away from the civilian masses. As soldiers have said they do what they do for their oath to protect the US constitution, and their brothers in arms. There are millions of US civilians who respect and appreciate our troops, but I think the majority learned to do so at an early age. At the end of the day I think the answer lies where character is formed and life lessons are taught, at home by one's parents. Just as parents explain to their kid's the virtues and roles of policemen and firemen, the role and sacrifices made by our soldiers should be taught as well, I don't think we can count on popular culture for our values.

echoes

06-25-2010, 14:58

akv

06-25-2010, 15:37

Am sure eyes will be rolled, but, I have no idea what in the world your above writings have to do with just simply supporting Our Troops, becaue they are Our Troops! Maybe that is just not good enough these days. Maybe a person needs to be able to understand and answer the above query, before being able to show proper support?

Holly,

I can't speak for Sigaba but IMHO his question is quite valid. You value supporting our troops, I share this value, there have been times in American history when the majority was quite vocal about voicing support for this value. We are currently engaged in two wars, yet on Memorial Day we have journalists infuriatingly questioning " What is so important about placing flowers on a tomb" or folks stealing a memorial cross for WW1 vets in New Mexico. I believe Sigaba is asking what has changed for the masses regarding this value and why, is it popular culture, lack of personal experience, where did we get derailed from the days when such actions would have been rare shameful outliers?

Maytime

06-25-2010, 15:52

There's a certain sense of entitlement that I see on a daily basis that drives me up a wall sometimes, and may contribute to the distancing of the civilian population and the armed forces in terms of mutual understanding and respect. I could be wrong, but it's something I've observed over a few years of living here.

echoes

06-25-2010, 15:53

Holly,

I can't speak for Sigaba but IMHO his question is quite valid. You value supporting our troops, I share this value, there have been times in American history when the majority was quite vocal about voicing support for this value. We are currently engaged in two wars, yet on Memorial Day we have journalists infuriatingly questioning " What is so important about placing flowers on a tomb" or folks stealing a memorial cross for WW1 vets in New Mexico. I believe Sigaba is asking what has changed for the masses regarding this value and why, is it popular culture, lack of personal experience, where did we get derailed from the days when such actions would have been rare shameful outliers?

Well, I can see the value of every word you typed,:) however, if I remember correctly, those journalsits were put in their idiodic place about writing that, "flowers or LEAVES were being placed on a tomb"GRRRRRRRRRR:mad:

And aren't the folks stealing the cross are currently being pursued by LEO, IIRC?:eek:

And also believe that Sigaba can answer for themself. Because, even though I buried my Grandmother today, I am genuinely curious of the reply, should they choose to even give one.:munchin

Holly

Richard

06-25-2010, 19:20

Maytime

06-25-2010, 19:35

My experience and opinion - any American's support of anything is as individual as the person making the determination - same thing applies to the idea of what exactly makes us Americans. However, YMMV...and so it goes...

I agree! IMHO, this idea will present itself come November when Americans who remain mostly silent on many current issues suddenly think, "Oh shit, maybe this is not the direction we wanted America to go." There is nothing wrong with that; that is why we have separate branches of government. We (collectively) make a mistake, We can fix it without deep-sixing the current establishment.

I digress. Was GEN McChrystal TRYING to commit career suicide when he participated in the interview? With the ROLLING STONE? I didn't expect that from him.

Sigaba

06-25-2010, 19:57

Is popular culture, like art representative of the values of a society, or a precursor towards likely paths?

My experience and opinion - any American's support of anything is as individual as the person making the determination - same thing applies to the idea of what exactly makes us Americans.FWIW, my view walks the margin between your view and the question posed by AKV.

Mass popular culture (to differentiate from popular culture) can frame how individual Americans shape their views both consciously and unconsciously. IMO, when these views have been in relative harmony with political and strategic discourse, the nation has benefited from strong civil military relations. By contrast, when the views are in disharmony (as they have been since the end of the Cold War), the American people start to lag behind the discussion. (Examples of this "lag" include the media, politicians, and pundits measuring America's success in GWOT by the number of casualties or the length of the war at the expense of listening to the professional judgment of the warriors who are doing the fighting.)Was GEN McChrystal TRYING to commit career suicide when he participated in the interview? With the ROLLING STONE? I didn't expect that from him.There may be no way to know, but it is my guess that the damaging remarks were but a portion of the discussions that the RS reporter observed.

The Reaper

06-25-2010, 20:04

There may be no way to know, but it is my guess that the damaging remarks were but a portion of the discussions that the RS reporter observed.

I suspect that the book will explain all of that, or at least offer a semi-plausible explanation.

TR

Sigaba

06-25-2010, 20:13

I suspect that the book will explain all of that, or at least offer a semi-plausible explanation.

TRAs these kinds of things are often determined by who gets published first, I hope GEN McChyrstal puts pen to paper immediately.

(I have no doubt that he president's comments in the rose garden were not just designed to ruin the general as a political opponent but were ultimately aimed at the history books.)

Richard

06-26-2010, 10:53

An interesting look at the very issue(s)...

Richard :munchin

The Culture of Exposure
David Brooks, NYT, 24 June 2010

The most interesting part of my job is that I get to observe powerful people at close quarters. Most people in government, I find, are there because they sincerely want to do good. But they’re also exhausted and frustrated much of the time. And at these moments they can’t help letting you know that things would be much better if only there weren’t so many morons all around.

So every few weeks I find myself on the receiving end of little burst of off-the-record trash talk. Senators privately moan about other senators. Administration officials gripe about other administration officials. People in the White House complain about the idiots in Congress, and the idiots in Congress complain about the idiots in the White House — especially if they’re in the same party. Washington floats on a river of aspersion.

The system is basically set up to maximize kvetching. Government is filled with superconfident, highly competitive people who are grouped into small bands. These bands usually have one queen bee at the center — a president, senator, cabinet secretary or general — and a squad of advisers all around. These bands are perpetually jostling, elbowing and shoving each other to get control over policy.

Amid all this friction, the members of each band develop their own private language. These people often spend 16 hours a day together, and they bond by moaning and about the idiots on the outside.

It feels good to vent in this way. You demonstrate your own importance by showing your buddies that you are un-awed by the majority leader, the vice president or some other big name. You get to take a break from the formal pressures of the job by playing the blasphemous bad-boy rebel over a beer at night.

Military people are especially prone to these sorts of outbursts. In public, they pay lavish deference to civilian masters who issue orders from the comfort of home. Among themselves, they blow off steam, sometimes in the crudest possible terms.

Those of us in the press corps have to figure out how to treat this torrent of private kvetching. During World War II and the years just after, a culture of reticence prevailed. The basic view was that human beings are sinful, flawed and fallen. What mattered most was whether people could overcome their flaws and do their duty as soldiers, politicians and public servants. Reporters suppressed private information and reported mostly — and maybe too gently — on public duties.

Then, in 1961, Theodore H. White began his “The Making of the President” book series. This series treated the people who worked inside the boiler rooms of government as the star players. It put the inner dramas at center stage.

Then, after Vietnam, an ethos of exposure swept the culture. The assumption among many journalists was that the establishment may seem upstanding, but there is a secret corruption deep down. It became the task of journalism to expose the underbelly of public life, to hunt for impurity, assuming that the dark hidden lives of public officials were more important than the official performances.

Then came cable, the Internet, and the profusion of media sources. Now you have outlets, shows and Web sites whose only real interest is the kvetching and inside baseball.

In other words, over the course of 50 years, what had once been considered the least important part of government became the most important. These days, the inner soap opera is the most discussed and the most fraught arena of political life.

And into this world walks Gen. Stanley McChrystal.

General McChrystal was excellent at his job. He had outstanding relations with the White House and entirely proper relationships with his various civilian partners in the State Department and beyond. He set up a superb decision-making apparatus that deftly used military and civilian expertise.

But McChrystal, like everyone else, kvetched. And having apparently missed the last 50 years of cultural history, he did so on the record, in front of a reporter. And this reporter, being a product of the culture of exposure, made the kvetching the center of his magazine profile.

By putting the kvetching in the magazine, the reporter essentially took run-of-the-mill complaining and turned it into a direct challenge to presidential authority. He took a successful general and made it impossible for President Obama to retain him.

The reticent ethos had its flaws. But the exposure ethos, with its relentless emphasis on destroying privacy and exposing impurities, has chased good people from public life, undermined public faith in institutions and elevated the trivial over the important.

Another scalp is on the wall. Government officials will erect even higher walls between themselves and the outside world. The honest and freewheeling will continue to flee public life, and the cautious and calculating will remain.

The culture of exposure has triumphed, with results for all to see.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/25/opinion/25brooks.html?src=me&ref=general

Sigaba

06-26-2010, 11:25

The Culture of Exposure
David Brooks, NYT, 24 June 2010IMO, Mr. Brooks's piece certainly provides food for thought. However, I think his take is flawed in two respects. First, the "reticent ethos" was not just practiced by journalists. In the past, officers in the armed services were well aware that they needed to draw the line between their professional and personal views of their fellows as well as civilians. As an example, folks are still trying to figure out what Dwight Eisenhower and Douglas MacArthur really thought of each other, when they had those views, and why.

Second, while too much can be made of clashes of personalities, those conflicts are worthy of public attention if they impact peoples' abilities to do their jobs professionally.

And also, there's the matter of Mr. Brooks's intellectual consistency. Source is here (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0705/27/rs.01.html).

CNN RELIABLE SOURCES

Two New Books Examine Hillary Clinton's Life; Democrats Back Off Deadlines for Troop Withdrawal

Aired May 27, 2007 - 10:00 ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

HOWARD KURTZ, HOST: Scrutinizing Hillary. Two new books examine her tumultuous marriage to Bill Clinton, the affairs, Jennifer Flowers, and the rest of her career. Big news, or old news?

<<SNIP>>

She stood by her man during the Jennifer Flowers uproar. She didn't want to stay home and bake cookies.

And ever since then, Hillary Clinton has been the subject of intense media fascination and relentless media scrutiny -- never more so than when she decided to seek the job that her husband held for eight years.

Now she's the subject of two new books -- one by Watergate sleuth, Carl Bernstein, the other by veteran "New York Times" reporters Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta.

The Bernstein book, according to the "Washington Post," says that, while in Arkansas, Hillary personally interviewed at least one woman alleged to have had an affair with Bill Clinton and contemplated divorcing him, and even thought about running for governor out of anger at her husband.

The Gerth-Van Natta book says Hillary's team hired a private investigator to undermine Jennifer Flowers "until she is destroyed."

It also questions whether, as senator, she read the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq in 2002, before voting to authorize the war.

What should we make of these microscopic examinations of the former first lady's life?

Joining us now to talk about this and a number of other issues, E.J. Dionne, columnist for the "Washington Post" and a professor at Georgetown University; Lynn Sweet, Washington bureau chief of the "Chicago Sun-Times"; and in New York, David Brooks, columnist for the "New York Times."

David Brooks, does all this digging into Hillary Clinton's personal life and her marriage to a formerly philandering president -- which was already getting plenty of media attention -- is that going to now come to the front of the agenda?

DAVID BROOKS, COLUMNIST, "NEW YORK TIMES": I think it should, actually.

You know, we have this issue in the media where we try to cover fresh news, and this is stuff that's hardly fresh. And frankly, so far, from the "Washington Post" story on Friday, there's no evidence there's any major bombshells.

But the issue is character here and what sort of person Hillary Clinton is. I think she's been a very fine senator.

But all of us have concerns about whether she's self-righteous, whether she's overly ambitious, overly controlling. And that stuff matters to a president.

So, I think it's a legitimate issue, but it involves breaking the normal media code, which is, only cover the freshest and newest material, because this stuff is hardly new.

Dozer523

06-26-2010, 14:47

I digress. Was GEN McChrystal TRYING to commit career suicide when he participated in the interview? With the ROLLING STONE? I didn't expect that from him. I read the article sitting in B&N. there were lots of direct quotes from the general and they were taken from formal and informal settings. His direct quotes made him seem totally lacking in self-discipline, wallowing in an ego trip that was fueled by a staff that idol-itiz-ed him.

Read it for yourself. You can't miss it on the news stand, Lady GaGa's naked ass barely distract you from her bra made of M-4s.

Maybe the final insult by RS to the General, Lady GaGa got the cover and he didn't.
Actually, the more I think of it the more I'm convinced he really was hoping to make "the Cover of the Rolling Stone". It's the music he grew up with, seriously.

"On the cover of the rollin stone......
. . . fresh shot, right up front, Man.....
I can see it now, we'll be up in the front....
Smilin, Man......
Ahh, beautiful......."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ux3-a9RE1Q

Utah Bob

06-26-2010, 17:31

The reticent ethos had its flaws. But the exposure ethos, with its relentless emphasis on destroying privacy and exposing impurities, has chased good people from public life, undermined public faith in institutions and elevated the trivial over the important.

Yes. It's chased both good and bad people from public life. When you expose every character flaw to the light of day it's difficult for the masses to determine if the person in question should be pilloried or excused.
Everyone is flawed in one way or another. Sometimes those flaws are exposed at the worst possible time.

Up until now McChrystal had pretty much been the darling of the media. Quick to give interviews, articulate, dashing and energetic. Then he steps on an IRD (improvised reporter device) and Kablooey!

plato

06-26-2010, 20:17

abc_123

06-27-2010, 00:19

You know, I'd love for GEN Patreaus to turn around and state that "after a closer review of the situation on the ground" that he agrees with GEN McCrystal's original assessment that, 40K troops were needed, but due to the current situation that his assessment is that now he needs an additional 15K above current levels and slap that publically down on the table.

THAT would drive the WH into convulsions.

Whether that is needed or will make a difference, I don't know, but it would be justice on so many levels.

Richard

06-27-2010, 06:36

Then he steps on an IRD (improvised reporter device) and Kablooey!

That's an IED - Inflammatory Editorial Device. ;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Utah Bob

06-27-2010, 07:20

That's an IED - Inflammatory Editorial Device. ;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Much better!:D

alright4u

06-28-2010, 00:22

Bob- We never had a reporter around SOG. We would have never let him near the compounds/FOB's. Very few pencil types dared to go out with even an Infantry platoon or company. Galloway did. Hell, we would not let Donald Duncan near anyone in SOG.

After that bleeding heart Geraldo drew that sand table in Iraq, no Gen or NCO should have trusted the damn media. These guys got drunk IMO. You get drunk in a safe house- like house 10.

akv

06-28-2010, 10:15

The last post: McChrystal's bleak outlook

President Obama lost patience with Runaway General's failed strategy
Sunday, 27 June 2010

Sacked US General Stanley McChrystal issued a devastatingly critical assessment of the war against a "resilient and growing insurgency" just days before being forced out.

Using confidential military documents, copies of which have been seen by the IoS, the "runaway general" briefed defence ministers from Nato and the International security Assistance Force (Isaf) earlier this month, and warned them not to expect any progress in the next six months. During his presentation, he raised serious concerns over levels of security, violence, and corruption within the Afghan administration.

Details of General McChrystal's grim assessment of his own strategy's current effectiveness emerged as the world's most powerful leaders set the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, a five-year deadline to improve security and governance in his country.

The G8 summit in Toronto called for "concrete progress" within five years on improving the justice system and for Afghan forces to assume greater responsibility for security. David Cameron said a "political surge" must now complement the military one.

But the "campaign overview" left behind by General McChrystal after he was sacked by President Barack Obama last week warned that only a fraction of the areas key to long-term success are "secure", governed with "full authority", or enjoying "sustainable growth". He warned of a critical shortage of "essential" military trainers needed to build up Afghan forces – of which only a fraction is classed as "effective".

He pinpointed an "ineffective or discredited" Afghan government and a failure by Pakistan "to curb insurgent support" as "critical risks" to success. "Waning" political support and a "divergence of coalition expectations and campaign timelines" are among the key challenges faced, according to the general.

It was this briefing, according to informed sources, as much as the Rolling Stone article, which convinced Mr Obama to move against the former head of US Special Forces, as costs soar to $7bn a month and the body count rises to record levels, because it undermined the White House political team's aim of pulling some troops out of Afghanistan in time for the US elections in 2012. In addition to being the result of some too-candid comments in a magazine article, the President's decision to dispense with his commander was seen by the general's supporters as a politically motivated culmination of their disagreements.

General McChrystal's presentation to Nato defence ministers and Isaf representatives provided an uncompromising obstacle to Mr Obama's plan to bring troops home in time to give him a shot at a second term, according to senior military sources. The general was judged to be "off message" in his warning to ministers not to expect quick results and that they were facing a "resilient and growing insurgency".

It came as mounting casualties added to US and UK discomfort. June has been the bloodiest month for coalition forces since the conflict began, with 88 killed. A soldier from 4th Regiment Royal Artillery died yesterday in hospital in Birmingham of wounds sustained in an explosion on 10 June. He had been on patrol with members of the Afghan National Army in Nahr-e Saraj North District, Helmand Province. He was the 308th British soldier killed since the start of the war nine years ago. The death toll is escalating, with 62 deaths this year – almost double the 32 that died in the same period last year.

Nato played down the chances of success. "I don't think anyone would say we're winning," said a Nato spokesman. The revelations provide context to the disagreements between Mr Obama and his general, highlighted in the article in Rolling Stone in which senior White House figures were criticised.

The reality, according to a senior military source, is that General McChrystal's candour about the reality of the situation was an obstacle to Mr Obama's search for an "early, face-saving exit" to help his chances in the 2012 presidential elections. "Stan argued for time, and would not compromise. Rolling Stone provided an excuse for Obama to fire the opposition to his plan without having to win an intellectual argument," he said.

General McChrystal knew "his time was up" and had been told by White House aides his "time-frame was all wrong", with the general thinking in years while the President was thinking more in months, he added.

The general's departure is a sign of politicians "taking charge of this war", a senior Whitehall official said. "The Taliban are feeling the pressure, but we're not harvesting it politically," he said. "Obama sacking McChrystal was a show of strength. What we are seeing on both sides of the Atlantic, at long last, is the politicians starting to take charge of this war. Wars are won when you have a Churchill and an Alanbrooke, when you have a proper balance between political direction and military leadership."

Mr Cameron asked for a political settlement to be mapped out at a special cabinet meeting held at Chequers earlier this month, he said. "Cameron doesn't want to make Brown's mistake of getting bogged down in details instead of doing grand strategy."

He said General McChrystal had been urging Washington to "start the political track as soon as possible" while his replacement, General Petraeus, has argued "that we need to get the upper hand militarily and regain the military initiative, and then negotiate from a position of strength". He said it would take time to recover from General McChrystal's loss, "particularly if Petraeus just ploughs on with trying to get the upper hand militarily".

Admiral Mike Mullen met with President Karzai yesterday to assure him that the new Nato commander will pursue the same strategy followed by his predecessor. He pledged that General Petraeus would also do his best to reduce civilian casualties.

General McChrystal said progress in the next six months was unlikely. He raised serious concerns over levels of security, violence, and corruption within the Afghan administration. Only five areas out of 116 assessed were classed as "secure" – the rest suffering various degrees of insecurity and more than 40 described as "dangerous" or "unsecure".

Just five areas out of 122 were classed as being under the "full authority" of the government – with governance rated as non-existent, dysfunctional or unproductive in 89 of the areas. Seven areas out of 120 rated for development were showing sustainable growth. In 48 areas, growth was either stalled or the population were at risk. Less than a third of the military and only 12 per cent of police forces were rated as "effective".

A strategic assessment referred to in the presentation revealed just how close the strategy in Afghanistan is to failing. It stated that the campaign was "on track temporarily" – but this was defined as meaning that there was "a low level of confidence that positive trends will be sustained over the next six-month period". It also said the Afghan people "believe that development is too slow" and many "still generally mistrust Afghan police forces". Security was "unsatisfactory" and efforts to build up the Afghan security forces were "at risk", with "capability hampered by shortages in NCOs and officers, corruption and low literacy levels".

A general's damning report...

Afghan security forces

General McChrystal says both the Afghan police (ANP) and army (ANA) were "critically short on trainers – the essential resource required for quality". Out of 2,325 required, only 846 were already on the ground and 660 more were promised.

Governance

The Afghan government was assessed as having "full authority" in only five districts; in 45 more, governance was "unproductive", in 29 "dysfunctional" and in 15 "non-existent". In the "Critical risks" section of his presentation, General McChrystal listed "Governance: ineffective or discredited". ISAF accepted that "governance needs improvement and lags security efforts".

Security

Nato informed that "violence and security varies regionally... focused in localised areas", and "assessments of key district security are improving slightly". However, only a third of 122 "key terrain areas" were regarded as "secure" or suffering "occasional threats". In key areas, 47 per cent of the population were assessed as secure.

Corruption

General McChrystal noted the need to "address principal sources of corruption and grievance" in Kandahar. Nato warned that "corruption remains an impediment to connectivity between the government and its people". Echoes earlier US concerns that the "lack of Afghan government will and the capacity to prosecute narco-corrupt officials continues to undermine development of governance and security".

Justice

Referred to President Karzai's early pledge to "further the reform process within our justice system". But US Department of Defense has since complained courts are "chronically corrupt". McChrystal's recommendations on "Detention operations and rule of law" include "transition to Afghan lead" and "promoting transparency across spectrum of detention activities".

Development/reconstruction

Emphasised need to "create conditions for development", particularly in the south. But there are worries that the government "has become increasingly dependent on contributions from the international community". Although satisfaction with the local electricity supply has risen, many remain without access and the general warns of the need to "significantly expand electrical supply to meet rising demand".

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/the-last-post-mcchrystals-bleak-outlook-2011730.html

Richard

06-29-2010, 05:09

General McChrystal Tells Army He'll Retire
USAToday, 29 June 2010

Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who was fired last week as the top U.S. general in the stalemated Afghanistan war, told the Army on Monday that he will retire.

Army spokesman Col. Tom Collins said McChrystal, 55, notified the service of his plans. The general submitted formal retirement papers, but it is not clear when he will leave the service because the process usually take a few months.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2010-06-29-mcchrystal-army-retire_N.htm?csp=YahooModule_News

And here's something to think about - y'all be careful over there.

President Obama's ambivalence toward the war is energizing our enemies and undermining our allies.

Richard :munchin

Afghanistan: Eyes Wide Shut
WSJ, 29 June 2010

With a wink of its left eye, the Obama administration tells its liberal base that a year from now the U.S. will be heading for a quick Afghan exit. "Everyone knows there's a firm date," insists White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel.

With a wink of its right, the administration tells Afghanistan, Pakistan, NATO allies and its own military leadership that the July 2011 date is effectively meaningless. The notion that a major drawdown will begin next year "absolutely has not been decided," says Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

The winks are simultaneous.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703964104575335103325554236.html?m od=WSJ_newsreel_opinion

Richard

06-30-2010, 06:57

And so it goes...

Richard :munchin

Can Obama and Petraeus Work Together?
Time, 24 June 2010

It is amazing how quickly General Stanley McChrystal became an afterthought. It happened minutes after he was removed from command of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan for idiocy above and beyond the call of duty. He became an afterthought because of the brilliant, and in some ways diabolically clever, decision that Barack Obama made in naming his successor: General David Petraeus, the dominant U.S. military figure of our time.

It was the nature of McChrystal's blunder that made the reascension of Petraeus inevitable. It was the insular, locker-room puerility of McChrystal's team, spewing in a recent Rolling Stone article — the stone-cold belief that they had all the answers; that the civilians in charge, especially those who were members of the Democratic Party, were just a bunch of feckless chin pullers — that made the incident so dangerous; it cut far too close to the bone. It raised timeless questions about civilian authority over the military in wartime and a nagging one that has shadowed American politics since Vietnam: whether Democrats are too soft, too removed from the realities of military life, to pursue an effective national-security policy.

And that is why the Petraeus appointment is at once brilliant and clever — because his prickly relationship with the President has been the symbolic heart of this problem, and now it will take center stage, in Washington and on the battlefields of Afghanistan. How it is resolved, if it is resolved, will determine the fate of Obama's presidency.

Barack Obama's problems with Petraeus began in their very first meeting, in Baghdad during the 2008 presidential campaign. Obama was joined in that session by then-Senators Joe Biden and Chuck Hagel. Petraeus laid on one of his epic PowerPoint slide presentations, which annoyed members of the group. "It was propaganda, assuming we didn't know anything," one of those present told me. "We wanted to ask questions, and when we did, Petraeus treated us badly, interrupting Obama continually, taking a very hard stand." The meeting dissolved into a heated exchange between Obama and Petraeus over Obama's stated intention to withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Iraq by 2010. Ultimately, Obama's general view on the withdrawal prevailed; even Petraeus eventually came to believe Obama's policy was right, although he also believed it wouldn't have been possible without his 2007 surge in Iraq, which Obama opposed.

And now these two men are locked together for the foreseeable future, perhaps for history. In an odd way, their relationship — with its equal rations of respect and mistrust — reflects positive changes that have taken place in the Democratic Party and the U.S. military. For several decades after Vietnam, most Democratic politicians were antiwar by reflex and antimilitary by instinct. Even now, many Democrats — who come from the coasts, the big cities, the slums — are unfamiliar with a military culture rooted in the Appalachians, the South, the Plains. A moderate Democratic group called the Truman National Security Project offers a course called Military 101 to teach incoming Democratic members of Congress things like the difference between a battalion and a brigade.

Campaigning for the presidency, Obama was very much aware that a solution to his party's perceived military weaknesses was necessary after the Sept. 11 attacks. His answer had the virtue of being politically adept and substantively valid: Iraq had been the wrong war. Afghanistan was the right one, because it had been the home of al-Qaeda, and it had been neglected by George W. Bush. As President, Obama has abided by his campaign talk and has shown himself amenable to targeted but relentless use of force, in a manner that dismays his party's base. He won quiet praise from the people in uniform by retaining Bush's popular Defense Secretary Robert Gates and appointing Jim Jones, a retired Marine four-star general, as National Security Adviser. And Obama was applauded for supporting Petraeus, who was promoted from commander of the multinational forces in Iraq by Bush, in his new job as Centcom commander, a position that oversees American security interests in the most sensitive region in the world. He did so in large part because Petraeus was the exemplar of the creative new thinking that had, at least partly, transformed the U.S. military.

It isn't well remembered now, but Petraeus was an outcast midway through the Bush Administration. Donald Rumsfeld, Bush's wildly incompetent Defense Secretary, didn't like him; neither did many of his peers, who remained enamored of the Army they knew, a rumbling array of tanks and trucks and heavy artillery constructed to fight the Russians on the plains of Central Europe. Rumsfeld sent Petraeus out to pasture at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., which among other things serves as an Army think tank. There, Petraeus and a group of military intellectuals concocted the military's counterinsurgency field manual — a strategy waiting to be implemented as everything else in Iraq failed. The irony about counterinsurgency (which carries the unfortunate, jingling acronym COIN) is that it is a theory of warfare that should be more acceptable to Democrats — and it was, to smart ones like Hillary Clinton — because it emphasized protecting local populations, providing them with services like schools and health clinics and jobs. When Bush turned to Petraeus and COIN was implemented in Baghdad in 2007, it looked an awful lot like community policing and social services on the South Side of Chicago. And it worked.

But it was not the only thing that worked in Iraq. Petraeus' decision to purchase the Sunni tribes in Anwar province — the Bush Administration had considered tribes "part of the past" until then — undermined the insurgency and separated the professional, al-Qaeda terrorists from the indigenous population. Most important was the untold story of the spectacular success that the special-operations forces led by McChrystal suddenly began to have in rooting out the bad guys (this was, in large part, attributable to the resources President Bush devoted to cultivating human intelligence assets). The success in Iraq was attributable to what the military calls full-spectrum warfare, the use of all the tools in its kit, but it was COIN that emerged as the headliner — an oversimplification that has had dire ramifications in Afghanistan.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1999251,00.html