Top General In Afghan War: US Envoy Betrayed Me

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by Counsel

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]

Originally Posted by Counsel

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]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=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]

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]

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]

Gates, Mullen Comment on McChrystal Situation

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

And so it goes...

Richard

[Sigaba]

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]

The new CENTCOM CDR?

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

Richard

[echoes]

Originally Posted by plato

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.

Originally Posted by Sigaba

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?

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

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Richard

The new CENTCOM CDR?

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

Richard

While researching GEN Dempsey, I stumbled upon this nugget. <<LINK>>

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.)

Originally Posted by echoes

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]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

While researching GEN Dempsey, I stumbled upon this nugget. <<LINK>>

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]

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...ty/faculty.htm

Richard

[akv]

Originally Posted by SIGABA

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]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

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?

Originally Posted by Sigaba

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.

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?

(Hmm. Wonder if they ask that question of questions?)

To Add: Am not trying to derail the topic, and am honestly curious, as I feel it bears relevance to the basis of this thread.

Holly

[akv]

Originally Posted by Echoes

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?