Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
General McChrystal should be promoted. Oh well, the military can join the ranks of everybody else bailing on Obama. He should have dumbed down the Pentagon like he did the justice department and CIA.
No, the Afghan people are not interested in "winning" it. I am no sage, but since those heady days of the Taliban collapse, I have felt its up to them.
What do they want? Perpetual strife and underdevelopment? A government run be either an opium-financed kleptocracy or an opium/Saudi-financed theocracy?
The US and the West have poured billions of dollars into there and have shed a lot of blood. All that failed to turn Afghanistan into an embryonic Canada because those people are not interested in good government. We cannot make them care. They have to want it.
You can knock down all the tenements in a slum, build new ones with modern conveniences, and construct state of the art schools and it will still be a slum. You cannot reconstruct peoples' mindset.
I can go along with that.
I mainly wanted to point out our military's capability when it is let loose.
Personally, before meeting with the clown president I would announce my retirement. And if the clown still wanted to meet with me I'd gladly share my feelings with him...and make it very clear to the clown that I'd be sharing my feelings publicly, as a civilian, so the American people know his side of the story. I would not give the clown the opportunity to fire me.
I'm looking forward to see who the clown chooses to replace McCrystal. That's going to be very interesting!
McCrystal may have his faults, but he is more of a leader than Obama will ever be. Heck the guy eats one meal a day and sleeps for only four hours a day. He cares more about his troops than anything else.
McChrystal and his underlings are a disgrace! They are turnig America into some sort of "Banana Republic" with their coup-type ramblings.
What you should have said is that Obama and his administration is a disgrace...and is well under way in destroying America for many generations to come.
I have a feeling that McCrystal will either be fired tomorrow after his meeting in the WH or he will resign.
The guy was "hand-picked" by Obama to run this war.
Then Obama ties the General's hands by first not giving him the entire amount of boots on the ground he asked for, then by setting a deadline for the end of the war in the summer of 2011.
How can you fight a war that way? How do you motivate troops to fight knowing that by all accounts, no matter what the troops achieve, that they will just lose it all and call a end to the war in 12 months.
[quote=mohawkx;14723238]Personally, I’m rather glad that the issue of Afghanistan has been put on the front burner with the Rolling Stone article. Perhaps the military establishment and the current administration will take a step back and review the entire situation with new eyes. People seem to forget that since WW2, all wars are political and fought for political gain. All military personnel are charged with the duty of being apolitical. On the other hand their mission is entirely dictated by politicians who have an agenda that is motivated by other forces than boots on the ground and casualty figures. It is a sure path to a busted career if a military man crosses the line and becomes political. Military history is littered with the busted careers of generals who spoke against their CIC. Likewise it is a political kiss of death for a politician in charge of prosecuting the war to have a vague strategy, lacking in direction and constantly changing war policy.
Overall one of the more thoughtful posts on this thread. However I think that there are a few things that need to be pointed out.
Quote:
The obvious conclusion is nothing less than the revolt of the military against administration policy in prosecuting the war in Afghanistan. That’s what were witnessing here.
There isn't any revolt going on just an age old problem of some members of the military attempting to influence policy through the press, one that has never served the military well be they George McClellan, Douglas Macarthur, or Stanley McChrystal. I might also add that the "revolt" seems to be a bit more complex with troops complaining about the generals as well as the generals complaining about the politicians.
Quote:
Obama is supporting a head of state who obviously does not have any support of the people. Obama is trying to control a country with too few troops and too vague a strategy.
The facts simply don't support your contention since the administration's criticism and frustration with the Karzai government is rather well documented. As for the charge regarding too few troops, where are all these sufficient troops to come from? Should we revert to the dark days of Iraq with soldiers serving multiple extended tours, a return to "stop loss"? How many troops is enough, 100,000, 200,000, or like during the height of Vietnam 537,377?
Quote:
Both McChristal and Obama have created the perfect storm for failure in Afghanistan.
The "perfect storm" was created well before Obama even entered the U.S. Senate or before McChrystal returned to a combat command. Considering the mess they both inherited I'm surprised that the war isn't a bigger mess than it already is.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
