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.
What did we fail to save Vietnam from? Faling into the clutches of slave driving comminists so it could be owned by slave driving capitalists? We do not have the right or obligation to save any country or economic system. That is their job.
What's wrong with a general stating the obvious ? Is he considered a "non patriot ?" a "wuss ?" Should Military people be pro war all the time ? Is it bad for the image to admit that things are not going well, and are not likely to get better, despite new strategies? Is it like bad sex, where you just try a new position, and still "can't get no satisfaction ?"
A general can say whatever he wants and the president can replace any general anytime for any reason. Protocol would be for the general to resign his commission then make comments on an on going war
So should the commander have lied to cover for Obama not doing his job?
So now the spin is it is the commanders fault Obama has forgotten about Afghanistan. Ok------
Just more excuses for the mistake a day man in the WH.
I'll give you credit and make the presumption that you know what you are saying is simply incorrect on it's face and not that you don't have a clue at all!!
The spin you are trying to make is that this General is too freaking stupid to say, "No comment", " I don't discuss policy or military matters in public", "contact the public Affairs Office", " the White House will comment on that", etc into infinity!!
It's not this Generals place to make public statements not cleared by his superior Officers, in this case the President of the United States!!
In your idea of a military I guess anyone not agreeing with their superiors should just run around undermining one another.
The CIC is the CIC like it or not.
If I were Obama, this General could do all the talking he wanted to, right about now he would be collecting his pension.
Oh goody, look how long we made it without a Nazi allusion!
Maybe in somebody else Army but not one from the U.S. If the order is lawful, all other considerations are out the window. Of course the said officer is free to resign his or her commission, but a lawful order is to be obeyed. Period.
The title is Commander in Chief not Goal Setter in Chief. Presidents from Lincoln to Bush 43 have used that position to as far as to micro-manage every detail of seemingly minor military operations, that is their right and duty under the Constitution.
That my dear is called the Chain of Command.
Thank You more than you know!!
Now I don't have to take the time to correct him!
[[quote]
When he is receiving orders that sacrifice the lives of those troops with no clear goal, he has a responsibility to do whatever it takes to resolve the situationQUOTE]
Don't know if this was a barb at the President or you are simply misinformed.
If you are misinformed please correct that, the internet is at your command, however if you are suggesting that this General has received orders from the President to capriciously squander the lives of his troops, then I would have tell you that you are wrong, wrong, wrong!!
Last edited by reconmark; 10-06-2009 at 03:37 PM..
President Barack Obama is refusing to be rushed into his first decision to send troops into combat, an early sign he may be more independent-minded than U.S. military leaders expected.
The new president's methodical decision-making offers an early insight into how the new commander in chief will approach the war in Afghanistan and has surprised some Pentagon officials, who had predicted repeatedly in the past two weeks that Obama would decide within days on additional forces, only to find the White House taking more time.
Rather than sign off quickly on all or part of a long-standing Pentagon request for three Army combat brigades and Marine units, totaling over 10,000 troops, Obama and his aides are questioning the timetable, the mission and even the composition of the new forces, officials familiar with the deliberations said.
Obama’s deliberate pace represents yet another break with the usual style of his predecessor. Former President George W. Bush usually signed off quickly on requests for additional troops from his commanders, and, especially early in his presidency, he rarely engaged in lengthy discussions about what the troops would be used for.
I'll assume that there are troops and their family members alike that are glad that Obama is not making hasty decisions that would endanger their lives. Good for him!
A general can say whatever he wants and the president can replace any general anytime for any reason. Protocol would be for the general to resign his commission then make comments on an on going war
From Lt. Col Tadd Sholtis, McChrystal’s spokesman in Kabul: “General McChrystal concurs with the Secretary and shares his perspective that the President’s military and civilian policy advisers need to provide candid but private advice.”
Oh goody, look how long we made it without a Nazi allusion!
If the shoe fits...
Quote:
Maybe in somebody else Army but not one from the U.S. If the order is lawful, all other considerations are out the window. Of course the said officer is free to resign his or her commission, but a lawful order is to be obeyed. Period.
Where was a lawful order disobeyed? McCrystal was asked a question in an interview, he gave an honest answer. Communications does not make disobedience of a lawful order. A leader with conscience and integrity looks after his troops. While he is obligated to obey a lawful order, at McCrystal's rank he also has a responsibility to ensure that the lives of his troops are not squandered.
Quote:
The title is Commander in Chief not Goal Setter in Chief. Presidents from Lincoln to Bush 43 have used that position to as far as to micro-manage every detail of seemingly minor military operations, that is their right and duty under the Constitution.
That my dear is called the Chain of Command
Effective CICs set goals and general policy, and allow the military experts to generate tactics to meet those goals. Of course Obama and effective aren't necessarily terms that go together. Johnson tried micromanaging tactics, with disasterous results.
The OP deals with the proper question, what is the goal and general stratety, Nation Building, or giving Al Queda a short term black eye. Once the CIC sets the goal, others can impliment it. This is a continuation of the vagueness and lack of proper decision making that started on Bush's watch.
"Where was a lawful order disobeyed? McCrystal was asked a question in an interview, he gave an honest answer...."
Isn't:
"However, he also has a responsibility to those troops under his command. When he is receiving orders that sacrifice the lives of those troops with no clear goal, he has a responsibility to do whatever it takes to resolve the situation."
To which I responded:
Maybe in somebody else's Army but not one from the U.S. If the order is lawful, all other considerations are out the window. Of course the said officer is free to resign his or her commission, but a lawful order is to be obeyed. Period.
Quote:
Effective CICs set goals and general policy, and allow the military experts to generate tactics to meet those goals.
Quite true, but we aren't discussing tactics.
Quote:
The OP deals with the proper question, what is the goal and general stratety, Nation Building, or giving Al Queda a short term black eye.
A gross mischaracterization of what is on the table.
Quote:
Once the CIC sets the goal, others can impliment it. This is a continuation of the vagueness and lack of proper decision making that started on Bush's watch.
What vagueness was Bush guilty of? As for lack of proper decision making, isn't that what all this hubbub is all about, Obama not snapping to and righting a blank check?
Perhaps Obama should heed the advice of Col Nathan Jessep:
"I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it! I would rather you just said "Thank you" and went on your way."
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.
