Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Whatever else the storm over General Stanley McChrystal is about, it's not about a bunch of rude remarks from him and his staff in Rolling Stone. The world already knows that military types get drunk and sing stupid songs and make fun of their higher-ups. That's been the stuff of war -- fictional and real -- forever. Historian Doris Kearns Goodwin writes this morning about the incredible rudeness President Lincoln tolerated -- for a while -- from Gen. McLellan during the Civil War.
The big difference, of course, was that President Lincoln was trying to win the Civil War, a just cause on which hinged the life of our nation. McChrystal is the face of Afghanistan, of American struggle and suffering in a war that we're not winning and may have no business fighting, in a place where almost no outside force has won, with a counterinsurgency strategy that has led to disaster for other nations that have tried it. Rolling Stone writer Michael Hastings reveals McChrystal as a back-stabbing, trash-talking, politicking human being, and he makes you look at the facts of the war. McChrystal is not magic. He's a human being, and not a particularly pleasant representation of one. If you wanted to believe McChrystal could wave a wand over America's war in Afghanistan, Hastings forces you to see that your would-be magician is just another guy who doesn't want to read e-mail from a colleague he doesn't like.
Our problem is less McChrystal's behavior than the reality that we truly are still stuck in this war. It's this one paragraph from Hastings:
When it comes to Afghanistan, history is not on McChrystal's side. The only foreign invader to have any success here was Genghis Khan – and he wasn't hampered by things like human rights, economic development and press scrutiny. The COIN doctrine, bizarrely, draws inspiration from some of the biggest Western military embarrassments in recent memory: France's nasty war in Algeria (lost in 1962) and the American misadventure in Vietnam (lost in 1975). McChrystal, like other advocates of COIN, readily acknowledges that counterinsurgency campaigns are inherently messy, expensive and easy to lose. "Even Afghans are confused by Afghanistan," he says. But even if he somehow manages to succeed, after years of bloody fighting with Afghan kids who pose no threat to the U.S. homeland, the war will do little to shut down Al Qaeda, which has shifted its operations to Pakistan. Dispatching 150,000 troops to build new schools, roads, mosques and water-treatment facilities around Kandahar is like trying to stop the drug war in Mexico by occupying Arkansas and building Baptist churches in Little Rock. "It's all very cynical, politically," says Marc Sageman, a former CIA case officer who has extensive experience in the region. "Afghanistan is not in our vital interest – there's nothing for us there."
There's nothing in Afghanistan for us, and still our troops are losing their lives in this enterprise -- Marine Lance Corporal Timothy G. Serwinowski, 21, and Army Specialist Scott A. Andrews, 21, just on Monday. Regardless of whether McChrystal keeps his job today, he's not really the problem.
[Segment: It's not the general, it's the war]
Leave a Comment:
some people find this sorta thing entertaining
To what sort of thing do you refer spaceyhippie? The fall of a general, or the speculation, and general political punditry of your fellow bloggers? I think I speak for not a few of us, when I say that the firing of a US General is not entertainment, anymore than writing these blogs is entertainment for entertainment's sake. Hopefully, at least in some small measure, in the absence of being able to do much of anything about the country's problems other than vote, I'd like to think these blogs contribute to the answers. And sometimes, I think there are people who are listening. If feeling good about contributing to the answers to these problems is "entertainment," then yes, it is as entertaining as satisfying. At least, we are not sitting on our hands. Besides, when you took civics in high school, didn't they teach you the portion where free speech and open political debate were critical to democracy, and it is not only your right, nay but moreover your duty, to voice your opinions, and contribute that debate.
You hit it right on the head. We are in unwinnable wars once again and the longer we stay the worse it gets. It's a shame that people miss the big picture and cannot just face the truth. I thought Obama might have seen this when he took office but hasn't.
And thank you for reminding us that every day another soldier loses his life and for what? So sad.
Afghanistan is country of strategic importance to both the United States, the the Soviet Union, and the Middle East. This country will continue to be a thorn in our side for as long as there is history left to write. As a hater of wars I am loath to see them started, but once started at least I recognize when it is far wiser to see them through to a satisfactory conclusion.
I read a history of Afghanistan recently, published not long before the Afghan rebels were finally able to oust the Soviet invaders from their country, circa 1979. Incidentally, they knew there was mineral wealth then, in Afghanistan. A picture in the book showed the rebel in the mountains on camel back, making the idea that you could exploit that wealth easily, a laughable one. The CIA, and the congressman who was responsible for funding the CIA's secret war, Charlie Wilson, recognized then that Afghanistan was an important country strategically. It helped keep the Soviets occupied strategically and financially during the Cold War, which turned out to be a really good idea for various reasons, too many to go into. Also, had the Soviets won Afghanistan they would have gained strategic and financial rewards the consequences of which I'd not like to think on. Now, I hate war, and think we should stay the heck out when we can. But, this one was started, and these people wanted to get out from under the oppressive thumb of the Soviets. They would have fought the Soviets without us, but we helped General Muhammed Zia Atta win that war, and when it was over rather than listen to Congressman Wilson's wisdom, and help General Zia's people develop a democratic constitutional government, we left and allowed them to fall into civil war. We dumped them.
Now, historically, many, if not most countries fall into civil wars before they develop stable democratic governments, OURS did. They cannot always sort it out on their own, especially when there is mass corruption, and interference from powerful foreign countries, or too many powerful local factions, like the Taliban. But if we had helped them while there was a popular and strong leader like General Zia, it might have produced a strong enough central government to stand on its own. I say help them find their freedom now. Now that we have started another mess for these poor people, or we will be back before the children of my nieces and nephews are old enough to be drafted. Like your ancestors, and the soldiers who are in Afghanistan today, these people are also dying, and willing to die, for their freedom,
The Afghans are human beings, who deserve to be as free as you are. And like you, are not deserving of being your strategic pawns.
I disagree with the premise of this post. While our presence in Afghanistan is a majorly important topic for discussion, the present issue is a constitutional issue that extends back to the foundation of the US army in 1775 and forward for as long as the republic lasts. Afghanistan is our longest war so far, but will eventually end; the subordination of the military to civilian control must not.
It is a serious mistake to distract attention away the more important problem at hand. Discussion of our proper role in Afghanistan should wait for another day. The defense of the proper relationship between the presidency and the military must take priority. Long term goals should trump short term goals.
You're an idiot.
I am not a student of war and its history, but I thought this was as best a summary of the futility of the Afghan conflicts as I've read in one short paragraph - except for the last sentence:
The corporations that 'feed' and 'feed on' our political system now know (and probably have known for a very long time) that beneath that hell-hole are mineral riches ripe for the picking, and its the job of the US military to deliver unto these 'captains of industry' their bounty. It may not be in the taxpayers 'vital interest,' but who really gives a damn about that?
I agree with the first part of your post. Our interest in Afghanistan extended only as far as the Taliban provided refuge for al-Queda, and no further. al-Queda is gone. We should be gone, too.
I disagree with the second part of this post. Cynicism is not analysis.
How many times do we need to hear the same notes to be able to identify the tune?
The general is not the problem true. However, you are either part of the solution or you are part of the problem and he is certainly not part of the solution.
He should stay, help fix what he created, he would be beholdent to the President, and when the time is right (NOT now) kick his sorry behind out!
Well said. Olbermann pointed out this very thing last night and, to me, it made a lot of sense. McChrystal should fix what HE WANTED to do in Afghanistan.
He can't fix it. He compromised "the mission" when he suggested he could.
This Rolling Stone article is all about him finding a way to dodge that bullet. He gets to leave with the conservatives saying he stood up to Obama. It's a pretty pathetic way of slinking out of Afghanistan without getting credit for his strategy failing, but then that's how the Far Right has been operating of late.
Leave town and accept no blame.
Obama should demote him not accept a resignation. Saving face is everything for these ego maniacs. Let Napoleon rot in a post in the Marshall Islands before he retires at a lower rank and pension.
Hello,
I am an Officer in the Army! Many Officers (Republican mostly) have a hatred towards The Commander and Chief.
Give him the same treatment as every one else under UMCJ; my soldiers really need to see what right looks like. How are we suppose to function if what we are preaching isnt being followed by the big wigs.
You've made a very important point. Equality before the law is fundamental. McChrystal should be treated just as if he had been a captain or an enlisted man. If a court martial is called for, so be it.
First of all, thank you for your service, aharon. Despite the stereotype that liberals are anti-military and have no respect for soldiers, the fact is that we all appreciate the sacrifices you make. Where we differ from repubs is that we want to sure that our troops are not going into a war that is unnecessary, or that has not been well thought out. Iraq was both unnecessary and poorly thought out, as the chaos after the fall of Saddam seemed to take the Bush administration by complete surprise, and in the run up to war, were telling us that the war would cost no more than $6 billion and would be repaid by the grateful Iraqis. I was always against the Iraq war, but supported our efforts in Afghanistan. Today, however, I am questioning whether staying there serves any useful purpose. In a counterinsurgency, the military itself states that you can only win by winning the hearts and minds of the locals, and that simply isn't happening. Like Vietnam, we are supporting a government that is incredibly corrupt, and has no respect from the average citizen. We are seen as propping up a corrupt puppet regime, just as the Soviets did when they occupied the country. The problem won't be solved until the US stops doing what it always does, supporting an individual politician instead of the democratic process we claim to want to build.
As for the general, I am torn as to what to do. From my viewpoint, the President is in a lose-lose situation. If he retains the general, he will be painted by his opponents as weak, and it will, as you have noted, be a bad example for every other person serving in the military. On the other hand, there seem to be a number of military people who say that this particular general is not only the best choice for this job, but the only choice. Personally, I hope that is not the case, as I would have grave doubts about a military that has only one general capable of performing a particular task.
I too want to thank you for your service Aharon, but am quite interested to know if any service men/women you know truly feel that they are fighting for a good cause as my heart goes out to you all but I truly believe we were lead into a mineshaft with these wars and they are so unnecessary as it hurts to see the number of American lives lost as I would like to see each and every one of you home on US SOIL BY COB today!
i dont care if afghanistan is divided bet the pashtun taliban & the northern alliance as long as aQ isnt present. this idea of forcing a western democratic template & institutions onto ethnic fiefdoms degrades our attack on aQ worldwide.
I'm sure most of you know by now, that McChrystal has been relieved of his postion. Obama knew that before he got there, so the decision was not the Generals.
I agree with Endless Sheriff, there was no other choice. Defamation of the President if not allowed by the Constitution and is stressed in the training of the armed Forces. That is the beginning and the end of the situation. You don't get to be a General without that knowledge. You don't even get out of Basic Training or Boot Camp. So, why did McChrystal do what he did?
My own opinion is he set himself up to get out of a situation he designed because he saw the futility of his design and would rather be considered a Rebel than a quitter. Is there honor in that facade? Yes, if you're honored by the President for your service, and are understood by the forces under your command. What the public thinks is irrelevant.
There are a lot of rules and regulations within the Military, and there's also a lot of understanding that will be buried with those involved. They keep their secrets.
Well said, don!
I too am of the opinion that McChrystal did this because he knew his plan was a failure. Obama relied on McChrystal to executed McChrystal's plan, and it failed, so McChrystal was looking for the easy way out.
Good, our military certainly doesn't need cowards like McChrystal providing "leadership."
How about "you broke it, you bought it"? Like BP in the gulf.
We ousted the existing government in Afghanistan because they were providing safe harbor to OBL and Al Qaeda. Do we just leave now? Should we abandon Afghanistan like we did after the soviets were defeated there?
Iraq was a totally needless war, but the reasons for going into Afghanistan were good, and the reasons we're staying there are good. So I think we're doing the right thing, but I don't know that we're doing the thing right.
Going into war should never be done lightly. But now that we are there, we should stay until there is a stable, reasonably democratic government. We have an ethical duty to our fellow human beings, there, who want to be free. And yes, there were far better reasons to go to Afghanistan than Iraq. There are numerous unproven, though highly scandalous, illegal reasons that have been given about why we actually went to Iraq. Do a web search you might find some tasty conspiracy theories.
To all you Arm Chair Generals...why don't you just quit your blather. War, war and more war. Wave the flag...Be afraid, be very afraid...thank you for protecting my freedom...support the troops...watch out there are terrorists behind every garbage pail....multi-billions of dollars drained from this country for war, for the military-industrial-complex for a plethora of corporations from a to z that are part of this complex....a country with an 18.8% unemployment rate...and nothing being done about it. We have expanded insurance for that industry being force fed to us as Healthcare under the false premise tht they'll make it better. Cut Social Security, cut Medicare, but for God's sake don't cut the taxpayer welfare for the military-industrial-complex. Let's keep the drumbeat loud and clear...War, war,more war. Terrorism, be afraid. No teachers, no infrastructure, erosion of civila liberties, why...because there's war. And you people need a platform to blather on and on ad infinitum. Republicans, Democrats, do ;you really think there's a damn difference. You're all so damn phony.
Oh, my! Someone pissed in your Cheerios this morning!
You need to calm down, Missy!
Will someone explain to me why we're even over there?
We're not going to killl all the aQ and Taliban in the world and thus completely eliminate the threat. And fighting in Afghanistan will not deter aQ or the Taliban from attacking us here. If anything all we're doing is giving them motivation. If anyone believes there aren't aQ right here in this country they are very naive.
The only thing I can come up with is we're fighting in Afghanistan to keep the Pakistani nukes out of the hands of aQ.
Black Chiffon, you are right that war should ALWAYS be the last choice, but now that we are there, are you really saying we have no ethical duty to help the human beings there establish a reasonably stable, hopefully less oppressive, government? We already ruined the crummy one they had before we started. When we leave if we leave without stabizing the region, the warlords there will tear the place apart, killing many innocent people. How'd you like the Soviets to invade the US, and the Brits to say they can't help because they are tired of the costs, human and financial. We have an ethical duty, to Human Lives we've altered in Afghanistan AND the unemployed in the United States. Furthermore, sad to say, war typically reduces the unemployment rate. And, I am the last to use freedom as empty rhetoric, and far, far from conservative. And I HATE, that these wars were started in the first place.
What other countries have used the COIN strategy and been disastrously defeated? History is replete with examples of wars lost by countries that should have been using COIN, but instead resorted to brute force. France, Soviet Union, and USA come to mind in recent examples. Funny how Algeria is playing the USA right now at the world cup, with both country's histories of war.
Also, don't forget we've already tried the 'Job's all done. We can forget about Afghanistan now.' strategy. Charlie Wilson's War? Remember? Turned out just swimmingly for the USA, didn't it.
Finally, a general that will stand up for his troops!
Are the 100,000 hired killer mercenaries under his control or Big Oil via the CIA?
9 years of war and everyone forgot what the war was about. No taxes to pay for war, we borrow the money!
American citizens are under an economic and ecological attack by their own traitor government.
Bush and Obama are traitors and are NWO criminals of Big Oil and World Bankers. Hang them ALL!
be glad you can say such garbage, and not get blown away after saying it./ Anyone who takes on the task as President of this complicated country deserves at least respect for the office! Bush made many mistakes and bad decisions in my view and President Obama will work is heart out to do what he can, he was elected by a majority and in this country that should count! NOT everyone loves the soccar, or Football, coach, but when the team is in need of support most fans get behind! That is what is needed here, where are the statesmen.. not the bipartisan , sour grapes etc!
How, exactly, was he standing up for his troops? By telling them that he was bigger and more important than their Commander-in-Chief -- sorry, anyone in the service knows chain of command is everything. Discipline is a big deal because a soldier's life can depend on it. This guy was totally out of control. A guy who was born into a military family and a privileged one at that, who never learned the basics of respect and honor. He is a disgrace. He is no friend to the troops -- he puts them in dangerous situations where they are sitting ducks out with no help and in places that seem so remote that it is ridiculous to think they are accomplishing anything except jacking up the death rates. It was under him that Cpl. Tillman was murdered. Three bullet holes, in the forehead from an M-16 only ten yards away. This is fratracide -- by men so close that they could see exactly who he was. McChrystal covered it up because Tillman was a posterboy for recruitment. So maintaining order by letting a killer walk away is not my idea of discipline or even good character. A guy who stood by his troops would not have let one of their own be shot down on his watch and not investigate what happened. An investigation blamed McChrstal for "inaccurate and misleading assertions" in recommending Tillman for the Silver Star (which is NOT awarded for friendly fire deaths). So a guy who kills soldiers is still walking around because of this man and you think he stands up for his troops?
Our adventure in Afghanistan has a remarkable parallel in Vietnam. William Corson, a Marine Colonel, analyzed the flaws of that war in 1968, two years before the fall of Saigon, in his perceptive book "The Betrayal." His analysis of that way is almost the exact critique we can apply to our current war in Afghanistan. LtCol Brendan B. McBreen, USMC, Central Corps Advisory Group, Pol-e-Charkhi, Afghanistan, DSN
318-231-8305, brendan.mcbreen@fob.baf.afgn.army(.smil).mil, prepared the this summary of that book. It is worth reading: http://www.2ndbn5thmar.com/advisor/NotesonTheBetrayal.pdf .
McChrystal downright disrespected his Commander in Chief and that is a problem for me but I guess I should be use to it by now, as many in this country (mainly TeaBaggers) do not respect him either. I am appalled and think this General should get a DISHONORABLE DISCHARGE if not for the disrespect of his boss then at least for the Biden comments. This is not the first time this General spoke out of the side of his neck and I am sure if G.W. were sitting in Power, he would have been “LOST IN Afghanistan”!
Herein lies the difference between Bush & Obama:
Generals spoke out about McFlightsuit's piss-poor planning, and his not providing the military with the tools they needed in both Iraq and Afghanistan (ie: proper body armour, etc.), but NEVER spoke a disrespectful word, in public at least, about the office of the President, or the President himself.
McChrystal, while criticizing a plan HE wanted, spoke extremely disrespectful about the office of the President, and the President himself.
That was the part that bother me the most, this was a plan HE wanted which is why I could not understand his comments regarding President Obama or VP Biden. I still think he should be discharged immediately as they can discharge the much needed soldiers because of DADT but insubordination is okay, wtf?
I think McChrystal first got his tighty-whitey's in a bunch when Obama gave him "only" 30,000 out of the 40,000 McChrystal wanted.
I think McChrystal saw that his grand plan was beginning to slowly sink like the Titanic. Bad drone attacks based on faulty intelligence have put a stake in the heart of the counterinsurgency strategy of winning hearts and minds of the locals. Add to that the total disgust by the population with the corrupt Karzai government, and it looks like there aren't any viable options left, at least not featuring a democratic central government. By not acknowledging the fact that Afghanistan is less a unified nation-state than a collection of tribes and ethnic groups run by warlords, we have set ourselves up for disappointment and defeat from the beginning. I don't care who gets handed this cluster**** at this point; they aren't going to win this one, certainly not on the terms they want.
The Russians couldn't break them so I'm not sure what made us think we could. The "system" of governing Afghanistan has re: war lords and tribes, have been their way of life for eons. Only the Afghani's can change that - not us.
And, you're right about Karzai - he's like Musharraf in that he takes billions of our dollars with one hand, and gives us the finger with the other. Karzai was never our ally - only a fool would think he would be.
Early on in Iraq, after Saddam was toppled, Jay Garner was put in charge of putting Iraq back together. He decided that the only chance he had of making things work was to get the tribal chiefs together and make them a part of the process. When the Bush administration learned of this plan, they went ballistic, and sent a replacement for Garner, the slick bastard who ran the country for a few years afterward, ( I can't recall his name right now). The new guy got in country before the meeting, and when the meeting took place as scheduled, he laid out the Bush plan, which was basically impose a centralized western-style democracy on the country, something they had not had in the thousands of years they had existed. The warlords were shut out, and thus began the insurgency. Something similar happened in Afghanistan. We focus on Karzai as the only option, not the establishment of a democracy. If we want some kind of stability in Afghanistan, Karzai and the idea of a central government has to go. Anything else is just prolonging the pain.
I remember the situation with Garner very well. He was replaced by that tool L. Paul Bremer, he of "I haven't a clue as to where I put the hundreds of pallets of American greenbacks" - wink, wink. I suspect I know where they went ... swiss bank account, anyone?
Bremer managed to do in one year what would have taken most at least a few years - FUBAR. He completely dismantled everything Jay Garner did, until Iraq was in complete and utter chaos.
Garner had the only real chance to turn Iraq into something resembling a functional nation based on Iraqi preferences rather than Washington fantasies. Bush made the mistake of appointing a very competent guy to an important position. He realized his mistake and quickly corrected it with Bremer.
"He realized his mistake and quickly corrected it with Bremer."
Sadly, you're right. For all the blustering McFlightsuit did that the Iraqi people would welcome our troops with open arms, he and his cohorts treated the Iraqi's with disdain, indifference, and was completely ignorant to the culture at large. He and his ensured that Iraq would become "Messopotamia".
McCrystal is the problem! An organization is nothing more than the long shadow of it's leader. The US Army is a big one--the tip of the spear so to speak of our Afghanistan policy in the war against terrorism. For whatever reasons a toxic atmosphere was allowed to develop at HQ of the US mission in Afghanistan. Disdain and dis-respect for civilian authority was tolerated at the top by Gen. McCrystal who also participated in it. He has a pattern of it. As his long shadow ripples through the forces there he jeopardizes relationships with other major actors and the entire mission. The Commander and all his top aides must be replaced with professional men and women of character who will submit to civilian authority and align themselves to the mission of their country.
I don't understand why no one is asking a couple of basic questions: 1) WHY DO GENERALS HAVE PRESS AGENTS? and 2) WHO'S PAYING THEM (and if it is part of the Pentagon's budget, I'm going to be really, really pissed as a tax payer.
Great points -- thank you! Generals live like the multi-millionaires we have made them. Apparently so arrogant that they fall for their own press releases.
Well said Uff.
Aharon, we Dems are not against the military. Not by any means. We are against useless wars that cost young soldiers their lives.
We attacked Iraq for one reason...So Bush's and Cheney's cronies could get wealthy on corrupt military contracts. As horrible as that is it's true. Halliburton, for example, made billions on work they never performed. They infected our military after Desert Storm when Cheney was Secretary of Defense. Cheney became CEO of Haliburton in 1995.
I'm from the Vietnam era so I have an idea what I'm talking about. 58,000 young lives lost in that war, and for what?
I used to work for a military contractor. I know what goes on. War=money. A military contract is like free money.
i dont think that was the main reason we attacked iraq. the neocon theory of establishing an arab democracy in the heart of the middle-east was the foundation. but sadaam's attempted assassination of bush sr in kuwait after gulf 1 was the impetus.
Yeah, and Halliburton just came along for the ride.
I understand what you're saying Orrin.
A failed assassination attempt does not justify the loss of 4330 fighting soldiers and an estimated 100,000 innocent Iraqis.
We thought we were going to get oil out of it. Bush went on tv right before the invasion and warned the Iraqi people not to destroy the oil wells. He also told us that we would not pay one cent for the war, that oil would pay for it. Always follow the money in these wars. The US government believes there is $1 trillion worth of mineral wealth in the mountains of Afghanistan.
We didn't go rushing in to save people in Darfur -- no oil.
Don't forget that we were also told that it would last "six weeks" but doubted it would be as long as "six months".
Excellent analysis.
I think he (McChrystal) did it purposely, because now when he is obviously loosing the war, he wants out. And this is very easy and painless way.
you may be right Anne-1913334.
another point: war is profitable. Even though it is costing billions of dollars a day, the companies that profit form it, like the Xe's, the Haliburtons, the Lockheed Martins, make billions of dollars and buy off the politicians. It's the money. We could pull out tomorrow if the big brass wanted to.
What Obama could do about Afghanistan, taking advantage of the McChrystal drama: ... 1. Announce that he has accepted McChrystal's resignation effective immediately. Note that the US Military Code of Justice mandates a punishment as directed by a court martial for any commissioned officer who speaks with contempt of the President, Vice President, Senators and certain other civilian government officials. State that no one in the administration wants to see McChrystal face a Court Martial and that the alternative, resignation, is in everyone's best interest. Thank McChrystal for his patriotism and service to our country. ... 2. Announce that progress on the military and civilian fronts in Afghanistan is not satisfactory and is not possible, even for the heroism of our troops, given the realities of Afghanistan. State that under Gen. McChrystal we made our last best effort there. ... 3. Announce that all US ground forces will be out of Afghanistan within a year. A year is needed for an orderly and safe withdrawal. Cite Reagan's withdrawal of troops from an unmanageable situation in Lebanon. ... 4. Announce that the US, in consultation with the Afghani government and the US and NATO governments and military, will define safe zones covering up to 40% of Afghan territory. The US will conduct retaliatory air strikes against the Taliban if any Taliban acts of terror occur in those safe areas. Cite the policies of Bush 1 and Clinton for effectively using this tactic in Iraq and Serbia. Note that this policy is necessary to "help the Afghani people work out their own version of self-rule without the paralyzing fear of Taliban terror." ... 5. Announce that the US reserves the right to conduct air strikes, humanitarian airlifts, and special ops (with targeted missions) anywhere in Afghanistan. Also announce that the US will make medical assistance available to Afghani women, children, and those wounded by terrorists acts at a facility outside Afghanistan, either in a friendly country or on a ship, or in the united States. France will also send its renowned hospital ship when appropriate. The US will be developing a hospital ship similar to the French for current and future emergencies and special situations. ... 6. Announce that the US reserves the right to arrest or summarily execute any Taliban leader for any acts of terror that occur. ... 7. Announce that any civilian enterprise, or the Afghani government, will be allowed to hire US private security firms such as Blackwater. This right would extend to the extensive Chinese mining operations currently being conducted in Afghanistan. ... 8. Announce that all aid to Pakistan is being suspended until the Pakistani Intelligence Service, known to support and arm the Afghani Taliban (using US taxpayer money) fires the people supporting the Taliban and offers proof that support for the Taliban has ceased. ... 9. Thank our allies in Afghanistan. ... 10. Wish the Afghani government and people well and express the hope that they can build a healthy society benefitting all the Afghani people. ... Could this ever happen? Nah, Obama will work out a dysfunctional compromise that will extend the war for more years before we finally withdraw. ... Ironically, after McChrystal makes millions of the speaker circuit and is chosen as the Republican Presidential candidate for 2012, the above may well be his stand on Afghanistan. McChrystal might become an anti-war President and push Congress to pass a War Tax that automatically kicks in when US troops enter a foreign country for military engagement. "The sacrifice of war should not rest solely on the military, but must be shared by the whole nation."
The real problem is that Gen. McChrystal got fired for his right to free speech as did Helen Thomas on June 7, 2010. This is a first amendment issue. The media destroyed Helen Thomas's career and reputation because she said some controversial comments about Israel earlier this month, and then the media did the same thing again with Gen. McChrystal. Both were seen as respectable and patriotic citizens until the media decided to attack them for saying controversial and critical statements.
That's incorrect Meredith. As a member of the military, the general forfeits some of his free speech rights. He cannot criticize his superiors, in this case, the President of the United States. If this were a case of a lowly captain saying the same sorts of things about the general, he'd be cashiered out of the service so fast it would make his head spin. You don't criticize someone above you in the chain of command, especially in such a public manner, as this breaks down the cohesiveness of the fighting forces. If the troops think that Gen. McChrystal disapproves of the President and his orders, they may well say that they refuse to follow his orders. Or if they know their immediate commander is critical of higher command, they may refuse to follow the orders of those higher commanders. When you join the military, you give up some of the rights you enjoy as a civilian.
Meredith:
What Uffdaguy said.
He is a soldier, not a civilian, different rules apply. He does not get free speech in deriding his Commander-in-Chief. You forget that the Army is not in itself a democracy -- trying telling your superior you have decided that you don't want to follow your orders because where you are being sent is too dusty, sandy, dangerous, hot, etc. Even the ACLU won't take your case. Disrespecting a superior is a very dangerous proposition. But if you didn't want to take orders you should have found another line of work.
What I would like the media to examine is why McChrystal did the interview. Clearly he is extremely intelligent and he knew it would cause a sensation. He gave media full access to his staff-- which we know will only be as candid as the commander has told them to be. He spoke with contempt to an international publication. He had already been warned about his intemperate comments in the fall after a speech. This was not a case of "bad judgment"-- it was a deliberate choice to embarrass Obama and force his hand. Either Obama fires McChrystal ( and then takes heat for jeopardizing the war mission, or he keeps him on and looks weak.) Keep an eye on what McChrystal does in the future and who his new best friends will become.
Well said...his new best friends will be interesting indeed...
Amen, CitizenWhy, on your remarks about the whole nation sacrificing for the war effort. But "the whole nation" MUST include the beneficiaries of the corporate-military-industrial establishment.
Aharon should understand who is for the military, who is not, and who is making the big money. If I had my say, the Palm Beach mansions owned by rich corporatists who make millions (or billions) off this war would be confiscated and converted (at the former owners' expense) into rehab hospitals and R & R facilities for returning soldiers.
Uffdaguy, if what you say is true--that those serving in the military give up their freedom of speech as a sacrifice for the common good and are not allowed to criticize their superiors, then what are we fighting for? I thought we were fighting for freedom, justice, and liberty for all (there should be a special exception for those who serve our country and give their lives to protect us; they especially deserve to have freedom and respect).
then why haven't we repealed DADT?
Exactly, eaglelady11. And, any executive in any organization, anywhere, would be a fool not to consider firing someone for such blatant insubordination. It has nothing to do with his right to free speech. He's made highly inflammatory personal remarks. He'd have to be the ONE scientist on the planet who had the solution to plugging BP's gusher before it would make sense to keep him.
The Military Code of Justice explicitly states that no commissioned officer of the military can disparage, criticize or speak ill about any civilian leadership, from the president down to a governor or state representative. Civilian leadership also includes foreign heads of state, and members of said head of states administration. To do so is grounds for a court martial.
It's a bit of a tear-jerker, but I feel as if these guys pulled together a lot of what's really being put on display here. The links are helpful in understanding the bigger issue of a General playing politics with soldiers' lives. http://greatbiglies.org/2010/06/23/obama-chooses-soldiers-over-officers-politics/ Heck, they're the reason I ended up here!
Many thanks for the link - it certainly puts things in perspective.