Obama 'Furious' with McChrystal

[carpro]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...Stanley-McChrystal-speech-on-Afghanistan.html

White House angry at General Stanley McChrystal speech on Afghanistan

According to sources close to the administration, Gen McChrystal shocked and angered presidential advisers with the bluntness of a speech given in London last week.

The next day he was summoned to an awkward 25-minute face-to-face meeting on board Air Force One on the tarmac in Copenhagen, where the president had arrived to tout Chicago's unsuccessful Olympic bid.

SNIP

"Waiting does not prolong a favorable outcome. This effort will not remain winnable indefinitely, and nor will public support."

The remarks have been seen by some in the Obama administration as a barbed reference to the slow pace of debate within the White House.
Gen McChrystal delivered a report on Afghanistan requested by the president on Aug 31, but Mr Obama held only his second "principals meeting" on the issue last week.

 

[alatide]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...Stanley-McChrystal-speech-on-Afghanistan.html

White House angry at General Stanley McChrystal speech on Afghanistan

According to sources close to the administration, Gen McChrystal shocked and angered presidential advisers with the bluntness of a speech given in London last week.

The next day he was summoned to an awkward 25-minute face-to-face meeting on board Air Force One on the tarmac in Copenhagen, where the president had arrived to tout Chicago's unsuccessful Olympic bid.

SNIP

"Waiting does not prolong a favorable outcome. This effort will not remain winnable indefinitely, and nor will public support."

The remarks have been seen by some in the Obama administration as a barbed reference to the slow pace of debate within the White House.
Gen McChrystal delivered a report on Afghanistan requested by the president on Aug 31, but Mr Obama held only his second "principals meeting" on the issue last week.

"Waiting does not prolong a favorable outcome. This effort will not remain winnable indefinitely, and nor will public support."

I wonder what effect pulling troops out of Afghanistan to invade Iraq had on our chance of winning in Afghanistan? This happened early on when we were winning. If our major objective was to defeat al Quaeda (That's a joke) I fail to see how this helped.

 

[sag38]

What does Iraq have to do with this? This is about the here and now. Get past Bush. He's not the President. President Obama is and either there is a surge, and that quickly, or it's time to pull out. Taking ones time is only killing more troops needlessly. Give the man what he needs to accomplish the mission or tell the man it's time to come home. Quit stalling.

 

[KenH]

We should do what we can with the troops already in Afghanistan and pull them out in 2011. Our interest should be in stopping al Qaeda from building any more training camps there, not in nation building.

 

[carpro]

Obama's executive inexperience is glaring at us.

His hesitancy to make a decision is killing the men he placed in harms way, while he dithers around trying to line the pockets of his chicago cronies.

 

[OldRegular]

Obama's executive inexperience is glaring at us.

His hesitancy to make a decision is killing the men he placed in harms way, while he dithers around trying to line the pockets of his chicago cronies.

Obama is not noted for making decisions. Saturday Night Live had a resume of Obama's accomplishments as president: ZERO! They ignored the trillion with a T dollar budget shortfall.

His prior experience in the Illinois Senate and the US Senate was usually to vote "present"; that is with the exception of his votes to kill the just born in the Illinois Senate.

 

[Tom Bryant]

We should do what we can with the troops already in Afghanistan and pull them out in 2011. Our interest should be in stopping al Qaeda from building any more training camps there, not in nation building.

I am sure that our politicians (any of them, no matter the party) will pull them out in 2011: just in time for the next presidential election.:BangHead:

I don't see this current administration making that kind of effort. It will be like the Clintn administration which ignored the build up and allowed them to hit our embassies, our war ships, pulling out our troops from Somalia because we lacked the political will to respond and the first Twin Towers attack, with only "surgical strikes" as our response.

 

[donnA]

somebody seems to be always confused, doesn't know for sure what year it is, whose president, maybe need some medical help for that.
I think we should be searching the terrorist, and let the country make it's own governement as it wants.

 

[Tom Bryant]

somebody seems to be always confused, doesn't know for sure what year it is, whose president, maybe need some medical help for that.
I think we should be searching the terrorist, and let the country make it's own governement as it wants.

Was this aimed at my comment?

 

[donnA]

Was this aimed at my comment?

nope

.......

 

[Twizzler]

Relations between the general and the White House began to sour when his report, which painted a grim picture of the allied mission in Afghanistan, was leaked. White House aides have since briefed against the general's recommendations.

To me... BOTH the POTUS and Gen. McChrystal are wrong, but McChrystal should not have said anything in public like this to put pressure on the president, no matter how wrong he thought the POTUS was, or is.

It's a fine line though... when you look at some military men coming forward to blow the whistle on improper spending of tax dollars and this General's stepping forward to blow the whistle on the existing administration's lack of decision making, when do you determine that 'blowing-the-whistle' is right? It's difficult at best.

Personally I think McChrystal shouldn't have prodded at the POTUS with his comments, which he obviously did. (He's not some hayseed just off the farm, he's played the political game for some time now and had to realize what he was saying. If he didn't he deserves to be removed from his position for being incompetent anyway.). BHO was right to dress the man down, I just wish he'd get on the ball and take care of what needs taking care of rather than making it a political issue, which is what it has become.

Tsk, tsk, tsk.

 

[carpro]

BHO was right to dress the man down, I just wish he'd get on the ball and take care of what needs taking care of rather than making it a political issue, which is what it has become.

Word is that's not what happened.

It seems Obama ranted and raved when surrounded by his lackeys, but when facing the General, his manner changed completely.

Sign of a very weak CiC to go along with his indecisiveness.

 

[OldRegular]

Perhaps the ranting and raving at General MacChrystal won Obama the Peace Prize!

 

[just-want-peace]

Perhaps the ranting and raving at General MacChrystal won Obama the Peace Prize!

Undoubtedly!!!!! (Well, it had to be SOMETHING, didn't it?)

As to the General - I have ambivalent feeling here.
1 The General is supposed to answer to the president as CiC, BUT, if a decision is required, and the CiC is reluctant to give said decision, then something/someone has to do a little prodding.
2 The lives of our guys over there are far more important that the "face" of the (?)president
3 Indecision ( a noted quality of the (0) ) is an invitation to the enemy to feel free to -----

I had the same feelings re: the firing of Gen McArthur by Truman.

However, in this case, we had just a few years earlier ended a war that had the country weary, and ready to settle down. That fact gave the communists the impetus to get the Korean "POLICE ACTION" started, and to follow Gen McArthur's desires (follow the commie pilots to their China bases and/or bombing the bridges of the Yalu river) could have precipated another BIG war.
On the other hand, if Gen M. had been allowed to do as his field experience dictated, it's entirely possible that Chaing Kai Schek (Sp) could have remained the leader of China, and Communist China would never have been. All a moot point now.

A great exercise in WHAT IF??

So, was Gen MacChrystal correct in his actions?? Politically, it's questionable, but morally, I've got to side with him.

 

[OldRegular]

When politicians fight wars we lose.

 

[Revmitchell]

Obama can't be furious with anyone. No one who gets the Nobel Peace Prize would get furious.

 

[OldRegular]

Giving the peace prize to Obama was an insult to the United States.

 

[LeBuick]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...Stanley-McChrystal-speech-on-Afghanistan.html

White House angry at General Stanley McChrystal speech on Afghanistan.

Rightly so, Obama is the commander and chief and no leader needs a rouge subordinate with a personal agenda. Soldiers, to include generals are to follow orders as long as they are in uniform. McAuthor had to learn this lesson and if McCrystal keeps this up he will be taught one also.

McCrystal gave his advice to the president which is where his obligation ended. The president (the commander and chief) will consider his advice along with the advice of his state department and many other tools at his disposal and formulate a national plan that could include all his tools and not just a military solution. McCrystal needs to accept he is just one tool at the presidents disposal and not the total solution. When the president makes his decision McCrystal is to salute his new orders and sell it to congress.

Unfortunately, McCrystal gave up his personal agenda when he raised his hand and took the oath to follow his leaders. If he wants things his way he needs to start his own army.

 

[LeBuick]

somebody seems to be always confused, doesn't know for sure what year it is, whose president, maybe need some medical help for that.
I think we should be searching the terrorist, and let the country make it's own governement as it wants.

History is its own best teacher. I don't believe anyone is confused whose president, we want to avoid the mistakes of the past.

I don't believe this but I agree with you to a degree. The elections there made it clear the Afghanistan people are not serious about their own stable government or national defense against terrorism. They know, rightly so, that we will leave one day and the Taliban will return with vengeance toward any American sympathizer.

America doesn't have the stomach or resources to defend this country forever. Why loose anymore lives since we won't stay forever. Why not just bring the troops home and find a more realistic way to defend the nation from terrorism like actually hunting terrorist instead of taking over countries. Sealing up our borders and investing more in counter terrorism. There is a lot better things we can do with the lives and money being spent in a nation that doesn't want us there.

 

[OldRegular]

Rightly so, Obama is the commander and chief

He acts more like the pansy in chief!