Obama And The McChrystal Gambit

[Winstonm]

Regardless of what you think about President Obama as a statesman, there is certainly nothing lacking in his political acumen, as The McChrystal Gambit proves.

 

In one fell swoop, Obama has laid the blame for the failure of the Afghan War on McChrystal and the McChrystal plan, while at the same time demoting General Patraeus, the most viable 2012 GOP presidential candidate, and putting him in charge of a no-win war, thus making it the fault of Patraeus if he cannot match his much ballyhooed (and untrue) success with the Iraqui surge, while making Obama look like a genius for putting Patraeus in charge if by some miracle something good actually happens in that godforsaken country.

 

This is a win-win-win situation for Obama and a lose-lose-lose for Patraeus, McChrystal, and the neo-hawks.

[kenberg]

I haven't noticed anyone looking particularly good here. More like a lose-lose-lose-lose-lose situation.

 

Btw, is Obama still referring to the Afghanistan war as a war of necessity?

[jdonn]

Lol I can't believe it's been so long since you started one of these threads.

[luke warm]

i find it strange that obama would want anything to do with general betrayus... i guess it's possible that obama has "moved on"

[Winstonm]

Lol I can't believe it's been so long since you started one of these threads.

I can't believe how long it's been since U.S. foreign policy made sense.

[kenberg]

As I think about this:

I was just beginning to have world awareness whn Truman fired MacArthur. It was over a major policy disagreement. As I recall it, MacArthur wanted, for example, to authorize the air force to cross the Yalu River in pursuit of Migs that engaged US planes over N Korea. When he went public with this and other demands, Truman dumped him. The quarrel was about something. The current blow-up is over McChrystal making caustic comments about, for example, emails from Holbrooke. The contrast is stunning. I suppose McChrystal had to go once this hit the fan. But for it to be about so little, it sickens me.

[blackshoe]

I can't believe how long it's been since U.S. foreign policy made sense.

This? "Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none." - Thomas Jefferson, Inaugural Address, 1801.

[y66]

Who doesn't bitch and moan about all the morons and assholes who make life harder, including the ones you have to work with to get a tough job done?

 

Do it behind closed doors, no problem. Do it face to face and maybe you can even clear the air. Do it in public and you're not just bitching and moaning, you're behaving in a way that is unbecoming, counter-productive to the mission and self-destructive.

 

This guy understood this better than anyone. What a jerk.

[Winstonm]

I can't believe how long it's been since U.S. foreign policy made sense.

This? "Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none." - Thomas Jefferson, Inaugural Address, 1801.

That sounds about right.

[kenberg]

This guy understood this better than anyone. What a jerk.

Oh, I suppose maybe, sort of. Then again, maybe I can duck this quarrel. Not for the first time I thank the Cosmic Forces that I am sufficiently negligible that no one follows me around for quotes.

 

There are a few people that I really feel I cannot work with. But you have to do more than say "Not another post from Berg" to make this list.

 

We have Obama's word for it that Rahm Emmanuel does not usually think of the word "Day" as a follow-up to "Mother". And we didn't even need Rolling Stone to find that out.

 

Oh well, the hell with it. As with Tom Daschle and his taxes, what a waste, what a shame.

[y66]

Too bad for McChrystal that Rolling Stone never picked up this quote when it appeared in the water cooler some time ago:

 

A grandson, when he was younger, had trouble with self-control When he was six or so I was supervising him at some function and I picked him up and removed him from a game where he was being a pain. I physically restrained him from rejoining the game. But I also explained to him that he would be getting bigger and I would not always be able to do this, so his job was to learn how to get himself under control. He paid close attention. Most kids want to learn how to interact successfully with others. If they get to be sixteen or so without learning this, the fat is in the fire.

If they had, or if McChrystal had been lucky enough to have a grandfather who taught him the finer points of self-control, he might have avoided this fiasco. And yes it was a shame that he didn't.

[kenberg]

:)

[hrothgar]

The whole situation strikes me as ridiculous.

 

If you're willing to promote a commander responsible for the Pat Tilllman cover up and any number of atrocities in Iraq what's the big deal with him/his command mouthing off? Its not like they killed anyone (this time around)

[kenberg]

I don't know if this will be seen as a watershed moment, probably not, but here is the situation as I see it:

 

Obama has described the war as a war of necessity.

 

He has increased the troop levels and selected an overall approach to the wat.

 

He has at least suggested a timetable. it's not completely clear what he intends a year from now if optimistic forecasts fail, but at least there have been optimistic forecasts linked to dates.

 

He has chosen his commanders and his team.

 

What all this comes to, imo, is that this had better work, or Obama can start his memoirs in 2012. History may not speak with an entirely clear voice here, after all Nixon won re-election in 72. But then you wouldn't say things went all that well for him afterward. Bush squeaked through in 2004. But still, I think the lessons are clear. Johnson passed mountains of legislation including the tranformative Civil Rights Act. He chose to not even seek nomination in 68. His presidency is remembered for Viet Nam. There were various reasons Truman could not have won in '52 (The 22nd Amendment did not prohibit it, but would have been an issue I imagine) but Eisenhower would have destroyed him with "I will go to Korea".

 

Voters will not accept a president announcing that a war is necessary and then mangling it. The war will be going a lot better in 2012, or Mr. Obama will have a lot more time to play golf in 2013.

[PassedOut]

Interesting article: The Runaway General

 

Stanley McChrystal, Obama's top commander in Afghanistan, has seized control of the war by never taking his eye off the real enemy: The wimps in the White House.

Given that McChrystal voted for Obama and that Obama okayed the bulk of what the general asked for, this outcome is really bad.

[Winstonm]

I think your analysis is faulty, Ken.

 

The thing about the war in Vietnam that so polarized the country was the draft. The draft brought the war into virtually every American household as a reality.

 

There is no such reality to the volunteer brigades in Afghanistan. It doesn't even cost us extra taxes yet. All we have to do is buy a $2 bumper sticker that we support our troops and everything is fine, don't you know?

 

I think you and Fox News talking heads are the only people left on earth who remember that Obama declared Afghanistan important.

 

To the real Obama apologists, how can his claim of Afghan importance be taken any more seriously than his claims of Gitmo closure, Bush war crimes wrong, and the Constitution valid?

 

This is a man whose outlaw Justice Department has made Cheney/Yoo look like Glenn Greenwald on opium in comparison. Cheney thought we could take foreigners and lock them up forever - Obama says will can kill American citizens without trial or due process.

 

Do you think anyone who apologizes for THAT gives a rat's ass about McChrystal, Patraeus, or Afghanistan???

 

The McChrystal Gambit is just that - it is a sacrifice of a pawn (McNutcase) and the demotion of he-who-would-be-Caesar to Head Chump (Patraeus) in order to either A) demolish the undeserved reputation of Patraeus as a savior of bad wars or B) accomplish a miracle in Afghanistan of which Obama can claim credit for by being so forceful and swift-acting in putting Patraeus in charge.

 

It is a no-lose choice for Obama, and it is a no-win for Patraeus. Patraeus either shows himself to be the fraud that he is or he ends up making Obama look like Harry Truman's skinny cousin.

[PassedOut]

And another perspective: America’s General, Afghanistan’s Friend

 

General McChrystal represents, to me, what is best about Americans. He is strong and determined but also gracious, courteous and compassionate in every circumstance and situation. When he would walk in the markets or visit our villages he would listen to Afghans and respect their traditions and customs. When speaking with young soldiers he would make them so proud of their duty.

 

Those of us who had the highest privilege to work on his staff were given great responsibility, and great trust. He was especially generous with his trust.

 

I never had the opportunity to say goodbye to General McChrystal. I hope he will return when there is peace in Afghanistan, because he will be the father of that peace.

 

Khoshal Sadat, an officer in the Afghan Special Forces, was an aide-de-camp to Gen. Stanley McChrystal from February until last week.

Haven't yet seen anything written from the viewpoint of an Afghan civilian.

[jdonn]

LOLOL at "Obama wins if Patraeus fails in Afghanistan".

 

Equally large LOL at "Patraeus loses if he succeeds in Afghanistan".

[kenberg]

I think your analysis is faulty, Ken.

 

The thing about the war in Vietnam that so polarized the country was the draft.  The draft brought the war into virtually every American household as a reality.

There is definitely something to what you are saying here. It concerns me greatly.

 

As a five year old in Minnesota in the early forties I was aware that there was a war on. Obviously not greatly so, but things were done or not done "because of the war". You couldn't, for example, buy a new car. Detroit was making tanks. You couldn't buy new tires, or at least not good ones.

 

 

Now, I can easily go through my daily life totally oblivious to the war. A country should never go to war with a large part of the population oblivious to what we are doing and why. If it's important enough to do, we should all play a role and we should understand why we are doing it.

 

You hear suggestions to re-instate the draft. I have a variant on that idea that I am at least semi-serious about. Draft 70 year olds such as myself. No, I am not really capable of charging up San Juan hill anymore (if I ever was). But there is a lot of stuff that needs doing that I could do. And, not to be gruesome, but if I get blown up it is in many ways (except for me) less of a tragedy than if some 25 year old does. If my fellow 70s don't want to do this, and who does, then maybe we need to re-think this stuff about going to war.

 

 

Winston, often we disagree. But I thoroughly agree with what I take to be your view that this "let's send the guys to war while we go shopping" stuff is a really bad development in American society.

 

 

One small item along the same lines. Recently I went to my granddaughter's HS graduation. About 500 kids got their diplomas. During the ceremony kids were asked to stand if they participated in sports, in drama, and so on. The kids who were joining the military after graduation were asked to stand. There were two. I doubt my granddaughter even knows them. I don't at all want her joining the military, but somehow this ain't right.

[y66]

A country should never go to war with a large part of the population oblivious to what we are doing and why. If it's important enough to do, we should all play a role and we should understand why we are doing it.

Amen bro.

[PassedOut]

I agree with Ken and Winston and y66 on this: There is a serious disconnect between the "war of necessity" rhetoric and the life-goes-on-as-usual attitude here in the US.

 

Yes, I've heard the argument that this is so because the terrorists are waging "a different kind of war." Supposedly, if we don't go on about our business as usual, it means that the terrorists have won. It's hard for me to express how stupid that argument is.

 

As I've said before, I don't think we should have done anything militarily in response to 9/11 other than to go all in after Bin Laden and his cohorts until they were wiped out. That would have taught the proper lesson.

 

But the US didn't do that because we had elected an administration of fools, from top to bottom. Given the situation we are in, the most honorable way to extricate ourselves now is not at all clear to me. But I would like an honest statement of exactly what our young people are dying to accomplish, and why.

 

And I certainly agree with Ken that people like me should be pulled in also if it is truly a "war of necessity," and our taxes should be hiked to pay for it as it goes on.

[Winstonm]

Winston, often we disagree. But I thoroughly agree with what I take to be your view that this "let's send the guys to war while we go shopping" stuff is a really bad development in American society

 

At the same time, Ken, drafting 18-year-olds to go fight and die for no compelling reason is such an abhorent idea to me that I could not ask anyone to make that sacrifice without world-wide significance for the need of the actions.

 

The problem to me is the label of "war". We really need to get back to the constitutional requirement of Congress declaring war, rather than CNN making that call.

[Winstonm]

WASHINGTON, June 28 (Reuters) - A key U.S. House of Representatives Democrat said on Monday she is cutting billions of dollars in aid to Afghanistan from spending legislation because she is outraged over reports of corruption and donor aid being flown out the country.

 

I really wonder on whom Obama relies for accurate information. The entire concept of insurgency warfare as promoted by McChrystal and Patraeus is dependent for success on an honest, stable government. Surely, somewhere along the way someone should have explained this to the President before he made the horrendous decision to out-screw-up the Soviets by trying to turn Afghanistan into a real country with a real goverment - the counterinsurgency success depends on it being vice-vesa - real country, real government, THEN counterinsurgency.

[helene_t]

The entire concept of insurgency warfare as promoted by McChrystal and Patraeus is dependent for success on an honest, stable government. Surely, somewhere along the way someone should have explained this to the President before he made the horrendous decision to out-screw-up the Soviets by trying to turn Afghanistan into a real country with a real goverment - the counterinsurgency success depends on it being vice-vesa - real country, real government, THEN counterinsurgency.

Sounds more like a chicken-or-egg problem to me.

[gwnn]

isn't it clear that the egg was first? how is this even a problem?