| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Advice to Obama 'should remain private' |
| 2009-10-05 |
| THE US military's advice to President Barack Obama on Afghanistan should remain private, Defence Secretary Robert Gates has said, in a rebuke to the commander who has openly declared his stance on war strategy. Referring to pivotal White House discussions on the war, Mr Gates said: "It is imperative that all of us taking part in these deliberations, civilians and military alike, provide our best advice to the president, candidly but privately.'' Although Mr Gates did not mention General Stanley McChrystal by name, his remark appeared aimed at the top US and NATO commander in Afghanistan who has made his views on strategy known in media interviews and a high-profile speech in London last week. Mr Gates's comment, delivered in an address to the Association of the US Army, echoed criticism on Sunday from retired general James Jones, Mr Obama's national security adviser. Mr Jones told CNN on Sunday: "It is better for military advice to come up through the chain of command.'' |
| Posted by:tipper |
| #10 : "It is imperative that all of us taking part in these deliberations, civilians and military alike, provide our best advice to the president, candidly but privately.'' B.S. the military is sworn to uphold the constitution and defend against all enemies foreign and domestic. it is NOT sworn to kiss Obambi's slimy ass. |
| Posted by: girlthursday 2009-10-05 21:37 |
| #9 active duty, not retired, should obey legal orders and keep their political opinions private. What political opinion? Granted, it was blunt; it may be insubordinate. But NS- it wasn't political. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2009-10-05 21:31 |
| #8 Whether its possible to beat AQ with predators sounds pretty close to a technical military question, at least to me. I'm not a Military genius nor did I sleep in a Holiday Inn Express last night, but I can smell political asscovering when it arises. As Mike so smartly puts it, boots-on-the-ground intel is necessary, and Joe "Sheriff Predators" Biden can't think that far ahead. Apparently, neither can you? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2009-10-05 21:12 |
| #7 I think it shoul be the other way, speak up loudly now and force Obumble to either fire them or listen, that proves to even the dumbest citizen which side Obumble is really on, and it ain't ours. |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2009-10-05 18:38 |
| #6 How long is a General supposed to remain quiet when his advice and reports are ignored by the CinC? Is his only legitimate response to resign and then criticize? How long has Zero been dithering and waffling with the lives of McChrystal's troops? Personally I think that he and anyone of the senior advisonrs (supposedly Petreaus, Clinton and Holbrooke) who feel this way should all resign and speak out loudly. |
| Posted by: AlanC 2009-10-05 17:47 |
| #5 Whether General McChrystal was insubordinate or not, he got his message across. |
| Posted by: Richard of Oregon 2009-10-05 17:38 |
| #4 Whether its possible to beat AQ with predators sounds pretty close to a technical military question, at least to me No. It's not technical. Predators can't blow up the right stuff without intel. Which takes securing Afghanis. Which takes people. |
| Posted by: Mike N. 2009-10-05 17:27 |
| #3 to be fair to mccrystal, in his public statements, he did not defy any orders, he did not criticize Biden or any other members of the admin. When asked if a counter terror policy would work, he said that it would not. That doesnt preclude the debate - one could decide that the counter terror policy wouldnt work, but that the counter Insurgency policy still isnt worth it. Whether its possible to beat AQ with predators sounds pretty close to a technical military question, at least to me. Thats why any browbeating has to be in public and unofficial - I dont think he has actually crossed any legal lines. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2009-10-05 17:00 |
| #2 The Constitution also makes the President Commander in Chief. And his subordinates, active duty, not retired, should obey legal orders and keep their political opinions private. McChrystal has been insubordinate. I suspect he does not want to resign from a combat command. Thus I suspect his motive is to either demonstrate that he too can roll Zero or to provoke his firing so that he doesn't have to sugar coat it next time. |
| Posted by: One Eyed Sheting1191 2009-10-05 16:23 |
| #1 Mr Jones told CNN on Sunday: "It is better for military advice to come up through the chain of command." Is that Caesar's bidding? I know that the Constitution is a useless icon that has no real meaning to the left other than to awe others into obedience, but all uniform members take an oath to uphold and defend it, not someone's popularity ratings or personal happiness. It seem to upset some people that some [grunt] commanders have a loyalty to their troops who they ask to give that 'last full measure of devotion'. Those who fail to give that loyalty, don't get it returned. So, where have you been for the last 8 years, particularly when 'retired'* general officers were offering their public opinions. *just for a clarification to the civies. Military personnel are not 'retired' as in the civilian world. The law and contract read they may recalled at anytime by the Secretary of the Service for duty. Technically, they're on reduced pay subject to that recall. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2009-10-05 15:40 |