Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Mon 10/05/2009 View Sun 10/04/2009 View Sat 10/03/2009 View Fri 10/02/2009 View Thu 10/01/2009 View Wed 09/30/2009 View Tue 09/29/2009
1
2009-10-05 Afghanistan
Barack Obama furious at General Stanley McChrystal speech
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Glenmore 2009-10-05 08:50|| || Front Page|| [11133 views ]  Top

#1 "Do you KNOW who you are talking to? On your knees and bow, you ingrate!!! I'll have all those stars and bars shoved where the light don't shine! Off with his head!"
Posted by Obama 2009-10-05 09:26||   2009-10-05 09:26|| Front Page Top

#2 "Waiting does not prolong a favorable outcome.

I suspect that's precisely the way Barry sees it as well. Good luck in the civilian sector General McChrystal.
Posted by Besoeker in Duitsland 2009-10-05 09:43||   2009-10-05 09:43|| Front Page Top

#3 It's not the General's problem, and the General is not the problem.

That's why the POTUS is furious. Many can campaign and few can govern, as we're all learning (though some of us already knew this).
Posted by Halliburton - Mysterious Conspiracy Division">Halliburton - Mysterious Conspiracy Division  2009-10-05 09:54||   2009-10-05 09:54|| Front Page Top

#4 While Emperor Nero Obama fiddles in Rome Copenhagen our brave men and women in Afghanistan die. For what? Don't waste the lives of our troops, like we did in Vietnam, when we have no intention of doing what's necessary to win.

Even though he broke the chain of command, it's refreshing to see a General willing to stand up for his troops against the seedy politicians.
Posted by GolfBravoUSMC 2009-10-05 10:12||   2009-10-05 10:12|| Front Page Top

#5 WH shelved the general's report until a more politically expedient moment and so he wasn't happy to let his troops be killed until that time came. He decided to push the issue which is pretty ballsy for an OBAMBI appointee (wait, maybe he didn't fill out the vetting questionnaire?).
Posted by AlmostAnonymous5839">AlmostAnonymous5839  2009-10-05 10:16||   2009-10-05 10:16|| Front Page Top

#6 An arrogant a$$hole adviser to the administration said: "People aren't sure whether McChrystal is being naïve or an upstart. To my mind he doesn't seem ready for this Washington hard-ball and is just speaking his mind too plainly."
Posted by GolfBravoUSMC 2009-10-05 10:18||   2009-10-05 10:18|| Front Page Top

#7 "Sir, I serve at the President's pleasure. You may remove or replace me at any time."
Posted by mojo 2009-10-05 10:29||   2009-10-05 10:29|| Front Page Top

#8 Anyone up for body language reading? I'm liking the contrast with those combat boots!



Posted by Sherry">Sherry  2009-10-05 11:06||   2009-10-05 11:06|| Front Page Top

#9 This is the text of a Michael Yon email this morning:

"This weekend we lost eight more soldiers in a firefight. I learned about it while they were still fighting, but did not report the attack until just before the media broke the story the next day. Still unreported, to my knowledge, sources tell me that FOB Keating was destroyed and that troops were under siege for up to 24 hours before Air Force Pararescue got them out. (Subject to confirmation.)

The fighting will only intensify. We can beat these guys, but not under current conditions. We need more troops and more gear now. The enemy has massive home field advantages and we have not offset those advantages."
Posted by Matt 2009-10-05 11:14||   2009-10-05 11:14|| Front Page Top

#10 So Obama arranged to meet with McChrystal in Copenhagen not to discuss the situation in Afghanistan but to complain about the General's speech.

This, like nothing else, shows you where our troops lie in Obama's priorities. This also put the 8 deaths we suffered on the Paki border in perspective.

They died so Obama could make his pitch to the IOC.
Posted by Frozen Al 2009-10-05 11:21||   2009-10-05 11:21|| Front Page Top

#11 A. Current line up in the admin, per an article in I think it was the CSM, is as follows

Supporting troop increase McCrystal, Petraues, Mullen, Hillary Clinton, and Richard Holbrooke

Supporting drawdown and shift away from COIN. Biden

Opposing troop increase (but not necessarily shift from COIN) Jim Jones

Unclear - Bob Gates.

2. If Obama IS going to go with a troop increase, he still is going to beat down McCrystal to some degree. Biden has to be screaming for that.

3. It is possible to split the difference. They could do a smaller increase. They could delay the rest of the increase till the election situation in Afghanistan is resolved.
Posted by liberalhawk 2009-10-05 11:23||   2009-10-05 11:23|| Front Page Top

#12 Missing from that list: Axelrod, Jarret and Emmanuel. And don't think they aren't involved and against further troop increases.
Posted by One Eyed Sheting1191 2009-10-05 11:27||   2009-10-05 11:27|| Front Page Top

#13 Axelrod is clearly involved, and Emmanuel (I am not sure about Jarratt).

Clearly though, if all the For pol and defense types say that things are going to collapse in Afghanistan without a troop increase, and that the counter terror strat wont be tenable, etc that in itself would sway Axelrod and Emmanuel, who surely realize that would harm the administration.

The key therefore, is Jones and possibly Gates opposing the "surge" - and the extent to which Obama accepts their arguements.

I think the key arguements now are not military, but about south asian politics. Jones and Biden are going to go on about how a troop increase now ties you to Kharzai. Clinton and Holbrooke are going to focus on how withdrawl shifts the political situation in Pakistan to the worse.

I am guessing Gates will suggest a splitting of the diff - get in position to move troops, but don't commit to it till the afghan election situation is resolved.
Posted by liberalhawk 2009-10-05 11:36||   2009-10-05 11:36|| Front Page Top

#14 House liberals float bill to bar 'surge' of troops for Afghanistan war

Nearly two dozen House liberals have signed onto a bill introduced this past week that would prohibit an increase of troops in Afghanistan.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/61543-house-liberals-float-bill-to-bar-surge-for-afghanistan#
Posted by Woozle Uneter9007 2009-10-05 11:47||   2009-10-05 11:47|| Front Page Top

#15 You get to a reasonalbe conclusion, but you err on the way

I think the key arguements now are not military, but about south asian politics.

It's all about Obama with this gang. Just like the Olympics. I think the arguments are about Obama and his chances of getting re-elected. That's why the Chicago mafia is so important in the decision. He's in an LBJ replay, knows he can't win the war but doesn't want to look like a wuss by bailing. So much so that I wouldn't be surprised to hear about him talking to Petraeus on the cell phone while he's taking a whizz.
Posted by One Eyed Sheting1191 2009-10-05 11:49||   2009-10-05 11:49|| Front Page Top

#16 And the reason Gates will prevail is that his argument allows Obama to postpone the real decision.
Posted by One Eyed Sheting1191 2009-10-05 11:50||   2009-10-05 11:50|| Front Page Top

#17 The dems survived bailing on Viet Nam. They'll survive bailing on Afghanistan.
They eat this stuff up.
Posted by Richard Aubrey">Richard Aubrey  2009-10-05 11:55||   2009-10-05 11:55|| Front Page Top

#18 Confer: MacArthur vs. Truman. Who was right versus who won not necessarily the same.
Posted by borgboy 2009-10-05 12:05||   2009-10-05 12:05|| Front Page Top

#19 The next day he was summoned to an awkward 25-minute face-to-face meeting on board Air Force One

I had given The One credit that he was somewhat interested in what McChrystal had to say, and was just belated in calling a meeting to hear it.

Obviously I was wrong.

With all due respect to pond scum, The One has achieved the impossible by concerning himself more with his own personal image and fortune and less with the lives of those he supposedly wakes up thinking about how to protect.
Posted by gorb 2009-10-05 12:06||   2009-10-05 12:06|| Front Page Top

#20 One eyed - i'm sorry, pols taking elections into account just doesnt shock me.

And the delay option it only allows him to delay a few weeks, the afghan run off thing has to be resolved pretty soon.
Posted by liberalhawk 2009-10-05 12:08||   2009-10-05 12:08|| Front Page Top

#21 And Afghanistan, like Vietnam, could be won handily if the pols get the fuc& out of the way.
Posted by gorb 2009-10-05 12:11||   2009-10-05 12:11|| Front Page Top

#22 No doubt it's all politics for Obama's White House. Just as it was for the previous 42 occupants (I think George Washington's white house didn't do politics all the time, but he would have been the only one).

That said, Obama has to decide whether to double-down on Afghanistan or pull out. No halfway measures will work; deciding to stay without increasing resources just means he'll have this millstone around his neck in 2010 and 2012. So he either does a Bush and gives McChrystal what he says he needs, and then holds him and the military accountable, or he decides that we've degraded al-Qaeda enough and thus we should pull out.

Those are the two political arguments. The former keeps us there and allows us, if we're really lucky and smart, to degrade the Taliban sufficiently to let a national government (thin veneer that it is) to survive. The latter returns Afghanistan to the civil wars it had between the time the Russians left and the time we arrived. Most Americans wouldn't care.

I don't see a viable third political stance here but I may be missing something.
Posted by Steve White 2009-10-05 12:21||   2009-10-05 12:21|| Front Page Top

#23 The weasel has never stopped campaigning. He'll tell McChrystal to make do with what he has and STFU about it because if he (weasel-in-chief) can get enough of our troops slaughtered, he'll garner even more support for the pull-out from the home front. He's already getting plenty of help from the liberal media and that will only increase.

That's about the long and short of it.
Posted by Woozle Uneter9007 2009-10-05 12:26||   2009-10-05 12:26|| Front Page Top

#24 Have to understand that with Obumble its all about IMAGE. And what is best for Obama, then his family, then his cronies.

What's best for America probably comes in around 87th in line.

Its obvious that Bumble didn't confer with McChrystal about what is happening in Afghanistan or what to do - but about the general tarnishing (or challenging) Bumble's IMAGE. Comment #1 is right on! The fact that Bumble would spend a number of days pimping for Chicago Olympics and only about 25 mins (if that) on an actual war speaks volumes.

If Afghanistan becomes another Vietnam pullout is what Bumble would see as a win-win situation. He might be able to blame Bush (if he's quick) and he would show that America is weak.

Reminds me of one of my kid's VeggieTales stories about 'King George' who was more interested in getting his neighbor's Ducky than leading his people in the great pie war.....
Posted by CrazyFool 2009-10-05 12:56||   2009-10-05 12:56|| Front Page Top

#25 What happens if Obumble (I like that one) either dithers on or says let's quit and Hillary, Holebrooke, McChrystal and Petraeus resign in protest? Especially if Hillary starts challenging Zero on most every front?
Posted by AlanC">AlanC  2009-10-05 13:03||   2009-10-05 13:03|| Front Page Top

#26 I don't see a viable third political stance here but I may be missing something

You missing that Obama doesn't live in the same World as the rest of us.
Posted by g(r)omgoru 2009-10-05 14:22||   2009-10-05 14:22|| Front Page Top

#27 Too bad Obama doesn't get as pissed about dead soldiers as he does McCrystal not covering his rear-end.
Posted by Chandler 2009-10-05 14:31|| http://www.chandlerswatch.com/]">[http://www.chandlerswatch.com/]  2009-10-05 14:31|| Front Page Top

#28 SW - nothing in between. Thats what McCrystal basically said in his paper, I understand that. Though even there - does he really believe things will collapse, 100% guaranteed, if he gets an increase of 40,000 instead of 41,000? Or if Obama commits to 20,000 now, and holds off on commiting the next tranch for a few months?

Anyway, its pretty clear to me Jim Jones doesn't buy that it continuing with the curreent force level (which is new to begin with, lets not forget) is nonviable. Now personally, I lean towards McCrystal's position, but I don't think we can write off anyone in the admin looking to keep the 68,000 force level as simply being political.

Was Rummy and about the 3/4 of the military establishment only being political when they opposed the surge in Iraq? Or were they taking a position that made sense to them, militarily, even they ultimately were proven wrong?

And again, while I would sympathize with McCrystal were he to resign after being turned down for the force increase - to be selected as the admins new guy, and then have them second guess his military judgement, would be humiliating - I can also share the deep reluctance to commit to doubling down while the afghan election is in play, thus removing the principle source of leverage we have with Kharzai.

And that third stance is viable politically, at least in the short run. The polls who most voters reluctant to commit more troops, but also reluctant to pull out. Of course the voters also want lower US casualties and success. (Kinda how they want more services and lower taxes and lower deficits) So again, it gets not to what the polls say, but what admin thinks the outcome of each path is, and there is debate on that.
Posted by liberalhawk 2009-10-05 14:34||   2009-10-05 14:34|| Front Page Top

#29 "President" OBumble has already lost the re-election. He's shown that he's an empty suit, more interested in RULING than GOVERNING - and incapable of either. Even many Democrats see him as a losing situation, and want him out as soon as possible. Expect that number to increase if he bails on Afghanistan. While the "base" of the Democratic party - the far left - will applaud, the rest of the nation will see it as another in a long line of Obumble losses. Americans don't like losing, and will place the blame squarely where they see it - on Obumble himself. Jay Leno could run for president and out-poll Obumble - even with a David Letterman-like expose on Leno's pimping staff. If Barry continues his "winning" ways, the 2010 election may be all about impeachment.
Posted by Old Patriot">Old Patriot  2009-10-05 14:47|| http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]">[http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]  2009-10-05 14:47|| Front Page Top

#30 It will depend on the economy. There's a reason any healthcare plan that passes won't kick in until 2013.
Posted by Woozle Uneter9007 2009-10-05 15:00||   2009-10-05 15:00|| Front Page Top

#31 An administration chock full of Master Debaters.
Posted by swksvolFF 2009-10-05 15:00||   2009-10-05 15:00|| Front Page Top

#32 Does anyone actually believe that Obama wants to "win" the war in Afghanistan? All he wants to do is manage it so it won't hurt his party's election outlook in 2010 and his re-election 2012. As for McCrystal, he shouldn't have done that, plain and simple. Although I imagine that he had good reason to do it, and I respect that. My gut tells me he's confident the situation is going to deteriorate and probably reasonably sure that he will be hung out to dry by Obama. I think there is still room under the bus. General is as much a political postion as a military one, he's probably doing what he thinks best to deal with the situation, while at the same time doing a little CYA.
Posted by AllahHateMe 2009-10-05 15:22||   2009-10-05 15:22|| Front Page Top

#33 Sadly, both Obama and McCrystal have made their position difficult.

McC - If he does not get at least 75% or so of the additional forces he is asking for he will have to either admit he is not implementing the strategy he thought he was working on or he will have to resign.

Obama - All those 'we have to win in Afghanistan' comments will have to somehow be finessed unless he agrees to approve the resources. And if he does agree to approve the resources, his base will be furious at him.
Posted by mhw 2009-10-05 15:37||   2009-10-05 15:37|| Front Page Top

#34 Zero doesn't get furious when 8 American soldiers die. He gets furious when someone with credibility criticizes him.
Posted by Maggie Ebbuter2991 2009-10-05 16:10||   2009-10-05 16:10|| Front Page Top

#35 "Even many Democrats see him as a losing situation, and want him out as soon as possible. "

Really? who are these people? I dont know of any. Are they like the masses of disaffected Dems who were going to put McCain over the top in 2008? I know folks, mainly on the left, who are disappointed Obama isnt the messiah. They were BOUND to be disappointed. And even they arent talking about running anyone in opposition in the 2012 primaries.
Posted by liberalhawk 2009-10-05 16:41||   2009-10-05 16:41|| Front Page Top

#36 If he does not get at least 75% or so of the additional forces he is asking for he will have to either admit he is not implementing the strategy he thought he was working on or he will have to resign.

Im not sure 75% is a magic number. And again, how fast could we feed troops in even all 100% were authorized? That opens up options like sending in some, and putting in a condition or trigger on others.

Obama - All those 'we have to win in Afghanistan' comments will have to somehow be finessed unless he agrees to approve the resources. And if he does agree to approve the resources, his base will be furious at him

Gibbs seemed to take withdrawl off the table today (unless they want to quibble that leaving a small number of troops isnt withdrawl). I think he can say adding 28,000 was fulfillment of his campaign promises, and now he wants to see how that works out and how the political situation in Kabul evolves before committing more.

Alternatively, if gets major concessions from Kharzai, he can use that to respond to the base. He can also hope that their anger about the war will be undercut by their satisfaction when major domestic legislation is signed.

And no, he is not in the political position of LBJ. Among other reasons, cause US casualties are still so low compared to VN, and we dont have conscription.
Posted by liberalhawk 2009-10-05 16:48||   2009-10-05 16:48|| Front Page Top

#37 He's in exactly LBJ's position. LBJ knew long before the casualties rose that he was in a quagmire. Look at the May 27, 1964 phone call With Richard Russell. Obama can't pull out but he doesn't have the guts to win. His party is going to turn on him before the next set of primaries and he's scared to death about re-election. It's starting to look a lot like the late 60s. Only this time the leftists are the establishment.
Posted by One Eyed Sheting1191 2009-10-05 17:02||   2009-10-05 17:02|| Front Page Top

#38 its three years before the election. That would translate into fall 1965.

IN 1965 there were 1800 US combat deaths in VN. So far in Afghanistan, we have about 800 deaths in the entire 8 years since 2001. at current rates we are unlikely have another 200 by the end of calendar 2009.

We had 6000 combat deaths in VN in 1966. Does anyone seriously expect that casualty rate in afgyhanistan in 2010, under any conceivable scenario?

And again, we have an all volunteer army. The factors that made VN so big, bigger than the Great Society in the politics of 1967 and 1968, do not now obtain, and are very unlikely to.
Posted by liberalhawk 2009-10-05 17:23||   2009-10-05 17:23|| Front Page Top

#39 Gen. McChrystal is fighting two wars, one in Afghanistan and one at home.

I recall when Gen. Petraeus came to Washington to testify before Congress and received a hostile welcome before the donks in Congress. I recall that some of the wingnut groups called him Gen. Betrayus. No reason to believe that this crowd in DC or the fringe groups have changed much except this is their war now.

We have a very green civilian Commander in Chief with a lot of ego. We have ROE that limit our soldiers in the field. We don't seem to have a coherent strategy for victory as a policy that embraces a holding action.
Posted by JohnQC 2009-10-05 17:34||   2009-10-05 17:34|| Front Page Top

#40 We don't seem to have a coherent strategy for victory as much as a policy that embraces a holding action in Afghanistan. We have a policy of letting the Pakis handle things in Pakistan.
Posted by JohnQC 2009-10-05 17:36||   2009-10-05 17:36|| Front Page Top

#41 All the US Mil needs to get its job done is an objective and means. Obama has yet to officially announce what the objective is. Until he does, the soldiers in Afghanistan are wandering through a live fire zone somewhere between point A and a yet to be determined point B.

Tell them where they gotta go so they can get home, Mr. President.
Posted by Mike N. 2009-10-05 18:07||   2009-10-05 18:07|| Front Page Top

#42 Unfortunately that would require OBumble to make an actual decision. And which objective most benefits OBumble is, as yet, unclear......
Posted by CrazyFool 2009-10-05 18:38||   2009-10-05 18:38|| Front Page Top

#43 Obama doesn't give a rat's ass about the Afghan theater, our troops, our allies or the Afghans. This is McChrystal clear. As suggested earlier, he will provide a troop increase that will just barely cover his ass and nothing more. He has not interest in winning in Afghan. That only serves to bolster G-Dub's original argument. With the liberal/media complex running interference for him, he'll lose in Afghan and blame it on Boosh.

Posted by Rex Mundi 2009-10-05 20:16||   2009-10-05 20:16|| Front Page Top

#44 And again, we have an all volunteer army.

and they enlisted under a Republican President that hey believed would back them. Be interesting to see the enlistment rates, even in this down economy, under your Liberal "hawk" Preznit.
Posted by Frank G">Frank G  2009-10-05 20:53||   2009-10-05 20:53|| Front Page Top

#45 I checked in August. Re-ups are high, but it's due to the economy.
Posted by Woozle Uneter9007 2009-10-05 21:08||   2009-10-05 21:08|| Front Page Top

#46 50% unemployment among 16-24 yr olds will do that....
Posted by Frank G">Frank G  2009-10-05 21:13||   2009-10-05 21:13|| Front Page Top

#47 McC - If he does not get at least 75% or so of the additional forces he is asking for he will have to either admit he is not implementing the strategy he thought he was working on or he will have to resign.

At this point, I'm not sure he'll get 75%, lh. I'm not even sure he'll get 50%.

Obama - All those 'we have to win in Afghanistan' comments will have to somehow be finessed unless he agrees to approve the resources. And if he does agree to approve the resources, his base will be furious at him.

To re-use a quote by David Broder: "But the task of getting there will really test him -- and expose his core values."
Posted by Pappy 2009-10-05 21:26||   2009-10-05 21:26|| Front Page Top

#48 Liberalhawk
Its time to have a debate in this country about everything. I am fed up with political parties.
Perhaps we should outlaw them?

Lots of people would agree with me.

I think the average Joe on the street - would do a better job than any of the pols or experts at anything.

All they are is leaches.

Lets have a debate.
Posted by 3dc 2009-10-05 21:51||   2009-10-05 21:51|| Front Page Top

23:44 Cornsilk Blondie
23:40 Cornsilk Blondie
23:39 Cornsilk Blondie
23:26 Procopius2k
23:13 Old Patriot
23:08 Old Patriot
22:55 JohnQC
22:46 Old Patriot
22:39 Old Patriot
22:09 gorb
21:56 Whiskey Mike
21:51 3dc
21:37 girlthursday
21:31 Pappy
21:26 Pappy
21:13 Frank G
21:12 Frank G
21:08 Woozle Uneter9007
21:08 Pappy
20:53 Frank G
20:21 phil_b
20:16 Rex Mundi
20:06 JosephMendiola
20:03 JosephMendiola









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com