I bet if you asked General Stanley McChyrstal, if that has ever been his experience, in his Military Career, he might answer in the Affirmative GRIN. If it moves the President of the dime, regarding National Security re, the Afghan Campaign, isn’t it worth an ass chewing? Besides you know how tough those General’s backsides are, they are like well worn leather LOL!

‘Code Pink‘ rethinks its call for Afghanistan pullout
In Afghanistan, the US women’s activist group finds that their Afghan counterparts want US troop presence – as well as more reconstruction.

I hear the National Enquirer is looking for some good reporters…..”sources say” they pay pretty well….

greataunty on October 6, 2009 at 9:52 AM

The Enquirer sure got the reportage on John Edwards right, didn’t they?????

I’m just saying…

The general did not say anything to disrespect anyone in his speech discussing Afghanistan. Obama’s people leaked the report to the press themselves. The general already had his London speaking engagement that Obama knew of without objection.

My point remains: Gen. McChrystal is the NATO Commander in Afghanistan, not merely Obama’s General. Obama does not have the authority to demand the NATO Commander not to conference with his NATO forces.

Obama would use this opportunity not only to ruin McChrystal’s career (Obama selected McChrystal in order to force him out of the way before Obama retreats from Afghanistan) but also Obama is using this opportunity TO RUIN the US NATO ALLIANCE.

White House: Obama will make up own mind on Afghan

The White House said Tuesday that President Barack Obama considers it “tremendously important” to listen to Congress about the flagging war in Afghanistan but won’t base his decisions on the mood on Capitol Hill or eroding public support for the war.

“The president is going to make a decision — popular or unpopular — based on what he thinks is in the best interests of the country,” press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters.
ANNE GEARAN, AP

America should’ve listened to John McCain.

The WH is already in a noose and it was not caused by the General speaking out. The WH set itself up by declaring war strategy in a political campaign.

However useful this is to get elected, such strategy ends election day. Citizens care more about their own physical safety than political high fives

entagor on October 6, 2009 at 12:48 PM

The WH is shooting itself in the foot. By jumping on the General the public takes notice and might even read his remarks. The General appears to be moderate for one leading a war. His comments would have been an opportunity for a skilled politician

It looks infantile to lead a charge against your own General. He is removable if he is that bad

My prayers go out for the soldiers in Afghanistan and for their loved ones.
tartan on October 5, 2009 at 11:17 PM

I was listening to hannity about a week ago and a lot of miltary parents/spouses were calling in. I don’t remember ever hearing so much emotion and pent up rage on talk radio in the last 20 years. … I don’t think team ozero really understands what is happening…
bullseye on October 5, 2009 at 11:24 PM

This is sad. And I can see why they are worried. Clearly there is a communication failure between Obama and the Generals. Obama needs to rely on his “political skills” or whatever such thing he claims to have and deal with this situation much more appropriately.

No, they target McChrystal and the Report. That proves they have no intention of observing his report, and no intention of supporting their field commander, and our troops in Afghanistan. They have their own agenda, and to hell with the USA and the free world. Marx goes marching on, enabling al Qaeda and the Taliban, at peace with their religion of peace, at war with all that reflects the virtues of Western Civilization.

Following Afghani 30-years of war, catch the points surrounding McChrystal reference regarding Afghan’s 2001 high expectations for hope and change that were unrealistic, to be dashed by the insurgency that grew as NATO receded and then lagged behind. More than ever, PERCEPTION MATTERS. Afghans cast their lot practically, where indicators prove. Their tribes never divide within. And each locale has its own truths, and those truths that historically were predictable are no longer traditionally viable. Afghanistan is a terribly complex mosaic of volatile relativity. The deterioration still occurring is based upon fear and violence.

Exactly how does an overview of the situation now in Afghanistan threaten this administration?

The Gates/Obama criticism of McChrystal references the important chain of command, emphasizing the ultimate CITIZEN COMMITMENT to whatever national effort/decision. Hence, if indeed Obama is to represent the “will of the people” then the people should indeed listen to McChrystal’s London address.

My original criticism of Obama ordering McChrystal to STFU still stands; McChrystal is the NATO Commander in Afghanistan and has the obligation to keep NATO members informed, not just the POTUS.

GREAT LINK! thanks

let’s take a look at their sources;
First,
“According to sources close to the administration”
wow, those “sources” are CLOSE!
Then,
“An adviser to the administration said”

holy cripes, they talked to “an advisor” !

Finally,
“A military expert said: “They still have working relationship but all in all it’s not great for now.”

There it is then, they got “a military expert” to confirm the story.

Great work Ed !
I hear the National Enquirer is looking for some good reporters…..”sources say” they pay pretty well….

Update: Jazz Shaw argues

lol, “moderate” voice, JUST another brown noser sniveling for MSM commendation.

gordo on October 6, 2009 at 8:50 AM

Obama just can’t stand being around a real man. That’s why he can’t bear talking to him.

Commentators who say Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, is pressuring the White House to accept his ideas or else didn’t pay close attention to his remarks last week in London.

“I’m certainly not going to circumvent any political leadership, because at the end of the day the political leadership are the people who I work for, and I’m proud to do that,” McChrystal told the International Institute for Strategic Studies last Thursday. Once a decision on troop levels is made, he said, he will carry it out.

http://www.iiss.org/recent-key-addresses/general-stanley-mcchrystal-address/watch-the-address/

Graduated from West Point in 1976 and began training at the Special Forces School at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, two years later.

• Moved to South Korea in 1981 to work for the U.N. Command Support Group.

• During the Persian Gulf War, served as an Army briefer and commanded the 75th Ranger Regiment in Saudi Arabia.

• Completed yearlong fellowships at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government in 1998 and in 2000 at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York City, where he reportedly ran 12 miles every day from his Brooklyn home to his Manhattan office.

• In 2001, was appointed chief of staff of military operations in Afghanistan. Two years later, he was selected to deliver nationally televised Pentagon briefings about military operations in Iraq.

• From 2003 to 2008, led the Pentagon’s Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), which oversees the military’s most sensitive forces, including the Army’s Delta Force. McChrystal’s leadership is credited with the December 2003 capture of Saddam Hussein.

• Oversaw a task force that was criticized in 2006 for abusing detainees and harsh interrogation methods at Baghdad’s Camp Nama.

• Praised (and inadvertently outed as a commander) by President George W. Bush in June 2006 after his special-ops team located and killed Abu Mousab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq. McChrystal reportedly accompanied his men to the bombed-out hideaway in Baquba where al-Zarqawi lay to help identify the body.

• As commander of special-operations forces in Iraq, he sent troops returning to the theater back to their original neighborhoods — a system he has suggested for general infantry soldiers in Afghanistan as head of a recent task-force review.

http://www.veteranoutrage.com

I want it to be known that while i studied a lot
of military history (in the order of over 300 books)
that i personally read i am not an official military
hstorian and i do not possess any advaned degree.

While i served in the US army i was never in combat
i was a 63b (wheeled vehicle and power generator mechanic)
during peacetime only.

I came in to the service right after vietnam ended.

Now i wish to go back in time to vietnam and compare
the strategy looking at both the military and political
straqtegy at the time and compare it to todays climate.

The military strategy there was simple.
Without enough manpower to engulf the
entire country in order to deny access to the north vietnamese,
the us choose instead to train and bolster the south vietnamese
army.

This would increase available manpower
and by using forward firebases located at key areas
they would contol key routes thus achiving the same goal.

A side effect of this strategy was the idea of bait hold and
release where the military would lure the enemy into a fire zone
kill them and then move to another area (the dreaded body count)
statistics.

This didnt work for three reasons, but the key reason was
the enemy (the communists) using the us media and some
members of congress convinced the american people
that the war wasnt worth fighting.

This is right from the books by both carl von clausewitz and
Sun Tzu and some might argue Antoine-Henri Jomini as well.

War is really defined as the use of force to break the enemies
will to resist. It is also defined as politics by other means,
meaning the use of military force to bring about political change.

Now remember the definition (to break the enemies will to resist)
in this case vietnam first and iraq and afghanistan
We the free west are the enemy not the other way around.

In military stategy you must both control and hold key access
routes and deny such access to the enemy.

You also must not allow the enemy to escape into a safe area
to re-arm, heal their wounded, gather inteligence or to
plan new attacks no you must break the enemies will to resist.

Now encirclement of the enemy usually resulting in captured
enemy soldiers usually is a good indicator of sucess, not
the body counts of vietnam.

In vietnam it is well documented that certain us senators
hollywood actors and democrat liberal elitists activly
helped the enemy (meaning the communists) win the war.

They did this by following a three step 2 phase
plan to undermine the war and ensure the usa was defeated.

This involved the news media, politicians and communist
activists on the main streets of the USA.

The plan was to

A. increase us troop casualties specifically
B. provide news coverage of U.S GI’S dead or wounded
C. convince americans that the war was unwinable

The final plan was to

D. Pull out all us troops
E. Promise to provide funding
F. find a reason to pull the funding

thus handing over an entire country
to a viscious and deadly enemy.

This is exactly what the democrats
liberals and hollywood actors did 30 years
ago in vietnam.

And now in 2009 we again see the following
steps being prepared again.

consider this very carefully.
Obama and the democrats were handed a realtivly
peaceful iraq and all they had to do was to hold on
and not do anything stupid for 24 months.

Same thing in afghanistan all they had to do was to
show some resolve and strength and they would win.

But in less than 9 months the situation has gone from
we almost won 2 wars to we may very well loose 2 wars.
And in the democrats eyes the best part is
they will blame Former president George Bush for the
more than 2 million dead in each country after
they force a withdrawl..

This is nothing short of organized mass murder and treason.

Here is the plan again with notes updated for 2009

The plan was to

A. increase us troop casualties specifically
Obama has done this by begging the muslim countries
for forgiveness for our so called sins.

B. provide news coverage of U.S GI’S dead or wounded
Democrats working with both the islamic terrorists
and the news media are providing 24 hour a day
pro islamic terrorist coverage.

C. convince americans that the war was unwinable
This is a no brainer as all the news networks
each day had a daily body count of US DEAD
The news media only showed the Islamic scumbags
as great fredom fighter while on our own
congress floor our own senators called our own maries
baby killers, raists and murders.

This is TREASON – working for our enemies
and was committed on the floor of our own congress
by our own senate and house of representatives.
The final plan was to

D. Pull out all us troops
Hell obama and the democrats have al but stated
they are pulling out of iraq in 12 months.
and in afghanistan they cant Yet do this
so obama and biden floated the idea of
using drones to replace men on the ground.
Remember vietnam (here ya go)..

E. Promise to provide funding
Sure just like in vietnam right
There is already talk of using the entire
defense budjet to give all the illegal mexicans
free obama care for life..
I can very easily see the democrats stating
we dont have the money to protect the afghans
let them pay for it
vietnam redux anyone?

F. find a reason to pull the funding
Oh thats the easy part just claim
suddendly that the muslims we were supposed
to protect violated the womens right clause
and volla – problem solved.

The issue is this

Each time we nearly won a war in the last 40 years
the democrats WORKING for our enemies
turned the tide against our own troops.

The end result was

In cuba the democrats pulled out or more correctly
broke their promise.
Result: thousands dead.

In vietnam the democrats again pulled out
Result: 2 million dead.

In cambodia the democrats turned the other way
while the genocidal pol pot killed and butchered
Result: 2 million – some estimates say 20% of the entire
population murdered

In rawanda bill clinton turned a deaf ear and didnt lift
a finger neither did the democrats.
Result: almost 1 million dead in a month.

Now in iraq and afghanistan
the democrats in congress and the house
and all of hollywood and the news media
are again going to abandon both
countries and our soldiers who payed
such a heavy price defending their right to freedom.

I now wonder if the democrats are the enemy.
I now wonder if the democrats are working for the terrorists.
I now wonder if the democrats are even americans.

Because they are poised to betray another two nations
and an estimated 4 million will die.

Unless we stand up and stop them
by all means necessary..

It is plain to me that after 40 years
the democrats, liberals and hollywood and the news media
are not americans but are working for the enemies of
the United States of America and your family and mine.