More Pelosi: McChrystal needs to stop giving speeches; Petraeus: Afghanistan needs “substantial” commitment

posted at 6:54 pm on October 6, 2009 by Allahpundit

For once, she has a point. Sort of.

“Let me say this about about General McChrystal, with all due respect,” Pelosi said, according to a transcript sent my way by a Pelosi aide. “His recommendations to the president should go up the line of command. They shouldn’t be in press conferences.”

McChrystal warned in a speech last week that pursuing a narrower mission in Afghanistan than the one he outlined in a recent assessment envisioning a broad counterinsurgency strategy would be “shortsighted.”

In the interview last night, Pelosi hit McChrystal for his public declaration. “I think that that’s not where this debate takes place,” she said. “The president gets the recommendations of the military.”

McChrystal’s speech wasn’t nearly as tough as his critics pretend, but even so, surely he realizes that by speaking out he’s creating political pressure on the commander-in-chief. The public’s more apt to trust a field commander’s assessment of troop levels than the far-flung D.C. bureaucracy’s in the first place, but combine that with the fact that The One, as a liberal Democrat, bears the burden of being presumed weak in military matters and McChrystal is throwing around a lot of weight here — which isn’t something a commanding officer should have to deal with from a subordinate. But if the answer is for him to kindly shut his mouth, how to address this incisive pushback from William Galston at TNR?

McChrystal is offering his professional judgment well in advance of a presidential decision. Yes, he’s doing it in public, but that’s something that small-“d” democrats should welcome. Combined with the leaking of his report, his London speech has triggered a public debate that is much more robust and better informed than it would otherwise have been.

Jones suggested that military advice should “come up through the chain of command,” while Gates chastised that it is “imperative” that military and civilian leaders “provide our best advice to the president candidly but privately.” How quickly we forget: That was the rationale used to muzzle General Eric Shinseki during the run up to the Iraq war. Wouldn’t we have been better off to have had a no-holds-barred debate involving senior military officials prior to the invasion about the number of troops it would take to stabilize Iraq after the invasion? Wouldn’t we have had the kind of public discussion that the American people deserved but did not get?

How do you protect the president’s prerogative as commander-in-chief while minimizing the risk that ideological/electoral considerations in the White House will trump valid military concerns? To some extent it’s a problem built into civilian control of the military, since you’ve got a political person atop the chain of command, but it’ll never be taken lightly again after Shinseki. One compromise solution is to give dissenting generals a public forum by having them testify before Congress about strategy, but that raises worries about separation of powers and has politicized clusterfark potential if Congress is controlled by the opposing party and is trying to use the dissenters to undercut the president.

No good answers. While you try to come up with one, here’s a double whammy of conservative grassroots all-stars: Liz Cheney defending McChrystal on “Morning Joe,” even in the teeth of Shinseki-related objections from Mike Barnicle, and Sarahcuda urging The One to stay the course on Facebook.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Update: America’s superstar general is more coy than McChrystal was by refusing to define his terms, but he knows how these comments will be interpreted. More military weight thrown at The One:

Gen. David Petraeus, the head of the U.S. Central Command, said that the situation in Afghanistan needs “sustained and substantial” commitment.

His statements echoed the assessment made by the senior U.S. general in Afghanistan, Stanley McChrystal.

However, Petraeus, in his comments Tuesday to a convention of the Association of the United States Army (AUSA), refused to detail what a substantial commitment means and whether it would translate to sending more troops into Afghanistan.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Like advice from a drain-circler like Pelosi well on her way to losing her Speakership due to incompetent leadership means squat.

Christien on October 6, 2009 at 7:40 PM

Double whammy,the cuda and Liz:):):)Sweet!

ohiobabe on October 6, 2009 at 7:40 PM

if you haven’t seen drudge in the past few, check it.

ted c on October 6, 2009 at 7:34 PM
Good post! Did you also catch that the White House Counsel Craig is also leaving over Gitmo!!! Before this four years is up the line to leave will be long. Isn’t it great that the adults (Bambi and Biden) are in charge.

Dire Straits on October 6, 2009 at 7:40 PM

Is that really the best you have? Really?

AsianGirlInTights on October 6, 2009 at 7:38 PM

Gee, such eloquent rebuttal…

About the only major difference combat-wise is that we’ve refrained from creating any new Mei Lei-type massacres…but only by becoming the military equivalent of Mr.Rodgers. <|-{

Dark-Star on October 6, 2009 at 7:42 PM

Is that because it’s longer than Vietnam?

Spathi on October 6, 2009 at 7:30 PM
Is that really the best you have? Really?

AsianGirlInTights on October 6, 2009 at 7:38 PM

Don’t bother, Tights. SPATHI HATES THE MILITARY!
BTW, how many pairs of tights do you have?

HornetSting on October 6, 2009 at 7:43 PM

We need more Liz Cheney’s in the GOP. She speaks with confidence, knows her facts, and doesn’t shy away from confrontation.

That is awesomeness….straight up!

smartsy on October 6, 2009 at 7:43 PM

One day, I hope to see Liz behind this desk. (Provided a HazMat team decontaminated it on 01/21/2001, natch)

Knott Buyinit on October 6, 2009 at 7:47 PM

The military brass has been screaming for years that they need more of a commitment to the AfPak theater. The shear stupidity of this whole situation is that it has been Democrats that have been championing such assessments over the past 4 years while it still could yield them political results.

Now, not so much.

Just plain white-hot stupid.

spmat on October 6, 2009 at 7:47 PM

Pelosi does have a point. The MSM is remaining silent as Obama dithers. Why can’t the military? Who do they think they are, the defenders of the country?

Basilsbest on October 6, 2009 at 7:48 PM

Dire Straits on October 6, 2009 at 7:40 PM

hey, i saw the Craig headline and checked the article. I didn’t see in the article where it indicated that Craig was actually headed for the dark side of the bus…? Is he really gettin’ ready to go bump bump?

ted c on October 6, 2009 at 7:48 PM

The nation is on the verge of following military advice from Joe Biden.

Obviously, such a desperate time justifies taking whatever drastic action is required.

Of course, I’m joking. It just so happens I’m also dead serious.

tom on October 6, 2009 at 7:48 PM

hey, i saw the Craig headline and checked the article. I didn’t see in the article where it indicated that Craig was actually headed for the dark side of the bus…? Is he really gettin’ ready to go bump bump?

ted c on October 6, 2009 at 7:48 PM

There was earlier speculation that he would get an ambassadorship.

ICBM on October 6, 2009 at 7:50 PM

Do you remember Gen John Shinseki? Do you remember Gen John Shinseki?

Barnicle is an idiot.

Pablo on October 6, 2009 at 7:50 PM

McChrystal hasn’t committed insubordination. Neither Biden nor Pelosi is in his chain of command. He hasn’t criticized the CINC, only some half-baked statements by a quarter-baked VP who doesn’t seem to have all that much respect from the President.

Apparently, Pelosi doesn’t really place much value on candidness from military leaders.

flataffect on October 6, 2009 at 7:51 PM

Just plain white-hot stupid.

Hardly. It was just talk, but talk that fooled a lot of people and got them in power. Which is all that matters to Democrats.

Basilsbest on October 6, 2009 at 7:52 PM

Now, had McChrystal been going outside the chain of command to report the maltreatment of gays, then he’d be a hero. Since that wasn’t the case, well, sit down General….
—and call me Madam Speaker, I think i’ve earned it.

ted c on October 6, 2009 at 7:30 PM

No question on the gay point. Indeed, Mac would be lionized as a hero/whistle blower (no pun intended).

But, there’s no question he cleared all of his comments up the chain. That’s SOP at this level.

I think our generals and DOD are, quite properly, doing what they can do to honor their oaths.

TXUS on October 6, 2009 at 7:52 PM

We’re really screwed if McChrystal and Patraeus resign.

mimi1220 on October 6, 2009 at 7:09 PM
////
Our boys are…. while o twidles his thumbs and does freaking photo ops.

ohiobabe on October 6, 2009 at 7:53 PM

She’s a walking zombie. I really want to see her medical records.

SouthernGent on October 6, 2009 at 7:54 PM

The One, as a liberal Democrat, bears the burden of being presumed weak in military matters and McChrystal is throwing around a lot of weight here — which isn’t something a commanding officer should have to deal with from a subordinate.

It’s not exactly a officer/subordinate relationship. Yes, Obama gets to make the decisions, but he doesn’t know more or have more experience than his “subordinate.”

If the politician is making military decisions based on politics and the military commander thinks those decisions are going to lead to disaster, what should he do?

Does his loyalty to Obama override his loyalty to his country? Or his men?

Haven’t read the comments, but surely one of you people who are serving/have served have an opinion on this.

misterpeasea on October 6, 2009 at 7:55 PM

Gee, if it’s supposed to go up the chain of command, what’s the meaning of that Senate hearing where “Gen. Betrayus” was grilled incessantly?

If the Generals can speak to the Senate or to the House, surely they can speak to the American people!

The most open and transparent Administration ever, and Pelosi would shut it down?

unclesmrgol on October 6, 2009 at 7:55 PM

Still not soup yet.

Pot needs to simmer a little longer. The anti-war left want to march in the street, perhaps face down some counter demonstrators. Set a few trash bins on fire, break a few windows so Dear Leader can solemnly announce that this issue is tearing the country apart and he’s bring our boys home.

Skandia Recluse on October 6, 2009 at 7:57 PM

She’s a walking zombie. I really want to see her medical burial records.

SouthernGent on October 6, 2009 at 7:54 PM

FIFY! Yea! +1?

AsianGirlInTights on October 6, 2009 at 7:57 PM

ICBM on October 6, 2009 at 7:50 PM

ted c on October 6, 2009 at 7:48 PM

I It is not looking good. Doubt he makes it till 5:00 Friday when they would like to do it.

Dire Straits on October 6, 2009 at 7:58 PM

Ok… lets keep this straight…

Obama SENT McChrystal to Afgan… and asked him for his reccomendations…

The Gen. made them, and the Pentagona and Whitehouse did not like them… so they sent it back for a rewrite… (remember the “don’t ask for more troops stuff”).

McChrystal stood by his origional report… and then asked the Whitehouse to make a decision… and Obama went to go sell the Olympics…

One of the WORST things you can do in the Military is dither… ie, not make a decision… you CAN’T vote PRESENT with the military.

So… it got leaked… now suddenly Obama is engaged… not because he wants to be, but due to public pressure. This leak, and speech, will FORCE Obama to make a choice… which is what the military REQUIRES.

Romeo13 on October 6, 2009 at 8:02 PM

Perhaps if Obama could spare a few minutes between dates with his wife, going to the UN and being humiliated by the IOC, McChrystal wouldn’t have to have policy debated in the media?

McChrystal did try to run a strategy up the chain, where it has sat on the CiC’s desk for almost two months.

Obama said Afghanistan was a war of necessity. McChrystal has told Obama what is needed to fight and win. All this talk of “stategy” and “reviews” is superfluous horsecrap from Obama’s acolytes to buy him more time to vote ‘present’.

catmman on October 6, 2009 at 8:02 PM

The Generals have a way of pressuring the president without going public; they can threaten to resign if they feel that the White House is not giving their opinions due weight, and then do so. Hell, they can even write a book afterward about the whole affair.

Dissent should go up the chain of command. But then, the Generals and the Military deserve no blame if political decisions made in the White House compromise the war effort.

Revenant on October 6, 2009 at 8:02 PM

At the risk of repeating others, I thought this report is what Obama asked him to do once he appointed him the theater commander after Obama gave him his vision on how he wanted to prosecute the war. I beleive once he finished the report and Gates new what was in it the WH asked them not to send it on, is that just something I heard/read that is BS?

bluemarlin on October 6, 2009 at 8:03 PM

But Nancy? We wouldn’t mind if you decided to take a first hand look at Afghanistan, and give your assessment of what’s needed. As a tax payer, I won’t gripe one bit about the cost to us, to send you to the front lines, so you can get a first hand look, and see for yourself, just what’s needed to be done, to make this a success for the U.S., as I’m sure that’s what you want too.

capejasmine on October 6, 2009 at 7:16 PM

+10

Great suggestion for Nancy: Go and see Afghanistan firsthand — and go in exactly the same fashion a brave conscientious warrior views it:

McChrystal’s Frank Talk on Afghanistan

Two or three times each week he [Gen. McChrystal] gets on a helicopter to see for himself.

“You can listen to every radio transmission, down to squad level, and you can watch from the Predator, you can see what’s going on. But you can’t kid yourself that you know what’s going on. But there’s a danger that you do, because you hear and you see it and you think ‘Okay, I know.’ But you’re not on the ground with that guy. You don’t feel it. You don’t hear the bullets. You just can’t make an assessment,” McChrystal told Martin while they flew above the Afghan countryside.

When he walks in public, he doesn’t wear a side arm or body armor.

“If we are visiting Afghans, typically the afghan governor, district or provincial governor, we see he doesn’t wear body armor, and yet we’re walking through his streets. I’m his guest. I think that that’s important that I send a message that I trust him and I don’t think I am more valuable than I think he is,” McChrystal explained.

ReagansRight on October 6, 2009 at 8:06 PM

So basically what we have here is President Obama voting “Present” on General McChrystal’s strategy.

Lovely. I’m so glad the adults are back in charge.

Mike Honcho on October 6, 2009 at 8:07 PM

Pelosi et al ought to keep in mind that all members of the military swear an oath to defend the Constitution, not to blindly take any and all orders from incompetent fools with extra-Constitutional goals. I would prefer a military coup Honduran style if it means stopping the spread of socialism.

DerKrieger on October 6, 2009 at 8:07 PM

Obama is an idiot. He is reviewing the strategy that he put into place himself. Not the General in charge is asking for the neccessary manpower in order to carry out his duties and he is being “put on hold”.

OBAMA! YOU CANNOT VOTE PRESENT ON THIS ONE!
GOT IT?!?!?!

ArmyAunt on October 6, 2009 at 8:08 PM

McChrystal’s speech wasn’t nearly as tough as his critics pretend, but even so, surely he realizes that by speaking out he’s creating political pressure on the commander-in-chief.

I’m a little disappointed that you’ve decided to fall for the Dems line that field commanders, like children should be seen but not heard in public. Ever consider the idea that this was not the first time McChrystal tried to engage the filthy lying coward in the White House. Ever consider the rat bastard traitor was more interested in vacations than dealing with the situation.

These facts remain:

1. The filthy lying coward has had the assessment since mid-August but has done nothing with it. He knew the request for more resources was forthcoming. He had all that time to do this strategy deliberation crap that his his latest stall tactic.

2. More importantly, troops are getting killed in Afghanistan. How many more lives lost are acceptable Allah before you admit the filthy lying coward should be doing something here? 100? 200? What’s your number?

3. What’s wrong with a little political debate on this issue anyway? The American public needs to be committed to those troops (minus the number you’d expend) and the strategy or they need to come home. We can learn from the lessons of Vietnam if we don’t hold the CINC’s policy as sacrosanct not to be questioned by field commanders.

highhopes on October 6, 2009 at 8:09 PM

I It is not looking good. Doubt he makes it till 5:00 Friday when they would like to do it.

Dire Straits on October 6, 2009 at 7:58 PM

He was doomed from the start with BHO’s premature deadline on Gitmo.

ICBM on October 6, 2009 at 8:10 PM

OBAMA! YOU CANNOT VOTE PRESENT ON THIS ONE!
GOT IT?!?!?!

ArmyAunt on October 6, 2009 at 8:08 PM

+1000

AsianGirlInTights on October 6, 2009 at 8:11 PM

“His recommendations to the president should go up the line of command.

Yea, and her eructating opinion should go down the sewer…

jgdp on October 6, 2009 at 8:11 PM

Dissent should go up the chain of command. But then, the Generals and the Military deserve no blame if political decisions made in the White House compromise the war effort.

Revenant on October 6, 2009 at 8:02 PM

And when that dissent is greeted by a CINC more interested in jetting off to Europe for parties? A CINC who isn’t engaged in the war even though troops are getting killed? Doesn’t that field commander owe his/her nation and the troops more than a resignation followed by a book deal?

highhopes on October 6, 2009 at 8:11 PM

I do enjoy getting military advice from chickenhawk doofpundit on how a General should act.

TTheoLogan on October 6, 2009 at 8:12 PM

McChrystal’s job is to win the war. With a pantywaist as a boss, he needs to send as clear a message as soon as he can. After all, it could be another 8 months before Obama will see him again.

Well played, General.

cpr on October 6, 2009 at 8:14 PM

This is a smoker.
Obama needs to make it look like he’s being forced into sending more troops otherwise he’ll get a huge anti-war leftist movement after him.
So he has McChrystal seem like he’s going rogue. Then Petreaus chimes in.
I wouldn’t think that except for the fact that he held back on receiving McKrystals report. After the report was “leaked”, what would be the reason to hold off from getting it at a time where your saying your reviewing the entire Afgan situation??
There is none except to drag out the made up controversy.

LeeSeneca on October 6, 2009 at 8:15 PM

Hey Allah , that point piglosi has is the top of her head.

huckelberry on October 6, 2009 at 8:17 PM

This is a smoker.
Obama needs to make it look like he’s being forced into sending more troops otherwise he’ll get a huge anti-war leftist movement after him.

LeeSeneca on October 6, 2009 at 8:15 PM

Maybe , so the leftwing will accept it as “smart politics to not lose the independents”

the_nile on October 6, 2009 at 8:17 PM

Liz in unflappable. We like. You can’t get her off point.

Mojave Mark on October 6, 2009 at 8:23 PM

PALIN nails him on Afghanistan again….putting Wasilla pressure on “President Present”.

http://www.facebook.com/sarahpalin?v=app_2347471856&ref=ts

For two years as a candidate, Senator Obama called for more resources for the war in Afghanistan and warned about the consequences of failure. As President, he announced a comprehensive new counterinsurgency strategy and handpicked the right general to execute it. Now General McChrystal is asking for additional troops to implement the strategy announced by President Obama in March. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, sisters and brothers in harm’s way in Afghanistan right now. We owe it to all those brave Americans serving in uniform to give them the tools they need to complete their mission.

We can win in Afghanistan by helping the Afghans build a stable representative state able to defend itself. And we must do what it takes to prevail. The stakes are very high. The 9/11 attacks were planned in Afghanistan, and if we are not successful there, al Qaeda will once again find a safe haven, the Taliban will impose its cruelty on the Afghan people, and Pakistan will be less stable.

Our allies and our adversaries are watching to see if we have the staying power to protect our interests in Afghanistan. I recently joined a group of Americans in urging President Obama to devote the resources necessary in Afghanistan and pledged to support him if he made the right decision. Now is not the time for cold feet, second thoughts, or indecision — it is the time to act as commander-in-chief and approve the troops so clearly needed in Afghanistan.

- Sarah Palin

PappyD61 on October 6, 2009 at 8:25 PM

I wouldn’t think that except for the fact that he held back on receiving McKrystals report. After the report was “leaked”, what would be the reason to hold off from getting it at a time where your saying your reviewing the entire Afgan situation??
There is none except to drag out the made up controversy.

LeeSeneca on October 6, 2009 at 8:15 PM

Allow me to provide an alternate scenario that is more likely. McChrystal, like a good soldier, submitted the assessment through his boss (Patraeus at CENTCOM) who forwarded up to the CJCS (ADM Mullen) and SECDEF (The Gates who isn’t a racist Harvard professor). It was the DOD that “withheld” the submission of the report which means that somebody in the Pentagon his protecting the filthy lying coward from having to make a decision, probably at the behest of Rahm Emanuel or somebody within the administration who didn’t want Afghanistan to step on health care reform. After all, those are just troops getting killed- no reason to slow the state seizure of one sixth of the US economy.

highhopes on October 6, 2009 at 8:27 PM

I’m not a military person, so, what I say should be read with the understanding that I make no claims to know how military matters should be handled.

That said, why is it a bad thing for pressure to be put on the civilian leader of the military (aka POTUS)? He’s a leader. He should lead. If he thinks McChrystal made a good point, he should follow his guidance. If he has additional information or thinks otherwise, he can choose a different path. However, I see no reason why he should be shielded from pressure regarding these decisions.

As far as I can tell, the only thing gained by keeping these recommendations quiet is the political cover afforded the POTUS when/if he makes the wrong decision. If we’re worried about POTUSes making the wrong decision because they are under a lot of pressure, we are electing the wrong kind of people.

As for McChrystal, if he thinks that lives can be spared and victory can be had by pursuing his course of action and he truly believes that it will be ignored unless he goes public, bravo to him for choosing the lives of his men over potential future promotions.

JadeNYU on October 6, 2009 at 8:28 PM

We can win in Afghanistan by helping the Afghans build a stable representative state able to defend itself. And we must do what it takes to prevail. The stakes are very high. The 9/11 attacks were planned in Afghanistan, and if we are not successful there, al Qaeda will once again find a safe haven, the Taliban will impose its cruelty on the Afghan people, and Pakistan will be less stable.

Did Sarah Palin use the word “win?” OMG, OMG OMG

“Win?” “WIN!”

That three letter word is probably tying the White House in knots right now….

just like, “death panels” did…

ted c on October 6, 2009 at 8:29 PM

tom on October 6, 2009 at 7:48 PM

You are so right–that’s what scares the shite outta me!

lovingmyUSA on October 6, 2009 at 8:31 PM

tom on October 6, 2009 at 7:48 PM
You are so right–that’s what scares the shite outta me!

lovingmyUSA on October 6, 2009 at 8:31 PM

Biden making any decisions on anything is very scary, add American and NATO lives to the mix is horrifying.

bluemarlin on October 6, 2009 at 8:39 PM

And when that dissent is greeted by a CINC more interested in jetting off to Europe for parties? A CINC who isn’t engaged in the war even though troops are getting killed? Doesn’t that field commander owe his/her nation and the troops more than a resignation followed by a book deal?

As long as the generals are sincere about resigning in private discussions with the CINC, the White House should get the message.

In this case, even if the White House does not get the message, there isn’t anything the General can do but fall on his sword afterwards. Forcing a public debate on the issue sets a bad precedent and does not guarantee a favorable outcome. If the president is forced to issue lukewarm support for a troop surge, is that really a victory? What the Afghanistan theatre needs is full-throated support from the CINC, which Obama is never going to really give, public debate or not. As a result, we may lose the whole effort.

But having a culture in which the brass publicly seeks to undermine the CINC while still employed in the military will only hurt future administrations in the wars that they fight. The country’s future is bigger than the Afghanistan campaign.

Revenant on October 6, 2009 at 8:40 PM

As for McChrystal, if he thinks that lives can be spared and victory can be had by pursuing his course of action and he truly believes that it will be ignored unless he goes public, bravo to him for choosing the lives of his men over potential future promotions.

JadeNYU on October 6, 2009 at 8:28 PM

I saw the caveat that you’re not a military person so please don’t take the following personally.

McChrystal is a four-star general. There is no future promotion in the offing. He does have to worry about what rank Congress will authorize him in retirement but short of a real scandal he is set. For comparison, the one-star general in charge of Abu Grahib was retired as a Colonel.

The other thing to keep in mind is that the civilian leadership of the military is guarded as a very big deal. It is suggested that this is what keeps the military from staging coups at will as they do in other parts of the world (I don’t completely buy this argument). It’s a fine line between insubordination and speaking out. If you actually read what McChrystal said, he didn’t come close to this line but any criticism of Obama is deemed a cardinal sin by his cult following.

highhopes on October 6, 2009 at 8:48 PM

How do you protect the president’s prerogative as commander-in-chief while minimizing the risk that ideological/electoral considerations in the White House will trump valid military concerns?

The answer is simple the president needs to make a competent decision on what needs to be done now not months down the road. This incompetent bafoon in the white house is gonna need new recommendations to be made by the time he finds the time to make a decision.

Send in more troops and wipeout Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Just kill them. No more Guantanamo’s. If a captured terrorist outlives his usefulness off him.

Rattl3r on October 6, 2009 at 8:52 PM

As long as the generals are sincere about resigning in private discussions with the CINC, the White House should get the message.

Revenant on October 6, 2009 at 8:40 PM

Sorry, but this is incorrect. This Whitehouse sees things ONLY through the Prism of politics. Its the only thing they understand… they have no conception of honor, or sacrifice, and would not understand that a General would resign rather than betray his men… so they’d just let him resign and continue reading their polls…

This Whitehouse has the LEAST amount of military vets in it of any administration ever… and without someone there to explain to them where they are messing up (Gates won’t… he’s become part of the problem) they will continue to play politics with the lives of military members…

Romeo13 on October 6, 2009 at 8:55 PM

Well, Ms. Pelosi.. First off, it’s CHAIN of command.
Next we will discuss sucessfull strategies of counterinsurgency.

Rightwingguy on October 6, 2009 at 9:12 PM

God, how much longer is she going to be up there…this is torture.

Dr. ZhivBlago on October 6, 2009 at 9:18 PM

Though I never reached that level, I had bosses who had the opportunity to “give an opinion”. I’m glad they never did. The military, however distasteful the orders, is charged with carrying out the “Political Mission”. Some would say the press nosed-in to a speech by the General. I assert he should have known. As much as I disagree with the CINC, the military needs to suck it up and do their job.

PaCadle on October 6, 2009 at 9:30 PM

maybe he should just call him at 3 AM and see if he answers, I bet he gets voicemail.

workingforpigs on October 6, 2009 at 9:30 PM

A small point but when Mrs. Pelosi said, “His recommendations to the president should go up the line of command” I knew she knew nothing of what she spoke. It is the chain of command, Madam Speaker.

amr on October 6, 2009 at 9:33 PM

Starting to sound like a broken record, but this is no surprise. Decision making, especially the ability to make difficult decisions quickly is something that comes from real leadership experience. This empty suited, community organizing fraud has none. I would expect nothing less than indecision – that is the sum of his experiences.

Fun game we played today on a long ride – who do we know who might know someone who knows a community organizer? 4 degrees of community organizing separation. None of us could make a connection so we all lost by forfeit.

NumberTwo on October 6, 2009 at 9:44 PM

Sorry, but this is incorrect. This Whitehouse sees things ONLY through the Prism of politics. Its the only thing they understand… they have no conception of honor, or sacrifice, and would not understand that a General would resign rather than betray his men… so they’d just let him resign and continue reading their polls…

This Whitehouse has the LEAST amount of military vets in it of any administration ever… and without someone there to explain to them where they are messing up (Gates won’t… he’s become part of the problem) they will continue to play politics with the lives of military members

Perhaps, but there will be other administrations after this one. Again, the White House should get the picture, but if they don’t, what’s a public debate going to accomplish.

Again, mealy-mouthed support for the Afghanistan campaign is tantamount to defeat anyways. We need successive administrations with the fortitude to stay there to have a hope of success, as well as supply it with the resources it needs.

I don’t have much faith that Obama is going to see it through, but I also don’t believe that a public debate one way or the other is going to change the outcome. The best we can hope for with Obama is to not lose. The campaign will only be won if we play to win.

Revenant on October 6, 2009 at 9:48 PM

Listening to democrats whine and cry about someone not following the “rules” when it concerns speaking out is a joke.

Where was all this faux outrage when the guy from the CIA went to a NY Times reporter to out a highly secretive,legal,and successful program (NSA wiretapping)that in effect alerted thousands of terrorist that we were able to listen to their phone calls.
He was obligated to follow chain of command with his concerns.

Instead he ran to a reporter and was hailed as a hero from liberals for “speaking truth to power”.
Newsweek even ran a story proclaiming him a hero and saying he should not be punished.

It was revealed that he did this for partisan reasons and really had no idea how the program worked,only that he didn’t like Bush.

The program was deemed legal and many democrats including Obama have supported 100%.

No democratic congressional leaders,liberal talking heads,or liberal activists groups called for him to be disciplined.

Now we have a General that Obama put in place to carry out Obama’s own strategy,not getting the resources to carry out this strategy and speaking out about it and liberals all of a sudden want to follow “chain of command”.

Instead of making up some bogus scandal to distract from the totally irresponsible and pathetic lack of action on the war Obama promised to make a priority and win.
liberals should be concerned about Obama stating for 2 years he had a better plan and that America would not be safe until the terrorist threat was eliminated taking a 180′ turn and trying to figure out how to cut and run.


Let there be no mistake.
A defeat in Afghanistan will fall directly on Obama’s shoulders,the buck stops at the Presidents desk.

When the jihadist are dancing in the streets yelling and screaming about their victory over America,it will be with Obama’s face on television everyday,not Bush’s.

Having a General speak out about what he needs to win is the least of Obama’s and his democratic constituents problems concerning the war they said they knew how to fight with “smart power”.

Actually coming through and backing up their “we are smarter” rhetoric with successful actions in the Afghanistan/Pakistan theater is the real hurdle here.

democrats are going to look even more like fools claiming they used “smart power” in Afghanistan while the jihadist dance in the streets declaring victory, than they already do proclaiming the stimulus is working with 10% unemployment
and the economy continuing to tank.


democrats are not pissed that McCrystal did not follow chain of command.They are pissed that he is exposing their utter weakness and capitulation in a war they promised to win.

Baxter Greene on October 6, 2009 at 10:09 PM

“Let me say this about about General McChrystal, with all due respect,” Pelosi said, according to a transcript sent my way by a Pelosi aide. “His recommendations to the president should go up the line of command. They shouldn’t be in press conferences.”

The line of command? As an Air Force vet, I’ve never heard of it. The chain of command? That one I know.

You’d think (hope?) the 2nd in line to the Presidency would know the proper terminology.

HAnthonyWayne on October 6, 2009 at 10:22 PM

http://www.veteranoutrage.com

Hey pelosi
when america needs or asks for answers
from the female version of SATAN
we will ask you..

so until then take your pitchfork
and go roast a few americans over the liberal
campfire like you normally do..

sheesh i am so sick to death of this dumb ass bitch
from hells heart showing up on tv..

I thought horror movie season was over
but apparently with pelosi, hillary, and acorns ceo
we will be forced to watch daily horror shows
until christmas break..

go back in your caskets will you?

veteranoutrage on October 6, 2009 at 10:23 PM

http://www.veteranoutrage.com

After watching
Pelosi, hillary and the ceo from acorn
i must conclude that
a. all three are from a recent horror flick
b. all were educated by satan himself
c. we wont get rid of them until christman

Hey pelosi why dont you go back to congress
and lie down in your casket as sunrise..

This way maybe we will be spared watching your daily
horror show (which your the star) on tv news daily..

veteranoutrage on October 6, 2009 at 10:26 PM

The line of command is this:

I vote present!

Dhuka on October 6, 2009 at 10:38 PM

Well, I guess he got their attention didn’t he? These guys do whatever they have to to take care of their men.

hopefloats on October 6, 2009 at 10:50 PM

The military, however distasteful the orders, is charged with carrying out the “Political Mission”. Some would say the press nosed-in to a speech by the General. I assert he should have known. As much as I disagree with the CINC, the military needs to suck it up and do their job.

PaCadle on October 6, 2009 at 9:30 PM

You’re an idiot. The military is, in fact, executing the orders they have been given. American soldiers are dying on a daily basis as a result of the current orders. McChrystal is seeking a change of strategy by adding more troops to the mix.

THE MILITARY DOES NOT NEED TO SUCK IT UP AND DIE BECAUSE THE FITHY LYING COWARD IN THE WHITE HOUSE REFUSES TO DEAL WITH THIS ISSUE.

Yes I know I used all caps, I know what it means, and it was intentional.

highhopes on October 6, 2009 at 10:57 PM

More Pelosi: McChrystal needs to stop giving speeches…

“His recommendations to the president should go up the line of command.”

The theater commander
of the NATO/US forces, General McChrystal’s POV, went right to the TOP of the Chain, to the American voters and British subjects et al. Today’s brass is well aware and have taken an oath IN BROTHER’s BLOOD — to NOT allow the weak-kneed politicians a repeat of their dirty deeds. A treasonous performance, which enabled the damage inflicted on the US Military Forces in Viet Nam, as well as the ongoing perceptions of dishonorable disengagement(paper tiger), which have besmirched their honorable service to country.

“Let’s Roll”

On Watch on October 6, 2009 at 11:45 PM

“Line of command”… BRILLIANT…

Sarah: it is time for the Third Party…

Khun Joe on October 7, 2009 at 7:51 AM

JadeNYU on October 6, 2009 at 8:28 PM

+1

saus on October 7, 2009 at 8:39 AM

I am glad to see someone speaking on behalf of McCrystal in the way she did. I agree with her on all points. I don’t know what the real strategy should be in Afghanastan, but I agree with her that Obama did set a strategy, he is the one now waffling, and McCrystal is not at fault for that.

AnninCA on October 7, 2009 at 10:12 AM

Most likely the Gen got tired of the man-child dithering around and figured he’d give him a little nudge. It appears the Gen isn’t interested in being the next under the bus when the situation goets worse.

Maybe Obama should have passed on sucking up to the IOC and made up his mind what he wanted to do regarding Afghanistan. Makes you wonder why he had time to be in perpetual campaign mode for his reform of healthcare – that few actually want – but hasn’t had the time to figure out a strategy for defense of the nation.

katiejane on October 7, 2009 at 11:56 AM

Maybe if President Barackstar would stop jetting around the world to pimp his buddies in Chicago for the Olympics his generals wouldn’t have to speak in public just to have their voices heard.

Hey knucklehead – troops dieing, mmkay? Perhaps we could attend to that first and handle arranging the parties later, eh?

TheUnrepentantGeek on October 7, 2009 at 12:21 PM

i have never served, but i would think that a big part of a generals job is to protect his troops. General McChrystal did what he had to do in order to get the attention of the President (embarrass him on national tv) to get his message to him. One meeting with a general running your war is unacceptable. This president should do himself a favor and go visit Walter Reed and get a fresh perspective.

redfred on October 7, 2009 at 12:59 PM

I see Theo is back to being reduced to pure insults. This of course occurs every time he/she/it tries to engage in an adult discussion about the war and has his/her/its a$$ handed to him/her/it.

hawkdriver on October 7, 2009 at 1:26 PM

As the NATO commander in Afghanistan, as far as “chain of command” goes, McChrystal would most likely be reporting directly to the president (as well as to GEN Petreus, who I’m sure has listenend diligently to all concerns voiced by Gen McChrystal). Now until just recently, how many times has he had a directy forum with the president to voice all concerns?? ONCE. Chain of command is to be used until the time that chain of command fails you. Then you do whatever it takes to get your message and guidance out. I’d say McChrystal did exactly what was necessary. Finally the president, and the rest of the country/world is listening. His concerns will no longer fall on deaf ears.

Braveheart on October 7, 2009 at 3:50 PM

And I needn’t remind you – but I will – that it’s been during Democratic years that our strength to deter war has stood still, and even gone into a planned decline. It has been during Democratic years that we have weakly stumbled into conflict, timidly refusing to draw our own lines against aggression, deceitfully refusing to tell even our people of our full participation, and tragically, letting our finest men die on battlefields (unmarked by purpose, unmarked by pride or the prospect of victory).

Acceptance Speech at the 28th Republican National Convention of The Nomination For The Office of President, 1964.

IlikedAUH2O on October 8, 2009 at 3:50 AM

Comment pages: 1 2