Obama Angry with General McChrystal’s Desire to Actually Win the War in Afghanistan
Well, O’ Glorious Ruler, you obviously know nothing of Military thinking! The objective of war is victory and General McChrystal is a BIG fan of Sun Tzu. He follows his teachings almost religiously:
“If fighting is sure to result in victory, then you must fight, even though the ruler forbid it. If fighting will not result in victory, then you must not fight even at the ruler’s bidding.” – Sun Tzu, The Art of War
Obviously, General McChrystal has sussed the situation and determined that the war in Afghanistan is winnable and doesn’t give a rat’s butt what you think, O’ Glorious Ruler.
Get over it, and, for the love of God, get over yourself. You are a moron when it comes to military matters. Best to leave it in the capable hands of those who actually know of what they speak.
Barack Obama angry at General Stanley McChrystal speech on Afghanistan
The relationship between President Barack Obama and the commander of Nato forces in Afghanistan has been put under severe strain by Gen Stanley McChrystal’s comments on strategy for the war.
By Alex Spillius in Washington
Published: 05 Oct 2009 – Telegraph.co.uk
According to sources close to the administration, Gen McChrystal shocked and angered presidential advisers with the bluntness of a speech given in London last week.
The next day he was summoned to an awkward 25-minute face-to-face meeting on board Air Force One on the tarmac in Copenhagen, where the president had arrived to tout Chicago’s unsuccessful Olympic bid.
When asked on CNN about the commander’s public lobbying for more troops, Gen Jim Jones, national security adviser, said:
“Ideally, it’s better for military advice to come up through the chain of command.”
Asked if the president had told the general to tone down his remarks, he told CBS: “I wasn’t there so I can’t answer that question. But it was an opportunity for them to get to know each other a little bit better. I am sure they exchanged direct views.”
An 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.”
In London, Gen McChrystal, who heads the 68,000 US troops in Afghanistan as well as the 100,000 Nato forces, flatly rejected proposals to switch to a strategy more reliant on drone missile strikes and special forces operations against al-Qaeda.
He told the Institute of International and Strategic Studies that the formula, which is favoured by Vice-President Joe Biden, would lead to “Chaos-istan”.
When asked whether he would support it, he said: “The short answer is: No.”
He went on to say: “Waiting does not prolong a favorable outcome. This effort will not remain winnable indefinitely, and nor will public support.”
["What is essential in war is victory, not prolonged operations." "There is no instance of a nation benefiting from prolonged warfare." - Sun Tzu
See? I told you Gen. McChrystal is a big fan of Sun Tzu! ]
The remarks have been seen by some in the Obama administration as a barbed reference to the slow pace of debate within the White House.
Gen McChrystal delivered a report on Afghanistan requested by the president on Aug 31, but Mr Obama held only his second “principals meeting” on the issue last week.
He will hold at least one more this week, but a decision on how far to follow Gen McChrystal’s recommendation to send 40,000 more US troops will not be made for several weeks.
A military expert said: “They still have working relationship but all in all it’s not great for now.”
Some commentators regarded the general’s London comments as verging on insubordination.
Bruce Ackerman, an expert on constitutional law at Yale University, said in the Washington Post: “As commanding general, McChrystal has no business making such public pronouncements.”
He added that it was highly unusual for a senior military officer to “pressure the president in public to adopt his strategy”.
Relations between the general and the White House began to sour when his report, which painted a grim picture of the allied mission in Afghanistan, was leaked. White House aides have since briefed against the general’s recommendations.
The general has responded with a series of candid interviews as well as the speech. He told Newsweek he was firmly against half measures in Afghanistan: “You can’t hope to contain the fire by letting just half the building burn.”
As a divide opened up between the military and the White House, senior military figures began criticising the White House for failing to tackle the issue more quickly.
They made no secret of their view that without the vast ground force recommended by Gen McChrystal, the Afghan mission could end in failure and a return to power of the Taliban.
“They want to make sure people know what they asked for if things go wrong,” said Lawrence Korb, a former assistant secretary of defence.
Critics also pointed out that before their Copenhagen encounter Mr Obama had only met Gen McChrystal once since his appointment in June.
Explore posts in the same categories: Afghanistan, Military, politics
5 October, 2009 at 3:01 pm
For the benefit of readers who are not fluent in Washingtonese, let translate the unnamed adviser:
Unnamed adviser = guy who floats trial balloons. If there is no flak it becomes policy. If there is heavy flak it is an unauthorized statement that in no way reflects the administrations positions.
Hard ball = no balls
Upstart = anyone who diminishes the chosen one’s halo.
Naive = honest.
Not ready for Washington = get ready to be thrown under the bus.
Speaking to plainly = brutally honest.
Consider this a public service announcement.
5 October, 2009 at 3:08 pm
LOL!
You have pegged it, my friend!
Cheers
5 October, 2009 at 3:15 pm
From Sun Tzu, the art of war:
There are three ways in which a ruler can bring
misfortune upon his army:–
By commanding the army to advance or to retreat,
being ignorant of the fact that it cannot obey.
This is called hobbling the army.
By attempting to govern an army in the
same way as he administers a kingdom, being ignorant
of the conditions which obtain in an army. This causes
restlessness in the soldier’s minds.
By employing the officers of his army
without discrimination, through ignorance of the
military principle of adaptation to circumstances.
This shakes the confidence of the soldiers.
5 October, 2009 at 3:49 pm
To win a war there needs to be three facets:
The ability to wage the war, to have obtained the support (or control) of the population in the region of the war and most of all to have the support and complicity of the people at home.
Erwin Rommell, General.
(I think both the General and the Administration needs to get their act worked out quickly)
5 October, 2009 at 4:58 pm
I am confident the General already has his act together. Just release him to wage war.
5 October, 2009 at 6:54 pm
Perhaps, but by definition, without the other two facets it will be an occupation not a victory. I think it is unlikely that the war in Afghanistan will win until there are changes in all three and the support of the people over there is not working and the full and collective support and unity between the powers at home and the general is not there.
5 October, 2009 at 7:28 pm
I was under the impression it was liberation NATO was giving Afganistan. An occupation until the Afgans have enough Army squared away to fight for themselves.
Is this not a drug war? Plus, a war to limit Al-Quada from planning attacks on American soil. Perhaps, it is also to drain Iran’s support for terrorism. This war is some type of forward policy for NATO countries.
Again, the General IS squared away. Just look at his Bio. He should be POTUS.
6 October, 2009 at 6:12 am
The objective of the war in Afghanistan is one single and simple point – to support, backup and prepare Afghanistan’s government to control that nation. Such an objective is under the banner of the United Nations and the UN’s agreement to have NATO do the job.
That it fits the US’s objectives to fight its battle against Al Qaeda and those groups that support or export terrorism (Taliban) is obviously a bonus. That the US’ DEA and InterPol is there to try and attack the drug-trade is also a bonus and not suprising.
So the goal is to create a viable Afghanistan that is able to control the insurgency and secondary, to stop the drug-trade. On both sides – most of the effort is in fact to ensure that Afghanistan has an economy that is not reliant on drugs.
The General may be brilliant, even if he was the best that there ever was, he is not an economist and if the people remain poor, the village talk is still 7th century, that they have no encouragement and do not understand that growing food is better than poppies – the Taliban will be supported by a significant number of Aghans and the war will be lost. Even the General knows that.
The general may be squared away and ready to do a fantastic job, but as we have seen, he has had to try and lobby to ensure that the two other facets are also ready for him to win the war – local support/control and the support and backing from back home.
5 October, 2009 at 9:08 pm
The war in Afghanistan cannot be won until the government accepts the fact that it is not fighting insurgents, Taliban, freedom fighters, call them what you like, it is fighting radical hard-core Muslims. When they finally realize they are fighting the religion of peace and they actually fight them, bomb the mullahs, bomb the mosques, bomb the supporters and fellow-travelers, they will win the war. Islam recognizes only one thing, brute force. When Islam is hit, it always capitulates, it has done so for 1,400 years. When it is not hit, it assumes a moral victory.
6 October, 2009 at 6:00 am
ciccio,
Though we are all allowed, of course, our opinions – I have to say your argument is for my part neither logical nor based on evidence.
Certainly the “mullahs” are a major factor, influence and a partial cause of the war, I will certainly argue that it is not Islam. The basic counter-argument, why is there not “taliban” and such a conflict in every part of the Muslim world and are the Taliban not recognised or supported by any government other that Somalia (which we can all agree is not a government)?
The answer is of course there is not.
You have used the term radical hard-core and I would come back and say that those two-words contradict each other and that has answered your own point – they are radical and thus do not represent the whole.
The Taliban and their culture is a mix of ultra-conservative Islam confused with local tribal rules that even they no longer know what is Islamic and what is not. We had, for example, that situation a year or so ago when the young girl who was caught walking between villages with a young guy who was not a relative and what was the punishment? Most backward hard-line countries may have had her flogged or caned and sent to a doctor to confirm she is still a virgin and if she was not, forced to marry the boy. What happened there, she was sentenced to being raped by each member of the 12 member town council. That had nothing to do with Islam and even the caning is an example of ultra-conservatives assuming that 7th century laws still apply to today.
That is why, not that the media ever bother to point it out, that the majority of Muslim countries DO NOT have shari’a law and of those that do, the majority of them, only for family law. Most Muslim countries thankfully still have secular legal systems.
The argument to go “bomb” the mosques is in fact radical and I personally think that radicalism itself is the enemy.
If you bomb the mosques, and as above attack Islam itself, the moderate Muslim will be correctly obliged to first defend his or her faith before anything else. This may be in the case of Afghanistan a family that has avoided supporting he Taliban and not growing poppies to agreeing to hide weapons, give food and grow poppies to the Taliban. Those moderates say in a country like here in Morocco who laugh and ridicule the Taliban as “backward barbarians” and have a positive view and support its nation’s alliance with NATO and the US after watching mosques being blown up will quickly lose that support. I am also a Muslim, Dutch born, a convert since 1983, a diplomat of 22 years, I work in the anti-terrorism business (albiet tracking the process of finances from North Africa to groups like Hezbollah) and I live in Morocco. I support the need for a war in Afghanistan, the need to double if not tripple the war, that many Muslim nations should join the battle – BUT – if he war was targetting Islam, the mosques were all blown-up – I would then turn around and say everyone get out and that having a barbaric Taliban regime was better than what was being done to my faith.
6 October, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Bombing the Mosque is as radical as hiding weapons, and C-4 in the Mosque.
War is hell. Win, or go home.
6 October, 2009 at 6:32 am
Speaking from a Mommy’s POV – Give the General the troops he needs or bring our Warriors home. We do not want our children fighting a battle with their hands tied behind their backs… even if this is the best way to win the hearts of the Afghani people.
6 October, 2009 at 1:47 pm
CavMom,
I think you are justified in your comments. What parent would send their son’s and daughters to risk their lives over something that is either not thought out correctly or given the tools to do the job. I also agree that in the end, it is my children that is more important that the issues of another country – if it comes to the crunch so-to-speak.
6 October, 2009 at 6:01 pm
Solkhar, the mosque is where they preach death to the infidel. The mosque is where the suicide bomber gets his blessing before he goes off to get his share of virgins in the sky. Just about every single riot and rampage against the Christians or Buddhists start after the Friday sermon. The minute they know that preaching hatred will result in their own carnage they will be preaching peace and love.
6 October, 2009 at 7:12 pm
Amen brother!
29 October, 2009 at 3:07 am
Hmmm…Gen McChrystal wants 650,000 troops.
Atleast 250,000 will come from the U.S. and NATO, and other Allied Countries.
What is the current estimate of the amount of Al Qaeda operating in-country?
Does anyone realise that Al-Qaeda is in alot of places these days.
I’m not a big fan of General McCrystal. He’s hopeless. I’m not impressed by his resume, or the fact that he doesn’t eat and sleep much, or the fact that he’s an insubordinate general officer who needs to be sacked because he himself does not respect the chain of command!
650,000 troops? Is that what the revised manual on Counter-Insurgency actually calls for in these situations? What an absolute joke!
What the hell has the U.S. and it’s Allies been up to for the past 8 years?
All this multi-million dollar technology the U.S. and its allies are using and still the war goes on! I guess Vietnam didn’t teach you Americans anything now did it?
This war is only making the war racketeers richer. Why don’t you guys wake up and smell the shyte that you’re shovelling!
29 October, 2009 at 3:22 am
Yawn…
29 October, 2009 at 4:16 am
1970 was a good year – hot summer nights fishing on the jetty, riding sideshow attractions on the foreshore and listening to Leapy Lea singing “Little Arrows”, and Glen Campbell with “Witchita Lineman”, and Mo and his deranged followers having little or no impact on local politics … time for a glass of port to relax and reminisce with.
29 October, 2009 at 11:55 am
Oh yeah Mullah Lodabullah and don’t forget Johnny Cash.
29 October, 2009 at 11:13 am
I don’t understand why Obama called Afghanistan a “war of necessity” but still hasn’t given the troops the resources they need to turn things around quickly.
I do hereby present our dear President with the ‘awful waffle” award, for his innate ability to waffle like no other.
As for warmongernot ~ Where do you get your info? Or better yet, where did you get your education? How can you turn his request for 42,000 additional troops to a request for 650,000?
Here is little quip from the well educated, well experienced General whom you so freely bash:
“Failure to provide adequate resources also risks a longer conflict, greater casualties, higher overall costs, and ultimately, a critical loss of political support. Any of these risks, in turn, are likely to result in mission failure.”
As for his experience… Time will tell. I for one give him two thumbs up based on his experience with commanding the 75th and JSOC. Commanding the elite speaks volumes in my book. But then again, I am one of the twisted who gave him a round of applause for his tough interrogation methods. He fights/leads to win.
29 October, 2009 at 11:28 am
650,000 is what the current (not “revised,” as was falsely stated) counter-insurgency manual says is required to hold a country the size of Afghanistan while keeping the government stable. The 650,000 number includes Afghanistan’s own troops and policemen, with the theory being that as more and more Afghans are added to these roles, less and less occupational forces are required until there are 650,000 Afghans providing security for their own nation, at which time the UN’s military presence is no longer required.
Warmongernot is just an idiot trying to make something out of nothing.
Cheers