McChrystal puts Obama on the spot in Afghanistan
OUR VIEWS General’s blunt answers raise questions
The Oklahoman Editorial
Comments 
83
Published: October 7, 2009
SEVERAL wars ago, bluntness got Gen. George S. Patton in trouble. In another one a few years later, it got Gen. Douglas MacArthur fired. The United States has a long tradition of military subservience to civilian leadership, which is as it should be.
This week,
Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the
Afghanistan ground commander, is being accused of violating that tradition after a
London speech and a question-and-answer session in which he seemed to challenge the
Obama administration on the war’s conduct. The question period is key, because McChrystal’s most pointed remarks came there and not in his speech.
McChrystal basically repeated what he told the
White House in a professional assessment: Protecting the Afghan people, gaining their trust, is critical to defeating
Taliban and
al-Qaida insurgents. He wants 40,000 more troops (on top of the 68,000 already there) to do it. "We cannot succeed simply by trying harder” at old strategies, he said.
The general seemed critical of how long it is taking Obama to decide what to do. "We must show resolve,” he said. "Uncertainty disheartens our allies, emboldens our foes.”
What probably got McChrystal summoned to an
Air Force One meeting with Obama was when he rejected shifting the strategy in Afghanistan to one of knocking off top insurgent leaders with unmanned drones and missiles — favored by
Vice President Joe Biden. "The short, glib answer is no,” he said. "You have to navigate from where you are, not from where you wish you were. ... A strategy that does not leave Afghanistan in a stable position is probably a short-sighted strategy.”
Some said McChrystal crossed the line. It’s close, although as noted above, comments made off the cuff during the Q&A suggest he wasn’t intentionally insubordinate.
We expect the general will survive speaking out of turn in London. Yet he may still have to figuratively fall on his sword if Obama vetoes his recommendations — for Biden’s targeted approach or for sending only a fraction of the troops he requested, "McChrystal lite.” It’s hard to imagine a four-star general hanging around after having his battle plan thrown back in his face.
The larger question is whether his plan deserves rejection. Once, Obama talked of winning in Afghanistan; McChrystal is there because Obama didn’t think the general’s predecessor could get the job done. But Obama is getting heat from fellow Democrats over committing more troops.
It’s a tough decision and McChrystal made the politics of it harder. Yet Obama will face unending criticism if he discards the professional advice of his hand-picked commander and Afghanistan, the "good war,” ultimately is lost.
Leave a Comment
News Photo Galleriesview all
Prev
Something to say about this topic? Submit a Letter to the Editor online
Thank you for joining our conversations on newsok. We encourage your discussions but ask that you stay within the bounds of our terms and conditions. Please help us by reporting comments that violate these guidelines. To review our rules of engagement, go to Commenting and posting policy.
Log in below or sign up (it's free).
It proves this country under both Clinton and Bush did away with the 1st Amendment.
Now why didn't the ACLU come to the Indiana Baptist Temple's aid?
Neither did Jay Sekulow, that I can find.
It was in Indianapolis, not Texas.My mistake.
http://unregisteredbaptistfellowship.com/docs/raided.php-18h
Titled-Unregistered Baptist Fellowship
In the story they seemed surprised Bush-Ashcroft would continue Clinton-Reno.
It begins with 209 years of the First Amendment walked on or similar. It is quite long and took me almost 5 minutes to read.
Doesn't that match Bush's?
But it must be true since it was on the Democrats site.
It is raining too hard for me to do all my errands.
Have to run some errands. Should be back by 10.
Scroll to 2001 and look for 2/13/01 which mentions the Fed. agents seize the Indiana Baptist Temple for back taxes for the past 17 years. There are more articles on the story. I think the value was placed at $6 million.
They are called separatists as were and are many groups such as Ruby Ridge and militias but are non-violent.
I had some friends that called me daily to talk about the situation. My friends have or are trying to store up 3-4 years of supplies in case we go into a Tribulation.
I told them I will just trust God but they say even Noah put up supplies. I say,"Isaiah didn't."
Well, the Indiana Baptist Temple, who I had already read a book about, refused to file a W2-C for a tax free religion.
The Temple and I agree we are to answer to a higher authority than any man made government.
But Clinton-Reno did not want to separate church from state and wished to stop freedom of religion.
The Indiana Baptist Church is different from most Christian churches and does not hold with many of the heathen religions.
I knew Bush was a Skull & Bones member as was his dad and grand dad, but I felt very strongly he would drop Clinton-Reno's shenanigens. I did not trust the Dem. candidate because I was certain they would try to close it.
It was within Bush-Ashcroft's first few days of office they decided to close the church. Some people thought they would fight but they peaceably broke up.
I tried to write to the remainder members but never got a reply.
I need to SEARCH and see if they have reassembled. I liked them.
"Victory" in Afghanistan would be to have an enlightened, peaceful, strong and benevolent government, friendly to us, that would allow us to keep troops there. Like German. Like Japan.
stinkerpants,
Now using all your words that means we not only can but should expect nothing less than what you sdaid that Victory would be in both Iraq and Afgan. Remember , This is now on Obama's watch
I was one of the 10%. He lost me when he and Ashcroft closed the Indiana Baptist Church in Texas just after he was elected.
--
No more had Bush, with Congress's blessing, invaded Panama, which the polls showed the people of Panama wanted, than the U.N. with a wide majority, jumped on the U.S. Previously, Bush had tried diplomacy with Norieaga who was also involved with exporting drugs.
Even when the U.S. supposedly has the U.N.'s backing, it is in wishy washy sort of way because other countries aren't 100% agreement.
They SAID they were in support of Saddam being disposed of but were little help financially or with military.
About 75% of U.S. citizens backed Bush. I did not keep up with the details any better since one of my brothers was being treated and dieing from cancer and another older brother with Down's was more than I could handle with the floods and farming and I had to have him put in an institution when he broke an arm,was going blind, and deaf.
I know the John Birchers have despised the U.N. for years, thinking it is a conspiracy against our country, etc.
I'm tired of our own U.S. thinking it can run the world, but I DAMN sure don't trust the United Nations.
It is not the responsibility of the United States to nation change. It's none of our business. Our good friends the Saudis still beat their women in public places. I don't recall either Bush being too worried about that.
It was and is about the money.
-
--
As far as the Gulf War, how was it our fight? Bush Sr just wanted a war. WE are not the police of the world. Bring all troops home and mind our own business. We have problems here that need money applied to them. Our whole infrastructure is just one example. American infrastructure is rotting out from under us.
--
I did NOT approve of the Jane Fonda tactics where she seemed to cuss our own troops.
I always thought that war was for Michelin plantation owners and should have been decided diplomaticaly, if possible.
As for Saddam taking over Kuwait; Again I did not care which despot we bought oil from. Seems all their leaders are the scum of the Earth.
I say,"If Saddam was bad for taking over Kuwait, the white people are bad for taking the Americas from the citizens."
Tell me how they differ.
We are spending more than the rest of the world combined. That is ludicrous. Bring them home and fix our problems first.
--
As little as I like to admit it, I would have voted for the funding as I did not see any alternative but cut and run.
That, of course would not go over too good with people that like all forms of entertainment as I pointed out before, 2/3rds of our oil goes to fun and games, not just football per say, but even keeping up beaches.That figure was released about 20 some years ago by the Dept of Energy which I don't know if it still exists.
A good read on where we have been, where we are, and where we are going on this deficit thing.
--
often see the words "internal strife" mentioned for literally hundreds
of years. The country has a history of coups and assasinations that replace one tribal strong man with another. The only people they hate more that rival tribal members are folks from other countries, (Pakistan, Persia, Britain, Russia, etc.) There is no infrastructure in the country other than Kabul, They, for the most part, don't have roads...they have trails. Bringing democracy to the country is kinda like trying to teach a toad to use the telephone...it just won't work.
Karzai, also known as the Mayor of Kabul, is continuing the Afghani tradition of election rigging, payoffs, and patronage that has plagued the country for centuries. But, in that well-known American tradition, we will continue to support his political thuggery, (see Shah of Iran, Communist China, and Nicaragua), as long as it serves the interests of the military-industrial complex. Ike was right, it's just too bad no one listened to him. We have offered Pakistan 1.5 billion in foreign aid, if they will go after terrorists in their country...Pakistan's response? We are meddling in their "internal affairs". It's a crazy world, ain't it?
--
How do you define success? WEll, I just elect a Limbeck party liar.
--
--
--
--
The U.S. is always helping those that turn on us.
To Obama's credit-he has tried to establish peaceful relations, even with the offer to go to the expense of the American people (Montreal went at least $1.2 billion in debt from them) to offer to allow the Olympics to be held in a free country.
He can't be blamed if the world hates us. It is WE who should be hating the world if any hating were done. Look at all the countries we have rescued with aid or revolutions. Many which I disagree with.
--
--
But, had the Soviet Union been the one taking over Kuwait, would the U.S. had done anything except try to buy oil from them?
This is a loaded question because it looks like Venezueala is getting buddy, buddy with Russia.
Just a thought, and you don't need answer.
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."
John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton, first Baron Acton (1834–1902)
--
--