The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
I wonder what Barry's "friends" at Fox News think of this move???
~If he fired him... Barry hates the military & the military hates Barry... blah blah blah
~If he keeps him... Barry hates the military and the military hates Barry... blah blah blah
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
This seemed from the outset to be a done deal... read Truman Fires MacArthur... a similar situation.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Of course I watch Fox, as well as MSNBC BBC PBS ABC NBC CBS CNN...
If you want factual news you have two choices... get a varied assessment from a variety of sources and compare the results... (Most Americans) OR Listen to Rush Loudmouth, and he'll tell you what to think. (Also Referred to as "Fox Ditto Head Beck Syndrome") An incurable disfiguring disease!
Fox isn't much when it comes to actual news, but their comedy is hilarious!!!
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Regarding the confrontation between a great four-star general, Stanley A. McChrystal, and Obama, (“Obama ousts war commander,” June 24): The wrong man got fired!
McChrystal was talking to you Peter Heck - Guest Columnist - 6/28/2010 10:20:00 AM
The ink had not yet dried on my last column that discussed the fact that Barack Obama was woefully unprepared for the presidency and as a result is making deadly missteps in the execution of that role, when news broke of General Stanley McChrystal in essence saying the exact same thing to Rolling Stone magazine. This isn't just a story to be brushed off. This is a bombshell.
Don't be distracted by the media comically chastising the General for daring to speak out against "The One" (yes, the same media that hailed military officers who were willing to "speak truth to power" in criticizing George Bush). That isn't the story.
The true meaning of the McChrystal episode is titanic, because it is quite apparent the General was sending a stern message directly to the American people.
For more reasons than I can count, it is beyond obvious that McChrystal's public criticism of Obama was not a lapse in judgment or a mistake. It was unquestionably intentional. First, four-star generals have not achieved that rank without knowing the chain of command and the expectation of subordination to superiors. Second, all of McChrystal's advisers were touting the same message, demonstrating this was no fluke, nor an offhand comment taken out of context. Third, McChrystal spoke the inflammatory words to Rolling Stone, a well known anti-war, anti-military magazine. Fourth, reports are that McChrystal actually saw the piece before it went to print and offered up no objections to its content.
If all that is true, then it naturally begs the question: Why did he do it?
McChrystal is one of the lead authors of the "counterinsurgency" strategy that, despite the nay saying of liberals like then-Senators Obama and Biden, transformed Iraq from a quagmire into a success. He knows the strategy works. But as its architect, he also knows this new military policy requires two vital elements: lots of troops, and as much time as necessary for them to do their job.
While other factors are important (cultural bonds, regional partnerships, financial investment, troop morale, etc.), the two most crucial ingredients to making counterinsurgency work (in Afghanistan or anywhere) is a massive amount of troops on the ground to overwhelm the enemy and live among the people, and a commitment to stay as long as necessary to break the will of the enemy.
This is precisely why counterinsurgency worked in Iraq. Over the ignorant objections of both Obama and Biden, then-President Bush listened to his military commanders and ordered the troop surge. And while being pummeled by the media and Democrat political opportunists for not setting a hard deadline for withdrawal, Bush committed to stay in Iraq until the job was finished. The result speaks for itself.
As the Afghan war began to deteriorate, Stanley McChrystal was put in charge to implement that effective strategy there. But he quickly found that Barack Obama is no George W. Bush. First, Obama – having championed himself as the anti-war candidate – cut the number of troops McChrystal requested. And then, in what has to be one of the most foolish wartime moves in history, he announced an arbitrary date for the beginning of American troop withdrawal.
This may please the ex-hippies in the anti-war crowd that Obama courted during the 2008 campaign, but it has emboldened our enemy, imperiled our troops, and created a giant mess of our counterinsurgency efforts in Afghanistan.
Having pressed his case privately with Obama's war team in Washington, McChrystal certainly saw the handwriting on the wall, and as a final recourse, pled his case to the American people.
Were his actions a breach of protocol? Yes. Did they rise to the level of insubordination? Probably. Was Obama justified in removing him from command? I think so. But after we're done hammering McChrystal for going over the President's head, we better give some serious thought as to why he was so willing to put his career on the line like that.
The reason is as clear as it is frightening: our political leadership in Washington is clueless. And their incompetence is costing us not only resources and money, but most importantly the precious lives of brave American soldiers.
General Stanley McChrystal was willing to lose his job to send that message to the only people who can do something about it. He was talking to you.
McChrystal took the only right, and honorable, exit
I was just listening to Defense Secretary Robert Gates and [chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff] Adm. Mike Mullen in their press conference concerning the replacement of Gen. McChrystal in Afghanistan. Most of the questions from the press seemed to be about why Gen. McChrystal did what he did with regard to the Rolling Stone interview. Perhaps he did not fully grasp that reporters are on duty 24/7 and did not realize his remarks and those of his subordinates would be repeated even though they were not part of an interview. Or it could be any number of other reasons. In searching for the “why” in someone else’s conduct, or indeed my own on occasion, I often think of a scene in the “The Magnificent Seven” where Steve McQueen and Yul Brenner are driving a hearse to Boot Hill and Yul asks Steve, “Why are you doing this?” Steve then tells a story about a man riding in the desert who sees another man in front of him who stops his horse, strips naked and jumps into a bed of cactus. The man asks the guy in the cactus, “Why did you do that?” His reply, “It seemed like a good idea at the time.” Many times in life, that answer has to suffice for actions for which no justification can be found. That being said, those of us who have served in the military understand why Gen. McChrystal resigned and why such resignation was necessary. While what to do and how to go about your mission can be subject for debate with your superiors, that debate and your opinions must be kept private as those under your command must have confi dence that you are asking them to do what is necessary and best under the circumstances. Talking “out of school” undermines that confidence. Had he said the same things directly to President Obama or Secretary Gates, a discussion may have ensued, but no one would have doubted that Gen. McChrystal would have carried out his mission to the best of his considerable ability. However, he put himself in a position with only one exit. Good soldier that he is, he made no excuses for his lapse in judgment. One of the few in 30 years of exemplary service. Thank you, general!
The reason is as clear as it is frightening: our political leadership in Washington is clueless. And their incompetence is costing us not only resources and money, but most importantly the precious lives of brave American soldiers.
General Stanley McChrystal was willing to lose his job to send that message to the only people who can do something about it. He was talking to you.
I agree completely with this statement. I still say that this is just the beginning. I would be shocked if this was the last we heard from mcchrystal!
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
Logged
