McChrystal relieved of his command.

[Gibberish]

I think Obama put it best when he said the General's comments "undermines the civilian control of the military that is at the core of our democratic system."

Our General's shouldn't participate in political/social grandstanding for any reasons. It was a horrible decision for him to participate in the article.

 

[new coup for you]

I suspect we'd have to court martial the entire military every time we have a Democratic president if we were serious about soldiers "despising" the civilian administration.

 

[Agent Ferris]

I think Obama put it best when he said the General's comments "undermines the civilian control of the military that is at the core of our democratic system."

Our General's shouldn't participate in political/social grandstanding for any reasons. It was a horrible decision for him to participate in the article.

Ya I remember Obama being up in arms when all of those Generals and CIA men turned against the Bush administration, why he was just livid. :roll:

 

[Navy Pride]

I am really torn on this issue..........On the one hand I believe in the chain of command and the DOD runs the military....On the other hand when you have such a bumbbling idiot like Obama running the show and screwing everything up it has to be very difficult for our Commanders in the field..........

 

[Gibberish]

Ya I remember Obama being up in arms when all of those Generals and CIA men turned against the Bush administration, why he was just livid. :roll:

Obama is a politician. General McChrystal is not. He does not have the luxury of having making negative comments in a public forum about his chain of command during war time.

 

[texmaster]

Psssst, didn't you see the ditto....I cut and pasted from Tex's post. But don't tell him.

What? Who?

 

[Gibberish]

I am really torn on this issue..........On the one hand I believe in the chain of command and the DOD runs the military....On the other hand when you have such a bumbbling idiot like Obama running the show and screwing everything up it has to be very difficult for our Commanders in the field..........

I think Obama has no expertise in military affairs and cmpletely relies on the Generals. Obama gave General McChrystal 30,000 of the 40,000 troops he said he needed to win. With the 30,000 additional troops we have seen little to no change inA Afghan.

 

[Redress]

Yes, Obama did give Petraus hell at one time, but his replacing McChrystal with Petraus shows me that this is not some political stunt. After all, Obama does not really like Petraus that much, Liberals referred to him as "Betray us", and he was appointed by Bush. That tells me a lot about Obama. I still disagree with most everything Obama is doing, but for him to put political hackery aside, and do what he feels is in the best interests of America, I can only say this - "Well done, Mr. President".

NOTE: I couldn't help but choke when I said this, but honesty dictates that I say it. :mrgreen:

Several points.

1) Don't assume since some one posts a video it contains what they say it does. There was no "grilling", unless asking one question is a grilling, and the question was not particularly bad "what conditions would be required to make you change your recommendation".

2) Obama did not give Patraeus hell. He was fairly respectful, and twice commented that his issues with the handling of the Iraq war was not the fault of those 2(Patraeus and the ambassador), but the fault of the administrations overall strategy. Obama gave Bush hell, not Petraus.

3) MoveOn is not "liberals". It is one small group of lliberals. Liberals condemned MoveOn over the BetrayUs add. This whole concept of finding some left wing comment and trying to hold the whole left responsible for it is getting very old. It's lame. It's cheap politics.

4) Obama praised Petraeus after the MoveOn add.

5) There is no real evidence that Obama thinks Petraeus is anything other than a good general.

 

[Navy Pride]

I think Obama has no expertise in military affairs and cmpletely relies on the Generals. Obama gave General McChrystal 30,000 of the 40,000 troops he said he needed to win. With the 30,000 additional troops we have seen little to no change inA Afghan.

Acutally that is not true............He promised 30,000 troops after waiting about 6 months but to this day all the troops he promised are still not in country............

 

[Redress]

Acutally that is not true............He promised 30,000 troops after waaiting about 6 months but to this day all the troops he promised are still not in country............

Nor would they be if they had followed McChrystal's recommendation to the letter and immediately after he made it.

 

[VanceMack]

Yes, Obama did give Petraus hell at one time, but his replacing McChrystal with Petraus shows me that this is not some political stunt. After all, Obama does not really like Petraus that much, Liberals referred to him as "Betray us", and he was appointed by Bush. That tells me a lot about Obama. I still disagree with most everything Obama is doing, but for him to put political hackery aside, and do what he feels is in the best interests of America, I can only say this - "Well done, Mr. President".

NOTE: I couldn't help but choke when I said this, but honesty dictates that I say it. :mrgreen:

Me too...it says he doesnt have a clue WHAT to do...so he reverts to Bush doctrine. Yep...THATS a leader I want to follow into battle. Oh...and a side note...his demotion of Petraeus just ended his career. You dont look at going from the theatre commander to the Afghanistan Commander then UP to a Joint Chief position. Personally...I will be surprised if Petraeus isnt seething right now and if he lasts more than a few months before he retires.

 

[Navy Pride]

Nor would they be if they had followed McChrystal's recommendation to the letter and immediately after he made it.

Well it sure worked in Iraq when General Petraeus asked for the increase for the surge..........Unfortunately because of far left people like you we will never know if it would have worked had Obama listened to his Commanders in the field and not tried to play General himself =.........

 

[Redress]

Well it sure worked in Iraq when General Petraeus asked for the increase for the surge..........Unfortunately because of far left people like you we will never know if it would have worked had Obama listened to his Commanders in the field and not tried to play General himself =.........

Ok, you seem seriously confused. Obama sent most of the the troops McChrystal requested, and on schedule. He made his decision based on the feedback of generals. So now, listening to the military is trying to play general himself.

 

[Navy Pride]

Ok, you seem seriously confused. Obama sent most of the the troops McChrystal requested, and on schedule. He made his decision based on the feedback of generals. So now, listening to the military is trying to play general himself.

You are the confused one, it took 6 months after the Generals request to get some of the troops there and they are still not all 30,000 there....By the way the General originally asked for 40,000 troops........

 

[donsutherland1]

Me too...it says he doesnt have a clue WHAT to do...so he reverts to Bush doctrine. Yep...THATS a leader I want to follow into battle. Oh...and a side note...his demotion of Petraeus just ended his career. You dont look at going from the theatre commander to the Afghanistan Commander then UP to a Joint Chief position. Personally...I will be surprised if Petraeus isnt seething right now and if he lasts more than a few months before he retires.

The political and military leadership both recognize that General Petraeus selflessly assumed the post in what amounted to extraordinary circumstances. The change in responsibility will not be looked at negatively. The move does not resemble those made to move someone to a largely symbolic post near the end of their careers.

 

[donsutherland1]

You are the confused one, it took 6 months after the Generals request to get some of the troops there and they are still not all 30,000 there....By the way the General originally asked for 40,000 troops........

General McChrystal asked for 40,000 troops. President Obama agreed to 39,000 (34,000 U.S. troops + 5,000 from NATO countries). The Washington Post reported at the time the strategy was agreed, "The combined U.S. and NATO deployments would nearly reach the 40,000 requested last summer by U.S. Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the coalition commander in Afghanistan, as part of an intensified counterinsurgency strategy."

Obama to send 34,000 troops to Afghanistan - washingtonpost.com

The difference of 1,000 is immaterial. The strategy is General McChrystal's. The toop number is virtually the same as what General McChrystal requested.

 

[Redress]

You are the confused one, it took 6 months after the Generals request to get some of the troops there and they are still not all 30,000 there....By the way the General originally asked for 40,000 troops........

And when would the troops that McCrystal requested have started to arrive in Afghanistan? Hint: it was not the next day.

And why do you keep saying 6 months when that is a flat out lie? The troop request was submitted to SecDef on Aug 30, the request was approved Dec 1, which is 3 months. Do you think if you keep repeating the lie often enough people will believe it?

 

[disneydude]

I am really torn on this issue..........On the one hand I believe in the chain of command and the DOD runs the military....On the other hand when you have such a bumbbling idiot like Obama running the show and screwing everything up it has to be very difficult for our Commanders in the field..........

Why does the hypocrisy of this post not surprize me?

 

[Iron Yank]

I think Obama has no expertise in military affairs and cmpletely relies on the Generals. Obama gave General McChrystal 30,000 of the 40,000 troops he said he needed to win. With the 30,000 additional troops we have seen little to no change inA Afghan.

O'bummer should rely on his military commanders but he didnt.

- He didnt give the number of troops his General asked for.
- He took way to long thinking about it.
- He imposed "rules of engagement" that will make it very difficult, if not impossible to win the war.
-Didnt communicate well with his commander in the field often not talking to him for months straight.

Stanley McChrystal was commander & part of the forces that took down Zarqawi in Iraq, he is one of

Americas finest. O'bummer hadnt run a hot dog stand until he ran for office.

He shouldnt be removed in the middle of a war right before a major offense is to begin.

McChrystal was no dummy & probably saw the writing on the wall........

An Administration not committed to winning the war, already talking about leaving before a victory
could be acheived.

Troops demoralized because they know they cant win with the rules & low level of commitmant of there
leadership.

There is more to this story than meets the eye, I think Stan McChrystal saw that his commander was going
about this half ass, and decided he wasnt going to have any part of it. Having his name go down in history
as the general in command of what is going to probably be a real loser, the way they are going about it.

And for Obama to base such a huge decision on the word of an magazine writer really makes you wonder if there really wasnt more to this that hasnt been heard yet.

 

[donsutherland1]

Troops demoralized because they know they cant win with the rules...

The rules of engagement are General McChrystal's. President Obama did not create those rules.

There is more to this story than meets the eye...

There is. An earlier incident during which the general made inappropriate public remarks.

And for Obama to base such a huge decision on the word of an magazine writer really makes you wonder if there really wasnt more to this that hasnt been heard yet.

Considering that General McChrystal reviewed the story and did not contest it, there's little reason others should lack confidence in the article.

 

[VanceMack]

The political and military leadership both recognize that General Petraeus selflessly assumed the post in what amounted to extraordinary circumstances. The change in responsibility will not be looked at negatively. The move does not resemble those made to move someone to a largely symbolic post near the end of their careers.

Bet ya a large shaved ice he is gone by the end of the year...

 

[OmniRocky]

Good riddance to insubordinate rubbish. He'll be lucky if he doesn't face a court martial.

McChrystal was an amazing general, who did an amazing job. I don't think we should be celebrating his departure. I understand that it was necessary, but it's not going to help our effort in Afghanistan. Good luck to Patraeus, and I hope he keeps the ball rolling.

 

[the makeout hobo]

I find it interesting that Obama did essentially everything the COIN advocates told him to do, and he's being criticized by the right for it. There's no pleasing that crowd. Let me ask the naysayers: if you were given control of the Afghanistan situation right now, as things are, what would you do differently?

 

[Jetboogieman]

I find it interesting that Obama did essentially everything the COIN advocates told him to do, and he's being criticized by the right for it. There's no pleasing that crowd. Let me ask the naysayers: if you were given control of the Afghanistan situation right now, as things are, what would you do differently?

Hobo... it's not about what's right and wrong. The right have an election to win in November Never forget that...

 

[ric27]

Let me ask the naysayers: if you were given control of the Afghanistan situation right now, as things are, what would you do differently?

We went in A-stan because B Laden was there and he is not there anymore...He is dead

So, there's no reason for us to be there.