McCrystal

[Emp]

Very interesting.

Why does a general given a history of discipline and deference to the command structure talk out publicly and for attribution against his boss? It's his Plan for the 'Stan, yet he takes actions that surely will lead to undermining both himself and the plan?

Will we see him getting five/six figure speaking fees in the next month?

[smileyy]

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDU3YmRhMzcyZWM5NjA4NmNhZTg2MTY4MzRmYmIzMjA=

Whoops -- nevermind, hadn't realized he had already fired him.

[muckem muckem]

It's either extreme frustration or he knew what he was doing and wanted out. Loudly.

[XU 87]

There is no doubt that he needed to be fired. But, the other story, which not surprisingly hasn't received much coverage, is what he said true?

[DC Muskie]

There is no doubt that he needed to be fired. But, the other story, which not surprisingly hasn't received much coverage, is what he said true?

What does that have to do with it? That can be covered in the opinion columns from here to eternity.

Is this just another thing where the country sits on polar opposites rather than focusing on the central issue of this guy talking to Rolling Stone magazine about how stupid he thinks his civilian bosses are?

[drudy23]

How can he NOT accept a resignation?

"Here is my letter of resignation...I'm done"

"No, you're not...get back to work"

"Uh....ok?"

I guess if the President says go to work, you go to work.

[smileyy]

It's either extreme frustration or he knew what he was doing and wanted out. Loudly.

My best hope is that he wanted to erode confidence/opinion in Afghanistan enough to make it come to an end.

Some of the quotes in the article about soldiers who went over there eager to get their gun on disturbed me a lot.

[Snipe]

I would have fired him and taken away his stars. If McCrystal wanted to speak out he should have resigned and written a book. You don't go after the Commander in Chief in an interview with the press, let alone Rolling Stone Magazine. McCrystal is a fool. He didn't honor the chain of command and he should be stripped down to private. McCrystal knows those rules better than anyone and he broke them. What an ass.

[SixFig]

This whole scenario is sad sad sad.

The Afghans have an almost undefeated record when facing outside invaders. Can America leave without killing Osama? Is that feasible?

What can we do to stop the cycle of terrorism and governmental corruption? I think the fact is that the Afghans aren't ready for democracy, let alone a democracy forced upon them by Westerners.

I just don't know what to make of it.

[GuyFawkes38]

There are a lot of rumors going around that General Petraeus is not a fan of Obama either.

The odd thing about this is that Obama has basically supported the recommendations of McCrystal and Petraeus (in fact, perhaps more so than Bush would have).

[smileyy]

Two options:

(1) Withdraw, knowing that tribal conflict will continue to exist, because, well, it always has, especially when foreign powers destabilize the country. I mean, realistically, at this point, we're paying both sides to keep fighting each other. Then we kill some extra civilians for good measure.

(2) Kill everyone in the country (and most of Pakistan as well), and take the $3T in mineral wealth in the country.

I'm pretty much fine with either outcome.

[DC Muskie]

There are a lot of rumors going around that General Petraeus is not a fan of Obama either.

Whoa, wait...are you telling me that a career military guy might not be a fan of working for someone who isn't a career military man?

Wow, you are really unearthing something completely unimaginable.

[GuyFawkes38]

Whoa, wait...are you telling me that a career military guy might not be a fan of working for someone who isn't a career military man?

Wow, you are really unearthing something completely unimaginable.

I think there's a little more to it than the assumption that military leaders don't like non military leaders.

[DC Muskie]

I think there's a little more to it than the assumption that military leaders don't like non military leaders.

No doubt you will get around to uncovering it.

[PM Thor]

There are a lot of rumors going around that General Petraeus is not a fan of Obama either.

The odd thing about this is that Obama has basically supported the recommendations of McCrystal and Petraeus (in fact, perhaps more so than Bush would have).

Take for example the drone attacks. I can't remember the exact number, but under Obama, the number of attacks (and successful ones at that) have skyrocketed. (It could be argued this is because the US is simply getting better at it)

I HATE dayton.

[XU 87]

What does that have to do with it? That can be covered in the opinion columns from here to eternity.



I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say. At this point, McChrystal making his public statements against Obama et. al. is a side show. Did he need to go? Yes. But what is more important, at this point, is- "Are the claims made by McChrystal accurate?" And why did he make them, to Rolling Stone Magazine of all places?

Even more importantly, is the Afghanistan strategy working? And was it a wise move for Obama to announce that we would start withdrawing troops next year? What would have happened had we announced on June 30, 1944 that we would begin withdrawing our troops from Europe in November 1944?

[SixFig]

What would have happened had we announced on June 30, 1944 that we would begin withdrawing our troops from Europe in November 1944?

Europe would have been redder than Rick Majerus' bowl movements on Free Chipotle Night.

Total communism

[smileyy]

Well, if we couldn't put a country together in 9 years, maybe we can do it in 9 more?

Afghanistan! Successful by 2019!

[SixFig]

Well, if we couldn't put a country together in 9 years, maybe we can do it in 9 more?

Afghanistan! Successful by 2019!

You could say America was never totally unified until after the Civil War. If you want to nitpick you could say that the ratification of the Constitution (in 1788, 12 years after the declaration of independence) brought the country together after the Articles of Confederation failed to serve adequately as law. Think roadside bombs are bad, try tomahawk to the face. Those were tough times too.

[smileyy]

And that all started with a war to kick out the occupying power.

[DC Muskie]

I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say. At this point, McChrystal making his public statements against Obama et. al. is a side show. Did he need to go? Yes. But what is more important, at this point, is- "Are the claims made by McChrystal accurate?" And why did he make them, to Rolling Stone Magazine of all places?

My point is, what does it matter? Has the strategy not been questioned ad nausea for many years? Why is it now that we need to spotlight the strategy? As for why did he make them to Rolling Stone, again, who cares? The point is he made them, he shouldn't have and he was shown the door.


Even more importantly, is the Afghanistan strategy working? And was it a wise move for Obama to announce that we would start withdrawing troops next year? What would have happened had we announced on June 30, 1944 that we would begin withdrawing our troops from Europe in November 1944?

Again, this is a separate situation. The strategy is always questioned, has been and will be. I have no idea whether or not it will work, and I think comparing this situation to WWII is completely misguided. But I'm confidant you will try and tie them together because simply they are both military engagements.

[picknroll]

Europe would have been redder than Rick Majerus' bowl movements on Free Chipotle Night.

Total communism

That is an all-time classic anal ogy.

[XU 87]

My point is, what does it matter? Has the strategy not been questioned ad nausea for many years?

The current strategy has not come under much scrutiny.

[Snipe]

I think the Afghan was sucks, and it was pointless to begin with. I don't know why it has been 10 years but 10 years is enough. I don't want another 10 years.

Watching the World Cup today they welcomed viewers from our Armed forces overseas. The Armed Forces Network is broadcasting to them in 175 nations worldwide. Try to write down a list of countries in which we have young military men and women. See if you get to 50. Try to get to 175. Why do we have troops in 175 different nations? Why do we borrow from the Chinese to pay for that?

Ron Paul said we can't afford the empire. I wouldn't have used the term empire. Like him or not he is right. We simply can't afford this crap.

[xu95]

Having served in the Army as an officer, one of the first things I learned was to not publicly question your commander in chief. Like him or not he is still your boss.

xu95

[DC Muskie]

The current strategy has not come under much scrutiny.

How much is much? Jesus the strategy no matter what seems to suck, so what the hell does it matter if not enough (in your eyes) scrutiny has happened?

We need to get out of there. I personally don't like the fact we announce when we are leaving, but also don't think we should stay there another day.

I mean Snipe is correct, why on earth are we in so many freakin places? And anytime anything ever tries to change, we focus on whether or not the strategy in place is scrutinized enough. What's our strategy for being in Germany? Does anyone care? Or the fact that no one dies there makes it less important? Why aren't we scrutinizing that more?

[Porkopolis]

How much is much? Jesus the strategy no matter what seems to suck, so what the hell does it matter if not enough (in your eyes) scrutiny has happened?

We need to get out of there. I personally don't like the fact we announce when we are leaving, but also don't think we should stay there another day.

I mean Snipe is correct, why on earth are we in so many freakin places? And anytime anything ever tries to change, we focus on whether or not the strategy in place is scrutinized enough. What's our strategy for being in Germany? Does anyone care? Or the fact that no one dies there makes it less important? Why aren't we scrutinizing that more?

We spend entirely too much money supporting an outdated Cold War "defense" structure. We spend even more money fighting pointless wars around the world. Serious changes need to be made to our military spending; we could save the taxpayers an unbelievable amount of money while also improving the other services government provides. AND improving our actual ability to defend our actual country.

[muskienick]

Not that it is a legitimate reason to stay in all these places but the word is that the countries where these bases are found have threatened to throw a fit if we leave since it would negatively affect their economies in those areas.

I guess they fail to realize that our presence there negatively affects our economy in a significant way also (far more than their economies would suffer with their absence). They have seemingly used blackmail and weak forms of intimidation to get the U.S. to reconsider decisions to close bases in some portions around the globe. Most of it boils down to "We won't like you anymore"!

My question is: How can many of those countries like us any less?

[boozehound]

I think the Afghan was sucks, and it was pointless to begin with. I don't know why it has been 10 years but 10 years is enough. I don't want another 10 years.

Watching the World Cup today they welcomed viewers from our Armed forces overseas. The Armed Forces Network is broadcasting to them in 175 nations worldwide. Try to write down a list of countries in which we have young military men and women. See if you get to 50. Try to get to 175. Why do we have troops in 175 different nations? Why do we borrow from the Chinese to pay for that?

Ron Paul said we can't afford the empire. I wouldn't have used the term empire. Like him or not he is right. We simply can't afford this crap.


How much is much? Jesus the strategy no matter what seems to suck, so what the hell does it matter if not enough (in your eyes) scrutiny has happened?

We need to get out of there. I personally don't like the fact we announce when we are leaving, but also don't think we should stay there another day.

I mean Snipe is correct, why on earth are we in so many freakin places? And anytime anything ever tries to change, we focus on whether or not the strategy in place is scrutinized enough. What's our strategy for being in Germany? Does anyone care? Or the fact that no one dies there makes it less important? Why aren't we scrutinizing that more?

When DC Muskie and Snipe agree on anything politically-charged you really have to think about it!

Seriously though, I agree with this statement. We have troops in a lot of places where they don't need to be. Anytime anyone wants to pull troops out we talk about how it will 'destabilize the region'. I didn't realize that we had, in fact, stablized the region.

[boozehound]

Not that it is a legitimate reason to stay in all these places but the word is that the countries where these bases are found have threatened to throw a fit if we leave since it would negatively affect their economies in those areas.

I guess they fail to realize that our presence there negatively affects our economy in a significant way also (far more than their economies would suffer with their absence). They have seemingly used blackmail and weak forms of intimidation to get the U.S. to reconsider decisions to close bases in some portions around the globe. Most of it boils down to "We won't like you anymore"!

My question is: How can many of those countries like us any less?

Yeah, and who really gives a crap if Somalia or Afghanistan likes us less than they do right now.

[DC Muskie]

When DC Muskie and Snipe agree on anything politically-charged you really have to think about it!

It happens on occasion. Snipe will tell you it's because I moved towards his thinking, when actually in reality, he's just speaking common sense, which is what I do all the time. Except when I am wrong. Which is never.

[JimmyTwoTimes37]

When DC Muskie and Snipe agree on anything politically-charged you really have to think about it!

Seriously though, I agree with this statement. .

I agree with your guys agreement.

As of 2008, the United States has troops in 135 independent countries(Out of 192).

Afghanistan
Albania
Algeria
Antigua
Argentina
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Bahamas
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Barbados
Belgium
Belize
Bolivia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Botswana
Brazil
Bulgaria
Burma
Burundi
Cambodia
Cameroon
Canada
Chad
Chile
China
Colombia
Congo
Costa Rica
Cote D’lvoire
Cuba
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Djibouti
Dominican Republic
East Timor
Ecuador
Egypt
El Salvador
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Fiji
Finland
France
Georgia
Germany - 52,440
Ghana
Greece
Guatemala
Guinea
Haiti
Honduras
Hungary
Iceland
India
Indonesia
Iraq
Ireland
Israel
Italy - 9,660
Jamaica
Japan - 35,688
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kenya
Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan
Laos
Latvia
Lebanon
Liberia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Macedonia
Madagascar
Malawi
Malaysia
Mali
Malta
Mexico
Mongolia
Morocco
Mozambique
Nepal
Netherlands
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Niger
Nigeria
North Korea
Norway
Oman
Pakistan
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Qatar
Romania
Russia
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Serbia and Montenegro
Sierra Leone
Singapore
Slovenia
Spain
South Africa
South Korea - 28,500
Sri Lanka
Suriname
Sweden
Switzerland
Syria
Tanzania
Thailand
Togo
Trinidad and Tobago
Tunisia
Turkey
Turkmenistan
Uganda
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom - 9,015
Uruguay
Venezuela
Vietnam
Yemen
Zambia
Zimbabwe

Over 70% of the worlds countries. This isn't even counting territories - its strictly sovereign nations.


http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/MILITARY/history/hst0803.pdf

[xu95]

I think we should pull out of Canada. French loving bastards. :)

xu95

[boozehound]

It's a good thing we have troops in Madagascar. Could you imagine the carnage if that region destabilized?

[PM Thor]

It's a good thing we have troops in Madagascar. Could you imagine the carnage if that region destabilized?

When they say "troops" does this count soldiers stationed at embassies?

I HATE dayton.

[wkrq59]

For a different perspective on this I recomment David Brooks column in today's Enquirer.

[waggy]

For a different perspective on this I recomment David Brooks column in today's Enquirer.

I couldn't find it on the Enquirer website, but I think at found it at the NY Times site. Below is a link for those who haven't read it.

Thanks for the heads up Q.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/25/opinion/25brooks.html?ref=davidbrooks

[GuyFawkes38]

I would definitely join the army if I could serve in Italy.

Despite the protests from their citizens, the vast majority of countries on that list desperately want the US military to stay in their countries. And I sort of agree with them. Having US soldiers stationed across the world really does provide an incentive against countries launching military operations. It benefits everyone.

I don't think the current situation is sustainable. But closing international bases has to be done in a very slow and careful process. I wouldn't want Ron Paul in charge of the process.