Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 38

Thread: President Obama angry at Gen McChrystal's speech on Afghanistan

  1. #1
    Elite Member witchcurlgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Acerbia
    Posts
    34,697

    Default President Obama angry at Gen McChrystal's speech on Afghanistan

    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.


    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."

    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.

    Barack Obama angry at General Stanley McChrystal speech on Afghanistan - Telegraph



    All of God's children are not beautiful. Most of God's children are, in fact, barely presentable.


    If I wanted the government in my womb I'd fuck a Senator

  2. #2
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,359

    Default

    Maybe the douche in chief should put a leash on his dog, unless he's too wimpy for that too.
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  3. #3
    Elite Member witchcurlgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Acerbia
    Posts
    34,697

    Default

    On Afghanistan, US military puts Obama on the spot

    WASHINGTON (AFP) – By openly declaring their views on the Afghan war, US military leaders have placed President Barack Obama in a bind as he faces a fraught decision over the troubled US-led mission.

    Obama has refused to quickly approve a request from his commanders for a major troop build-up in Afghanistan, insisting first on a full vetting of the current strategy.

    But while a war council takes place behind closed doors at the White House, top military officers have made no secret of their view that without a vast ground force, the Afghan mission could end in failure.

    "They want to make sure people know what they asked for if things go wrong," Lawrence Korb, a former assistant secretary of defense, told AFP.

    As a result, if Obama chooses to change course in Afghanistan or decline a request for large numbers of troops, he will be rejecting the advice of the US military, raising the political stakes.

    Commentators on the left say the military ought to keep its advice private without trying to influence public debate, with New York Times columnist Frank Rich accusing the generals of an attempt to "try to lock him (Obama) in" on Afghanistan.

    Korb said the top brass is keen to avoid a repeat of the run-up to the Iraq war under former president George W. Bush, when military leaders bowed to White House demands for a small invasion force -- with disastrous consequences.

    Drawing on blood-soaked experience in Iraq, military commanders now fervently embrace counter-insurgency doctrine, which calls for large numbers of troops providing security and winning the trust of the local population.

    Amid rising casualties and a spreading insurgency, skeptics in Congress and the White House have floated proposals to freeze or even reduce the 65,000-strong force.

    But McChrystal and his superiors have dismissed such alternatives as half-measures.

    "You can't hope to contain the fire by letting just half the building burn," McChrystal told Newsweek.

    Top US military officer Admiral Mike Mullen and the head of the regional Central Command, General David Petraeus, have publicly endorsed the manpower-intensive strategy set out in a report by McChrystal.

    The commander's stark assessment of the war, which was leaked, has set off a flurry of counter-leaks in US newspapers with unnamed officials in the White House voicing skepticism about esclating the American commitment.

    The heated debate over war strategy mostly pits hawks on the right demanding Obama promptly endorse the commander's request for more troops against voices on the left who raise the specter of a quagmire akin to Vietnam.

    Senator John McCain and other Republicans invoke Iraq, arguing the US military turned the tide there only after a "surge" of additional combat troops and tactics suited to irregular warfare.

    McCain has praised Bush for approving the surge strategy in late 2006, a move that was opposed by most of the US military leadership at the time.

    Dismissing calls by Democrats to hold off on a troop buildup until training more Afghan security forces, McCain said: "We've seen this movie before, it didn't work in Iraq and it won't work in Afghanistan."

    But the disputed election in Afghanistan, tainted by allegations of widespread fraud, has jolted the administration and renewed serious doubts about the credibility of the Kabul government.

    "Nobody expected it to go this poorly and that I think that has got people thinking," Korb said.

    The White House meanwhile acknowledged some members of Obama's team have been reading "Lessons in Disaster," a book about flawed decision-making in the Vietnam war.

    In the book, author Gordon Goldstein suggests the late president John F. Kennedy, if he had lived, would have rejected the military's demand for combat troops in Vietnam -- as he had lost faith in his generals' advice after the Bay of Pigs fiasco in Cuba. "Perhaps this is Obama?s JFK moment," George Packer of the New Yorker wrote in his blog. "We?ll know in a few weeks."



    On Afghanistan, US military puts Obama on the spot - Yahoo! News



    All of God's children are not beautiful. Most of God's children are, in fact, barely presentable.


    If I wanted the government in my womb I'd fuck a Senator

  4. #4
    Elite Member kingcap72's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    10 miles from Pootie Tang
    Posts
    21,909

    Default

    But while a war council takes place behind closed doors at the White House, top military officers have made no secret of their view that without a vast ground force, the Afghan mission could end in failure.
    I wouldn't be against using a short-term surge in troops. But if we keep pouring troops in long-term, without having a clearly defined mission and withdrawal timeline, then Obama runs the risk of having Afghanistan become the anchor around his neck the way Iraq did with Dubya.

  5. #5
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,359

    Default

    I'm sorry, if nobody else on the planet could subdue afghanistan, wtf makes the US think it can.. its whizbang toys?

    It's moronic.
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  6. #6
    Elite Member kingcap72's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    10 miles from Pootie Tang
    Posts
    21,909

    Default

    The Russians couldn't do it, and neither will the U.S.

    Besides the Taliban, the government itself is corrupt as hell. Afghanistan as a country will always be a lost cause.

  7. #7
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,359

    Default

    The #2 guy at the UN overseeing elections got fired because he said the Afghani elections were a total fraud
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  8. #8
    Elite Member kingcap72's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    10 miles from Pootie Tang
    Posts
    21,909

    Default

    Fire the guy that told the truth about the election. Figures.

  9. #9
    Elite Member MohandasKGanja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Wherever my kids are
    Posts
    34,423

    Default

    I don't know what the statistics are, but it seems like every other day, I'm reading about 8 or so American troops being killed in some offensive at some isolated outpost.

    What McChrystal seems to be saying is that you can't have a meaningful Afghan government without significant ground troops for the foreseeable future.

    The other alternative (Chaosistan) is to have some superbases to retreat to -- let the Taliban come in and slaughter everyone who was allied with us, return women to slave status -- but make things really difficult for them by switching roles. Where we become the insurgents and they become the central authority constantly under bombardment.

  10. #10
    Elite Member darksithbunny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    14,965

    Default

    Either let the military do their job by giving them what they need or get them the hell outta of there. It really is that simple.

    I personally would like to see them all come home.

  11. #11
    Elite Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,543

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MohandasKGanja View Post

    The other alternative (Chaosistan) is to have some superbases to retreat to -- let the Taliban come in and slaughter everyone who was allied with us, return women to slave status --
    Source on change of women's lives in Afganistan?

    Everything I've read says women are in the exact same position they were 9 years ago. All wear Burkahs, most are not allowed out without and male relative, and very few girls in school.
    CHILLY FREE!
    i have to zero the contain to your level -bugdoll
    you can't even be ogirinal - Mary

  12. #12
    Elite Member celeb_2006's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    13,467

    Default

    Well hell, the adminstration is trying to have it both ways, trying to appease all sides and is plainly just lollygagging and stretching this thing out without wanting to commit to more troops or withdrawing.

    Playing the middle of the fence as per usual.

    Hell, make SOME decision, instead of sitting back and not wanting to get one's hand dirty. Either COMMIT and send more troops which I don't agree with, or set a timetable to withdraw SOON.

    Show some COURAGE for goodness sakes.

    The more people drag ass and lollygag, the more our troops and civilians will die.

    This ain't a f**king game. These are lives we are dealing with.

    There is a saying somone told me once, and it is so very true. The very worst decision anyone can make, especially in times of duress and criticality, is NO decision.

  13. #13
    Elite Member witchcurlgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Acerbia
    Posts
    34,697

    Default

    ^ Hear, hear!

    On the plains of hesitation bleach the bones of countless millions who, at the dawn of victory, sat down to wait, and waiting died.



    All of God's children are not beautiful. Most of God's children are, in fact, barely presentable.


    If I wanted the government in my womb I'd fuck a Senator

  14. #14
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,359

    Default

    "It's fucking chow time, brother. That's how you get things off of your plate." - Jon Stewart.
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  15. #15
    Elite Member witchcurlgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Acerbia
    Posts
    34,697

    Default

    ^ That was great last night.



    All of God's children are not beautiful. Most of God's children are, in fact, barely presentable.


    If I wanted the government in my womb I'd fuck a Senator

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Gen McChrystal: More forces for Afghanistan or 'Mission Failure'
    By witchcurlgirl in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: September 22nd, 2009, 10:05 PM
  2. General Stanley McChrystal pledges no torture
    By celeb_2006 in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: June 3rd, 2009, 01:41 PM
  3. Barack Obama to explore new approach to Afghanistan war
    By Belinda in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: November 11th, 2008, 09:10 AM
  4. Barack Obama gives his take on John McCain's speech
    By kingcap72 in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: September 5th, 2008, 03:10 PM
  5. Barack Obama faces big challenges for his big speech
    By kingcap72 in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: August 30th, 2008, 11:27 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •