Obama:McChrystal = Bush:Shinseki?

[b0mbrman]

Or something else?

White House angry at General Stanley McChrystal speech on Afghanistan

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."

As a member of the military myself, this feels like a total non-starter. You make recommendations and disagree with your superiors privately, follow lawful orders (i.e. I couldn't commit a war crime just because my boss told me to), and "own" those orders when you task your own subordinates.

But then, I'm reminded of Gen. Shinseki, but don't know enough about what transpired back then to make a proper comparison...

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Or something else?

White House angry at General Stanley McChrystal speech on Afghanistan

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."

As a member of the military myself, this feels like a total non-starter. You make recommendations and disagree with your superiors privately, follow lawful orders (i.e. I couldn't commit a war crime just because my boss told me to), and "own" those orders when you task your own subordinates.

But then, I'm reminded of Gen. Shinseki, but don't know enough about what transpired back then to make a proper comparison...

I guess it depends because I think senior military leadership has a duty to the country that is even more important than their duty to the chain of command. I think if a leader truly believes something to be wrong/dangerous/harmful to America the first, second, third, and tenth thing he should do is raise it privately within the chain of command. If something is important enough, and the general's concerns are being ignored, then I get it.

I'm not sure if either this situation of Shinseki's situation qualify, but I think there is room for it.

 

[Pulsar]

On one side, you have a general. All he needs is an objective, then free reign to get it done.

On the other hand, you have 2 politicians: Biden and Obama.

Obama, ever the concensus maker, wants to have dozens of meetings on the topic and group-think it to death so he doesn't have to take any individual responsibility. Biden, on the other hand, has his own idea of how the general should be handling everything and wants to get in his pants and run the show. Gates has the same goal of every politician. Make it look like Obama made the decision and no one disagrees or could possible feel differently.

When the general opened his mouth, he left a HUGE political opening. Now, if Obama chooses to go with another plan, it will make it clear it was NOT the plant of the person who knows the most about what is going on. It was the plan of a career politician who knows nothing of military methods or strategy.

So Obama, Gates, and Biden are ALL pissed because if they choose any course other than the general's, they'll be called to task when it fails. That's why CBS's coverage yesterday was so very spot on. Their headline was: "Gates to General: ZIP IT."

I feel so bad for them.

 

[Ausm]

I don't think putting President Obama on the spot will be any benefit for him.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Pulsar
On one side, you have a general. All he needs is an objective, then free reign to get it done.

On the other hand, you have 2 politicians: Biden and Obama.

Obama, ever the concensus maker, wants to have dozens of meetings on the topic and group-think it to death so he doesn't have to take any individual responsibility. Biden, on the other hand, has his own idea of how the general should be handling everything and wants to get in his pants and run the show. Gates has the same goal of every politician. Make it look like Obama made the decision and no one disagrees or could possible feel differently.

When the general opened his mouth, he left a HUGE political opening. Now, if Obama chooses to go with another plan, it will make it clear it was NOT the plant of the person who knows the most about what is going on. It was the plan of a career politician who knows nothing of military methods or strategy.

So Obama, Gates, and Biden are ALL pissed because if they choose any course other than the general's, they'll be called to task when it fails. That's why CBS's coverage yesterday was so very spot on. Their headline was: "Gates to General: ZIP IT."

I feel so bad for them.

Generals know the most about the situation on the ground, not the geopolitical situation as a whole. This has been demonstrated over and over again throughout history. Simply put, the general has the luxury of thinking small, the president has to think big. Many times those goals coincide, but there are plenty of times where they do not. That's why the general is a general, and not the president.

That's why military people should keep their mouths shut as a general rule, their concerns are only one piece in a puzzle.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: Pulsar
On one side, you have a general. All he needs is an objective, then free reign to get it done.

On the other hand, you have 2 politicians: Biden and Obama.

Obama, ever the concensus maker, wants to have dozens of meetings on the topic and group-think it to death so he doesn't have to take any individual responsibility. Biden, on the other hand, has his own idea of how the general should be handling everything and wants to get in his pants and run the show. Gates has the same goal of every politician. Make it look like Obama made the decision and no one disagrees or could possible feel differently.

When the general opened his mouth, he left a HUGE political opening. Now, if Obama chooses to go with another plan, it will make it clear it was NOT the plant of the person who knows the most about what is going on. It was the plan of a career politician who knows nothing of military methods or strategy.

So Obama, Gates, and Biden are ALL pissed because if they choose any course other than the general's, they'll be called to task when it fails. That's why CBS's coverage yesterday was so very spot on. Their headline was: "Gates to General: ZIP IT."

I feel so bad for them.

But that's the case at every level of the military.

If I were a lieutenant leading a platoon tasked with securing the northern third of Haverbrook, I know that area much better than my boss who's in charge of all of Haverbrook.

Still, I would never dream of going around him to make my case to the squadron commander.

 

[heyheybooboo]

I think it's pretty much a non-issue.

I was also a wee bit concerned with the issue of the 'chain of command' and how McChrystal may have impacted 'other' aspects of Afghanistan (and boy, there are a lot of them).

He (McChrystal) may not have been privy to discussions with Pakistan, the UN or other NATO allies. It doesn't look good when the USA does not all appear to be on the same page.

I don't think either Obama or Biden care if he speaks his mind --- just the way he went about it and where it occurred calls into question his judgment.

It seems there are serious discussions as to what a 'win' is in Afghanistan --- and that's a good thing. There seems to be this belief among some that we need to wipe the Taliban off the map to be successful and I just don't see than happening.

I tend to agree with Biden but I can see where that makes some folks uncomfortable. Remember 'Mission Creep' ?? That's what I see happening here. We need to narrowly define our objectives: Neuter AQ and bring OBL to justice.

It works for me.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: Ausm
I don't think putting President Obama on the spot will be any benefit for him.

He is a 4 star general. Other than being retired earlier than he planned, I wouldn't imagine he has much to lose. OTOH, if he is retired early and things go south in Afghan it could harm Obama politically. You don't get 4 stars by being dumb or not looking at the big picture.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: Ausm
I don't think putting President Obama on the spot will be any benefit for him.

He is a 4 star general. Other than being retired earlier than he planned, I wouldn't imagine he has much to lose. OTOH, if he is retired early and things go south in Afghan it could harm Obama politically. You don't get 4 stars by being dumb or not looking at the big picture.

MacArthur had 5 stars and he never learned how to look at the big picture.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I would think that a General would know better than anybody else what it takes to win a war. Me thinks the 'big picture' doesn't want to pay the price of winning. Deja vu?

 

[ccbadd]

Also keep in mind, he is commanding more than US troops and owes it to the leader's of their countries to be honest. Indecision costs lives and Obama is responsible for those deaths. Any good military commander is an advocate for his/her soldiers especially when we have a week commander in chief that follows the "Politics is more important than winning" strategy like we did in Viet Nam, and those politics are the so called "BIG Picture" being referenced.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ccbadd
Also keep in mind, he is commanding more than US troops and owes it to the leader's of their countries to be honest. Indecision costs lives and Obama is responsible for those deaths. Any good military commander is an advocate for his/her soldiers especially when we have a week commander in chief that follows the "Politics is more important than winning" strategy like we did in Viet Nam, and those politics are the so called "BIG Picture" being referenced.

Uhmm, in many cases the politics (big picture) ARE more important than winning. As I mentioned with MacArthur before, the Korean war showed this perfectly well. The commanding general was attempting to get us involved in a large scale war on the Asian mainland with China and possibly the Soviet Union. At the time it was not an insignificant possibility that such a conflict would turn nuclear. The 'politics' of the time led Truman to wisely ignore such 'advice', and eventually contributed to his firing of MacArthur.

The big picture is exactly that, the big picture. Any president who is truly concerned about the lives of his troops will most certainly consider it.

 

[Pocatello]

I don't see McChrystal keeping his job for very long.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
I would think that a General would know better than anybody else what it takes to win a war. Me thinks the 'big picture' doesn't want to pay the price of winning. Deja vu?

Is it ever possible that the US "winning" means more than winning from a military standpoint, or even more than winning from a solely Afghanistan standpoint?

 

[bbdub333]

Obama wants an out, plain and simple. It's visible every day when decisions are made which go against all good sense. If he wanted to succeed, he would listen to his advisers and send more troops. It becomes more and more evident with every passing day that he simply wants to find a way out and be able to say "This wasn't my fault". Failure here means decades of regional instability and lives that were lost for nothing. He needs to send more troops and let the general do what needs to be done.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: ccbadd
Also keep in mind, he is commanding more than US troops and owes it to the leader's of their countries to be honest. Indecision costs lives and Obama is responsible for those deaths. Any good military commander is an advocate for his/her soldiers especially when we have a week commander in chief that follows the "Politics is more important than winning" strategy like we did in Viet Nam, and those politics are the so called "BIG Picture" being referenced.

Uhmm, in many cases the politics (big picture) ARE more important than winning. As I mentioned with MacArthur before, the Korean war showed this perfectly well. The commanding general was attempting to get us involved in a large scale war on the Asian mainland with China and possibly the Soviet Union. At the time it was not an insignificant possibility that such a conflict would turn nuclear. The 'politics' of the time led Truman to wisely ignore such 'advice', and eventually contributed to his firing of MacArthur.

The big picture is exactly that, the big picture. Any president who is truly concerned about the lives of his troops will most certainly consider it.

That's what happened in VN. Feed the Big Picture bodies to make us look like we're doing something, and make sure not to anger China.

Now we can have the same thing in Afghanistan. Don't want to win, can't afford to lose.

 

[DesiPower]

Scanning Bush... Spine found
Scanning McChrystal... Spine found
Scanning Shinseki... Spine found
Scanning Obama... Beep Beep Beep - No Spine found

OP Comparison inconclusive.

 

[PJABBER]

The Coded Message

After numerous rounds on MSNBC of "We don't even know if Osama is still alive," Osama Bin Laden himself decided to send Barack Obama a letter in his own handwriting to let the President know he was still in the game.

Obama opened the letter and it appeared to contain a single line of coded message:

370HSSV-0773H

Obama was baffled, so he e-mailed it to Hillary Clinton.

Clinton and her aides had no clue either, so they sent it to David Gates at DOD. They were flummoxed as well and forwarded it to the FBI.

No one could solve it at the FBI, so it went to the CIA.

With no clue as to its meaning they eventually asked the NSA to break the code. Within a minute the NSA cabled the White House with this reply, "Tell the President he's holding the message upside down."

 

[heyheybooboo]

Too bad (with nothing of substance to add) BLATHER has to recycle a bad joke first used about George Bush ...

 

[PJABBER]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
Too bad (with nothing of substance to add) BLATHER has to recycle a bad joke first used about George Bush ...

If the shoe fits...

(what is up with all of these timewarps?) :laugh:

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: DesiPower
Scanning Bush... Spine found
Scanning McChrystal... Spine found
Scanning Shinseki... Spine found
Scanning Obama... Beep Beep Beep - No Spine found

OP Comparison inconclusive.

Hm...yes, Bush's spine was huge in regard to Afghanistan.

http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/b0mbrman/troopsAf.GIF