PDA

View Full Version : McChrystal Apologizes for Remarks in Profile, Summoned to White House



Gingersnap
06-22-2010, 09:50 AM
Pentagon

McChrystal Apologizes for Remarks in Profile, Summoned to White House

Published June 22, 2010
| FOXNews.com


http://i48.tinypic.com/m9vlvs.jpg
2010 AFP
May 10: General Stanley McChrystal speaks during a press briefing with White House spokesman Robert Gibbs, left, and U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry at the White House.

The top U.S. war commander in Afghanistan is being called to the White House for a face-to-face meeting with President Obama after issuing an apology Tuesday for an interview in which he described the president as unprepared for their first meeting.

In the article in this week's issue of Rolling Stone, Gen. Stanley McChrystal also said he felt betrayed and blind-sided by his diplomatic partner, Ambassador Karl Eikenberry.

McChrystal's comments are reverberating through Washington and the Pentagon after the magazine depicted him as a lone wolf on the outs with many important figures in the Obama administration.

It characterized him as unable to convince some of his own soldiers that his strategy can win the nation's longest-running war and dejected that the president didn't know about his commendable military record.

In Kabul on Tuesday, McChrystal issued a statement saying: "I extend my sincerest apology for this profile. It was a mistake reflecting poor judgment and should never have happened."

McChrystal has been called to the White House Situation Room on Wednesday to explain his comments to the magazine directly to the president, a senior administration official told Fox News. Normally, he would appear on a conference call for a regular strategy session.

McChrystal also called Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen late Monday to apologize. Mullen told the general he was deeply disappointed, according to a senior military official at the Pentagon.

The article says that although McChrystal voted for Obama, the two failed to connect from the start. Obama called McChrystal on the carpet last fall for speaking too bluntly about his desire for more troops.

"I found that time painful," McChrystal said in the article, on newsstands Friday. "I was selling an unsellable position."

Fox (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/21/mcchrystal-says-ambassador-betrayed-criticism-afghan-war-strategy/)

DU+NU_Reject
06-22-2010, 10:32 AM
"Let no good deed go unpunished"

Right-Wing Conspirator
06-22-2010, 10:54 AM
I would have told Dr. Zero to blow it out his ass, which would have made him a hero, resigned, and run against Dr. Zero in 2012.

...but that's just me...

KhrushchevsShoe
06-22-2010, 10:56 AM
McChrystal was doing a pretty good job too, shame.

AmPat
06-22-2010, 11:53 AM
McChrystal is obviously flawed if he was stupid enough to vote for his imbecile boss in the first place.

He should have told O Blah Blah that if he didn't support him as the top decision maker in theater, then he would resign- Flaw number two.

Number three- If he doesn't tell this Organizer in Chief to "Kiss My @$$ for being summoned like a school boy to the principal's office, he deserves to be fired.:mad:

Apocalypse
06-22-2010, 11:56 AM
For any one interested, this is the full article that started all of this.

"The Runaway General"

This is a quick conversion of the Rolling Stone article in a pdf file.

http://sweetness-light.com/PPM130_r1109mcchrystal.pdf

Gingersnap
06-22-2010, 12:01 PM
The real question is why a smart military man would seriously believe that a 'Rolling Stone' story would be a good idea.

I mean, come on.....even if he and his aides never said anything critical of the Obama administration, why open up to magazine that built its reputation on dopers and draft dodgers? It doesn't make any sense.

CueSi
06-22-2010, 12:12 PM
The real question is why a smart military man would seriously believe that a 'Rolling Stone' story would be a good idea.

I mean, come on.....even if he and his aides never said anything critical of the Obama administration, why open up to magazine that built its reputation on dopers and draft dodgers? It doesn't make any sense.


Yeah. It's like Al Gore doing an interview for Reason Magazine. You can do it, but nothing good will come of it.

~QC

lacarnut
06-22-2010, 12:35 PM
McChrystal is obviously flawed if he was stupid enough to vote for his imbecile boss in the first place.

He should have told O Blah Blah that if he didn't support him as the top decision maker in theater, then he would resign- Flaw number two.

Number three- If he doesn't tell this Organizer in Chief to "Kiss My @$$ for being summoned like a school boy to the principal's office, he deserves to be fired.:mad:

True, true and true.

We need to get out of that shit hole corrupt country cause the war is not winnable.

PoliCon
06-22-2010, 12:38 PM
And how would a full pull out - turning the country back over to the taliban and Al Queda - benefit us?

AmPat
06-22-2010, 12:55 PM
The real question is why a smart military man would seriously believe that a 'Rolling Stone' story would be a good idea.

I mean, come on.....even if he and his aides never said anything critical of the Obama administration, why open up to magazine that built its reputation on dopers and draft dodgers? It doesn't make any sense.
He voted for O Blah Blah. He isn't "smart.":cool:

lacarnut
06-22-2010, 01:01 PM
And how would a full pull out - turning the country back over to the taliban and Al Queda - benefit us?

If we can not win a war in 3 or 4 years, we should not fight it. 10 years is enough. The cost has been too high with our boys dying and spending billions. For what....a corrupt government and a bunch of lazy Afghans.

PoliCon
06-22-2010, 01:22 PM
If we can not win a war in 3 or 4 years, we should not fight it. 10 years is enough. The cost has been too high with our boys dying and spending billions. For what....a corrupt government and a bunch of lazy Afghans.

And what would the cost be in American lives if we withdraw?

Odysseus
06-22-2010, 01:34 PM
I would have told Dr. Zero to blow it out his ass, which would have made him a hero, resigned, and run against Dr. Zero in 2012.

...but that's just me...
If he's a Democrat (he claims to have voted for Obama), then he would run on that ticket. I'd just as soon not have a hawkish Democrat who will still tax and spend us into oblivion on the ticket.

The real question is why a smart military man would seriously believe that a 'Rolling Stone' story would be a good idea.

I mean, come on.....even if he and his aides never said anything critical of the Obama administration, why open up to magazine that built its reputation on dopers and draft dodgers? It doesn't make any sense.
He may not have had a choice. We often get ordered to provide media with access, and no matter how adversarial they are, we have to comply. That being said, you have to assume that Rolling Stone is the enemy. He should have known that they would paint him as the big, bad general who is making their sainted Obama look like a wimp and taken steps to protect himself. First, say nothing that can be construed as anything other than respectful of the chain of command. Second, make sure that all interviews are recorded by your staff in full and and have them produce transcripts so that anything taken out of context can be explained. Third, demand advance copies of the article for fact-checking. Identify any false or misleading content and call them on it. If they fail to correct the article, then go to your chain of command and make sure that they know that you didn't say what they claim, bring the transcripts and audio files and be ready to fight. If his Public Affairs Officer didn't strongly recommend that, the PAO ought to be fired.

If we can not win a war in 3 or 4 years, we should not fight it. 10 years is enough. The cost has been too high with our boys dying and spending billions. For what....a corrupt government and a bunch of lazy Afghans.
The Cold War took forty years, but defeat would have been worse. The length of the fight is part of the equation, but the cost of defeat is the bigger part. Defeat or premature withdrawal from Afghanistan would result in the return of the Taliban and al Qaeda and the resumption of external terror attacks on CONUS.
Afghanistan is one of those situations where you really have no good choices. We couldn't allow them to harbor Bin Laden after 9/11, if for no other reason than they would have launched more attacks, and we didn't really have any use for the country after we went in. Ultimately, the only really viable COA comes from Aliens: Nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

marinejcksn
06-22-2010, 02:20 PM
McChrystal is a warrior General in the vein of men like Patton, MacArthur or Admiral Nimitz; you know, men who actually get shit done. Corporate Generals like Jones sit their happy asses in cushy chairs at the Pentagon while real warriors are out bleeding and dying in some God-forsaken shithole like Afghanistan.

First BP, now McChrystal. Wonder who's ass the Boy Wonder is going to aim to kick next? :rolleyes:

Dan D. Doty
06-22-2010, 02:57 PM
I see this as just another step to transform the US Military.

If DADT is removed, then many in the service today will re-up, those who can retire will.

This new thing with Gen. McChrystal is to get the officer corp to either resign, or get in line with admistration.

The jackels who followed Obama to Washington want a military that is loyal to their beliefs and ideology.
They want a military that obeys orders that normally would be unlawful or, goes against their oath of defending the Constituion.

Rebel Yell
06-22-2010, 03:05 PM
McChrystal is a warrior General in the vein of men like Patton, MacArthur or Admiral Nimitz; you know, men who actually get shit done. Corporate Generals like Jones sit their happy asses in cushy chairs at the Pentagon while real warriors are out bleeding and dying in some God-forsaken shithole like Afghanistan.

First BP, now McChrystal. Wonder who's ass the Boy Wonder is going to aim to kick next? :rolleyes:

I thought McChrystal is the one who handcuffed his troops in Afganistan with his "diplomatic" rules of engagement. "Don't fire your weapons if there are any civilians in the area." That has cost us the lives of I don't know how many soldiers. A soldiers job is to kick ass, kill, and tear shit up. A soldiers job is NOT to make the civilians they're trying to liberate feel good about America. That's what diplomats are for. Let Obama go over there and apologize after the fact, but let the boys do what we've spent millions training them to do.

djones520
06-22-2010, 03:05 PM
If we can not win a war in 3 or 4 years, we should not fight it. 10 years is enough. The cost has been too high with our boys dying and spending billions. For what....a corrupt government and a bunch of lazy Afghans.

Edit: Eh... I'll just let Odysseus do the talking. As always he's much more elequent then I am.

lacarnut
06-22-2010, 03:07 PM
The Cold War took forty years, but defeat would have been worse. The length of the fight is part of the equation, but the cost of defeat is the bigger part. Defeat or premature withdrawal from Afghanistan would result in the return of the Taliban and al Qaeda and the resumption of external terror attacks on CONUS.
Afghanistan is one of those situations where you really have no good choices. We couldn't allow them to harbor Bin Laden after 9/11, if for no other reason than they would have launched more attacks, and we didn't really have any use for the country after we went in. Ultimately, the only really viable COA comes from Aliens: Nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

I am all for spraying/killing the poppy fields and nuking the border and leaving. I do not know why the US has not paid the farmers and killed off the money supply for the Taliban's dope. Would have been a drop in the bucket to the subsides we pay farmers here to not plant certain crops. Our policy is just screwed up. We are fighting an enemy that does not wear uniforms, that blend in with the natives and to top it off permission is required to hit certain targets or kill OBL. It is just a fucked police action if you ask me.

Rebel Yell
06-22-2010, 03:09 PM
The night before the general is scheduled to visit Sgt. Arroyo’s platoon for the memorial, I arrive at Combat Outpost JFM to speak with the soldiers he had gone on patrol with. JFM is a small encampment, ringed by high blast walls and guard towers. Almost all of the soldiers here have been on repeated combat tours in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and have seen some of the worst fighting of both wars. But they are especially angered by Ingram’s death. His commanders had repeatedly requested permission to tear down the house where Ingram was killed, noting that it was often used as a combat position by the Taliban. But due to McChrystal’s new restrictions to avoid upsetting civilians, the request had been denied. “These were abandoned houses,” fumes Staff Sgt. Kennith Hicks. “Nobody was coming back to live in them.”

One soldier shows me the list of new regulations the platoon was given. “Patrol only in areas that you are reasonably certain that you will not have to defend yourselves with lethal force,” the laminated card reads. For a soldier who has traveled halfway around the world to fight, that’s like telling a cop he should only patrol in areas where he knows he won’t have to make arrests. “Does that make any f–king sense?” Pfc. Jared Pautsch. “We should just drop a f–king bomb on this place. You sit and ask yourself: What are we doing here?”

I applaud him for saying what he thought, but there's a reason Obama has allowed him to lead the war in Afganistan.

djones520
06-22-2010, 03:11 PM
I applaud him for saying what he thought, but there's a reason Obama has allowed him to lead the war in Afganistan.

It was dumb. Plain and simple. The only reason I can see a Four Star doing this is he wanted a way out without saying "I quit".

Rebel Yell
06-22-2010, 03:13 PM
It was dumb. Plain and simple. The only reason I can see a Four Star doing this is he wanted a way out without saying "I quit".

In my brief stint in the Navy, it was widely known that the dumbest people on the boat were commissioned.

marinejcksn
06-22-2010, 03:14 PM
I thought McChrystal is the one who handcuffed his troops in Afganistan with his "diplomatic" rules of engagement.

Progressive Discipline ROE has been in place, at least in the Marine Corps Case, since 1999. McChrystal works with what he's told to do from above, namely the Commander in Chief back home and the war gamers who can make these half-assed decisions while our boys die in the field because of them. Military in the U.S. has always been Political, from the times of George Washington fighting with Congress for more men during the Revolution. It's just never been this bad.

Rebel Yell
06-22-2010, 03:17 PM
Progressive Discipline ROE has been in place, at least in the Marine Corps Case, since 1999. McChrystal works with what he's told to do from above, namely the Commander in Chief back home and the war gamers who can make these half-assed decisions while our boys die in the field because of them. Military in the U.S. has always been Political, from the times of George Washington fighting with Congress for more men during the Revolution. It's just never been this bad.

Amen to that, brother. There was a time when you used what your men were capable of score political points, now you handcuff them and say, "We can't win!!!" to get out of doing what's needed.

marinejcksn
06-22-2010, 03:40 PM
to get out of doing what's needed.

There in lies the sticking post and I want to highlight you on it because you don't know how right on you are. We lack the intestinal fortitude to make the tough call and do what the hell it takes to win this war. Our men and women on the ground don't. Our battlefield commanders don't. Our pencil-neck politicians do.

What would Patton do in this situation? Shit, what did we do when we found Werwolf guerrillas in WWII? We lined them up against a wall and shot them, that's what. Until we have the stomach to unleash our boys to go murder these lousy terrorist bastards, more good young men and women are going to die for a hellish nation that Alexander couldn't even take.

lacarnut
06-22-2010, 05:07 PM
There in lies the sticking post and I want to highlight you on it because you don't know how right on you are. We lack the intestinal fortitude to make the tough call and do what the hell it takes to win this war. Our men and women on the ground don't. Our battlefield commanders don't. Our pencil-neck politicians do.

What would Patton do in this situation? Shit, what did we do when we found Werwolf guerrillas in WWII? We lined them up against a wall and shot them, that's what. Until we have the stomach to unleash our boys to go murder these lousy terrorist bastards, more good young men and women are going to die for a hellish nation that Alexander couldn't even take.

That's why I am for getting out of that shit-hole country. No sense bleeding blood, guts and money for a bunch of broke dick US and Afghan politicians that will not allow the military to go all out to destroy the enemy.

SarasotaRepub
06-22-2010, 06:13 PM
Well the story now is he has resigned so I guess POTUS gets to pick someone else.

djones520
06-22-2010, 06:14 PM
Drudge has it unofficially that he's offered his resignation.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyharnden/100044536/breaking-general-stanley-mcchrystal-tenders-his-resignation/

Odysseus
06-22-2010, 06:35 PM
Is it me, or does this picture pretty much sum it all up? LTG McChrystal looks apalled and Obama looks like a man without a teleprompter.
http://biggovernment.com/files/2010/06/obama_mcchrystal.jpg


Edit: Eh... I'll just let Odysseus do the talking. As always he's much more elequent then I am.
Three compliments in one day. I'm all ferklempt! Talk among yourselves. I'll be fine. :o

I am all for spraying/killing the poppy fields and nuking the border and leaving. I do not know why the US has not paid the farmers and killed off the money supply for the Taliban's dope. Would have been a drop in the bucket to the subsides we pay farmers here to not plant certain crops. Our policy is just screwed up. We are fighting an enemy that does not wear uniforms, that blend in with the natives and to top it off permission is required to hit certain targets or kill OBL. It is just a fucked police action if you ask me.
The poppy crop is one of the few cash crops in Afghanistan. Killing it off simply impoverishes the farmers and drives them into the Taliban's arms. In fact, one of the major problems is that the government there does destroy some of the poppy crop, while keeping the plots that its ministers own exempt from the culling. Buying it up doesn't do much good, either, as there just isn't sufficient demand for morphine globally, and the paste will still end up in heroin.

Afghanistan is one of the most backward, misbegotten hellholes in the world, and it has been that way since Alexander crossed it on his way to India. But, unfortunately, in the age of the internet, international air travel and rapid proliferation of ideologies, backward, misbegotten hellholes breed the kind of men who board airliners with box cutters and murder people by the thousands because they feel that Allah isn't getting all of the respect that he should be from Americans who were previously providing them with massive aid.

The only ones who have ever succeeded in subjugating the afghans were the Mongols and the Macedonians. Alexander did it by waging a war of savage counterinsurgency and then ended up marrying the daughter of one of the more prominent warlords, appointing him to run the place in his name, and then getting out of the country before the rest of the warlords rose up. The Mongols, in the words of Gibbon, created a desert and called it peace.


There in lies the sticking post and I want to highlight you on it because you don't know how right on you are. We lack the intestinal fortitude to make the tough call and do what the hell it takes to win this war. Our men and women on the ground don't. Our battlefield commanders don't. Our pencil-neck politicians do.

What would Patton do in this situation? Shit, what did we do when we found Werwolf guerrillas in WWII? We lined them up against a wall and shot them, that's what. Until we have the stomach to unleash our boys to go murder these lousy terrorist bastards, more good young men and women are going to die for a hellish nation that Alexander couldn't even take.


You raise a great point. What would Patton do? We can't really use the post WWII constabulary period as an example. For one thing, the Werewolf guerrillas never materialized into a major threat. With the exception of a few fanatical SS types, most Germans were perfectly happy to go back to what was left of their homes and spend the rest of their lives fabricating stories about not having been Nazis during the war. So, we can't extrapolate from Patton's last campaign during WWII.

The fact is, Patton never had to face a major insurgency, unless you count his time on the Mexican border, chasing Pancho Villa under Pershing, and they never caught Villa. So, what would he have done in Afghanistan? Certainly, Patton, the classicist, would have studied the campaigns of Alexander and Genghis Khan and drawn the appropriate lessons, which boiled down to being as ruthless as your adversary, and destroying him so that neither he nor his children can stand against you, but those lessons would have been a problem for Patton.

During the siege of Samarkand, Genghis Khan drew half the garrison outside the fortifications and destroyed them in combat. within a few days, all but about 2,000 soldiers surrendered, with the last few holed up in the citadel. Genghis took the city and then executed every soldier that had taken arms against him, despite his promise to honor their surrender. The people of the city were driven out into the adjacent plain, where they were slaughtered. It was here that the Mongols erected the pyramid of heads that terrorized the world for centuries after. Patton, who was a chivalrous commander, would have been apalled by such tactics, as would almost any American, and would never have stood for the deliberate mass slaughter of an enemy's women and children as part of a campaign of terror.

That leaves us with Alexander. After years of bitter attrition warfare, Alexander managed to strike a single blow that temporarily scattered the Afghan tribes and killed their leadership, but it was only temporary. He knew that they would eventually re-form under another general and the war would start again, so he picked the most powerful of the remaining chiefs, presented him with an offer of marriage to his daughter, Roxanna (who he had captured a few days previously) and a promise to support him as his surrogate in Afghanistan. The chieftain had no problem suppressing the other tribes, and was happy to take charge as the father-in-law of the great conqueror. Alexander left mountains of cash to sustain his ally and left for India, and the peace held until the next nation passed through.

So, there you have it. Our options are genocide or the raising of a local strongman and entrusting him to keep the peace. Neither of these options is viable. Americans won't stand for genocide unless something truly heinous provokes us, something so offensive that it even silences our liberals for the duration. If Bin Laden were to nuke Los Angeles or New York, you might see it, but that's about what it would take. And the strongman option only works until the inevitable insurgency topples him.

lacarnut
06-22-2010, 07:37 PM
Is it me, or does this picture pretty much sum it all up? LTG McChrystal looks apalled and Obama looks like a man without a teleprompter.
http://biggovernment.com/files/2010/06/obama_mcchrystal.jpg


Three compliments in one day. I'm all ferklempt! Talk among yourselves. I'll be fine. :o

The poppy crop is one of the few cash crops in Afghanistan. Killing it off simply impoverishes the farmers and drives them into the Taliban's arms. In fact, one of the major problems is that the government there does destroy some of the poppy crop, while keeping the plots that its ministers own exempt from the culling. Buying it up doesn't do much good, either, as there just isn't sufficient demand for morphine globally, and the paste will still end up in heroin.

.

So, there you have it. Our options are genocide or the raising of a local strongman and entrusting him to keep the peace. Neither of these options is viable. Americans won't stand for genocide unless something truly heinous provokes us, something so offensive that it even silences our liberals for the duration. If Bin Laden were to nuke Los Angeles or New York, you might see it, but that's about what it would take. And the strongman option only works until the inevitable insurgency topples him.

Aren't the Taliban funding their terrorists activities with the drug trade. If so, destroy the crops and pay off the farmers. I know that has been discussed. Sounds like a good idea to me. American soldiers are being killed in Afghan. because the dope money is used to buy arms.

Do you think it is possible to defeat the enemy if we went all out militarily but did not use nukes? If the answer is no, we need to get out now.

djones520
06-22-2010, 07:47 PM
I've read some stories about us burning marijuana and opium fields over there. I don't think our guys just walk past them.

Articulate_Ape
06-22-2010, 07:58 PM
“We should just drop a fucking bomb on this place. You sit and ask yourself: What
are we doing here?”

QFT

DU+NU_Reject
06-23-2010, 04:34 AM
The real question is why a smart military man would seriously believe that a 'Rolling Stone' story would be a good idea.

I mean, come on.....even if he and his aides never said anything critical of the Obama administration, why open up to magazine that built its reputation on dopers and draft dodgers? It doesn't make any sense.

My first guess would be:
To undermine Ollama, before he grinds our two current theatres into bonemeal;
which the General apparently did, at the beckoning of Hildabeast, who might be trying to preserve the Democratic Party image in the face of a President who should have (obvious to everyone, including the Dems, by now) NEVER been put up for the primaries.

That's my conspiracy hypothesis, and I'm-a-sticking to it. :o

DU+NU_Reject
06-23-2010, 04:52 AM
McChrystal is a warrior General in the vein of men like Patton, MacArthur or Admiral Nimitz; you know, men who actually get shit done. Corporate Generals like Jones sit their happy asses in cushy chairs at the Pentagon while real warriors are out bleeding and dying in some God-forsaken shithole like Afghanistan.

First BP, now McChrystal. Wonder who's ass the Boy Wonder is going to aim to kick next? :rolleyes:
Good points, both of you!



And what would the cost be in American lives if we withdraw?

You and I both know there isn't a valid, direct answer to that question, but (rhetorically speaking) I find the question valid.

We've gone this far... and indeed, had quite a bit of waste in both lives and $$$.. it would appear easier to at least make one last attempt to destroy/disperse/eradicate the Taliban before throwing our hands up in the air.

(Again, I've never served, and I have no connections with those serving right now, so try not to throw tomatoes at me all at once)

Sonnabend
06-23-2010, 06:54 AM
Again, I've never served, and I have no connections with those serving right now, so try not to throw tomatoes at me all at once) __________________

Neither have I.

Your point remains valid, regardless.

Odysseus
06-23-2010, 11:26 AM
Good points, both of you!

You and I both know there isn't a valid, direct answer to that question, but (rhetorically speaking) I find the question valid.

We've gone this far... and indeed, had quite a bit of waste in both lives and $$$.. it would appear easier to at least make one last attempt to destroy/disperse/eradicate the Taliban before throwing our hands up in the air.

(Again, I've never served, and I have no connections with those serving right now, so try not to throw tomatoes at me all at once)

Part of the problem is the culture of the place. The government's crackdown on opium targets farmers who lack connections to the government. The Afghan National Army (ANA) is being used to destroy the farms of competitors of the government's preferred poppy growers, which is usually their relatives. The farmers see themselves under attack, and fight back. Thus, a fight between a small farming clan and government troops ends up being reported as an attack by the Taliban. As long as the government uses its troops to enforce its monopoly on the heroin trade, this will continue.

Ultimately, it comes down to this: We cannot leave, because when we do, Afghanistan will revert to its default state of barbaric tribal enclaves, which will lead to it becoming a staging base for terrorists, again. However, if we stay, we will continue to be involved in a nation whose culture is completely at odds with western concepts of transparency, individual responsibility and objective law. We cannot win without completely destroying the culture as it exists, and we cannot afford to lose, so we will continue to muddle through until someone declares victory and orders us out, at which point the whole sad cycle will begin again. There is no solution to this that a western democracy can accept. Had we simply gone in in 2002, blasted the Taliban to Hell, stacked their empty skulls at the outskirts of Kabul and then told whoever we left in charge that if we have to come back, his skull will be at the top of the next pile, we'd have bought ourselves some time, at least for a generation, but ultimately, the barbarians will either be destroyed or they will prevail. Those are our choices.

CueSi
06-23-2010, 11:35 AM
Part of the problem is the culture of the place. The government's crackdown on opium targets farmers who lack connections to the government. The Afghan National Army (ANA) is being used to destroy the farms of competitors of the government's preferred poppy growers, which is usually their relatives. The farmers see themselves under attack, and fight back. Thus, a fight between a small farming clan and government troops ends up being reported as an attack by the Taliban. As long as the government uses its troops to enforce its monopoly on the heroin trade, this will continue.

Ultimately, it comes down to this: We cannot leave, because when we do, Afghanistan will revert to its default state of barbaric tribal enclaves, which will lead to it becoming a staging base for terrorists, again. However, if we stay, we will continue to be involved in a nation whose culture is completely at odds with western concepts of transparency, individual responsibility and objective law. We cannot win without completely destroying the culture as it exists, and we cannot afford to lose, so we will continue to muddle through until someone declares victory and orders us out, at which point the whole sad cycle will begin again. There is no solution to this that a western democracy can accept. Had we simply gone in in 2002, blasted the Taliban to Hell, stacked their empty skulls at the outskirts of Kabul and then told whoever we left in charge that if we have to come back, his skull will be at the top of the next pile, we'd have bought ourselves some time, at least for a generation, but ultimately, the barbarians will either be destroyed or they will prevail. Those are our choices.


And Alfred would agree with you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_vjROzIXf0

~QC

M21
06-23-2010, 11:46 AM
Ultimately, it comes down to this: We cannot leave, because when we do, Afghanistan will revert to its default state of barbaric tribal enclaves, which will lead to it becoming a staging base for terrorists, again. However, if we stay, we will continue to be involved in a nation whose culture is completely at odds with western concepts of transparency, individual responsibility and objective law. We cannot win without completely destroying the culture as it exists, and we cannot afford to lose, so we will continue to muddle through until someone declares victory and orders us out, at which point the whole sad cycle will begin again. There is no solution to this that a western democracy can accept. Had we simply gone in in 2002, blasted the Taliban to Hell, stacked their empty skulls at the outskirts of Kabul and then told whoever we left in charge that if we have to come back, his skull will be at the top of the next pile, we'd have bought ourselves some time, at least for a generation, but ultimately, the barbarians will either be destroyed or they will prevail. Those are our choices.


Great analysis. I served with Stan McChrystal a long time ago and I know some Officers who serve with him today. President Obama isn't fit to shine General McChrystal's boots.

I'm happy that he has called out the administration because somebody's got to do it. Our men and Women are dying there and Congress certainly doesn't have the balls to stop this madness.

lacarnut
06-23-2010, 11:48 PM
Part of the problem is the culture of the place. The government's crackdown on opium targets farmers who lack connections to the government. The Afghan National Army (ANA) is being used to destroy the farms of competitors of the government's preferred poppy growers, which is usually their relatives. The farmers see themselves under attack, and fight back. Thus, a fight between a small farming clan and government troops ends up being reported as an attack by the Taliban. As long as the government uses its troops to enforce its monopoly on the heroin trade, this will continue.

Ultimately, it comes down to this: We cannot leave, because when we do, Afghanistan will revert to its default state of barbaric tribal enclaves, which will lead to it becoming a staging base for terrorists, again. However, if we stay, we will continue to be involved in a nation whose culture is completely at odds with western concepts of transparency, individual responsibility and objective law. We cannot win without completely destroying the culture as it exists, and we cannot afford to lose, so we will continue to muddle through until someone declares victory and orders us out, at which point the whole sad cycle will begin again. There is no solution to this that a western democracy can accept. Had we simply gone in in 2002, blasted the Taliban to Hell, stacked their empty skulls at the outskirts of Kabul and then told whoever we left in charge that if we have to come back, his skull will be at the top of the next pile, we'd have bought ourselves some time, at least for a generation, but ultimately, the barbarians will either be destroyed or they will prevail. Those are our choices.

I could give a shit less about a bunch of farmers. Destroy their crops, destroy the Taliban and get out. Our military should not be used for nation building nor should they baby sit these lazy Afghan who are too lazy to fight for their own country. The policy of the US is so fucked up it is unreal. We are more worried about killing civilians than we are about killing the enemy. What kind of war are we fighting when we have to give prior warning before we go into a village or get permission to shoot at a target. That just sucks.

I asked you a question which you did not answer. Do you think we can win the war in Afghan???????????
If not, pulverise the country with bombs killing as many of the enemy as possible and leave. My take on this abortion is that (1) American soldier's life is worth more than 100,000 Afghans.

Rebel Yell
06-24-2010, 09:25 AM
I asked you a question which you did not answer. Do you think we can win the war in Afghan???????????

Can we? Yes.


Will we? I doubt it.

Fight or go home.

PoliCon
06-24-2010, 09:30 AM
My take on this abortion is that (1) American soldier's life is worth more than 100,000 Afghans. And what is an American civilians life worth?

marinejcksn
06-24-2010, 01:54 PM
And what is an American civilians life worth?

I say we pull out, let afghan become a massive haven for muslim extremists of all types, then nuke the shithole back to muhammed. :cool:

lacarnut
06-24-2010, 02:25 PM
And what is an American civilians life worth?

I say Marinejckn has the right answer. If there is not an all out willingness to win the war, pull out and come home.

Zathras
06-24-2010, 03:35 PM
I have a felling that what the general was caught saying about The Obumbler is thought by the majority of the men and women serving in the armed forces today.

Rebel Yell
06-24-2010, 03:57 PM
And what is an American civilians life worth?

Depends. We'll take it on a case by case basis.

Odysseus
06-24-2010, 04:17 PM
I could give a shit less about a bunch of farmers. Destroy their crops, destroy the Taliban and get out. Our military should not be used for nation building nor should they baby sit these lazy Afghan who are too lazy to fight for their own country. The policy of the US is so fucked up it is unreal. We are more worried about killing civilians than we are about killing the enemy. What kind of war are we fighting when we have to give prior warning before we go into a village or get permission to shoot at a target. That just sucks.

I asked you a question which you did not answer. Do you think we can win the war in Afghan???????????
If not, pulverise the country with bombs killing as many of the enemy as possible and leave. My take on this abortion is that (1) American soldier's life is worth more than 100,000 Afghans.

Last week, the Taliban executed a 7-year-old boy for collaborating with his own government, and it went all but unreported. Where are the Children's Defense Fund hacks when something like that happens? Where are the feminists when Taliban members throw acid in the faces of girls because they are committing the unthinkable crime of going to school? Where are the liberals, who claim to love democracy, when thugs murder voters? Why do media elites make excuses for thugs who kidnap reporters? Why do so-called "enlightened" opponents of state religion attack us for fighting against people who want to impose Sharia law in America? That's the real problem, that our elites and their media mouthpieces fight against us on the battlefield of our own people's hearts and minds. If liberals hated terrorists half as much as they hate Republicans, they'd have been lining up at Gitmo with buckets of water, car batteries and jumper cables.

If the American people really saw what we saw on a daily basis, the brutality and viciousness of the Islamic insurgents, without apologies from Quislings who saw them as a means to defeat their own enemies in our government, we'd have won this war already.

So, yes, we can win this war. We can, in the immortal words of Ronald Reagan, pave it and paint parking lines on it and be home within a year, but the American people will not tolerate the actions necessary to do that unless they understand the nature of the enemy and what will happen if we lose, which is that terrorists around the world will have a safe haven to operate from, that they will act from that haven to expand their power and reach, that they will acquire newer, more deadly arms (including nuclear weapons), which they will use to blackmail and kill Americans, both overseas and here. That's what is at stake. A future in which the US continues to lead the world away from Medievel darkness, or a future in which 7th century barbarians take down skyscrapers from their caves. But it's not up to me. It's up to you. You need to man up and stop talking about how tough it will be to win and start talking about how bad things will be if we lose. You need to confront people who want us to lose and make sure that they know that you won't submit. You need to change minds, starting with your own. You need to pick a side.

And what is an American civilians life worth?
Democrat or Republican? :D

Rebel Yell
06-24-2010, 04:27 PM
I can honestly say I don't know anyone around here that cares how many civilians are killed in Afganistan or Iraq.

djones520
06-24-2010, 04:31 PM
I can honestly say I don't know anyone around here that cares how many civilians are killed in Afganistan or Iraq.

And how sad is that?

Rebel Yell
06-24-2010, 04:39 PM
And how sad is that?

We understand it is a war. Nobody wants to target civilians, but collateral damge is what it is.

lacarnut
06-24-2010, 05:19 PM
If the American people really saw what we saw on a daily basis, the brutality and viciousness of the Islamic insurgents, without apologies from Quislings who saw them as a means to defeat their own enemies in our government, we'd have won this war already.

So, yes, we can win this war. We can, in the immortal words of Ronald Reagan, pave it and paint parking lines on it and be home within a year, but the American people will not tolerate the actions necessary to do that unless they understand the nature of the enemy and what will happen if we lose, which is that terrorists around the world will have a safe haven to operate from, that they will act from that haven to expand their power and reach, that they will acquire newer, more deadly arms (including nuclear weapons), which they will use to blackmail and kill Americans, both overseas and here. That's what is at stake. A future in which the US continues to lead the world away from Medievel darkness, or a future in which 7th century barbarians take down skyscrapers from their caves. But it's not up to me. It's up to you. You need to man up and stop talking about how tough it will be to win and start talking about how bad things will be if we lose. You need to confront people who want us to lose and make sure that they know that you won't submit. You need to change minds, starting with your own. You need to pick a side.

Democrat or Republican? :D

If the American people really saw what the brutality and viciousness of what is happening in Afghan, it would make little difference because most Americans are sadly consumed by their own daily lives. That is a fact. What is happening in this part of the world is tame compared to the barbaric killings in Africa during the Clinton Administration where a million were slaughtered usually with machetes. What did we do? Nothing.

We can win this war but we will not because of political influence plus Americans do not have the stomach for killing terrorists that are hiding in areas that civilians occupy. We can blame our press for that. We are so fucking worried about blowing up a house or a mosque when the enemy is shooting at soldiers and are being killed from these places. That is not my idea of how to WIN or FIGHT a war. Unless we change our strategy, it is my opinion that we will not win. So, let's get out without any more soldiers getting killed.

Even if we win the war, terrorists will just move to another country like Iran, etc. If you run drug dealers out of your town, they will just relocate.Same principal. You act like this will not happen. The M.E. has many countries that train and promote terrorism.

The man up part is kinda funny. I was in the military before you were born, and so far to the right of Ronald Reagan it is not even funny. I believe in using extreme force to end this police action. If you can not do that, then you should not start a war.

marinejcksn
06-24-2010, 05:34 PM
I used to be in the camp of "we need to kill every terrorist everywhere in the world and end this shit now" camp, before I saw that they'll never stop. Like Olym said, even the Soviets realised you can't kill your way to victory when dealing with Muslim Extremists.

It's important we strike hard and fast when we can, send as many back to Allah as possible, but most importantly focus our efforts on protecting our home shores. Between Customs barely checking shipping containers and our North and South Borders wide the fuck open, the possibilities of a dirty bomb on American soil are way too much for me to bet my family's safety on.