Obama to Fire His General ??????

I have already said that the President had to fire the General, but this does highlight the problem of what the commanders think about the National Security staff the President has assembled. The General's staff have the same thought that most foreign country's have about them.

I heard one commentator say this afternoon (not Rush) that he is tougher on his hand picked General than he is on our country's real enemies like the Iranians.

 

I believe someone alluded to this:

It may be that the general knew full well that he would be dismissed and that is what he wanted in order to bring the internal war committee scandals to the public because their infighting and disagreement would unlmately lose the war for us.

None of the senators and committee members had the guts to reveal the infighting, high-level disagreement and committee confusion concerning the Afgan war.

McChrystal blew it wide open and at least 3 senators have admitted that much of what he (his staff) said is true.

Now the president must take control, stop the infighting, rescind the drop-dead date, send more boots, develop a decisive, well defined plan etc... for the war to be won.

I believe this is what a poster alluded to Limbaugh (I'm not a fan of his) having said concerning the general's motivation.

HankD

 

I didn't see - did he resign his position or his commission?

If he resigned his commission he is not a private citizen and is free to express his views freely. as long, of course, and he does not reveal any state secrets he is privy too.

Neither 'war' has been executed well. I think Afghanistan was needed, unlike Iraq. The problem is that we have not executed a war in 65 years. Do we know how to do so now?

 

It's unclear but seems that he resigned his position but not necessarily his commission:

He could subsequently retire assuming he has the necessary time in service which seems very likely.

HankD

 

I agree with what the General and his aides said about the adminstrations national security team.

BUT the principled thing would not be to give it to Rolling Stone. He should have resigned his commission and opened fire on the administration, IF THAT WAS HIS BELIEF.

Personally I think the good General and his men had too much to drink and forgot they were talking to the enemy - the American press.

 

BINGO!! Give that man a cigar!

Oh wait, I take it back. Give that man a lollipop!

 

This is a scary thought - is the US capable of executing a successful war effort?

Is our military that broken?

After all, we have had partial victories or losses in every major military effort since WWII.

 

Time will tell.

So will the men in the field when they get home.

They know the truth.

HankD

 

It took Obama over 48 days to do anything about an oil catastrophe that threatens the Southeastern Seabord. It took him 48 hours to sack a general who hurt his feelings.

Now that's leadership.

I didn't think we could do worse than Bush. I was wrong.

 

There was a lot more than mere hurt feelings involved. I doubt any of us here in the same position as President Obama would have done anything diffferently about sacking this general than he did. The general violated protocol and that could not be tolerated and keep order in the ranks. If protocol goes down the drain in the military then our armed forces will fall apart.

 

Yeah, but maybe they'll get sacked for it.:saint:

 

When our national security is involved? Yes. Since World War II we have not fought in a war that involved our national security. If we had then the Congress would have issued a declaration of war.

The only conflict we have had related to our national security since World War II has been with al Qaeda and that is a group, not a country. It is difficult to defeat a group that is scattered around the world.

 

We've had partial victories in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

It's the question that's been around for a while: define "winning the war on terror," as well as "winning the war in Afghanistan."

 

No way to tell.

Liberals won't let us try.

 

not after they receive their honorable discharge.

The greatest threat in the Afghan war "rules of engagement".

http://dancingczars.wordpress.com/2...w-rules-of-engagement-are-killing-u-s-troops/


HankD