How to Avoid Another Tour of Afghanistan

A war that we need to get out of. Pronto! It is well known that Afghanistan is a place where empires go to die.

 

Actually I've wondered about this.

A general did rise to his rank by flapping his lips loosely. He knows and has the discipline to know when and when not to speak and to whom about what.

Some are reporting that his remarks were made 'off the record' and therefore it was a breech of trust by the reporter on his confident. However, another pov is that the general probably had things he wished to get off his chest and the MSM wouldn't have obliged him the time of day to publish his disappointment with his superior and their darling, the O administration. Who could he go to and get world review? Why not a renegade paper like the Rolling Stone..... popular reading among so-called-sophisticates, with plenty of exposure.... but not reputable enough not to withstand a claim of reporting 'off record', should it appear that the severity of discipline that might be forth coming be too punitive w/o sufficient 'explanation' or excuse. The Rolling Stone is such a rag without loyalty to anyone except its own tendency for outrageous causes, that it could almost with certainty be counted on to publish a report and disclosure which MSM would refuse (being the politically correct loyalist that they are).

Would this same work for another soldier?

Not likely and certainly not as rewardingly.

Rewardingly? How? The General wasn't court martialed. His rank was not reduced. He is able to draw his retirement and benefits...... and likely to profit, as others have, from contacts he made during service which will promote him into better employment than the service could ever promise.

An enlisted man would likely be court martialed. A man of lesser rank (or who had not 'patsied' to previous assignments like 'covering the bodies') would probably have his rank reduced with discipline continuing into duty.

That McChrystal has openly supported this current administration and participated in covering fratracide investigation is indicative that he had plenty to be dissatisfied: Whether he was disgusted with his having to 'play clean' while being the top guy responsible for covering the militarys dirty secrets, or disgusted that he couldn't get his way??? Who knows? An excuse to 'retire' probably serves his best interest regardless of his motives for positioning himself in this manner. No doubt, for those who have opinions (and who have followed or explored his career), he will stand out enough to polarize.... some considering him a hero standing for the soldier in arms..... and others looking over his record and considering him as one of 'the bad boys'.

 

Actually, RighteousDude, I'm not sure this is the outcome McChrystal wanted.

You see, Afghanistan was McChrystal's Counter-Insurgency (COIN) "experiment." McChrystal had a point of view about how to run COIN operations; he had mixed support, ranging from those that completely agreed with him to those that completely disagreed with him. Obama agreed with his strategies; that's why McChrystal was named to head up Afghanistan. In fact, Obama said "get to work," and left him alone to make it happen--something that very rarely happens with a presidential administration, and was complained about by everyone as keeping McChrystal at arm's length.

Now, his experiment is over, unless any of his stalwart supporters can continue the methods. Afghanistan is (now, was) crucial to McChrystal proving that his methods for COIN were the right path. So either the administration was actually hindering McChrystal's efforts--for which I'm not sure I actually see any evidence; or McChrystal's experiment wasn't drawing the results he had hoped for--in which case, blaming the administration is a good way to draw attention away from your (potential) failure.

So those that are holding McChrystal up as some sort of hero for speaking out--well, I'm not sure I'm buying it.

 

How about he is a realist who is/was convinced that you can't win a blood and guts war with after-shave and deodorant (as well as "one hand tied behind you back and an ROE rule book in the other").

HankD

 

We have had a volunteer army since those of draft age were born thus those who volunteer must want to go to foreign countries to kill people and break things or at least had no moral principles against killing and breaking when they signed on. Better these people should get it out of their systems while in Afghanistan than in the lower 48.

When the Vietnam War was winding down (the first of many wars we lost since we invaded Canada) police administrations were their officers about the "dope crazed killers" who would be returning to their home towns. Didn't happen, did it? Combat changes people. I was never in the military but would be happy if voting was restricted to military vets. It would be a more peaceful world.

 

Hank,
"One hand tied behind your back and an ROE rule book in the other" -- that was McChrystal's strategy. That was his COIN experiment that I was talking about. He was the one that elevated the status of preventing civilian casualties above the safety of our troops. Don't try to lay that strategy on Obama or anyone else, or as McChrystal following orders.

 

So people who volunteer for the movie do so because they want to kill people? So is the same true about police officers? Or do people volunteer to be fire fighters because they like to set fires?

Frankly, every once in a while you get something right, but it's more like the busted watches I have in a drawer that tell the right time twice a day by accident. But you have this so wrong. You ought to be ashamed, but you won't be.

 

I have my opinion, you have yours.

HankD

 

It appears you opinion isn't based in facts.

The blow out preventer failed, that is hardly President Obama's fault. BP decided to switch pods instead of fixing a faulty BOP and it failed.

Regardless of how unsafe a government will allow a company to operate, it is the companies responsibility to drill safely and not put their employees at undue risk.

 

Apparently you do not have the facts. This admin gave wavers to by pass several safety checks in advance of their drilling . He should be impeached.

 

Okay; if you'll show me the substantiation for your opinion, that indicates McChrystal was following Obama's strategy and was therefore simply following orders, and therefore was only "blowing the whistle" now, I'll be more than happy to publicly admit my error here on the board.

 

Whether or not President Obama did anything impeachable, I will leave that decision up to future debates as the facts come in.

Do you think a company has the right to drill an oil well in an unsafe manner if the government says they can?

 

No, I'm not going to do that. It's my opinion and I am only stating it. I don't have to defend it.

Even at that it's not about your "error" and having to admit it or my error and having to admit it, but the sacrifice of both American and innocent collateral lives and who is ultimately responsible.

For one thing I would have to say some things and make accusations about certain individuals that my conscience won't let me do.

Let people read the Rolling Stones article for themselves (caution, very coarse GI talk).

google "rolling stones mcchrystal". It's several pages.

Then after you read it all (if you - plural- haven't already), I'll only say this and then I won't "engage" anyone any further.

IMO, if McChrystal had gotten the 60-80,000 troops he asked for, when he asked for them in 2009 (while we had 120,000 combat ready troops deployed in Iraq), we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Afghanistan is from whence the terrorism strategy and tactics of 9/11 originated with OBL, not SH in Iraq.


HankD

 

So the standard that you are proposing is that if a company operates within the guidelines of a government regulatory agency and something goes wrong the company is at fault and the government is held harmless?

 

Fair enough.

 

Do you do ask these redundant questions on purpose, or do you really not realize what you are asking?

I said:

We need to stop the spill and start the clean up, something the federal government was slow to start, and then find out what went wrong and who said and allowed what.

If it is proven that President Obama personally told BP to ignore laws, and to ignore common safety procedures, I will support impeachment.

If it is discovered, as I said, that BP deliberately violated common safety rules, by not repairing the BOP, what do you think should happen to the company?

 

Nope, but if the admin is culpable then every instance of blame needs to include it. Each and every time.