Obama General Discussion

[AliEnvy]

The Rolling Stone Story

The Runaway General | Rolling Stone Politics

McChrystal needs to go.

The honourable thing to do would be to resign.

Hopefully Obama has the cohones to fire his ass.

 

[Strongbow]

iraq is vastly worse off today than it was in march 2003. how anyone can possibly argue otherwise is beyond me.

Well, what is your assumption based on? Have you accurately considered what life was like for Iraqi Kurds and Shia's under Saddam? Random bombings are one thing, having 5,000 men, women and children in one day experience the deadly effects of Sarin gas is another. Having food and basic medical supplies withheld from your community is a common experience of most Iraqi's who were not apart of certain Sunni tribes while Saddam is in power.

 

[Strongbow]

Read the article again.

No one said they were Israeli citizens.

Israel has not annexed the West Bank and Gaza?


Let us know when you find a place called the real world.

In the REAL WORLD, occupation is NOT ANNEXATION. If Israel had annexed the West Bank and Gaza, they would be apart of Israel and Israel would not be discussing returning such area's to anyone.

 

[Strongbow]

Sting, Powell was against the invasion, he said so many times in private conversations, resigned in 2005 and then publicly endorsed Obama, an Iraq war opponent.

He opposed the war: Powell tried to talk Bush out of war - Times Online

None of that shows that he was against the removal of Saddam in 2003 with US forces. Powell says SPECIFICALLY in the Barbara Walters show in 2005 that he supported the Presidents decision to remove SADDAM. To qoute Powell, "when the President said it was not tolerable for Saddam to remain in violation of these UN resolutions, I am right there with him on the use of force!"

Powell was the one who got the Bush administration to go back to the United Nations for resolution 1441 that was not technically needed to authorize the invasion. He disputed the contention of others that resolution 1441 did not authorize the use of military force.

Another famous qoute by Powell in 2002:

"It is not incumbent on the United States to prove that Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction, it is incumbant on Iraq to prove that they don't."

Powell has also been against any form of pre-mature withdrawal. He stated in the Barbara Walters interview in 2005 that the United States needed to stay the course in Iraq and develop the countries government, military forces and economy.

He opposed the surge:

Powell: We Are Losing In Iraq - Face The Nation - CBS News

He never advocated a pre-mature withdrawal, but in any event, history has shown any opponents of the Surge to have been flat out wrong about the impact it would have on the situation in the country.

And Bush had nowhere near enough focus and priority on Afghanistan during his Presidency:

War in Afghanistan: US Redirection of Forces to Iraq

The invasion of Iraq was spearheaded by heavy armor units that have not been used in Afghanistan to date. You can't be claiming the President was not focused on Afghanistan because a tank division that would be unlikely to be sent to Afghanistan was used to invade Iraq.

The US used a total of 11 brigades to invade Iraq and a two brigades on the ground in Afghanistan at the time.

But the USA still had a total of 30 Active Army and Marine brigades back in the USA, Germany, Japan, and South Korea.

In addition, there were 38 National Guard Combat Brigades that were not being used at all back in the United States.


So the idea that the President underresourced Afghanistan to invade Iraq in 2003 is flat out FALSE!

The resolution said Iraq had WMD, and we would forcibly remove said WMD should he fail to let the inspectors verify everything.

So anyone who voted for the resolution shouldn't even apologize, it was Bush who lied about the weapons and pulled out the inspectors that he promised to let do their work.

Saddam failed to verifiably account for a long list of WMD items while the inspectors were in country. It was also found out after the war that he hid production related WMD facilities that were in violation of multiple UN resolutions and the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement.

At no time in 2003 was Saddam EVER in compliance with ANY of the 17 UN Security Council resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules of the United Nations.

Eithe way, Biden admits a small mistake in trusting Bush, Bush can't bring himself to admit a COLOSSAL MISTAKE

The COLOSSAL MISTAKE would have been to leave Saddam in power. But please, if you have logical explanation that leaving someone, with Saddam's behavior and history, in power in Iraq would be best for the security of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the persian gulf region, and the world, lets here it. I don't see too many arguments these days defending Saddam as a source of peace and stability for the Persian Gulf.

Don't come back with your Clinton video, that was 1998, before inspectors gave Iraq a clean bill of health in 1999. Clinton wanted to make sure they were verifiably done with the WMD program, and he did. Things changed, the situation was not the same in 1998 as it was in 2003. 1999-2003, Saddam had no weapons and guess what, Sting? The FACTS have proven this to be the case.

INSPECTORS NEVER GAVE IRAQ A CLEAN BILL OF HEALTH! THERE WERE NO INSPECTORS EVEN ON THE GROUND IN IRAQ IN 1999!

This is basic factual history.

Clinton bombed Iraq in 1998 precisely because Iraq was NOT complying with requirements of the 1991 Gulf War ceacefire.

1. The fact that no WMD weapons were found in Iraq after Saddam was removed does not prove that were NONE in the country before the US invaded.

2. It does not change the fact that WMD production related facilities that were in violation of the UN resolutions were found in the country after Saddam was removed!

3. Saddam remained in violation of 17 UN security council resolutions from 1999 until the US invaded and removed Saddam.

4.Most importantly, the key means of containment, Sanctions and the Weapons embargo, had fallen apart by 2002. Its impossible to contain Saddam without them. Every day that would go by without effective sanctions and weapons embargo regime would allow Saddam to rebuild both his conventional and unconventional military forces. The inability to effectively contain Saddam meant that the only option left was regime change.

5. Both Bill and Hillary Clinton supported the invasion of Iraq to remove Saddam in 2003!

I also do not recall Biden in March 2003 saying that Bush had violated his own resolution on Iraq. There was nothing dissenting from Biden at all in March 2003.

Saddam never had a nuclear weapon, and had chemical and biological weapons that were comprehensively destroyed starting in 1991. He never posed an imminent threat, or any kind of threat, to the United States. Also a fact.

No one ever said that Saddam had a nuclear weapon! The whole point of containing Saddam was to prevent from rebuilding his military or obtaining new WMD or even worse a nuclear weapon! Its about PREVENTION and not waiting for a leader to get such weapons that could be used against any invasion force.

But again, without containment which involves an effective Sanctions and Weapons embargo regime, containment cannot work. The only other option besides containment was regime change.

chemical and biological weapons that were comprehensively destroyed starting in 1991

If that were clearly the case, the UN inspectors would not have been so extensively involved in Iraq, year after year AFTER 1991. In 2003, Saddam had still failed to account for thousands of stocks of WMD. IT IS A THEORY, NOT A PROVEN FACT, THAT SOME OF THOSE STOCKS WERE DESTROYED WITHOUT VERIFICATION IN 1991.

or any kind of threat, to the United States. Also a fact.

If this had any truth to it at all, the United States would have NEVER gone to WAR with Iraq in 1991, bombed Iraq year after year, or attempt to put Iraq under the most extensive sanctions and weapons embargo regime in history!

Can you name another country on the planet in 2003 that was in violation of 17 UN Security Council Resolutions passed under chapter VII rules of the United Nations?

 

[maycocksean]

if someone decides to reply they'll be writing a novel that i won't bother to read.

:chuckle: Ah, so you DO know.

McChrystal needs to go.

The honourable thing to do would be to resign.

Hopefully Obama has the cohones to fire his ass.

I happened to glance at a TV in the bar of a restuarant I just had lunch at, and I thought the it said that Petraeus would be replacing McChrystal.

During same lunch I read Joe Klein's analysis in Time magazine of the situation in Afghanistan and to be honest it sounds pretty damn near impossible to resolve. I think the most we should be seeking to accomplish there is to make sure that Al-Quaeda won't be able to comfortably organize and train there. I think we're going to have to let the nation-building go, as sad as that is for Afghanistan.

 

[Strongbow]

We did not have that little thing called 9/11 when Clinton was in office. Even the airstrikes and drones and other actions aimed at AQ were ridiculed by the GOP when Clinton employed them.

There would have been no public or political support for an invasion before 9.11.


!

Oh yes, hundreds of people being killed at the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania is no big thing right? Its better to wait until they have killed thousands of American citizens on US soil before you take some sort of effective action?

The idea is to PREVENT such an invent from happening in the first place and means employed by the President at the time were not effective and certainly would not be effective now.

 

[Strongbow]

He tripled counterterrorism funding over the objection of the GOP congress, stopped many plots in their tracks(millenium, bojinka) and put 2 loaded naval aircraft carriers in the Indian Ocean aimed at Afghanistan. He then called up the Taliban and told them who would be held responsible for an attack. Then Bush recalled said carriers.


Clinton told the Bush team AQ was threat #1, Condi had never heard of them and Wolfowitz laughed in his face.



DO YOU SERIOUSLY THINK ANYONE IN THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION WOULD HAVE INVADED AFGHANISTAN BEFORE 9/11?

He ignored numerous warnings specific to 9/11 and ignored AQ in general for 8 months.

This all misses the point that simply using Airstrikes, the CIA, and other more limited forms of counterterrorism by Clinton and Bush up through 9/11WAS NOT EFFECTIVE AND WOULD NOT BE TODAY!

 

[BVS]

STRONGBOW, read the title of the thread.

U2387, IGNORE HIM!

 

[Strongbow]

if someone decides to reply they'll be writing a novel that i won't bother to read.

Why even post here if your unwilling to read other opinions that may disagree with your own?

 

[Strongbow]

:chuckle: Ah, so you DO know.



I happened to glance at a TV in the bar of a restuarant I just had lunch at, and I thought the it said that Petraeus would be replacing McChrystal.

During same lunch I read Joe Klein's analysis in Time magazine of the situation in Afghanistan and to be honest it sounds pretty damn near impossible to resolve. I think the most we should be seeking to accomplish there is to make sure that Al-Quaeda won't be able to comfortably organize and train there. I think we're going to have to let the nation-building go, as sad as that is for Afghanistan.

Joe Klein, LOL, certainly not an unbiased source.

The only way to make sure that Al Quada cannot ever again organize and train in Afghanistan the way they did prior to 2001 is to develop an Afghan government and security forces to a level where they can protect the country and help prevent such a situation without the need of help from large numbers of foreign ground troops.

Abandoning Afghanistan and relying on air-power and other forms of counterterrorism is a return to the policies of the 1990s that got the world into this situation in the first place.

 

[maycocksean]

Joe Klein, LOL, certainly not an unbiased source.

The only way to make sure that Al Quada cannot ever again organize and train in Afghanistan the way they did prior to 2001 is to develop an Afghan government and security forces to a level where they can protect the country and help prevent such a situation without the need of help from large numbers of foreign ground troops.

Abandoning Afghanistan and relying on air-power and other forms of counterterrorism is a return to the policies of the 1990s that got the world into this situation in the first place.

Well, no one is ever completely unbiased are they? But I've found him to be more or less pretty evenhanded most of the time.

How do you address the blatant corruption of the Karzai's government? This is as much as anything is making it nearly impossible to "develop an Afghan government and security to forces to a level where they can protect the country etc."

 

[Strongbow]

McChrystal needs to go.

The honourable thing to do would be to resign.

Hopefully Obama has the cohones to fire his ass.

McChrystal is one of this countries most talented soldiers and experts on counterinsurgency. I think it is a gross mistake to remove someone of such importance on basically what is a single comment that should have been off the record.

It was McChrystals experties in counter-terrorism operations that helped catch Al Zarqawi, the leader of Al Quada in Iraq.

Michael Hastings is clearly a novice when it comes to reporting on war and counter-insurgency.

Most of the uncivil comments made were by members on his staff, not McCrystal. There were no uncivil comments about Obama and only one about Biden.

On the bright side, Rolling Stone has succeeded in getting General Patreus into Afghanistan, a general that liberals indeed hate and refered to as General Betrayus during the Surge in Iraq in 2007.

 

[Irvine511]

No, no, no. You must never say that! Don't you know what will happen? And if "someone" decides to argue otherwise with you--trust me, just let it go! Quickest way to derail a thread I'm telling you!

of course, we could expect that "someone" to actually be mature and do the same we ask of of others -- you know, use the Ignore feature, maybe not derail the thread -- but that would be expecting too much apparently.

 

[Irvine511]

I think we're going to have to let the nation-building go, as sad as that is for Afghanistan.

really? what kind of non-utopian fabulist world do you live in where the US doesn't have endless amounts of blood-and-treasure to spend fixing all the bad places in the world?

(other than, say, fixing the northern Congo where 5m people have been killed in the past decade ... would love to read a novel about UN resolutions on that one)

 

[Strongbow]

Well, no one is ever completely unbiased are they? But I've found him to be more or less pretty evenhanded most of the time.

How do you address the blatant corruption of the Karzai's government? This is as much as anything is making it nearly impossible to "develop an Afghan government and security to forces to a level where they can protect the country etc."

Joe Klein is one of the most biased journalist out there.


You don't address corruption in the Karzai government by pulling out coalition troops from Afghanistan. That would only make things worse. Continued engagement and work to resolve this issues is the only way to manage this. The corruption will never be completed eliminated. There has to be an increase in the ability to detect, disrupt and punish those that engage in this, as well as developing alternative paths to advancement and success for the average citizen, as well as the government official. This will take a long time and there are lessons to be learned from Columbia and the way it has dealt with the drug trade, insurgency, and building a stronger, more stable and less corrupted government. But at least Afghanistan has a government where such issues can be worked on instead the chaos that existed in the 1990s or the rule of the Taliban which harbored and helped Al Quada develop, which led to the deaths of 3,000 US citizens on September 11, 2001.

 

[Strongbow]

of course, we could expect that "someone" to actually be mature and do the same we ask of of others -- you know, use the Ignore feature, maybe not derail the thread -- but that would be expecting too much apparently.

LOL, who do you want me to ignore?

 

[Strongbow]

really? what kind of non-utopian fabulist world do you live in where the US doesn't have endless amounts of blood-and-treasure to spend fixing all the bad places in the world?

)

Does it ever occur to you that there are cost and consequences to pre-maturely pulling out of Afghanistan that will involve the blood and treasure of the United States and other countries?

 

[maycocksean]

Joe Klein is one of the most biased journalist out there.


You don't address corruption in the Karzai government by pulling out coalition troops from Afghanistan.

I'm not necessarily suggesting we should pull out coalition troops, my previous statement notwithstanding. And neither was. .(let me check). . yup, neither was The Most Biased Journalist in America.

In other words, my musings on whether we can nation build is NOT a cloak for what you seem to perceive as my "true liberal" desire to just leave Aghanistan as soon as posible.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Oh, brother...*Puts head in hand, sighs*

Sticking on the main topic:

McChrystal needs to go.

The honourable thing to do would be to resign.

Hopefully Obama has the cohones to fire his ass.

Looks like he does...

Obama relieves McChrystal of command - Military- msnbc.com

Angela

 

[Strongbow]

What's the fuss, Afghans ask about McChrystal controversy

Kabul, Afghanistan (CNN) -- Washington may be up in arms over General Stanley McChrystal's comments to Rolling Stone magazine about the U.S. mission in Afghanistan and how some of his colleagues are handling it -- but some in Afghanistan are asking what the fuss is all about.

McChrystal arrived in Afghanistan last summer as the top NATO commander -- but if Washington is mad at the general, his friends in Afghanistan seem to be unaffected.

Many among the local population in Kabul say that McChrystal revamped the forgotten war, putting it on a different path and instilling a counter-insurgency strategy (COIN) in an attempt to regain the trust of the Afghan people.

He instilled a new hope, they argue, for those Afghans who actually backed the war effort, also angering the Taliban -- which ramped up their PR -- in the battle for hearts and minds.

President Hamid Karzai has vocally expressed his support for General McChrystal and called him the "best" commander for the war in Afghanistan, according to his spokesman Waheed Omar.

He added that McChrystal is a man of great integrity who understands the Afghan people and their culture and that Karzai hopes president Barack Obama will not replace the commanding general with someone else.

McChrystal and Karzai have built a strong relationship in the year he has been in Afghanistan, flying to districts and provinces in order to gain the support of villagers while showing a united front.

He hasn't just been sitting around NATO headquarters barking orders say local officials - he's been going out in the field, meeting with soldiers and most importantly meeting with Afghans. General Mohammad Zahir Azimi, the spokesman for the Afghan defense ministry, explained that McChrystal's knowledge of Afghanistan stems from his discussions with Afghans.

He stated that McChrystal is a frequent attendee at village council meetings -- known as "shuras" -- throughout the country, where he listens to their problems, concerns and needs.

But McChrystal's tactical directive that restricts NATO forces on the ground from attacking enemy forces without having proof that they are militants has angered many soldiers.

Many feel that their own lives are put in greater danger because of it. While for Afghans, it means less of a chance of civilian casualties - a sore issue that has caused friction in the Afghan - NATO relationship.

"For Afghans it was very important that after a civilian was killed he would apologize on behalf of his people and his military," said Abdul Ghani, a 65-year-old businessman who was a former government official during the Taliban regime from 1996 through 2001.

"This showed that he was supporting the locals and he was trying to avoid a long-term fight and avoid civilians being killed." Speaking through his salt and pepper beard, Ghani credits NATO's involvement, and particularly McChrystal, for bringing security and allowing him to run his business and make a living.

"He made a mistake and he used poor judgment in criticizing US officials," Ghani said "but it is normal and everyone makes mistakes."

But Ghani's optimism about McChrystal stems mostly from his pessimism at past international leaders. He believes McChrystal has been the best one so far.

"We are satisfied with Mr. McChrystal and we hope he will not repeat the bitter experiences of the past," Ghani said.

The Ministry of Defense, which is being pushed by the U.S. and NATO to add more troops to their arsenal, is also standing behind McChrystal.

"Since the arrival of General McChrystal to Afghanistan many of our problems have been solved," ministry spokesman Azimi told CNN, "including problems with civilian casualties, unlawful detentions. He has also improved the coordination between Afghan and international forces on and off the battlefield."

By focusing on building infrastructure and civilian issues, Azimi adds, McChrystal has been able to win back some Afghan support.

But with the firestorm in the United States, the Afghan voices are being muffled again.

What's the fuss, Afghans ask about McChrystal controversy - CNN.com


In a society like Afghanistan, personal relationships are important and difficult to build. The sudden replacement of McChrystal and his staff will indeed cause some disruption and confusion at a very important time in the conflict.

 

[Strongbow]

I'm not necessarily suggesting we should pull out coalition troops, my previous statement notwithstanding. And neither was. .(let me check). . yup, neither was The Most Biased Journalist in America.

In other words, my musings on whether we can nation build is NOT a cloak for what you seem to perceive as my "true liberal" desire to just leave Aghanistan as soon as posible.

Well, then please clearly state your plan for Afganistan that apparently does not involve any sort of nation building(if thats correct) and explain why it would work? How many US troops on the ground would it involve? What would be their objectives? What is Joe Klein's plan by the way?

 

[deep]

What's the fuss, Afghans ask about McChrystal controversy - CNN.com


In a society like Afghanistan, personal relationships are important and difficult to build. The sudden replacement of McChrystal and his staff will indeed cause some disruption and confusion at a very important time in the conflict.

really

are you suggesting that he should not have resigned or that you think he is a jackass for his behavior?

don't you think Petreaus, is a great pick, and capable of the task?




Obama didn't fire him, he more took himself out.

 

[maycocksean]

Well, then please clearly state your plan for Afganistan that apparently does not involve any sort of nation building(if thats correct) and explain why it would work? How many US troops on the ground would it involve? What would be their objectives? What is Joe Klein's plan by the way?

**SIGH***

I don't have a plan for Afghanistan. I was merely musing back there. Geez.

As for Joe Klein, his article was pretty inconclusive too, though you're welcome to judge for yourself. I'm sure you can find it on Time.com or on your local newstand if it interests you that much.

 

[INDY500]

 

[BoMac]

 

[Strongbow]

really

are you suggesting that he should not have resigned or that you think he is a jackass for his behavior?

don't you think Petreaus, is a great pick, and capable of the task?




Obama didn't fire him, he more took himself out.

I don't think someone who has played a vital role in protecting the lives of United States citizens should be dismissed from his job because a liberal magazine was able to qoute him saying a couple of words that were disrespectful to the VP.

There is far more at stake here than simply the appearance of disrespect or insubordination. Truman fired McAuthor because he specifically and openly challenged the Presidents policy. Mycrystal did not do that. Mycrystal supports and is implementing the Presidents policy and a mistake of a couple of words should not remove him from a job where his leadership and experience are very important.

Petreaus is Mycrystals boss and so naturally would be a top pick for the job in order to maintain continuity. He is indeed one of the top if not the top experts on counterinsurgency and nationbuilding which is why he was promoted to command CENTCOM which controls US military operations in both IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN. Now Petreaus will step down from that role to focus exclusively on Afghanistan. Even though you could argue that Petreaus is the better overall leader, there will still be some level of disruption involved in the transition.

In addition, removing Mycrystals from Afghanistan removes the leader with the most experience and success in catching specific terrorist leaders.



Oh, and being allowed to resign from a position is often a nice way of letting people go, aka firing them.

Again, there is so much more at stake here than a couple of words in a magazine.

 

[deep]

I don't think someone who has played a vital role in protecting the lives of United States citizens should be dismissed from his job because a liberal magazine was able to qoute him saying a couple of words that were disrespectful to the VP.

.

I am still reading up on all this.

I think it may be a bit more than a couple of words, as you describe it.

Why did he even accept the interview with RS?

And after agreeing to do it, he should have realized the readership would be comprised of mostly young people, A lot of his enlisted men and potential recruits. With that in mind he showed very poor judgement, or just a complete lack of respect for the Commander in Chief, and let's keep in mind, the V P is a member of the executive, aka Commander in Chief.

 

[Bluer White]

An NCO recognizes a flawed Afghanistan strategy - George Will washingtonpost.com

Torrents of uninteresting mail inundate members of Congress, but occasionally there are riveting communications, such as a recent e-mail from a noncommissioned officer (NCO) serving in Afghanistan. He explains why the rules of engagement for U.S. troops are "too prohibitive for coalition forces to achieve sustained tactical successes."

Receiving mortar fire during an overnight mission, his unit called for a 155mm howitzer illumination round to be fired to reveal the enemy's location. The request was rejected "on the grounds that it may cause collateral damage." The NCO says that the only thing that comes down from an illumination round is a canister, and the likelihood of it hitting someone or something was akin to that of being struck by lightning.

Returning from a mission, his unit took casualties from an improvised explosive device that the unit knew had been placed no more than an hour earlier. "There were villagers laughing at the U.S. casualties" and "two suspicious individuals were seen fleeing the scene and entering a home." U.S. forces "are no longer allowed to search homes without Afghan National Security Forces personnel present." But when his unit asked Afghan police to search the house, the police refused on the grounds that the people in the house "are good people."

On another mission, some Afghan adults ran off with their children immediately before the NCO's unit came under heavy small-arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs), and the unit asked for artillery fire on the enemy position. The response was a question: Where is the nearest civilian structure? "Judging distances," the NCO writes dryly, "can be difficult when bullets and RPGs are flying over your head." When the artillery support was denied because of fear of collateral damage, the unit asked for a "smoke mission" -- like an illumination round; only the canister falls to earth -- "to conceal our movement as we planned to flank and destroy the enemy." This request was granted -- but because of fear of collateral damage, the round was deliberately fired one kilometer off the requested site, making "the smoke mission useless and leaving us to fend for ourselves."

 

[Bluer White]

There is far more at stake here than simply the appearance of disrespect or insubordination. Truman fired McAuthor because he specifically and openly challenged the Presidents policy. Mycrystal did not do that. Mycrystal supports and is implementing the Presidents policy and a mistake of a couple of words should not remove him from a job where his leadership and experience are very important.

Whether I agree with the General and his staff, or not....

he left the president with little choice here. Too bad all around

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

don't you think Petreaus, is a great pick, and capable of the task?

On that point, I will say this bit I saw in one of the many articles on this issue is one thing that bothers me a little (or a lot):

In the hearing last week, Petraeus told Congress he would recommend delaying Obama's prescribed pullout of U.S. forces from Afghanistan beginning in July 2011. He said security and political conditions in Afghanistan must be ready to handle a U.S. drawdown.

...can someone please tell me exactly how long we are going to wait for that to happen? And would we actually truly completely leave if and when it does?

We're never getting out of there fully, are we? We're just gonna keep paying to funnel this war that isn't working anymore (if it ever really did). Hooray.

Angela