Obama furious at General Stanley McChrystal speech on Afghanistan
The relationship between President Barack Obama and the commander of Nato forces in Afghanistan has been put under severe strain by Gen Stanley McChrystal's comments on strategy for the war.
The general has responded with a series of candid interviews as well as the speech. He told Newsweek he was firmly against half measures in Afghanistan: "You can't hope to contain the fire by letting just half the building burn."Alex Spillius of The Telegraph
According to sources close to the administration, Gen McChrystal shocked and angered presidential advisers with the bluntness of a speech given in London last week.
The next day he was summoned to an awkward 25-minute face-to-face meeting on board Air Force One on the tarmac in Copenhagen, where the president had arrived to tout Chicago's unsuccessful Olympic bid.
Gen James Jones, the national security adviser, yesterday did little to allay the impression the meeting had been awkward.
Asked if the president had told the general to tone down his remarks, he told CBS: "I wasn't there so I can't answer that question. But it was an opportunity for them to get to know each other a little bit better. I am sure they exchanged direct views."An adviser to the administration said: "People aren't sure whether McChrystal is being naïve or an upstart. To my mind he doesn't seem ready for this Washington hard-ball and is just speaking his mind too plainly."
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."
The remarks have been seen by some in the Obama administration as a barbed reference to the slow pace of debate within the White House.
(More...)
18 comments:
Democrats are terrible regarding war. Either they micro-mismanage by forcing insane things like bridges to nowhere be kept open or they just ignore and hope the thing dies a terrible death. Both troops and generals are expendable, and America's interests are poorly served.
I do find it quite interesting that war protesters seemingly no longer exist. Whether they have toned it down for quota boy or they have made a deal with him. They shut up, he gets as many American G.I.s killed as he can while losing the war (pick one) as painfully and slowly as he can. That would seem to make both sides happy.
*grump*
Doomy... The are are no longer any anti-war protesters because we're no longer waging war. Under Obama, we are waging peace.
It´s interesting all those pictures of coffins full of American soldiers waging peace don´t make the headlines anymore. Also interesting is that it took Obama a whole 25 minutes with his main man on the ground in Afganistan just to tell him "I won." And with such lengthy conversations filled with that kind of clear instruction, how could there be this kind of misunderstanding?
Morning news today said that eight GI's were killed when a "remote post" in the east was attacked by Taliban. What they mean is that the post was overrun.
FOB's too small to run recon patrols or lacking intel from the sky and air support - that end up being overrun, are bad tactics/strategies.
A post too small to defend itself is not part of a military that controls the field. We've been here before.
If Obama increases troop levels just as he is pushing his domestic agenda, he will offend his radical liberal base.
If Obama withdraws troops he will anger the right and moderates.
His only option is to waffle and be indecisive, and push Obamacare NOW, which he is doing this week.
The men in the field are on their own. it is a betrayal of trust for a Commander in Chief to refuse to support his troops when they need support. But since when did Obama put the needs of others first.
My respect to the General. Obama's first and foremost role as a President should be our safety and that of his troops, but his only concern was/is the Olympics and pushing HC through.
McChrystal dissed Biden's recommendation? He's already a hero in my books! At least he recognizes that Biden is useful for comedic material only. And meeting with Obama would be like meeting with a second-grader. The general deserves a medal.
Honesty is not rewarded by this administration. Too bad, Obama has a chance to get ONE thing right ... LISTEN TO THE GENERALS on the ground! I remember another war being micro managed by Washington .... disaster.
Mike... Obama's trying to figure out a way to vote "Present" on Afghanistan.
Rhod, such tactics reflect a lot more than poor battlefield strategy.
Opie, if, by some miricle, we are able to thwart Socialist healthcare, Obama will be forced to make real decisions on Iraq and Afghanistan. Otherwise, his Generals will continue to be treated like naughty children.
Rotti,
It continues to be Style over Substance,and the population still hasn't caught on.
X, you're right. Can you imagine trying to talk about adult war strategies to an evil metrosexual fop? We are doomed.
Evil metrosexual fop! I love it! :-D
The blood of those eight soldiers is on Obama's hands, plain and simple. The longer he waffles, the greater the the number of casualities. If Obama isn't interested in winning this war, or the peace, or whatever he wants to call it, then bring the troops home and heaven help us, watch what happens.
OK, Can we stop electing whimps! I vote for McCryltal since Colan Powel won't run.
We need a retired general to run this mess!
If I were the General, this is how I would go out. There would be no way in hell the history books would be confused about where I stood concerning the mission and the individuals.
They're going to make this another Vietnam aren't they?
I guess they enjoyed stabbing one country in the back so much that they have to do it again. They failed in Iraq (thank God!) but now they have their golden opportunity to sink the knife in deep and to twist it viciously.
Post a Comment