Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[goldengoal]

Does this worry you? Do you think this is causing serious tensions between the civilians and the military?

Unlike the chattering classes, senior military officers didn't raise an eyebrow when General Stanley McChrystal recently said he had only spoken once to President Obama since assuming command in Afghanistan. The military chain of command is there for a reason, and Obama seems to be sticking to it more faithfully than President George W. Bush did. But tensions are inevitable as the troop needs of U.S. commanders on the ground come up against the reservations of a political leadership increasingly leery of being trapped in an Afghan quagmire.

Some have argued that McChrystal violated military protocol by giving a speech in London last week emphasizing the need for more forces in Afghanistan at a time when that issue is the subject of hot debate inside the Administration. Obama, who convenes two key strategy meetings on Afghanistan this week, held an unusual meeting with McChrystal last Friday. (There was no dressing down, contrary to the suggestion in some media reports.) (See TIME's photo-essay "A Photographer's Personal Journey Through War.")


?But in remarks widely reported as directed at McChrystal, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Monday, "In this process, it is imperative that all of us taking part in these deliberations - civilians and military alike - provide our best advice to the President candidly but privately." Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell insisted, however, that Gates' message was meant for all privy to the Administration's Afghan policy deliberations, and "is not a rebuke of Stan McChrystal."


The military chain of command is a strange beast, rarely understood by civilians. But it's sacrosanct inside the military, which is why President Bush caused heartburn among many in uniform when he began regularly communicating directly with Army General David Petraeus, directly with Army General David Petraeus (who the New York Times reported was diagnosed with early-stage prostate cancer in February while serving as chief of U.S. Central Command), then leading the surge of nearly 30,000 additional U.S. troops in Iraq. That represented a short-circuiting of the chain that ought to have passed through Gates and Admiral William Fallon, then chief of Central Command, and raised concerns that Bush was ignoring a military hierarchy critical to the smooth functioning of the civilian-military relationship and of the military itself. (Read "Congress Tackles Afghanistan Strategy.")


?Jones on Sunday appeared to criticize McChrystal's London talk, in which the commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan had warned that setting more limited war aims there would yield a "Chaos-istan." The National Security Adviser emphasized that the Administration would prefer that its internal debates be kept internal. "Ideally, it's better for military advice to come up through the chain of command" and remain private, Jones said, instead of being voiced publicly as McChrystal did last Thursday before the International Institute of Strategic Studies.


?Jones was himself accused of straying out of his lane last June during a trip to Afghanistan, when he warned U.S. commanders against asking for more troops this year beyond the 21,000 reinforcements that Obama had authorized in March. Asking for further reinforcements even before those already approved had even been deployed, Jones warned, would give the President "a Whiskey Tango Foxtrot moment." The pungent comment - military lingo meaning "what the [expletive]" - was made in the presence of the Washington Post's Bob Woodward, who dutifully reported it. And eyebrows were certainly raised Sunday when Jones conceded, on a talk show, that he hadn't spoken with his boss since Friday. In light of the pressing challenges of Afghanistan, some national-security experts saw that as almost a dereliction of duty. (See pictures of the U.S. Marines' new offensive in Afghanistan.)


?As Commander in Chief, the President is forced to strike a balance between his generals' combat needs and what America is prepared to commit. No President wants to send more young men and women into harm's way than is necessary, but nor can he afford to ignore what his on-the-ground commanders tell him they need in order to prevail. Many in the military deem political pressure to keep troop numbers down a form of betrayal that could risk American lives, and no general has ever asked for fewer troops, more slowly delivered, while waging war. But civilian control of the military remains paramount.


The key decision facing Obama now is whether or not to back McChrystal's push for a counterinsurgency strategy that will require up to 40,000 extra troops. Or he might tilt toward the option being pushed by Vice President Joe Biden - a counterterrorism approach that wouldn't require additional U.S. troops, but would instead rely on more missile strikes to keep al-Qaeda and its Taliban allies off balance. Secretary Gates remains leery of adding to the 68,000 U.S. troops due in Afghanistan by year's end, fearing greater numbers may lead Afghans to view the U.S. as an occupying army. "Once the Commander in Chief makes his decisions," Gates said Monday, "we will salute and execute those decisions faithfully and to the best of our ability." But if that choice gives the military less than it believes it needs, no verbal slap from the Defense Secretary or the National Security Adviser is going to stop senior men in uniform from second-guessing the Commander in Chief.

[HandBall]

First on the article. It is an opinion piece. It is speculation. It is logical in its assumptions and conclusions. The reality, though, is that it's not worth a nickel. It does not describe the thinking of this president and this administration. It assumes. It implies. It speculates. It judges issues in a way most Americans would judge them, but that means nothing with an adminstration that is so defined on the leftist fringe.

What isn't there to worry about? Plenty. We have a president who believes in and surrounds himself with radicals who promote Marxism, socialism, redistribution, rights for animals, forced abortions, government-enforced population control, promotion of homosexuality in schools, censorship of the Internet and radio, civil rights for illegal aliens, single payer health care that would wipe out all private health care, ending moral objection by health care workers to abortion, and much more.  The president is a product of a radical Marxist upbringing, aided by radical, left-wing, and/or criminal organizations like ACORN, SEIU, Apollo Alliance, Tides Foundation, George Soros. His chief adviser Valerie Jarrett is tied to the Marxist Chicago machine. Her mother worked with domestic terrorist William Ayers father. Obama opposes drilling for oil, mining and use of coal, and nuclear power. He supports the man-made Global Warming lie, Cap & Tax, and Energy policies that will "necessarily cause electricity costs to skyrocket". He wants to build a domestic security force as large and well-funded as the military. He supports investigation and prosecution of CIA operatives who we now know saved thousands of potential victims of terrorist acts through coercive interrogation tactics deemed legal. The president himself supported and fought for defeat in Iraq, and continued to oppose the Iraq surge even after it had succeeded.

So am I worried about Afghanistan? I believe Obama would pull-out of Afghanistan in a second if he thought he could do it without a nationwide rebellion. I think he's stalling any decision hoping that things get bad enough that, with MSM support, the American people will turn against the war in Afghanistan and he'll be able to surrender and let another despotic government take hold.

McChrystal is a hero. He gave Obama 2 months to respond to his desperate 66-page report on the conditions in Afghanistan, and Obama ignored it. McChrystal has put his career on the line; clearly willing to be fired and retired for doing what he thinks is necessary. McChrystal is responsible for the lives of the troops under his command and he's taking it seriously.

In the military is the duty of soldiers not to follow illegal orders. But what happens when a soldier is denied a response to a request for support? As a military commander within the chain of command he doesn't have a right to an explanation or a right to disobey or go around the chain of command.  But as a human being he does have the right to do anything that is legal as long as he accepts the consequences of those actions, whether being fired or replaced. A commander has a duty to his subordinates, if only to meet with them, hear their pleas, and tell them nothing. But when a commander with the lives of tens of thousands of soldiers can't get the ear of the commander in chief, he can either sit by and count the deaths, or act to get the ear of the commander in chief. Whether the commander in chief can be made to share that concern in the lives of tens of thousands is a different story.  Considering that Obama was one of the few in America to oppose medical care for babies born alive and viable from botched abortions, I'm not surprised in anything he does, or what others may be forced to do to protect the lives of American citizens.

One thing clearly obvious to me these days, is that the president and the people he surrounds himself with are nothing like 99.9% of the American people. They are the extreme of the extreme and their brains are simply not wired like the majority of us. They've been able to keep millions convinced they are what they aren't, but even they must know the clock is ticking on their demise. The $64,000 question is whether America will still be America, or Amerika when they're finally thrown out?

"No verbal slap from the Defense Secretary or the National Security Adviser is going to stop senior men in uniform from second-guessing the Commander in Chief."

That is true. It's also true that in time, though, Obama will certainly make sure that senior men and women in uniform will care less about the men and women they command, and more about following the path he has no questions asked. There are plenty of those types of leaders in the military too.

[EWSoccer64]

The speech in London to the IISS - one of the most reputable of such military-strategic think tanks slash organizations in the world - was approved by the DoD well ahead of time.

Our general spoke the truth, and answered questions truthfully.   Would you have him act in any other way?  He is a military leader, not a politician.  Displaying honor and integrity, is a leadership function.  If he had behaved otherwise, he would have forfeited the respect of his troops.   And that would have been very damaging.

[goldengoal]

You hit on it a bit, but I was trying to get out of you is whether or not you think the military generals have respect for this administration? If what you are saying is true about marxism, then they have the obligation to protect the people from it. Militaries in many countries have taken over governments because they feel the peoples rights or the constitution is being threatened. Could this ever happen here? just something to think about

[HandBall]

You hit on it a bit, but I was trying to get out of you is whether or not you think the military generals have respect for this administration? If what you are saying is true about marxism, then they have the obligation to protect the people from it. Militaries in many countries have taken over governments because they feel the peoples rights or the constitution is being threatened. Could this ever happen here? just something to think about

The United States Military answers to the civilian leadership in Washington, and President Barack Obama is the commander in chief of the military. The military has no Constitutional authority to act outside the chain of command that starts with the President of the United States. it would be a horrific precedent in America if we acted like a 3rd world country where force of arms establishes a government at the discretion of a military commander or cabal of military commanders.

It is ironic that our president appears to support those types of regimes in Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, while opposing constitutional actions in a country like Honduras trying to avoid a tyranny, but why should Obama make any sense in this regard when virtually everything he does appears backwards to free-market Capitalists and republicans in America? (by republican I refer to supporters of republican principles and not the party.)

I pray such a military-led rebellion NEVER happens in America. I suspect that right-leaning officers in the military would be far less willing to engage in such a rebellion than left-wing officers if things were reversed. Conservative or Republican military officers would be far more likely to respect our Constitutional chain of command than some on the left would. If such a rebellion were to occur, it would usher in the end of this nation as foreseen by our Founders like George Washington who fully understood the role and responsibility of the military in a republican form of government.

It is the duty and responsibility of the American people to protect and defend America with their voices and their votes. If a majority of the American people can be lured or coerced into supporting a Marxist regime and supports changes to the US Constitution that changes America into Amerika, then we no longer deserve the freedom and liberty our Founders gave to us. Our Founders may never have perceived that so many could be lulled into sleep or be so easily conned into elected a Marxist, but it's happened.  And now it is up to the American people to step up and correct their mistake, or live with the consequences. 

WSJ: Obama and the General
The White House finds a four-star scapegoat for its Afghan jitters.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204488304574428961222276106.html?mod=djemEditorialPage