Liberals Attack Against McChrystal Begins

[nodoginnafight]

The truth is that Obama drew criticism from the left during the campaign when he supported drone strikes into Pakistan without potentially compromising the missions by informing the Paki gov't first.

Folks have tried to paint him far softer on afghanistan than he actually has been.

I think there is an argument to be made for saying we've done what we set out to do there so let's come home.

I've also heard pretty persuasive arguments that maintaining the pressure there can hurt the terrorists far more than it hurts us.

But I think it IS time to decide one way or another.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I'm confused by your thinking that the general doesn't have my confidence. Unlike some others, he is far more knowledgeable in military strategy than I am (and more than the President). I have fine confidence in him.

I was speaking in terms of the president. If the PRESIDENT'S general does not have the president's confidence (to the point of believing the general when he says he needs X number of troops to get the job done) then perhaps it is time for the president to replace his general.

 

[Si modo]

I'm confused by your thinking that the general doesn't have my confidence. Unlike some others, he is far more knowledgeable in military strategy than I am (and more than the President). I have fine confidence in him.

I was speaking in terms of the president. If the PRESIDENT'S general does not have the president's confidence (to the point of believing the general when he says he needs X number of troops to get the job done) then perhaps it is time for the president to replace his general.

Oh, I see. Thanks for clarifying.

On that point, and I'll look at it politically, that would be a very bad move on BHO's part, IMO. He just appointed McChrystal this summer and now he shitcans him? Wow, talk about more fuel to that indecisive moniker (and talking point) that he's getting.

 

[Sinatra]

Actually - one source lists the current level at 68,000

CNSNews.com - 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforcements

(a decidedly conservative source) so it may have changed - most of the sources I found listed the current level at 48,250.

Anyway - do a little homework for yourself and make up your own mind - just don't buy into what some message board poster claims anyway. The notion that Obama promised more troops but didn't deliever may stoke your biased fires - but check it out first.

Thank you. And to clarify, I have never said that more weren't sent. I HAVE said that more are currently requested and have been since before Labor Day. Send them to help those on the ground based on the recs of those on the ground, or get them out. But pissing around for a month is a disservice to those on the ground.

Agree - to a point. But NO ONE gets carte blanche to expect every last request to be honored. But if your general doesn't have your confidence - replace him.

What if the president doesn't have the general's confidence?

I do believe McChrystal primary concern is for the troops - and he has increasing doubts that he and Obama share that concern to the same degree...

 

[nodoginnafight]

What if the president doesn't have the general's confidence?

Doesn't matter a bit - the general always has the option of resigning his commission - but the chain of command runs in the OTHER direction.

On that point, and I'll look at it politically, that would be a very bad move on BHO's part, IMO. He just appointed McChrystal this summer and now he shitcans him? Wow, talk about more fuel to that indecisive moniker (and talking point) that he's getting.

That's true - but if he's your guy - you really ought to attach a lot of credibility to his requests.

 

[Sinatra]

What if the president doesn't have the general's confidence?

Doesn't matter a bit - the general always has the option of resigning his commission - but the chain of command runs in the OTHER direction.

On that point, and I'll look at it politically, that would be a very bad move on BHO's part, IMO. He just appointed McChrystal this summer and now he shitcans him? Wow, talk about more fuel to that indecisive moniker (and talking point) that he's getting.

That's true - but if he's your guy - you really ought to attach a lot of credibility to his requests.

Yes, but do the citizens not owe it to the soldiers, and their respective families, to ask WHY this president would not have the confidence of his general(s)?

There is chain-of-command, and there is moral imperative.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Yes, but do the citizens not owe it to the soldiers, and their respective families, to ask WHY this president would not have the confidence of his general(s)? There is chain-of-command, and there is moral imperative.

There is no moral imperative for citizens to base their votes on anything other than what they choose to base their vote on.
So in that respect it is purely up to the individual citizen as to whether they think the president should answer to his general or whether the general should answer to his president.
Personally, I'm glad generals don't call all the shots. I'm not a fan of military dictatorships. I know that many people feel like that when it comes to war, the generals should call the shots. But I disagree - I believe the act of war is a political act and even the broad strokes of the execution of war is a political decision in that it should be a reflection of a nation's resolve.

 

[bodecea]

What if the president doesn't have the general's confidence?

Doesn't matter a bit - the general always has the option of resigning his commission - but the chain of command runs in the OTHER direction.

On that point, and I'll look at it politically, that would be a very bad move on BHO's part, IMO. He just appointed McChrystal this summer and now he shitcans him? Wow, talk about more fuel to that indecisive moniker (and talking point) that he's getting.

That's true - but if he's your guy - you really ought to attach a lot of credibility to his requests.

Yes, but do the citizens not owe it to the soldiers, and their respective families, to ask WHY this president would not have the confidence of his general(s)?

There is chain-of-command, and there is moral imperative.

A general who publicly makes it know he does not have confidence in his Commander in Chief will very quickly go the way of Douglas MacArthur. As he/she should.

 

[Sinatra]

Yes, but do the citizens not owe it to the soldiers, and their respective families, to ask WHY this president would not have the confidence of his general(s)? There is chain-of-command, and there is moral imperative.

There is no moral imperative for citizens to base their votes on anything other than what they choose to base their vote on.
So in that respect it is purely up to the individual citizen as to whether they think the president should answer to his general or whether the general should answer to his president.
Personally, I'm glad generals don't call all the shots. I'm not a fan of military dictatorships. I know that many people feel like that when it comes to war, the generals should call the shots. But I disagree - I believe the act of war is a political act and even the broad strokes of the execution of war is a political decision in that it should be a reflection of a nation's resolve.

McChrystal is not "calling the shots" - he followed the orders of his president - tell him what is needed in Afghanistan.

The president to this point has ignored that report entirely - for two months. Soldiers are dying. This sends a clear message to our men and women in service - and the world, that we have an uncertain, indecisive president.

In a time of war - that is very-very dangerous thing.

So do we fight in Afghanistan, or do we pack up and leave?

Our soldiers deserve an answer.

What say you?

 

[nodoginnafight]

Yes, but do the citizens not owe it to the soldiers, and their respective families, to ask WHY this president would not have the confidence of his general(s)? There is chain-of-command, and there is moral imperative.

There is no moral imperative for citizens to base their votes on anything other than what they choose to base their vote on.
So in that respect it is purely up to the individual citizen as to whether they think the president should answer to his general or whether the general should answer to his president.
Personally, I'm glad generals don't call all the shots. I'm not a fan of military dictatorships. I know that many people feel like that when it comes to war, the generals should call the shots. But I disagree - I believe the act of war is a political act and even the broad strokes of the execution of war is a political decision in that it should be a reflection of a nation's resolve.

McChrystal is not "calling the shots" - he followed the orders of his president - tell him what is needed in Afghanistan.

The president to this point has ignored that report entirely - for two months. Soldiers are dying. This sends a clear message to our men and women in service - and the world, that we have an uncertain, indecisive president.

In a time of war - that is very-very dangerous thing.

So do we fight in Afghanistan, or do we pack up and leave?

Our soldiers deserve an answer.

What say you?

I say you make assumptions here that not only can you not back up with evidence, but that evidence appears to contradict.

I say war is messy and people die - soldiers and even innocent non-combtants - and that must be weighed into the decision to wage war. Don't wage a war if you have no stomach for war.
I also say criticisms that stem from political motives yet hide beneath the cloak of concern for our soldiers is one of the most despicable things I frequently encounter on these boards.
I further say that troop levels should be set to achieve the goals of the mission and that when those goals are met, we should be able to bring our soldiers home.

 

[Sinatra]

There is no moral imperative for citizens to base their votes on anything other than what they choose to base their vote on.
So in that respect it is purely up to the individual citizen as to whether they think the president should answer to his general or whether the general should answer to his president.
Personally, I'm glad generals don't call all the shots. I'm not a fan of military dictatorships. I know that many people feel like that when it comes to war, the generals should call the shots. But I disagree - I believe the act of war is a political act and even the broad strokes of the execution of war is a political decision in that it should be a reflection of a nation's resolve.

McChrystal is not "calling the shots" - he followed the orders of his president - tell him what is needed in Afghanistan.

The president to this point has ignored that report entirely - for two months. Soldiers are dying. This sends a clear message to our men and women in service - and the world, that we have an uncertain, indecisive president.

In a time of war - that is very-very dangerous thing.

So do we fight in Afghanistan, or do we pack up and leave?

Our soldiers deserve an answer.

What say you?

I say you make assumptions her that not only can you not back up with evidence, but that evidence appears to contradict.

I say war is messy and people die - soldiers and even innocent non-combtants - and that must be weighed into the decision to wage war. Don't wage a war if you have no stomach for war.I also say criticisms that stem from political motives yet hide beneath the cloak of concern for our soldiers is one of the most despicable things I frequently encounter on these boards.
I further say that troop levels should be set to achieve the goals of the mission and that when those goals are met, we should be able to bring our soldiers home.

_____

No - don't wage war if you don't intend to WIN IT. This president campaigned on Afghanistan being the "right war" -so by your own criteria, it would appear this same president has engaged in a despicable thing - waging war only for political motives.

So I ask again - do we remain and fight in Afghanistan or do we pull out? Do we follow McChrysta's advice, or remain undecided?

Provide what the president has not - an answer to that question...

 

[Wicked Jester]

A lot could have been learned by the way Desert shield/ Desert storm was handled.
We had two comanders on the ground who were primarily running the mission.
From day one, they held daily conferences for the public that were broadcast every night during both operations. They laid out directly what was being done. The public knew exactly what was going on.
Anybody old enough to remember, will probably never forget Colin Powell saying in effect. ''This is where the Iraqi Army is. First we're going to cut it off, and then we're going to KILL IT!"
And that is exactly what they did.
Bush 1 put the war directly in the hands of his ground commanders, from all branches. Gave them exactly what they needed, and stayed the hell out of their way.
Obama needs to go back and look at that history.

 

[Sinatra]

A lot could have been learned by the way Desert shield/ Desert storm was handled.
We had two comanders on the ground who were primarily running the mission.
From day one, they held daily conferences for the public that were broadcast every night during both operations. They laid out directly what was being done. The public knew exactly what was going on.
Anybody old enough to remember, will probably never forget Colin Powell saying in effect. ''This is where the Iraqi Army is. First we're going to cut it off, and then we're going to KILL IT!"
And that is exactly what they did.
Bush 1 put the war directly in the hands of his ground commanders, from all branches. Gave them exactly what they needed, and stayed the hell out of their way.
Obama needs to go back and look at that history.

Obama is playing politics with the conflict - and American soldiers are dying because of it.

 

[nodoginnafight]

McChrystal is not "calling the shots" - he followed the orders of his president - tell him what is needed in Afghanistan.

The president to this point has ignored that report entirely - for two months. Soldiers are dying. This sends a clear message to our men and women in service - and the world, that we have an uncertain, indecisive president.

In a time of war - that is very-very dangerous thing.

So do we fight in Afghanistan, or do we pack up and leave?

Our soldiers deserve an answer.

What say you?

I say you make assumptions her that not only can you not back up with evidence, but that evidence appears to contradict.

I say war is messy and people die - soldiers and even innocent non-combtants - and that must be weighed into the decision to wage war. Don't wage a war if you have no stomach for war.I also say criticisms that stem from political motives yet hide beneath the cloak of concern for our soldiers is one of the most despicable things I frequently encounter on these boards.
I further say that troop levels should be set to achieve the goals of the mission and that when those goals are met, we should be able to bring our soldiers home.

_____

No - don't wage war if you don't intend to WIN IT. This president campaigned on Afghanistan being the "right war" -so by your own criteria, it would appear this same president has engaged in a despicable thing - waging war only for political motives.

So I ask again - do we remain and fight in Afghanistan or do we pull out? Do we follow McChrysta's advice, or remain undecided?

Provide what the president has not - an answer to that question...

A war isn't a football game - what does "win it" mean in YOUR opinion? What does it mean in Obama's opinion? What does it mean in McChrysta's opinion? What does it mean in the eyes of the American people? In the eyes of the world? Which of those opinions are the ones that really matter? What if they are in conflict? Whose opinion should prevail?

So far, I think Obama is doing fine - I am very interesting in what direction we decide to take at this point.

But trying to grind a political ax on our soldiers is what you are doing and I don't appreciate it.

 

[Wicked Jester]

A lot could have been learned by the way Desert shield/ Desert storm was handled.
We had two comanders on the ground who were primarily running the mission.
From day one, they held daily conferences for the public that were broadcast every night during both operations. They laid out directly what was being done. The public knew exactly what was going on.
Anybody old enough to remember, will probably never forget Colin Powell saying in effect. ''This is where the Iraqi Army is. First we're going to cut it off, and then we're going to KILL IT!"
And that is exactly what they did.
Bush 1 put the war directly in the hands of his ground commanders, from all branches. Gave them exactly what they needed, and stayed the hell out of their way.
Obama needs to go back and look at that history.

Obama is playing politics with the conflict - and American soldiers are dying because of it.

Sadly, it appears so.

 

[nodoginnafight]

so by your own criteria, it would appear this same president has engaged in a despicable thing - waging war only for political motives.

War is a political act - I've posted this opinion previously. Maybe you don't understand "my criteria" and my opinions as well as you seem to think.

 

[G.T.]

A war isn't a football game - what does "win it" mean in YOUR opinion? What does it mean in Obama's opinion? What does it mean in McChrysta's opinion? What does it mean in the eyes of the American people? In the eyes of the world? Which of those opinions are the ones that really matter? What if they are in conflict? Whose opinion should prevail?

So far, I think Obama is doing fine - I am very interesting in what direction we decide to take at this point.

But trying to grind a political ax on our soldiers is what you are doing and I don't appreciate it.

This.

Just.....................................this.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Fortunately these ridiculous Liberal Smear Campaigns are becoming pretty played out at this point. Most common sense thinking Americans saw what the Liberals and especially the corrupt Liberal Press did to Sarah Palin and her children so i don't think they're buying into this Liberal Smear stuff anymore. Attacking one's politics is perfectly acceptable but viciously attacking and smearing one's children really is just plain unforgivable. So let the Democrats begin their vicious Smear Campaign because it will likely backfire on them in the end anyway.

 

[Si modo]

....

But trying to grind a political ax on our soldiers is what you are doing and I don't appreciate it.

IMO, it's more important what the folks on the ground appreciate. Their commander has asked for help for them.

 

[Missourian]

McChrystal is not "calling the shots" - he followed the orders of his president - tell him what is needed in Afghanistan.

The president to this point has ignored that report entirely - for two months. Soldiers are dying. This sends a clear message to our men and women in service - and the world, that we have an uncertain, indecisive president.

In a time of war - that is very-very dangerous thing.

So do we fight in Afghanistan, or do we pack up and leave?

Our soldiers deserve an answer.

What say you?

I say you make assumptions her that not only can you not back up with evidence, but that evidence appears to contradict.

I say war is messy and people die - soldiers and even innocent non-combtants - and that must be weighed into the decision to wage war. Don't wage a war if you have no stomach for war.I also say criticisms that stem from political motives yet hide beneath the cloak of concern for our soldiers is one of the most despicable things I frequently encounter on these boards.
I further say that troop levels should be set to achieve the goals of the mission and that when those goals are met, we should be able to bring our soldiers home.

_____

No - don't wage war if you don't intend to WIN IT. This president campaigned on Afghanistan being the "right war" -so by your own criteria, it would appear this same president has engaged in a despicable thing - waging war only for political motives.

So I ask again - do we remain and fight in Afghanistan or do we pull out? Do we follow McChrysta's advice, or remain undecided?

Provide what the president has not - an answer to that question...

Defeat is not an option.

You think Obama got his ass handed to him by the IOC?

That is just a grain of sand on a beach of humiliation if he forfeits the Afghanistan to the Taliban.