Hudlin Entertainment Forum

Politics => Vox Populi => Topic started by: Vic Vega on June 22, 2010, 10:58:33 am

Title: Gen. Stanley McChrystal slams Obama Admistration in Rolling Stone Interview
Post by: Vic Vega on June 22, 2010, 10:58:33 am
WASHINGTON -- Gen. Stanley McChrystal tripped over his own ego and risked turning his superstar career into toast with an eye-popping interview trashing President Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and others in the administration.

McChrystal immediately was ordered back to Washington by Defense Secretary Robert Gates to face an angry Obama at a White House meeting Wednesday on Afghanistan to explain his remarks.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs declined to say whether McChrystal would be relieved or fired from his command of the Afghan war, but curtly described Obama's first reaction to the general's statements: "He (Obama) was angry."

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/06/22/2010-06-22_gen_stanley_mcchrystal_ordered_back_to_dc_white_house_on_possible_firing_all_opt.html#ixzz0rbd1ey3s
 (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/06/22/2010-06-22_gen_stanley_mcchrystal_ordered_back_to_dc_white_house_on_possible_firing_all_opt.html#ixzz0rbd1ey3s)

Title: Re: Gen. Stanley McChrystal slams Obama Admistration in Rolling Stone Interview
Post by: Hypestyle on June 22, 2010, 11:59:52 am
do like Trump-- "you're fired!"
Title: Re: Gen. Stanley McChrystal slams Obama Admistration in Rolling Stone Interview
Post by: JLI Jesse on June 22, 2010, 02:08:54 pm
I haven't read the article but I am somewhat torn on this.  A General should never publicly criticize the commander in chief.  On the other hand, he is supposed to be the expert and if he sees something wrong and nobody is listening, it is worth him speaking out. 

CNN is saying according to an unnamed source Gen. McChrystal has submitted his resignation.
Title: Re: Gen. Stanley McChrystal slams Obama Admistration in Rolling Stone Interview
Post by: Vic Vega on June 22, 2010, 02:10:29 pm
I think he wants to be fired.

His current job is a poinsoned chalice.

Before you can prop up a Central Government (like say, Afganistan) you sort of have to HAVE a Central Government  first.

If he gets the boot it becomes some other guy's problem.

P.S.: Note that McChrystal was given everthing he wanted by the Adminstration. The tenor of the article sound like he's annoyed that he has to answer to civilians at all.

   
Title: Re: Gen. Stanley McChrystal slams Obama Admistration in Rolling Stone Interview
Post by: DRobinson on June 22, 2010, 02:39:25 pm

P.S.: Note that McChrystal was given everthing he wanted by the Adminstration. The tenor of the article sound like he's annoyed that he has to answer to civilians at all.

  


I think McChrystal is saying that the Obama administration did not give him what he believe he needs to win the war. As I understand it, he was frustrated that Obama took 3 months to make a decision to send additional troops. He has also expressed his belief that scheduling troop withdrawals is inconsistent with trying to win a war.

It seems doubtable that a career military man would want to be fired and leave his troops hanging in the middle of a war. I just think he is frustrated with his Commander in Chief and decided to become somewhat of a whistle blower. And that is never acceptable for a General.

His frustration seems understandable. He is essentially fighting an un-winnable war, with inadequate assets, and has tepid support of his President & congress. I would hate to be in his shoes.

By the way, the fact that this story was posted in the "Politics" section of HEF speaks to how political this war is viewed. Would a story about WWII, printed during the war, be viewed as political or current events/news?
Title: Re: Gen. Stanley McChrystal slams Obama Admistration in Rolling Stone Interview
Post by: Princesa on June 22, 2010, 04:43:53 pm
It's inexcusable to me, he should be treated like any other soldier who is insubordinate. I get nervous when military types get it twisted we have civilian government.
Title: Re: Gen. Stanley McChrystal slams Obama Admistration in Rolling Stone Interview
Post by: Vic Vega on June 22, 2010, 05:48:28 pm

P.S.: Note that McChrystal was given everthing he wanted by the Adminstration. The tenor of the article sound like he's annoyed that he has to answer to civilians at all.

  


I think McChrystal is saying that the Obama administration did not give him what he believe he needs to win the war. As I understand it, he was frustrated that Obama took 3 months to make a decision to send additional troops. He has also expressed his belief that scheduling troop withdrawals is inconsistent with trying to win a war.

It seems doubtable that a career military man would want to be fired and leave his troops hanging in the middle of a war. I just think he is frustrated with his Commander in Chief and decided to become somewhat of a whistle blower. And that is never acceptable for a General.

His frustration seems understandable. He is essentially fighting an un-winnable war, with inadequate assets, and has tepid support of his President & congress. I would hate to be in his shoes.

By the way, the fact that this story was posted in the "Politics" section of HEF speaks to how political this war is viewed. Would a story about WWII, printed during the war, be viewed as political or current events/news?

Well the story isn't about a military action or anything like that. Its about the fallout from McChrystal giving an interview to Rolling Stone, of all things.

That's why this has the feel of premeditation to it to me. McChrystal has a willing audience in the Washington Post. Why use Rolling Stone other than to kick up a ruckus?

That or he's angling for a run for President in 2012. Or both.

McChrystal's counter-insurgency strategy might not work even if he had a decade and 10 times the number of troops he has now.

Even his own play book states that civilian causualties are bad because for every 1 civilian you kill by accident you create 10 vengeance filled terrorists.

Even with our armies knowing this our civilian casuaties rate is pretty horrific (I had cited it elsewhere a while ago). And that's only one of McChrystal's problems.

P.S.: It just occured to me that if McChrystal DOES get canned for whatever reason his sucessor is going to want/need more time to assess the situation on the ground. There will be no pullout while Gen. Second Choice is gathering his data. That alone could buy the troops an extra year in Afganistan.

So maybe McChrystal figures he's bulletproof: the Adminstration can't have its scheduled pullout without him, so he can say what he wants.
Title: Re: Gen. Stanley McChrystal slams Obama Admistration in Rolling Stone Interview
Post by: DRobinson on June 23, 2010, 07:29:07 am
This story should be played out, one way or the other, before the day is over. Obama looks to be in a very difficult situation. McChrystal deserves to be fired, but Obama has a bigger fish to fry - winning a war.

I hope Obama chews McChrystal a new one, then takes the high road and magnanimously sends him back into the field to win the war. If Obama can show enough restraint to do this, I think his standing with the American people and the world goes up significantly.

Our President has a dozen different problems that all look to be spiraling out of control. I hope the war in Afghanistan doesn’t get heaped on the pile.

Title: Re: Gen. Stanley McChrystal slams Obama Admistration in Rolling Stone Interview
Post by: Battle on June 23, 2010, 07:31:59 am
Why in the world does anyone believe that this one measely officer can guarantee the success of this war?
Title: Re: Gen. Stanley McChrystal slams Obama Admistration in Rolling Stone Interview
Post by: Reginald Hudlin on June 23, 2010, 07:57:32 am
This is an unwinnable war. The fact that we are still there is a travesty. I know they have waaaay more information than the general public, but I can't imagine that changes the basic facts as we see them.  So in that regard, better to fire this insubordinate and maintain discipline within the ranks....and I don't just mean military ranks.
Title: Re: Gen. Stanley McChrystal slams Obama Admistration in Rolling Stone Interview
Post by: DRobinson on June 23, 2010, 08:30:36 am
Why in the world does anyone believe that this one measely officer can guarantee the success of this war?

McChrystal doesn't guarantee success (a fuzzy term) of the war. But continuity and having a General who is highly regarded by his troops is important. That said, troops respecting their Commander in Chief is equally important.

Whether deserved or not, it seems there is a lack of respect for Obama by the military. I think the best decision Obama can make will be the one that causes troops to respect him the most. That may well be firing McChrystal to show intolerance for insubordination.

As far as the war being unwinnable, that seems to be the case, as winning is currently defined. But President Obama put a stake in the ground when he declared that Afghanistan was where he was going to fight Al Qaeda. Politically, Obama can’t just walk away. Perhaps reshaping the definition of “winning” is the best we can do at this point.

As the Rolling Stone article points out, Genghis Khan was the last foreign power to succeed in Afghanistan – there is a lesson in that fact.
Title: Re: Gen. Stanley McChrystal slams Obama Admistration in Rolling Stone Interview
Post by: KIP LEWIS on June 23, 2010, 08:39:07 am
At bare minimum, demote him.  I suspect he will resign to save face and because he is told to resign.

This is military; Generals don't bad mouth the President in the media.  Patton was fired for challenging Eisenhower; and he aint no Patton.  (Though, it is said that its his aids who said the worse things.  One commentator thought the president could replace his staff with President friendly people.)

(As I type this, Hillary just wanted into the WH.  We should know soon.)

If the President just "scolds" him and sends him back, it makes him look weak. 
Title: Re: Gen. Stanley McChrystal slams Obama Admistration in Rolling Stone Interview
Post by: KIP LEWIS on June 23, 2010, 08:45:46 am
<<(As I type this, Hillary just wanted into the WH.  We should know soon.)>>

That should have said, Hilary went into the WH. I know that she wanted in the WH, but that's another thread.
Title: Re: Gen. Stanley McChrystal slams Obama Admistration in Rolling Stone Interview
Post by: Battle on June 23, 2010, 11:46:44 am
Inside the Oval Office:


President Obama:  "What is it, Mr. Gibbs?"

White House Press Secretary: "M'lord, the existing troop surge in Afghanistan is proceeding as planned. The withdrawal date has been extended, however, there is still the matter of General McChrystal's remarks in that Rolling Stone article...  Rumour has it that the general has been summoned to appear before you with resignation in hand."

President Obama: "The Taliban and Al-Quada are alerted to our presence.  General McChrystal fraternizing with the press has come too close to our system."

White House Press Secretary:  "H-He felt that a surprise interview was wiser---"

President Obama:  "He is as clumsy as he is stupid!  Mr. Gibbs, prepare a speech for a press conference in the Rose Garden."

White House Press Secretary:  "Yes M'lord!"

(The President swivels in his chair as a LCD viewscreen behind the Resolute Desk switches on General McChrystal's new iPhone 4.)

(http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w184/Battle-D/ObamaHEF_06.jpg)

General McChrystal: Mr. President, can it wait? I'm having lunch in the Officer's Quarters with my pal, Mr. Petraeus.  He ---  *ACK*

(General McChrystal is suddenly choking on a fish bone!)

President Obama: "You have failed me for the last time, general.  ...General Petraeus?"

General Petraeus:  "Yes, M'lord!"

President Obama: Make ready to extend our watches beyond the Afghan DMZ and deploy our troops so that no more paparazzi gets into our camps. YOU are in command now, General Petraeus."

(General McChrystal still gagging and eventually passing out on his lunch table.)



ERRATUM: Robert Gibbs is actually the White House Press Secretary, not the House Speaker.  D'oh!
Title: Re: Gen. Stanley McChrystal slams Obama Admistration in Rolling Stone Interview
Post by: KIP LEWIS on June 23, 2010, 12:13:45 pm
So, Obama is a Sith Lord?  Does that make Palin a Jedi?
Title: Re: Gen. Stanley McChrystal slams Obama Admistration in Rolling Stone Interview
Post by: BmoreAkuma on June 23, 2010, 01:18:04 pm
So, Obama is a Sith Lord?  Does that make Palin a Jedi?
The way how a number in the right I bet they think that. 
Title: Re: Gen. Stanley McChrystal slams Obama Admistration in Rolling Stone Interview
Post by: Princesa on June 23, 2010, 04:52:00 pm
So, Obama is a Sith Lord?  Does that make Palin a Jedi?

Sarah Palin can't spell "Jedi".
Title: Re: Gen. Stanley McChrystal slams Obama Admistration in Rolling Stone Interview
Post by: Battle on June 24, 2010, 07:22:49 am
So, Obama is a Sith Lord?  Does that make Palin a Jedi?




(http://i33.tinypic.com/2mg85qt.jpg)





Quote
Sarah Palin can't spell "Jedi".



 ;D(http://www.hudlinentertainment.com/smf/Themes/default/images/post/thumbup.gif)
Title: Re: Gen. Stanley McChrystal slams Obama Admistration in Rolling Stone Interview
Post by: michaelintp on June 29, 2010, 10:43:46 pm
This is an unwinnable war. The fact that we are still there is a travesty. I know they have waaaay more information than the general public, but I can't imagine that changes the basic facts as we see them.  So in that regard, better to fire this insubordinate and maintain discipline within the ranks....and I don't just mean military ranks.

So who approved the idea having a journalist from Rolling Stone, pretending to be everyone's pal, embedded with McChrystal's staff?  My understanding is that most of the comments came from them.

Reginald, let us imagine you get your way. America immediately withdraws from Afghanistan: Let's see. OK, Afghanistan falls to the Taliban. The militants of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are empowered, their reputation and influence bolstered 1000 fold. Turns out Osama bin Laden was right after all, it just took a few more years than anticipated for America to show its pathetic weakness. The Khumeinists in Iran develop nuclear weapons, enhancing their reputation and clout 1000 fold. America pulls out of Iraq. With these developments, Iraq is radicalized and falls to the Jihadists. The Jihadists, emboldened, with more recruits and training grounds, become ever more aggressive in Pakistan, with pro-Taliban elements in the Pakistani intelligence services and armed forces asserting greater influence. They stage a coup d'état. Nuclear Pakistan falls to the Jihadists. The monarchy in Saudi Arabia is destabilized, with neo-Wahabi fundamentaliststs who were fed the Jihadi ideology from the extremist Saudi-funded schools and mosques, seizing control of the kingdom. Saudi Arabia is dominated by its Jihadist spawn. Throughout all of this, moderate Muslims are targeted as apostates and murdered throughout the Middle East, minorities are persecuted and killed and women are subjugated.

And at home, during all this, we are content at last, with our HBO, MTV, ESPN and BET, confident that our government will protect us, here in Dar el Harb.  ::)

*All non-Muslim lands are Dar el Harb in Arabic. The phrase means "the House of War."
Title: Re: Gen. Stanley McChrystal slams Obama Admistration in Rolling Stone Interview
Post by: BmoreAkuma on June 30, 2010, 03:37:04 am
Yep and this "war" is doing so well just like the "war on drugs" in 80s or Vietnam or Gulf War. We are really protecting out citizens
Title: Re: Gen. Stanley McChrystal slams Obama Admistration in Rolling Stone Interview
Post by: Vic Vega on June 30, 2010, 07:57:15 am
This is an unwinnable war. The fact that we are still there is a travesty. I know they have waaaay more information than the general public, but I can't imagine that changes the basic facts as we see them.  So in that regard, better to fire this insubordinate and maintain discipline within the ranks....and I don't just mean military ranks.

So who approved the idea having a journalist from Rolling Stone, pretending to be everyone's pal, embedded with McChrystal's staff?  My understanding is that most of the comments came from them.
Reginald, let us imagine you get your way. America immediately withdraws from Afghanistan: Let's see. OK, Afghanistan falls to the Taliban. The militants of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are empowered, their reputation and influence bolstered 1000 fold. Turns out Osama bin Laden was right after all, it just took a few more years than anticipated for America to show its pathetic weakness. The Khumeinists in Iran develop nuclear weapons, enhancing their reputation and clout 1000 fold. America pulls out of Iraq. With these developments, Iraq is radicalized and falls to the Jihadists. The Jihadists, emboldened, with more recruits and training grounds, become ever more aggressive in Pakistan, with pro-Taliban elements in the Pakistani intelligence services and armed forces asserting greater influence. They stage a coup d'état. Nuclear Pakistan falls to the Jihadists. The monarchy in Saudi Arabia is destabilized, with neo-Wahabi fundamentaliststs who were fed the Jihadi ideology from the extremist Saudi-funded schools and mosques, seizing control of the kingdom. Saudi Arabia is dominated by its Jihadist spawn. Throughout all of this, moderate Muslims are targeted as apostates and murdered throughout the Middle East, minorities are persecuted and killed and women are subjugated.

And at home, during all this, we are content at last, with our HBO, MTV, ESPN and BET, confident that our government will protect us, here in Dar el Harb.  ::)

*All non-Muslim lands are Dar el Harb in Arabic. The phrase means "the House of War."

Mike,

This was why I wondered about premeditation. I find it hard to believe that McChristal could make a P.R. blunder of THAT magnitude by accident. Why talk to Rolling Stone at all? Why not Time or Newsweek?

Now that McChristal's retired my idea about him running for President in 2012 is just a little more likely. 
Title: Re: Gen. Stanley McChrystal slams Obama Admistration in Rolling Stone Interview
Post by: Reginald Hudlin on June 30, 2010, 08:27:53 am
Mike, your domino theory proposal implies that we do NOTHING in the Middle East to fight terrorism, and that's not what I'm talking about. But even in the article everyone who is onboard the COIN strategy admits it will take decades and won't look or feel like a conventional win.  In other words, a gigantic risk. 

Maybe it is a risk worth taking.  I'm sure Obama knows the economic and political cost of staying there.  Maybe its the best of a bad series of choices.  But I when I hear a new version of the domino theory, I recall those dire concerns about Viet Nam falling didn't come true.  I know this is a different situation, but it sure feels familiar.
Title: Re: Gen. Stanley McChrystal slams Obama Admistration in Rolling Stone Interview
Post by: michaelintp on June 30, 2010, 10:36:25 pm
Well, Reginald, I understand what you are saying about the "domino theory" but really, we've gotta get over the Vietnam war. Honest to God, this is not 1968. The situation today is what it is today. And it is a terrible situation. Our choices are "bad" to "worse." But the worst is a waaaaaay lot worse. Or, at least, that's how I see it.

Oh, and Vic, interesting point, if the call was really McChrystal's alone to invite the journalist in to his inner circle (and not also the Administration's)
Title: Re: Gen. Stanley McChrystal slams Obama Admistration in Rolling Stone Interview
Post by: Battle on July 14, 2010, 06:01:01 am
(http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w184/Battle-D/HEFcrystal_01.jpg)