McChrystal most likely on the way out..

[Dan D]

The Runaway General


That it is, the news?

[SteamWake]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Let's hope he can figure a way out of this mess.

Good luck to him

Yes I also ultimatly hope things get better there.

Ultimatly McChrystil resigned beause Obama would not listen to him.

Will Obama listen to Patraeous? Will Patraeous toe the line?

Originally Posted by The rolling stone

Opposition to the war has already toppled the Dutch government, forced the resignation of Germany's president

WTH? I'm pretty sure there was other issues involved.

Honestly it was hard to get throught he first coupla paragraphs.





Egads whats with these names forgive me if I constantly misspell them.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by SteamWake

WTH? I'm pretty sure there was other issues involved.

Indeed. former president Koehler resigned after he was viciously attacked over statements by him about the role of the German military, attacks that were carried out in a way that was meant to hurt him personally and to distort him beyond the matter itself. His formulations in an interview were chosen somewhat unlucky, giving the impression that he thinks it is okay to use the german military for economic interests only, which in Germany is - officially - not as acceptable as it is in for example America. However, Koehler was tired of office, and found himself being met with lacking respect for his office as president, which he also gave as a reason in his farewell speech. It was said there were many disputes in the presidential offices, with him not being able to bring order to it. If you look at how the parties - especially Merkel herself - already abuse the elections for the new president again to push their own power-interests, then you cannot escape that Koehler's claim that the institution of the president is met with lacking respect, is true.

There are political and lobbyistic hyenas in office everywhere, and they will not stop their biting and fighting before they have torn the country into pieces.

Koehler was popular with the people, but he acted without luck and realised that the president as an institution in germany is - meaningless, and purely ceremonial. This was tough for him to realise, since he expected quite some formal and ceremonial respect for himself indeed, that presidents before him did not demand.

The Rolling Stone puts it simply wrong - at least most extremely simplified - if it writes that Koehler quit over Afghanistan.

[TheSatyr]

What bothers me right now is that at the Nuremburg Trials, German Officers were imprisoned if not executed for "Only following orders" and not standing up to or criticizing their leaders.

Here we have a General who is pissed off about the way the government is handling the war in Afghanistan and is criticizing the Administration, and now he is being forced to resign because he isn't "Just following orders"

Seems rather hypocritical to me.

[August]

Originally Posted by TheSatyr

What bothers me right now is that at the Nuremburg Trials, German Officers were imprisoned if not executed for "Only following orders" and not standing up to or criticizing their leaders.

Here we have a General who is pissed off about the way the government is handling the war in Afghanistan and is criticizing the Administration, and now he is being forced to resign because he isn't "Just following orders"

Seems rather hypocritical to me.

Nobody is saying the General can't criticize his leaders, just that he shouldn't be doing it in uniform.

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Let's hope he can figure a way out of this mess.

Good luck to him

Here's my trade-off: We stick to the timeline, in exchange, drop ALL rules for engagement. If it's armed or storing weapons, it's a target now.

[krashkart]

Originally Posted by August

Nobody is saying the General can't criticize his leaders, just that he shouldn't be doing it in uniform.

And especially not a good idea to be saying it around a loose-lipped journalist.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by TheSatyr

What bothers me right now is that at the Nuremburg Trials, German Officers were imprisoned if not executed for "Only following orders" and not standing up to or criticizing their leaders.

Here we have a General who is pissed off about the way the government is handling the war in Afghanistan and is criticizing the Administration, and now he is being forced to resign because he isn't "Just following orders"

Seems rather hypocritical to me.

Originally Posted by August

Nobody is saying the General can't criticize his leaders, just that he shouldn't be doing it in uniform.

Also there is the little fact that in one case we are talking about officers "following orders" that were illegal.

I do not believe anyone is claiming that McChrystal was fired for "only following orders" that were illegal.

But than my position is that it was unnecessary to fire McChrystal.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by nikimcbee

Here's my trade-off: We stick to the timeline, in exchange, drop ALL rules for engagement. If it's armed or storing weapons, it's a target now.

My trade off is to get the hell out of AF!

What exactly is the mission in AF?

Kill UBL?
Exterminate the Taliban?
Contain the Taliban?
Convert the Taliban?
Bring "Democracy" to AF?
Drive Al Qaeda out of AF?
Destroy Al Qaeda?
Bring "peace" to AF?
Secure the Southern Pipeline?

What exactly is "victory" in AF? I wanted to ask Bush this question and I would like to ask Obama this question.

[SteamWake]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Also there is the little fact that in one case we are talking about officers "following orders" that were illegal.

I do not believe anyone is claiming that McChrystal was fired for "only following orders" that were illegal.

But than my position is that it was unnecessary to fire McChrystal.

Get it straight... he was not fired... he turned in his resignation

Honestly.

[August]

Originally Posted by krashkart

And especially not a good idea to be saying it around a loose-lipped journalist.

That journalist is pretty perceptive:

Originally Posted by Michael Hastings

...when the military said they wanted to do a counterinsurgency strategy that actually meant 150,000 troops. Obama thought he could get away with just sending 21,000 over and getting a new general.

Pretty much sums it up, doncha think?

[krashkart]

Yeah, sums it up pretty well indeed. That little snippet from the article joggled me a bit: pretty good evidence that politicians have no business conducting warfare... as if the conflict in SEA wasn't proof enough already.

[August]

Originally Posted by krashkart

Yeah, sums it up pretty well indeed. That little snippet from the article joggled me a bit: pretty good evidence that politicians have no business conducting warfare... as if the conflict in SEA wasn't proof enough already.

Funny you should mention that because I was just thinking of how as the civil war got going Abraham Lincoln spent hours pouring over military texts and studying maps in an attempt to understand the situation as best that he could. Then again he didn't have the heavy fund raiser event schedule that President Obama has.

Originally Posted by krashkart

Yeah, sums it up pretty well indeed. That little snippet from the article joggled me a bit: pretty good evidence that politicians have no business conducting warfare... as if the conflict in SEA wasn't proof enough already.

It should be law that any presidential nominee has to have served in the US military as an officer to be considered for the presidency. I'm sick of all these bleeding heart hippies running the show.

It was never McChrystal's strategy in Afghanistan. It was Obama's. Obama seriously limited McChrystal from being able to have an effective strategy. Any military officer will agree that McChrystal had a solid plan for Afganistan but Obama was only giving him half the tools needed to be successful. Obama set the man up for failure and then relieved him when he got frustrated and told the press the truth about why he was having difficulty doing his job.

He told Obama what he needed to do the job and Obama turned him down by only giving him half of what he needed. So what was he supposed to do? Suck it up? We're talking life and death situations here. No General wants to see his men get killed off. I think he just couldn't stomach it anymore and got fed up with Obama.

In a way it serves him right. He supposedly voted for Obama and look where that got him. You reap what you sew!

[krashkart]

Originally Posted by August

Funny you should mention that because I was just thinking of how as the civil war got going Abraham Lincoln spent hours pouring over military texts and studying maps in an attempt to understand the situation as best that he could. Then again he didn't have the heavy fund raiser event schedule that President Obama has.

Heh. I didn't know that about Abe. Or maybe I did and simply forgot. How big of a role did Lincoln play in the Civil War, as far as deciding where and how to employ the military?

Originally Posted by thorn69

It should be law that any presidential nominee has to have served in the US military as an officer to be considered for the presidency. I'm sick of all these bleeding heart hippies running the show.

Isn't it already a requirement that a candidate must have served in the military at some point? Or did that all change?