Obama angry at General McChrystal.

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by ups1990, Oct 5, 2009.

  1. ups1990

    ups1990 Well-Known Member

    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.

    By Alex Spillius in Washington
    Published: 7:00AM BST 05 Oct 2009

    US General Stanley McChrystal Photo: AFP/GETTY

    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.
    Gen McChrystal delivered a report on Afghanistan requested by the president on Aug 31, but Mr Obama held only his second "principals meeting" on the issue last week.
    He will hold at least one more this week, but a decision on how far to follow Gen McChrystal's recommendation to send 40,000 more US troops will not be made for several weeks.
    A military expert said: "They still have working relationship but all in all it's not great for now."
    Some commentators regarded the general's London comments as verging on insubordination.
    Bruce Ackerman, an expert on constitutional law at Yale University, said in the Washington Post: "As commanding general, McChrystal has no business making such public pronouncements."
    He added that it was highly unusual for a senior military officer to "pressure the president in public to adopt his strategy".
    Relations between the general and the White House began to sour when his report, which painted a grim picture of the allied mission in Afghanistan, was leaked. White House aides have since briefed against the general's recommendations.
    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."
    As a divide opened up between the military and the White House, senior military figures began criticising the White House for failing to tackle the issue more quickly.
    They made no secret of their view that without the vast ground force recommended by Gen McChrystal, the Afghan mission could end in failure and a return to power of the Taliban.
    "They want to make sure people know what they asked for if things go wrong," said Lawrence Korb, a former assistant secretary of defence.
    Critics also pointed out that before their Copenhagen encounter Mr Obama had only met Gen McChrystal once since his appointment in June.

    General McChrystal, might indeed find himself without a job, but can you blame him? He's asked for reinforcements to have a shot of winning this war, yet the Obama administration has been slow to make a decision on way or another. If this President feels this war in not worth fighting then please tell better yet direct the General to bring these brave Men and Women home.

    During the presidential campaign, Obama made a promise to send more troops to this region in order to achive victory. Another politician who will say anything in order to get elected. You can't expect a military Man to take the fall for a failed policy. Yes, policy. Obama is the man now and this situation is his show. The administration wants this general to make the impossible possible and if it fails then it was the military's fault.

    Please Mr. Obama, make a decision. Brave Americans are paying the ultimate price while you pay nothing.
  2. klein

    klein Für Meno :)

    I seen this general on a 1 hr special news report last week.
    He does have a whole new approach. And probably the right one.
    To make friends with the Afghan people. He doesn't even wear body guard clothing, when he visits towns and villages, and tries to make friends.

    He is totally against "shooting and then ask questions".
    He doesn't want to see any more innocent Afghan citizens killed.

    Basically, I think he's doing a great job.

    Speaking out loud, behind the presidents back, however is not the best way to do things.
    But, I sure hope he does get Obama's approval.
    It's been 8 years.... the General is right, we need a different approach !
  3. moreluck

    moreluck golden ticket member

    Obama knows NOTHING about war. He'd better listen to his general !!!! Unless, of course, he likes to FAIL !!!! :sad-little:
  4. over9five

    over9five Moderator Staff Member

    An adviser to the administration said: "People aren't sure whether McChrystal is being naïve or an upstart."

    People aren't sure which Obama is either.
  5. Jones

    Jones fILE A GRIEVE! Staff Member

    I would take that article with a grain of salt, it seems to be mostly based on unnamed sources mixed with a little "I wasn't at the meeting but this is what I heard.." type of stuff. I don't believe that McChrystal was "publicly pressuring" Obama to adopt his strategy either, I think that's a pretty overblown interpretation of his speech in London. (You can watch it here). In fact during the Q&A he was asked specifically about the decision making process that goes on at the White House and he made a point of saying how important he thought it was to have a thorough debate and praised Obama's role in leading that debate.
  6. The Other Side

    The Other Side Well-Known Troll Troll

    George Bush knew nothing about war, he took us in on bad advice, then continued to FIRE general after general as well as other commissioned officers if they gave him advice HE didnt want to hear.

    There were many Generals who went up against BUSH and flat out told him he was WRONG, and then they were replaced with YES men.

    When it comes to FAILING at war. Nothing will top George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

    Afghanistan is a mistake that grows into a bigger mistake each and everyday.

    What to do next will always be the million dollar question.

    Russia pulled out after spending close to 2 trillion (in todays dollars) and losing over 15000 soldiers. They accomplished nothing in 7 years.

    We are on the verge of doing the same.

    Bush left both wars UNPAID for when he left office, and today you WAR supporters are worried about the deficit??

    Get serious. Thanks for the laugh though..

    1 Trillion dollars wasted in 2 foriegn countries. Over 4000 dead service people. ZERO accomplished.

    You should direct your outrage at that.

  7. Baba gounj

    Baba gounj pensioner

    It has been reported that before we got into this fight the Taliban had many training camps and 30,000 fighters. Today their number is down to less than 10,000 and their training camps are fewer.
    Placing our troops in the valleys may seem like a good pr move , but wars are won by taking and holding the high ground.
    Our policies must change; we are losing the public relation front while our enemies are not. Our policy is NOT to show the plies of the dead enemy. Yet a few dead of our troops makes world-wide coverage.
  8. fact check

    fact check New Member

    Win is a word that should never be uttered in close relation to Afghanistan.

    Our purpose there was to eliminate al Qaeda training camps, we've done that.
    In the meantime GWB put a corrupt ruler in charge, and the Taliban (not al Qaeda) have had a resurgence, and the poppies are growing again.

    Which president was it that said he wasn't into nation building?

    Anyone remember?
  9. chev

    chev Nightcrawler

    Boo hoo for Obama. Took a damn long time to acknowledge McChrystal. Funny how Obama can spend plenty of time running around talking to people like David Letterman, but can't take the time to speak the General in charge of the war that he supposedly supports. What a joke. Way to move quickly to back up our troops. How many more will be killed because he can't take the time to work on this issue which is way more important than putting on the knee pads for Chicago.:angry:
    The dope is just embarrassed that he got called out on his neglect.

    I don't get the problem. Send the troops in. Fix the rules of engagement, and kill these terrorist bastards.

    Oh once again I forgot. It's still all Bush's fault. I must remember to divert from the real issues.
  10. Lue C Fur

    Lue C Fur Evil member

    Yes, i got a flat tire today and it was Bush's fault. Also one of my coworkers got a nasty virus and again...Bush's fault.:devil3:
  11. Jones

    Jones fILE A GRIEVE! Staff Member

    There ya go, now you sound like a good republican :happy-very:.
  12. chev

    chev Nightcrawler

    Well, that would not be me. I don't sit on either side of the isle. Republicans are no longer the conservatives they once were and dems are so far left now it makes me sick. I do support a select few from each party. It is seriously time for a third party. A party based on liberty, smaller govt.,and back to the Constitution. Not the watered down version that both have taken upon their elite selves to interpret in their own warped ways. I never said Bush was perfect. "No child left behind" was a joke. He made a lot of poor decisions, but at least the world did not perceive him as a pres with no back bone like Obama and Carter.
  13. Jones

    Jones fILE A GRIEVE! Staff Member

    I agree we would be better served with a viable 3rd, or even 4th party. I don't see it happening because the controls are firmly in the hands of the democrats and republicans and they aim to keep it that way. Under the current system all they have to each election time is convince just enough swing voters that they are not as bad as the other guy in order to get 51% of the vote. Hence, they spend most of their time thinking up new and creative ways to blame "the other party" for all our problems, which is a lot easier than coming up with actual solutions. That's why for the 8 years under Bush everything bad was officially Clinton's fault. Under Obama you can pretty much expect that everything bad will be blamed on Bush.
  14. chev

    chev Nightcrawler

    Yep. Unfortunately it no longer serves the people. With great power comes corruption and eventually we will be dragged down with them if "We The People" don't do something about it. :dissapointed:
  15. tourists24

    tourists24 Well-Known Member

    and this has what relevance to this particular thread? We understand Bush sucked, but he's gone.... stay on topic please. If the Obama bashers are wrong, please correct them
  16. tourists24

    tourists24 Well-Known Member

    again,,, what relevance to this particular thread?,,, yes we all know how much Bush sucked. This post is about the CURRENT president and current general in charge. Actions to be taken NOW starts with that
  17. chev

    chev Nightcrawler

    Are you sure you weren't in the bushes with your coworker and caught a nasty virus.:sick::wink2:
  18. diesel96

    diesel96 New Member

    Republicans are like Middle East Muslims...Not quite ready yet or are to scared to distance themselves from their own radicals and extremist...Look how you treat Ron Paul (a traditional Republican), like an ugly stepchild your trying to suppress in the basement....

    The Dem's in DC are no way near the left, that liberals and progressives voted them in to be. That goes for Obama....his record may indicate him to be more liberal, but he's certainly not acting like it as President. There is some truth that Beck says he'd rather have Obama than McCain as President...Not sure why all you Rep's and Con's are getting your panties in a wad, other than the fact that the president is Black....Hopefully by 2010 elections, we see a separation in policies between this Adm and the previous clowns....

    Tourist, IMO, TOS made a direct response to Moreluck's emotion outburst....If you want to apply to be a Moderater, go thru the proper channels. But don't act like this is the first time a thread morphs into another subject....
  19. av8torntn

    av8torntn Well-Known Member

    Ahh there it is. We are supposed to forget that the decision Obama had made on Iraq was wrong since you guys will always imply that if you disagree you are somehow a racist. The only major military strategy position this guy has ever taken was wrong and people are nervous that he is the one making the current decision. It has nothing to do with race.

    It will be a nice day when you guys no longer fall back on your false racism charges for this guys weak positions. He campaigned that Afghanistan was a priority. He failed to say that it was a lower priority than date night, golf outings, and trying to hook his buddies up with the Olympics in Chicago. The problem is not his race it is that he is shaping up to be a very poor leader.
  20. diesel96

    diesel96 New Member

    Oh yeah, I feel so much freedom and safety, knowing that neglecting American's Domestic problems and financially strapping this country to downplay Afgh and Nationbuild Iraq was the right thing to do, according to the Neo-Con Think-tank. RIP to our fallen troops....
    Here you go with ridiculus assumptions, accusing this President of putting date night ahead of the War in Afgh. For once theres a man in the WH who thinks before knee jerking, and wieghs advice from all involved...

    Look at the faces of the Tea party advocates, the birthers, the Republican Nat'l Convention.....Look at the Con Perspective group on You Tube applauding Chicago's failure to capture the Olympics....Their is a deep seeded hatred for Obama and it's not about polices, it's personal, it's about making him fail, and it's turning ugly, soon to be violent. The White Power structure should have no fear, the Redman had it alot worse...