U.S. General

bbsam

Moderator
Staff member
with the current administrations love affair with the liberal press I would be interested to know how this interview was set up. I'm thinking it very likely the white house encouraged his cooperating with rolling stone knowing they would not be friendly to the general. Looks like a set up to me.
OOOPS! Little to quick on the conspiracy theory there, Tie.
 

wkmac

Well-Known Member
bbsam,

The RS article pointed out that McChrystal voted for Obama so does this make him a liberal, socialist, communist, community organizer too? The article also pointed out that the good General and his staff really liked Hillary Clinton, you know, the wicked witch from Arkansas!

:wink2:

I find it interesting that so many here scream about "Nation Wrecking" at home by what they call socialism yet almost to the death defend that same socialism abroad as the US gov't and the military set about on it's international efforts of "Nation Wrecking!"
 

Babagounj

Strength through joy
A Majority of U.S. Combat Casualties in Nine-Year-Long Afghanistan War Have Occurred in Less Than Year-and-a-Half of Obama Presidency
Friday, July 02, 2010
By Edwin Mora
Each of the top five deadliest months of the war, accounting for both combat and non-combat deaths, have taken place during Obama's term. Those five months were:

1. June 2010 (59 casualties).
2. October 2009 (58 casualties).
3. August 2009 (51 deaths)
4. July 2009 (43 deaths)
5. September 2009 (37 deaths)
About 42 percent of all combat and non-combat U.S. deaths have taken place since May 15, 2009, the day when troops from Obama’s first surge arrived in Afghanistan.
 

UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)

Well-Known Member
I think a more accurate assessment would be a ratio of casualties to troops deployed in that conflict. Using a ratio, I would think that the 5 months in question would be more in line with the overall numbers.
 

Jones

fILE A GRIEVE!
Staff member
Well, if Michael Steele is to be believed then Afghanistan is Obama's war of choice, so the blame for these casualties rests entirely on him. That seems to be where Baba is going with this.
 

UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)

Well-Known Member
Agreed but I still contend his numbers are skewed and a ratio would be more accurate.

For example, let's say there were 100 deaths in March 2005 with 100,000 troops deployed. This would give a casualty rate of .1% Now, let's say that there were 500 deaths in March 2010 with 500,000 troops deployed. This would also give a casualty rate of .1%. Without this ratio, the figure of 500 casualties would certainly jump off the page.

Troop surges invariably lead to more casualties in the short term but less overall than if the surge had not taken place.
 

bbsam

Moderator
Staff member
So, how good a job will a demoted general do ?
That's a ridiculous question. Since Petraeus wrote this book on counter-insurgency, failing would make himself look incompetent. He has every motivation to do his best and succeed.
 

Jones

fILE A GRIEVE!
Staff member
I think Petraeus will do the best job he can because that's the kind of man he is. I also think that anyone who expects him to work miracles is kidding themselves.
 

toonertoo

Most Awesome Dog
Staff member
I think Petraeus will do the best job he can because that's the kind of man he is. I also think that anyone who expects him to work miracles is kidding themselves.
I agree with that. Its going to take time no matter who runs it.
 

moreluck

golden ticket member
That's a ridiculous question. Since Petraeus wrote this book on counter-insurgency, failing would make himself look incompetent. He has every motivation to do his best and succeed.

A demoted anybody is not the 'gung-ho' they were before, so it's not a ridiculous question.
 
Top