calfoxwc Posted September 26, 2009 Report Share Posted September 26, 2009 McChrystal: Things getting worse in Afghanistan Reuters – Army Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal testifies in Afghanistan during a hearing in Washington DC June 2, 2009. … </H1>2 hrs 7 mins agoAmid concerns that he might resign over a rift between the military leadership in Afghanistan and the civilian leadership in the Obama White House, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, America's top commander in Afghanistan, sat down for an interview with David Martin of 60 Minutes, airing Sunday. The moment making headlines in advance clips comes when Martin pointedly asks, "Are things worse, or better?" McChrystal replies, "They're probably a little worse ... in some areas ... the breadth of the violence, the geographic spread of violence, is a little more than I would have gathered." The sound bite comes amid intense scrutiny of the Obama administration's plan, and McChrystal's alleged strategy of opposition. On Tuesday military leaders challenged the president's shifting strategy, calling on a cautious Obama to accept McChrystal's anticipated formal request for more troops. Sen. John McCain was among the most forceful: "I've never seen a disconnect like this between the military leadership and the White House on an issue." Obama's allies are mostly offering measured support, AP reports. The interview also adds a chapter to a drama that played out earlier in the week. On August 30th, McChrystal delivered a 66-page report to Defense Secretary Robert Gates outlining the need for an expanded troop presence. The report, which was leaked to Bob Woodward of the Washington Post, happened to coincide with President Obama's public expressions of skepticism, leading some to speculate it was leaked intentionally by McChrystal's camp in a move to win the war of public opinion. The scandal may have aided in part, wrote NPR: “The leak of McChrystal's report has crystallized the debate, and, in some ways, awakened a country generally not engaged in or affected by the eight-year conflict.” On Friday McChrystal reportedly appealed to a different audience, in an unannounced meeting with senior American military leaders. As for the public opinion, it's decidedly split in a USAToday/Gallup poll released Friday. In a "stark turnaround," half of all Americans, and six in 10 Democrats, oppose a surge. The results, USAToday writes, "[underscore] the pressures on President Obama as he re-evaluates his approach to what he calls "a war of necessity." McChrystal's interview is more fuel for that fire. -- Brett Michael Dykes is a contributor to the Yahoo! News Blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted September 26, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 26, 2009 Obama has shown, in the Arab world and to the Russians, weakness of leadership, while he panders to the left, and waffles, imho. And his willingness to side against Israel in the conflict, has encouraged multiple terrorist threats/attempts at violence around our country. Not good. Obama has no American values to base any leadership on. Just his radical leanings that got him avid support in his career, via his college education with his admitted favorite professors... the socialist ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicopee John Posted September 26, 2009 Report Share Posted September 26, 2009 We all know, Cal, that burecrats (sp) in Washington know more about the Art of War than do those who studied and do it for a love and a career. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted September 26, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 26, 2009 son of a... Well, they think they learned about war by reading Saul Alinski's "Rules for Radicals"... "sigh" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osusev Posted September 26, 2009 Report Share Posted September 26, 2009 We all know, Cal, that burecrats (sp) in Washington know more about the Art of War than do those who studied and do it for a love and a career. really?...... So a "general" whose mandate it is to wage MILITARY actions specifically will come in with lets all hold on..... a request based on his mandate to wage MILITARY based actions is going to request more troops in a large mountainous region, with a segregrated low educated population that is more tribal than a unified people, with a porous uncontrolled border that fully support the "insurgents",funded by opium sales, without a strong central government who the vast majority of the tribal religous driven populace dont support, with arms and funding supported by other regional influences..... is going to talk about a military theatre that Obama did not create but is worried about a NUCLEAR Pakistan being destabilized by a population flowing from a country WE BROKE..... Wow earth shaking.... or maybe those bureacrats whose job it is to think about the big geo political picture and long term stability of Pakistan and India both who happens to be nuclear may have a different perspective than say a general whose job it is to worry about his military theatre and military mandates...... Since you brought up the art of war I am sure you must have read it because there are quite a lot of references about knowing the geographics and the population in order to plan your military actions properly....... earth shattering..... good god some of you guys seem like you are searching for anything to politically attack someone you clearly did not vote for... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted September 27, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 27, 2009 Wait, I thought the "buck" stops with Obama. If it was ALL Bush's fault, Now it's ALL Obama's fault. Make up yer Bush hatin minds .............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosar_For_President Posted September 27, 2009 Report Share Posted September 27, 2009 Wait, I thought the "buck" stops with Obama. If it was ALL Bush's fault, Now it's ALL Obama's fault. Make up yer Bush hatin minds .............. They both suck balls. Backing either "party" is a waste of time. They are both the same. The ideals they set up for both parties are meant to keep us busy while in turn, both of those parties can do what ever they want to the people who support them (pretty ironic). Patriot act, "stimulus" packages, invading countries, second "stimulus" packages. Bush let the banks rape us. Obama is doing the same. Obama's "change"? What in the f'ck is he changing. Spending like Bush, ignoring our rights. Both parties let our country get raped. The sooner people come together and realize that, the sooner we can save face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicopee John Posted September 27, 2009 Report Share Posted September 27, 2009 The US hasn't won a war since battles, etc. started being waged by politicians, not military folks. The politicians put the military is horrible environments and then shackle them by micromanaging from DC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicopee John Posted September 27, 2009 Report Share Posted September 27, 2009 They both suck balls. Backing either "party" is a waste of time. They are both the same. The ideals they set up for both parties are meant to keep us busy while in turn, both of those parties can do what ever they want to the people who support them (pretty ironic). Patriot act, "stimulus" packages, invading countries, second "stimulus" packages. Bush let the banks rape us. Obama is doing the same. Obama's "change"? What in the f'ck is he changing. Spending like Bush, ignoring our rights. Both parties let our country get raped. The sooner people come together and realize that, the sooner we can save face. As frightening as it might seem, this is the SECOND time I've agreed with Kosar this week. Of course, the topics were comparable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osusev Posted September 27, 2009 Report Share Posted September 27, 2009 The US hasn't won a war since battles, etc. started being waged by politicians, not military folks. The politicians put the military is horrible environments and then shackle them by micromanaging from DC. WHAT? So the first Persian gulf war was a failure? Or the Korean, WW1 and 2? hell technically the second Iraq invasion and Afghanistan in terms of military "war" were massively successful. I think you are mistakenly attributing Nation building, in Iraq and Afghanistan as "military wars".... Occupation and stabilizing a region AFTER and invasion is not what this military was built to do..... Micromanaging...... how funny, we have a NUCLEAR country that is being destabilized by our invasion and destruction of a nation and government and somehow this is being "micro managed".... Military folks understand that nation building and occupations are not what militaries are created to do...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.