# McChrystal prepared to resign



## namvet (Sep 22, 2009)

> Within 24 hours of the leak of the Afghanistan assessment to The Washington Post, General Stanley McChrystal's team fired its second shot across the bow of the Obama administration. According to McClatchy, military officers close to General McChrystal said he is prepared to resign if he isn't given sufficient resources (read "troops") to implement a change of direction in Afghanistan



[URL="http://www.longwarjournal.org/threat-matrix/archives/2009/09/mcchrystal_to_resign_if_not_gi.php#ixzz0RolNG9HT"]source[/URL]

This may be precisely what Obama wants and has set up  ...  With a McChrystal resignation (justifiable), Obama will bring into question the loyalty and dependability of his senior military leaders, and that of the Force as a whole.  It will provide cover for him to build his Brown Shirts ... his dependable and loyal forces ... more rapidly. 

He does not, and has not ever, given two shits about A'stan.  That was Bush's war.  His pro-Muslim / anti-American world view would never let him pursue a true victory in A'stan, and he's said as much


----------



## Big Black Dog (Sep 22, 2009)

Sort of brings back history (Germany and Hitler) when you have a President talking about building a civilian armed force that is equal in stature of the military.  If we as a nation allow this we deserve anything and everything that Obama does to us.  Is it just me or can't anybody else see that Obama is slowly but with determination destroying America?


----------



## Si modo (Sep 22, 2009)

Shit.  Very bad news.

Okie doke, then.  I said this was a pass/fail in my book.





I can't believe this.  There went the last vestige of my 'hope'.


----------



## namvet (Sep 22, 2009)

if he does leave morale will tank. frankly i hope more and more line officers resign. in all branch's. in droves. option zero for Osama


----------



## hjmick (Sep 22, 2009)

I guess he decided not to listen his generals after all. No surprise here.


----------



## Si modo (Sep 22, 2009)

hjmick said:


> I guess he decided not to listen his generals after all. No surprise here.


That was still my hope.  Gone.  Done.  He is no friend of the military.  I was still hoping he was.

I wonder what the rest of the NATO command will have to say...if anything.


----------



## Dr Grump (Sep 22, 2009)

Just get the fuck out for chrissakes.....


----------



## AllieBaba (Sep 22, 2009)

No, he's never been. He won't even spend any time morale-boosting with injured soldiers unless there's a camera.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 22, 2009)

Alli, there you go shooting yourself in the foot again with thoughtless comments.  Evidence please for your conclusion.


----------



## Dr Grump (Sep 22, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> Alli, there you go shooting yourself in the foot again with thoughtless comments.  Evidence please for your conclusion.



You're new around here ain't ya? Empty rhetoric is a Allie special....as it is with Willow...and Namvet...and Wicked Jester....and Concept...and Mal....and Liability...

In fact I reckon if you invented some type of anti-frothing pill, you'd make a mint - on this board alone...


----------



## Si modo (Sep 22, 2009)

Dr Grump said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Alli, there you go shooting yourself in the foot again with thoughtless comments.  Evidence please for your conclusion.
> ...


Yo, doc...there are frothers on your side of the fence, too.  I hope you can see them.


----------



## Dr Grump (Sep 22, 2009)

Si modo said:


> Yo, doc...there are frothers on your side of the fence, too.  I hope you can see them.



A couple here and there for sure....Kerry Won Ohio for a start...


----------



## The Rabbi (Sep 22, 2009)

Si modo said:


> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> > I guess he decided not to listen his generals after all. No surprise here.
> ...



You're kidding, right? Obama was never pro military, no matter what.  He never served.  He probably never met a career military person until well into his career.  He isn't going to listen to some generals over the left wing of his own party, the ones responsibile for putting him there in the first place.
NATO will breathe a sigh of relief, happy to be rid of this American adventure, as they see it.  They can go back to Europe and practice their oompah band stuff.
McChrystal is right to resign. He doesn't ahve the confidence of his CinC, he might as well not be there.  Obama has voted "present" on this issue, hoping something will come up to make it an easy decision.
This after he gave a stirring speech just last March and said:


> The road ahead will be long. There will be difficult days. But we will seek lasting partnerships with Afghanistan and Pakistan that serve the promise of a new day for their people. And we will use all elements of our national power to defeat al Qaeda, and to defend America, our allies, and all who seek a better future. Because the United States of America stands for peace and security, justice and opportunity. That is who we are, and that is what history calls on us to do once more.


----------



## The Rabbi (Sep 22, 2009)

And here he is just 1 month ago, 17 Aug, on Afghanistan:


> As I said when I announced this strategy, there will be more difficult days ahead. The insurgency in Afghanistan didn't just happen overnight and we won't defeat it overnight. This will not be quick, nor easy. But we must never forget: This is not a war of choice. This is a war of necessity. Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans. So this is not only a war worth fighting. This is a -- this is fundamental to the defense of our people.
> 
> And going forward, we will constantly adapt to new tactics to stay ahead of the enemy and give our troops the tools and equipment they need to succeed. And at every step of the way, we will assess our efforts to defeat al Qaeda and its extremist allies, and to help the Afghan and Pakistani people build the future that they seek.


You watch, he will cut and run yet.


----------



## Si modo (Sep 22, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > hjmick said:
> ...


Sadly, I am not kidding.  I really was hoping and giving him the benefit of the doubt in that area until something tangible came along to prove me wrong.  I have often said that I am hopelessly optimistic, pathetically often times.


----------



## Modbert (Sep 22, 2009)

Are you fucking nuts namvet? This is no attempt by Obama to install his "Brown Shirt" Generals in charge.

McChrystal is simply saying, get me the troops I need or I won't even bother. He's not going to waste his time doing a mission he feels cannot be accomplished without those troops. Simply put, being in Afghanistan is not a war we can win. Even the Soviet Union couldn't do it, and they weren't being like we are.

What we need is more troop support from other countries who say they're against terrorism but are doing NOTHING to back that up in action.


----------



## The Rabbi (Sep 22, 2009)

Si modo said:


> Sadly, I am not kidding.  I really was hoping and giving him the benefit of the doubt in that area until something tangible came along to prove me wrong.  I have often said that I am hopelessly optimistic, pathetically often times.



Ok.  Maybe you were swept up in the euphoria.  But at least you can look at circumstances now with clear eyes and see what's going on.
But some of us were saying this kind of thing a long time ago.
And I still say Obama's sharpest criticism in the future will come from the left wing of his own party.  The tell tale sign will be when he is referred to as "the first mixed-race president in history."


----------



## namvet (Sep 22, 2009)

Robert said:


> Are you fucking nuts namvet? This is no attempt by Obama to install his "Brown Shirt" Generals in charge.
> 
> McChrystal is simply saying, get me the troops I need or I won't even bother. He's not going to waste his time doing a mission he feels cannot be accomplished without those troops. Simply put, being in Afghanistan is not a war we can win. Even the Soviet Union couldn't do it, and they weren't being like we are.
> 
> What we need is more troop support from other countries who say they're against terrorism but are doing NOTHING to back that up in action.





> What we need is more troop support from other countries who say they're against terrorism but are doing NOTHING to back that up in action



dream on. it case you haven't heard we are the worlds police force. why the fuck should they risk their ass when we're willing to spill our blood. fuck i'd stay home to !!!!!


----------



## namvet (Sep 22, 2009)

Dr Grump said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Alli, there you go shooting yourself in the foot again with thoughtless comments.  Evidence please for your conclusion.
> ...



whats wrong coward  can't say it to my face ???? moron


----------



## jillian (Sep 23, 2009)

hjmick said:


> I guess he decided not to listen his generals after all. No surprise here.



or perhaps the good general was asked to leave because he had no business leaking his report to force the president's hand.

i know i'd have asked him to resign...no matter what i was going to decide


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 23, 2009)

jillian said:


> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> > I guess he decided not to listen his generals after all. No surprise here.
> ...


uh, my reading of this, he hasnt been ASKED to resign, he's THREATENING to


----------



## Diuretic (Sep 23, 2009)

Does this have a shade of MacArthur about it?

I ask, I'm sorry, out of a sense of half remembering and half ignorance.  I seem to remember some time ago (I use that a lot don't I? ) reading about a dispute he had with Truman and how MacArthur was sacked.  Is this a bit like that?  Is it about McChrystal arguing that the military objectives can be achieved but only with more troops and trying to put the squeeze on Obama to comply?
Or is it a Westmoreland thing?

One thing's for sure, the politicians are always in charge of a war, the military just do the dying and getting injured.


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 23, 2009)

Diuretic said:


> Does this have a shade of MacArthur about it?
> 
> I ask, I'm sorry, out of a sense of half remembering and half ignorance.  I seem to remember some time ago (I use that a lot don't I? ) reading about a dispute he had with Truman and how MacArthur was sacked.  Is this a bit like that?  Is it about McChrystal arguing that the military objectives can be achieved but only with more troops and trying to put the squeeze on Obama to comply?
> Or is it a Westmoreland thing?
> ...


no
MacAuthor wanted to basically invade China(using Nukes)
not exactly the same thing


----------



## Care4all (Sep 23, 2009)

We need a few hundred thousand men there to do the job or we need to LEAVE, this 45k is just piece meal...

the american people will not go for the few hundred thousand, so we need to leave.

that's where i stand.

care


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 23, 2009)

Care4all said:


> We need a few hundred thousand men there to do the job or we need to LEAVE, this 45k is just piece meal...
> 
> the american people will not go for the few hundred thousand, so we need to leave.
> 
> ...


i dont think we need THAT many
but i agree that either give the general the resources(men and equipment) or get us the hell out


----------



## Care4all (Sep 23, 2009)

What is the goal and mission in Afghanistan?


----------



## jillian (Sep 23, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> uh, my reading of this, he hasnt been ASKED to resign, he's THREATENING to



See...that's what happens when I try to read something before I have my first cup of coffee. 

But I'd fire him for the public tantrum anyway....


----------



## The Rabbi (Sep 23, 2009)

jillian said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > uh, my reading of this, he hasnt been ASKED to resign, he's THREATENING to
> ...



And that's why you're not CinC, sweety.


----------



## namvet (Sep 23, 2009)

jillian said:


> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> > I guess he decided not to listen his generals after all. No surprise here.
> ...



got news for ya bubbles. the black house leaked his report to the Times


----------



## jillian (Sep 23, 2009)

no they didn't, genius.

but thanks for proving you're a racist yet again!


----------



## jillian (Sep 23, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> And that's why you're not CinC, sweety.



so you'd allow someone who works for you to take you on in public?

somehow i don't think so. but thanks honey bunny.


----------



## namvet (Sep 23, 2009)

jillian said:


> no they didn't, genius.
> 
> but thanks for proving you're a racist yet again!



where do think leaks come from??? watch the news bubbles. it was on every channel

If you think that a czar is unconstitutional
... you might be a racist!

If you are opposed to a government run health care system
... you might be a racist!

If you think that it is unAmerican to bow before the Saudi King
... you might be a racist!

If you think that the stimulus plan has been an utter failure
... you might be a racist!

If you think that this administration is driving the deficit up at alarming rates
... you might be a racist!

If you think that this is a nation based on Christian values
... you might be a racist!

If you think that communism and socialism are NOT the solution
... you might be a racist!

If you value the 1st Amendment, but think that the media is state-run
... you might be a racist!

If you are sick and tired of the race card being played
... you might be a racist!

If you are a racist according to the current liberal agenda
... you might just be an American!


----------



## The Rabbi (Sep 23, 2009)

jillian said:


> no they didn't, genius.
> 
> but thanks for proving you're a racist yet again!



A lot of confidence where none is warranted.
A D.C. whodunit: Who leaked and why? - Ben Smith - POLITICO.com
I don't know who leaked it.  You don't know either.  Only Bob Woodward knows. And he aint talking.


----------



## namvet (Sep 23, 2009)

national security is a total joke.


----------



## Si modo (Sep 23, 2009)

While all this blustering is just too adorable, I'll see if I can find any comment about McChrystal from NATO command.


----------



## namvet (Sep 23, 2009)

Si modo said:


> While all this blustering is just too adorable, I'll see if I can find any comment about McChrystal from NATO command.



the libs wanna put him on the witness stand.


----------



## del (Sep 23, 2009)

*take it to the flame zone if you want to have at it, folks. otherwise, let's try not to derail the thread toooo badly.*


----------



## Missourian (Sep 23, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> Alli, there you go shooting yourself in the foot again with thoughtless comments.  Evidence please for your conclusion.





I lived over by Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, when Obama was campaigning.

On July 30th 2008, he and his convoy passed within one mile of the Fort and 20,000 active duty troops and 20,000 support personnel, to go to a picnic in Union, Mo with 250 people in attendance. 

Many of the soldiers at FLW are MP's and engineers that have done as many as three tours in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But he couldn't be bothered to say "thank you for your service" to our troops. What a schmuck.

Link --- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/30/AR2008073002929.html










Population 
------------
Springfield, Mo  156,000
Rolla, MO  18,000
Lebanon, MO  12,000
Union, MO  9,000

Population of Fort Leonard Wood....29,000  plus 55,000 trainees annually plus 7000 living just off post.
 Adjusted for training cycles, 
a total of *45,000*​


Link to population of FLW - http://www.saintrobert.com/Economic/Economics.htm


----------



## Polk (Sep 26, 2009)

hjmick said:


> I guess he decided not to listen his generals after all. No surprise here.



This meme has always struck me as interesting for two reasons.

1. There is a reason we have civilian control of the military. If the President was to simply rubberstamp whatever the commanders asked him for, why even require them to ask?

2. Has any President ever just blindly accepted recommendations?

This isn't an argument for or against sending more troops to Afghanistan. Just a thought about that argument.


----------



## strollingbones (Sep 26, 2009)

i dont think mcchrystal will resign...why would he....not the first time a potus has refused to listen to the military....and his resignation would be a blow to the morale of the troops...i think he cares more about the troops than the bad press...or dissing by obama.


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 26, 2009)

strollingbones said:


> i dont think mcchrystal will resign...why would he....not the first time a potus has refused to listen to the military....and his resignation would be a blow to the morale of the troops...i think he cares more about the troops than the bad press...or dissing by obama.


do you not agree that either he should get the resources(troops and equipment) he says he needs to do the job or we should get the hell out?


----------



## The Rabbi (Sep 26, 2009)

Polk said:


> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> > I guess he decided not to listen his generals after all. No surprise here.
> ...


Civilian control is about oversight, not second-guessing people who have devoted their lives to the problem.
Ideally the CinC makes policy and then gives a directive to his military to go out and achieve this or that.
Then he sits back and waits for results.  If the commander isn't getting the job done, then he needs to be replaced.
But the Congress (and executive)  has tried to micro-manage wars and it doesn't work.  The present situation in Afghanistan is a good example.  By setting up rules that are designed by politicians, not military, they make it harder to fight.  The Russians had the right idea: turn the cameras off, let the military do what they were tasked to do, and then get on with life.


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 26, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > hjmick said:
> ...


i wouldn't use the Russian example in Afghanistan as the right thing to do
they just threw troops in and only ended up losing more troops


----------



## The Rabbi (Sep 26, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



Sorry.  I meant in Chechnya.  When they went into Grozny they did just that.  Lined up the cannons, turned the cameras off, and demolished them building by building.  This was much preferable to the previous attempt which involved house to house fighting, with the typical casualties.
You're right.  I don't know how the Russians did in Afghanistan but they faced virtually insurmountable odds.  About what we do today.  No matter how well organized, equipped and funded they were it wasn't going to happen.


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 26, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


the way to succeed in A-Stan is to do basically what was done in the initial invasion 
work with the locals using spec ops and air cover
putting thousands of troops on the ground is likely only going to make more targets
but if the commander in the field says he needs more, then either you do it, or replace him
or opt to just get the fuck out and cut the losses


----------



## The Rabbi (Sep 26, 2009)

The initial invasion had different aims, namely to unseat the Taliban and deny them use of the country as a terrorist camp.
It worked pretty well.
Now the aim is the build Afghanistan as a nation.  This is the goal of the very people who denounced Bush for nation-building.
It wont work here.  The country was never a nation.  It wont be again.
Putting a decent sized base with quick reaction force there to monitor and make raids will achieve the objective of denying terrorists the opportunity to use the country.  Circle the wagons and send everyone else back home.


----------



## Si modo (Sep 26, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


If I understand what McChrystal has reccomended, he say he needs more troops to do exactly that.  Right now, most of the troops are engaged in making sure folks are safe and there are not enough to work more with the locals.


----------



## The Rabbi (Sep 26, 2009)

I havent seen the recs.  But I would think that is wrong. The intent is to stabilize the country and strengthen the armed forces to take over peace keeping.
It is modeled on Bush's surge strategy in Iraq.  That was a strategy Obama opposed at the time and to this day says it was wrong.
Yet he is using it as a model for Afghanistan.  Unfortunately the two places aren't alike at all and this one isn't going to work.


----------



## Si modo (Sep 26, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> I havent seen the recs.  But I would think that is wrong. The intent is to stabilize the country and strengthen the armed forces to take over peace keeping.
> It is modeled on Bush's surge strategy in Iraq.  That was a strategy Obama opposed at the time and to this day says it was wrong.
> Yet he is using it as a model for Afghanistan.  Unfortunately the two places aren't alike at all and this one isn't going to work.


As I said, it is just my understanding.  Apparently the rise of insurgency is due to the civilians not feeling safe - not enough troops to protect civilians, too.  So, he proposes more to help the civilians feel safer with the war effort than the insurgency.


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 26, 2009)

Si modo said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


but either way, either you give him what he asks for to do the job you ask him to do, or you replace him
the only other option is to get the hell out totally and cut your losses


----------



## Si modo (Sep 26, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


Agreed.  If I'm not mistaken, wasn't part of BHO's campaign based on convincing the doubters of his 'I'm a friend of the military, too' rhetoric that he would concentrate on A-stan?


----------



## Diuretic (Sep 26, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Isn't it complicated by the fragility of government in Pakistan, its nuclear arsenal and significant elements in Pakistan which are sympathetic to the Taliban?


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 26, 2009)

Si modo said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...


yup, his thing was "get out of Iraq and put those troops in A-Stan"

of course he forgets that the two countries are NOTHING alike and that the troops in Iraq dont have the training for A-Stan
would need to retrain for the conditions there first


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 26, 2009)

Diuretic said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...


yes, that's another piece of that massive puzzle that is Afghanistan


----------



## The Rabbi (Sep 26, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


retraining is the least of their problems.
But yes, Obama owns this war.  He campaigned on Afghanistan being the "good war" the one we should have been fighting all along.  Iraq was the bad war, the one he would pull out of immediately.
Now events have revealed his stupidity.  First, Iraq was won, thanks to an unpopular surge undertaken by a man with great courage (namely Pres Bush).
Second, the war in Afghanistan will not go like Iraq because, as pointed out, the two places are completely different.
Obama is a double loser here.


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 26, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...


its a case of them trying to do the same thing in A-Stan that worked in Iraq
not gonna happen
A-Stan has such a wide variety of people that pretty much either don't trust each-other or outright hate each-other that you could likely form at least 4 countries
if not more


----------



## The Rabbi (Sep 26, 2009)

If you're looking for an argument, go elsewhere.  I agree 100%


----------



## Si modo (Sep 26, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> If you're looking for an argument, go elsewhere.  I agree 100%


I think you, Dive, and I are on the same page on this.  So, I guess we're just tossing out our impressions.


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 26, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> If you're looking for an argument, go elsewhere.  I agree 100%


nope, was just agreein with ya


----------



## The Rabbi (Sep 26, 2009)

OK
I don't know what Obama will do.  Currently he seems to be voting "present."  I dont see a solution that doesn't involve him getting hosed either from the right or the left.
Hee hee.


----------



## Si modo (Sep 26, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> OK
> I don't know what Obama will do.  Currently he seems to be voting "present."  I dont see a solution that doesn't involve him getting hosed either from the right or the left.
> Hee hee.


"Voting present"  LMAO.

I hope he does what's right for our troops and security and that's all he considers...none of this governing _via_ polls.  We are not a pure democracy for a reason.


----------



## The Rabbi (Sep 27, 2009)

What on earth makes you think he would possibly do that??  There is nothing in his history to suggest he is even capable of putting aside partisan politics for the greater good of the country.
He may or may not look at the polls.  Currently he is ignoring the polls on healthcare to appease the left wing of his party.  I suspect he will do the same here.  Pelosi and Reid think we need to cut and run.  He'll cut and run.


----------

