McChrystal Says He's Talked With Obama Once Since Taking Afghanistan Command

[maineman]

Lets be honest here for a minute. Our kids are being brutally slaughtered over there every day yet our President chooses to talk to this man only once? Come on,even a Hopey Changey Sheep can see that this is extremely sad & disturbing. Can't they see this? This is a real travesty and our kids certainly deserve better than this.

Republicans sent our sons and daughters to Iraq with old and rusty equipment.

Iraq-bound soldiers confront Rumsfeld over lack of armor | The San Diego Union-Tribune

Republicans didn't give a sh*t about them then.

McCain: Make combat-disabled top VA priority - Army News, news from Iraq, - Army Times

yes, they should have waited till the next generation of armor was created
just as D-Day should have waited till we had M-1 Abrahms tanks


you are an idiot

in this case, maybe we might have waited until Blix told us there were no WMD stockpiles so we needn't have invaded in the first place.

YOU are a pathetic partisan hack who would gladly sacrifice American lives for GOP political gains.

 

[maineman]

because, if you question ONE level of the chain of command, why not question ALL of them? And if you do, aren't you suggesting that the PFC peeling potatoes has as good, if not better information than the Secretary of Defense? And if that is the case, shouldn't Obama be required to hear from ALL PFC's one-on-one before making ANY military decision? ANd if that IS the case, what good are secretaries of defense, or even generals, colonels, and majors, for matter?

Your absurdity is based on a false generalization.

I am suggesting that Presidents do not need to talk to theater commanders, but can rely on discussions with those commanders' superiors - the secdef and the members of the JCS. Why would you advocate cutting those leaders out of the discussion?

 

[GWV5903]

and you don't think that he can find out what is really happening on the street from discussions with his secretary of defense?

So do you think Gates makes the decisions or Obama?

what a stupid fucking question.

So who do YOU think makes the decisions? Gates or MCChrystal?

Or is is McChrystal or some fucking Light Colonel?

Or is it some Light Colonel or some fucking PFC messcook?

Stupid question???? Your the one claiming he can make these life and death decisions by going through the chain of command, I doubt you have made a more serious decision than wiping your ass.....now

 

[DiveCon]

Republicans sent our sons and daughters to Iraq with old and rusty equipment.

Iraq-bound soldiers confront Rumsfeld over lack of armor | The San Diego Union-Tribune

Republicans didn't give a sh*t about them then.

McCain: Make combat-disabled top VA priority - Army News, news from Iraq, - Army Times

yes, they should have waited till the next generation of armor was created
just as D-Day should have waited till we had M-1 Abrahms tanks


you are an idiot

in this case, maybe we might have waited until Blix told us there were no WMD stockpiles so we needn't have invaded in the first place.

YOU are a pathetic partisan hack who would gladly sacrifice American lives for GOP political gains.

no, it is YOU that is the fucking asshole hack

 

[Si modo]

because, if you question ONE level of the chain of command, why not question ALL of them? And if you do, aren't you suggesting that the PFC peeling potatoes has as good, if not better information than the Secretary of Defense? And if that is the case, shouldn't Obama be required to hear from ALL PFC's one-on-one before making ANY military decision? ANd if that IS the case, what good are secretaries of defense, or even generals, colonels, and majors, for matter?

Your absurdity is based on a false generalization.

I am suggesting that Presidents do not need to talk to theater commanders, but can rely on discussions with those commanders' superiors - the secdef and the members of the JCS. Why would you advocate cutting those leaders out of the discussion?

As it is nothing I have ever advocated, I have no idea why you would ask. Presidents do not need to do much at all, but good leaders get themselves informed from the appropriate persons. As McCyrystal is the commander of NATO forces in that theater, it is stunning that BHO has not consulted him but once for a strategy in that theater. It is stunning to other officers who have advised the executives as well.

 

[bodecea]

because, if you question ONE level of the chain of command, why not question ALL of them? And if you do, aren't you suggesting that the PFC peeling potatoes has as good, if not better information than the Secretary of Defense? And if that is the case, shouldn't Obama be required to hear from ALL PFC's one-on-one before making ANY military decision? ANd if that IS the case, what good are secretaries of defense, or even generals, colonels, and majors, for matter?

Shaddup! You don't understand the military like the posters here understand the military.

 

[bodecea]

Yup. And the President has conferred with him once.

And the point of your rhetorical circle-jerk was?

It's negligence that the President has spoken to him only once.

Really? And who's the arbitrator of that negligence? You?

 

[Si modo]

because, if you question ONE level of the chain of command, why not question ALL of them? And if you do, aren't you suggesting that the PFC peeling potatoes has as good, if not better information than the Secretary of Defense? And if that is the case, shouldn't Obama be required to hear from ALL PFC's one-on-one before making ANY military decision? ANd if that IS the case, what good are secretaries of defense, or even generals, colonels, and majors, for matter?

Shaddup! You don't understand the military like the posters here understand the military.

And here we have a cheerleader for the absurd, and an absurd based on a false generalization.

 

[bodecea]

But it is just as reasonable to conclude that someone with such intentions would be doing PRECISELY what this Marxist fuck is doing... raising the threashold of US troops to justifiably engage those known to them to be hostile... stalling to make decisions critical to the success of that mission and overtly sympathizing and treating with the enemy with whom those troops are engaged...

We've allowed the forces of tolerance and compassion to set us up kids... they've bankrupted our economy and are in the process of making it impossible for our military to EFFECTIVELY enage the enemy.

We have been in Afghanistan for EIGHT YEARS but only now have we reached a critical juncture in the success or failure of this mission. Is that your contention?
Got a clue for you the "Mission" failed years ago when OBL slipped away in Tora Bora.
As far as the destruction of the Economy we all know what Administration oversaw that debacle.

We (cross that, our MILITARY troops) have done an amazing job in Iraq. It has given us an example to follow. Why not use it in Afganistan (where we have been politically polite with other nations as partners)? If we send in OUR guys, and it works, that means VICTORY (a country of people seeing that terrorism doesn't pay). Why not use a method that has worked in an area that is similar (not identical) to Iraq?

Continuing to blame the previous administration for the current failings is showing inexperience and the inability to cope with the job. Can you give us a date that YOU will hold the present commander and chief accountable, or will you use the racist standard of "he isn't prepared because he was raised differently"? He IS the commander and chief and he needs to take the responsibility and be "the man".

Because Afghanistan is NOTHING like Iraq.

 

[Si modo]

And the point of your rhetorical circle-jerk was?

It's negligence that the President has spoken to him only once.

Really? And who's the arbitrator of that negligence? You?

Unlike you, I understand that theater command in a NATO theater is consulted during wartime and not to do so is negligent.

 

[bodecea]

because, if you question ONE level of the chain of command, why not question ALL of them? And if you do, aren't you suggesting that the PFC peeling potatoes has as good, if not better information than the Secretary of Defense? And if that is the case, shouldn't Obama be required to hear from ALL PFC's one-on-one before making ANY military decision? ANd if that IS the case, what good are secretaries of defense, or even generals, colonels, and majors, for matter?

Shaddup! You don't understand the military like the posters here understand the military.

And here we have a cheerleader for the absurd, and an absurd based on a false generalization.

Ah...hello to you too.

 

[maineman]

So do you think Gates makes the decisions or Obama?

what a stupid fucking question.

So who do YOU think makes the decisions? Gates or MCChrystal?

Or is is McChrystal or some fucking Light Colonel?

Or is it some Light Colonel or some fucking PFC messcook?

Stupid question???? Your the one claiming he can make these life and death decisions by going through the chain of command, I doubt you have made a more serious decision than wiping your ass.....now

I asm claiming that the president does not need to consult with every level of the chain of command before arriving at a decision. Just like the commanding officer of a navy ship does not need to consult with the machinists mate before deciding to increase speed...The president has the secretary of defense, whom we pay to be the president's advisor for all things military. That is who he should rely on to make life and death decisions.... certainly not a subordinate of one of Gate's subordinates.

And you probably don't want to get into a military pissing contest with me....

I'm just sayin'

 

[GWV5903]

what a stupid fucking question.

So who do YOU think makes the decisions? Gates or MCChrystal?

Or is is McChrystal or some fucking Light Colonel?

Or is it some Light Colonel or some fucking PFC messcook?

Stupid question???? Your the one claiming he can make these life and death decisions by going through the chain of command, I doubt you have made a more serious decision than wiping your ass.....now

I asm claiming that the president does not need to consult with every level of the chain of command before arriving at a decision. Just like the commanding officer of a navy ship does not need to consult with the machinists mate before deciding to increase speed...The president has the secretary of defense, whom we pay to be the president's advisor for all things military. That is who he should rely on to make life and death decisions.... certainly not a subordinate of one of Gate's subordinates.

And you probably don't want to get into a military pissing contest with me....

I'm just sayin'

A military pissing contest, ooooohhhhhh I am scared......

Look maineman, we don't agree, let's see what the future brings with the idiot you elected, I'll bet he comes out looking like the fool he is, you keep trying to justify your vote

 

[maineman]

Stupid question???? Your the one claiming he can make these life and death decisions by going through the chain of command, I doubt you have made a more serious decision than wiping your ass.....now

I asm claiming that the president does not need to consult with every level of the chain of command before arriving at a decision. Just like the commanding officer of a navy ship does not need to consult with the machinists mate before deciding to increase speed...The president has the secretary of defense, whom we pay to be the president's advisor for all things military. That is who he should rely on to make life and death decisions.... certainly not a subordinate of one of Gate's subordinates.

And you probably don't want to get into a military pissing contest with me....

I'm just sayin'

A military pissing contest, ooooohhhhhh I am scared......

Look maineman, we don't agree, let's see what the future brings with the idiot you elected, I'll bet he comes out looking like the fool he is, you keep trying to justify your vote

I understand that we don't agree. I am merely saying that I believe that I have a bit more understanding as to how the military operates than you do. So...not only do we disagree, in this case I am right and you are wrong.

I happen to know that the president does not need to carry on strategy discussions with theater commanders while simultaneously stepping over at least two levels of the chain of command to do so. Not only does he not NEED to, his doing so would undermine the effectiveness OF that chain of command.

 

[geauxtohell]

Has anyone considered the possibility that Gates and/or Petreaus asked President Obama not to pester the guy on the ground?

I mean, it briefs well that the President talks regularly to the guy on the ground, but that in itself can be disruptive and tends to cause miss-communication and misunderstandings among the chain of command. Petreaus would personally know about this due to his role in Iraq under Bush.

Complete speculation on my part (which puts it on par with all the other speculation, but just a thought.

I find it strange that people have automatically assumed that this is all due to malfeasance.

 

[GWV5903]

I asm claiming that the president does not need to consult with every level of the chain of command before arriving at a decision. Just like the commanding officer of a navy ship does not need to consult with the machinists mate before deciding to increase speed...The president has the secretary of defense, whom we pay to be the president's advisor for all things military. That is who he should rely on to make life and death decisions.... certainly not a subordinate of one of Gate's subordinates.

And you probably don't want to get into a military pissing contest with me....

I'm just sayin'

A military pissing contest, ooooohhhhhh I am scared......

Look maineman, we don't agree, let's see what the future brings with the idiot you elected, I'll bet he comes out looking like the fool he is, you keep trying to justify your vote

I understand that we don't agree. I am merely saying that I believe that I have a bit more understanding as to how the military operates than you do. So...not only do we disagree, in this case I am right and you are wrong.

I happen to know that the president does not need to carry on strategy discussions with theater commanders while simultaneously stepping over at least two levels of the chain of command to do so. Not only does he not NEED to, his doing so would undermine the effectiveness OF that chain of command.

I guess the pissing contest is on, let's see if you really have a "bit" more understanding......

Let's see if you can tell us all who Robert Patterson was and how he changed the world as we know it today......

 

[bodecea]

Has anyone considered the possibility that Gates and/or Petreaus asked President Obama not to pester the guy on the ground?

I mean, it briefs well that the President talks regularly to the guy on the ground, but that in itself can be disruptive and tends to cause miss-communication and misunderstandings among the chain of command. Petreaus would personally know about this due to his role in Iraq under Bush.

Complete speculation on my part (which puts it on par with all the other speculation, but just a thought.

I find it strange that people have automatically assumed that this is all due to malfeasance.

Micromanagement is NOT a good thing. But they seem to think it is.

 

[geauxtohell]

Has anyone considered the possibility that Gates and/or Petreaus asked President Obama not to pester the guy on the ground?

I mean, it briefs well that the President talks regularly to the guy on the ground, but that in itself can be disruptive and tends to cause miss-communication and misunderstandings among the chain of command. Petreaus would personally know about this due to his role in Iraq under Bush.

Complete speculation on my part (which puts it on par with all the other speculation, but just a thought.

I find it strange that people have automatically assumed that this is all due to malfeasance.

Micromanagement is NOT a good thing. But they seem to think it is.

1.) I suspect that Gates has whispered this into Obama's ear. Hey, as long as everyone is making inferences, I will too.

2.) I find it hilarious that Bush's way of doing things is being held up as a model of the "right way to do it".

 

[del]

Has anyone considered the possibility that Gates and/or Petreaus asked President Obama not to pester the guy on the ground?

I mean, it briefs well that the President talks regularly to the guy on the ground, but that in itself can be disruptive and tends to cause miss-communication and misunderstandings among the chain of command. Petreaus would personally know about this due to his role in Iraq under Bush.

Complete speculation on my part (which puts it on par with all the other speculation, but just a thought.

I find it strange that people have automatically assumed that this is all due to malfeasance.

Micromanagement is NOT a good thing. But they seem to think it is.

it worked out great in nam....

 

[maineman]

A military pissing contest, ooooohhhhhh I am scared......

Look maineman, we don't agree, let's see what the future brings with the idiot you elected, I'll bet he comes out looking like the fool he is, you keep trying to justify your vote

I understand that we don't agree. I am merely saying that I believe that I have a bit more understanding as to how the military operates than you do. So...not only do we disagree, in this case I am right and you are wrong.

I happen to know that the president does not need to carry on strategy discussions with theater commanders while simultaneously stepping over at least two levels of the chain of command to do so. Not only does he not NEED to, his doing so would undermine the effectiveness OF that chain of command.

I guess the pissing contest is on, let's see if you really have a "bit" more understanding......

Let's see if you can tell us all who Robert Patterson was and how he changed the world as we know it today......

This isn't some silly game of trivial pursuit.... I merely pointed out that you clearly don't have a clue about how the military chain of command works and how it is important for all levels of it to use it and support it up AND down. For Obama to talk directly to McChrystal, it would require that he bypass at least two layers of the chain of command to do so.

And the only Patterson I know of is the union general who screwed up at Harper's Ferry.... but I hardly think he changed the world as we know it. Maybe he brought back jalapeno peppers from his exploits in Mexico earlier in his career, but that would hardly be world changing either.