Gen Stanley McChrystal It takes a lot of self-confidence to think you can assume responsibility for what appears to be a lost cause- like Gen. Stanley McChrystal did in Afghanistan a year ago, with the Taliban growing in military capability and practicing a vicious insurgency against a corrupt and unpopular government installed by foreign powers, with a U.S. Army exhausted from years in the field- and to attempt to turn it all around in just two years. Now, with the evidence growing that it may not be possible, after all- given the disputed re-election of Hamed Karzai, his talk of forming an alliance with the Taliban, U.S. preparations for an assault on Kandahar stalled, and criticisms growing of the counterinsurgency policy urged by McChrystal, and accepted by the President as the best strategy to employ there in an effort to salvage the situation- McChrystal has revealed the stress that he feels as a result of these deteriorating conditions, by allowing himself and his staff to be quoted in the media making mocking statements regarding others in leadership positions. This seems likely to lead to his being replaced. McChrystal's ego lead him to believe he could do it- in spite of having to work with an army containing thousands of soldiers already injured, psychologically and physically, by years in the field; weak public support for a war now the longest in U.S. history, in a land with a strong tradition of resisting any foreign occupation; against an enemy determined to fight and die no matter how long it takes, who enjoys the unofficial backing, politically and militarily, of neighboring Pakistan, to which they can simply retreat for R&R, further training and reequipping- and, having convinced the President to give him the chance to try, the responsibility for what's now happening has become more than he can comfortably accommodate, it seems. It's hard to know how to pick up the pieces resulting from years of failed policy (now possibly including the one adopted by the U.S., one year ago) in that unfortunate country; but, soon, the President may have to try to do that, once again. __________________
So... What is the alternative? Pack up and leave Afghanistan to the Islamic Jihadists, Terrorists and War Lords? Leave Afghanistan and allow these criminals and murderers to once again plot terror attacks and scheme against the civilized West? I disagree that victory in Afghanistan is a lost cause. In my opinion US Foreign Policy has again ham-strung itself with unreasonably restrictive rules of engagement. The US needs to stop self-imposed limitations and commit to all out victory. Yes this means more civilians may be hurt & killed. But with a play-it-safe philosophy, a long costly war is sure to continue because Islamic Jihadists and Terrorists DO NOT self impose such limitations on themselves. In fact, McChrystal may be to blame by driving such restrictions that harm US Forces and hamper victory in Afghanistan. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/mcchrystals-real-offense-96873364.html "There is a lot of uproar about Gen. Stanley’s McChrystal’s disrespectful comments about his civilian bosses in the Obama administration, and President Obama would be entirely justified in firing McChrystal for statements McChrystal and his subordinates made to Rolling Stone. Obama is a deeply flawed commander-in-chief who doesn’t want to be fighting a war on terror, but he is the commander-in-chief. He should have a general who will carry out his policies without public complaint until the voters can decide to change those policies. But the bigger problem with McChrystal’s leadership has always been the general’s devotion to unreasonably restrictive rules of engagement that are resulting in the unnecessary deaths of American and coalition forces. We have had many, many accounts of the rules endangering Americans, and the Rolling Stone article provides more evidence. In the story, a soldier at Combat Outpost JFM who had earlier met with McChrystal was killed in a house that American officers had asked permission to destroy." From the article: The night before the general is scheduled to visit Sgt. Arroyo’s platoon for the memorial, I arrive at Combat Outpost JFM to speak with the soldiers he had gone on patrol with. JFM is a small encampment, ringed by high blast walls and guard towers. Almost all of the soldiers here have been on repeated combat tours in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and have seen some of the worst fighting of both wars. But they are especially angered by Ingram’s death. His commanders had repeatedly requested permission to tear down the house where Ingram was killed, noting that it was often used as a combat position by the Taliban. But due to McChrystal’s new restrictions to avoid upsetting civilians, the request had been denied. “These were abandoned houses,” fumes Staff Sgt. Kennith Hicks. “Nobody was coming back to live in them.” One soldier shows me the list of new regulations the platoon was given. “Patrol only in areas that you are reasonably certain that you will not have to defend yourselves with lethal force,” the laminated card reads. For a soldier who has traveled halfway around the world to fight, that’s like telling a cop he should only patrol in areas where he knows he won’t have to make arrests. “Does that make any f–king sense?” Pfc. Jared Pautsch. “We should just drop a f–king bomb on this place. You sit and ask yourself: What are we doing here?”
No one in the administration that I'm aware of has advocated that, Zackman, and Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton, was the strongest advocate for a robust approach in Afghanistan, according to what I've read. But those of the "other side" of the issue among administration officials, such as Vice President, Joe Biden, have advocated a different approach which involves maintaining bases there, and continuing to strike Al Queda leadership and training operations whenever they're discovered, as we do now. It's continuing to treat the Taliban as our enemy, rather than the enemy of the foreign installed, central government under Karzai, that's been seen as unduly prolonging what is, in essence, a political struggle between the Taliban and those opposed to them. Whether- having put ourselves between these parties in the early years of the previous decade- we can ever extricate ourselves from this role remains to be seen. We couldn't do it in Vietnam, with a much greater investment of men and resources in combat, and we may not be able to do it in Afghanistan, either. Failing in that, we will probably find ourselves leaving, just as the Soviet Army did, after a much bloodier struggle than we're currently engaged in there. ___________________
Unenviable task Having accepted McChrystal's resignation, and appointed the chief architect of modern counterinsurgency doctrine, Gen David Patraeus, the President has recommitted the U.S. to a more determined effort there. This ultimately involves suppressing- or accommodating in some manner- any element opposed to the current government, as a means of reducing the bloodshed. Karzai, himself, perhaps as a matter of perceived necessity, has begun to talk about bringing the Taliban into the government. They may not be willing to come, ever, believing this to be too great a sacrifice of their values, and the conflict drag on: we may find the only way to accommodate them, after all, is to allow them control of a significant part of the country, preserving just enough of it to maintain what is truly important to us, bases from which we can strike against Al Queda. _________________ Finding that part of Pakistan from which many of the Taliban come to be "ungovernable" the Pakistani have chosen to largely ignore the area, and do not seriously attempt to impose any central government authority on the people of the Tribal Areas adjoining Afghanistan. Why we think we can subdue those people and those among them who identify themselves as "Taliban", when Pakistan cannot, is difficult to understand, but that's the task that was taken on- in word- by the previous administration: the President is now challenged to do it, in fact. _________________
Ouuuuch !!!! :icon_eek: Confidence Waning in Obama, U.S. Outlook Confidence Waning in Obama, U.S. Outlook - WSJ.com Americans are more pessimistic about the state of the country and less confident in President Barack Obama's leadership than at any point since Mr. Obama entered the White House, according to a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll. The survey also shows grave and growing concerns about the Gulf oil spill, with overwhelming majorities of adults favoring stronger regulation of the oil industry and believing that the spill will affect the nation's economy and environment. Sixty-two percent of adults in the survey feel the country is on the wrong track, the highest level since before the 2008 election. Just one-third think the economy will get better over the next year, a 7-point drop from a month ago and the low point of Mr. Obama's tenure. Amid anxiety over the nation's course, support for Mr. Obama and other incumbents is eroding. For the first time, more people disapprove of Mr. Obama's job performance than approve. And 57% of voters would prefer to elect a new person to Congress than re-elect their local representatives, the highest share in 18 years. The results show "a really ugly mood and an unhappy electorate," said Democratic pollster Peter Hart, who conducts the Journal/NBC poll with GOP pollster Bill McInturff. "The voters, I think, are just looking for change, and that means bad news for incumbents and in particular for the Democrats." Mr. McInturff said voters' feelings, typically set by June in any election year, are being hardened by frustration over the economy and the oil spill. "It would take an enormous and seismic event to change the drift of these powerful forces before November," he said. Mr. McInturff added that any "little, faint signs" in the spring that voters were adopting a more optimistic outlook have now been "squished by feelings from this oil spill." For Democrats, the results underscore the potential for major losses in November. Both parties have been forced to contend with an anti-establishment wave this year. But Republicans, through strong fund raising and candidate recruitment, have put enough seats in play in the House and Senate to give the GOP a realistic shot at winning control of both chambers. Support for Mr. Obama and his party is declining among centrist, independent voters. But, more ominous for the president, some in his base also are souring, with 17% of Democrats disapproving of Mr. Obama's job performance, the highest level of his presidency.
A number of years ago, I predicted Americans would wake up one day and ask themselves, "What happened?" (to the prosperity and life they'd come to take for granted). It will take a level of maturity and preparedness to sacrifice not possessed by many voters to play a constructive role in finding a way forward for the country: at the moment, they're still in the process of discovering the true depths of the problems the country faces, and the lack of easy solutions. If the U.S. fails, it will not be because of 9-11, it will be because of the U.S.'s response to 9-11, which was poorly conceived and poorly executed on almost every level; meanwhile, the domestic house was burning- as a result of markets unwisely set free of all reasonable constraint. With these two things alone, you can write the history of the U.S., in the last decade. It is times like these when the true emptiness of ideologies, and the political sloganeering which has become the lifeblood of American political discourse, becomes apparent.
rdubnpk There is only a couple of things that can save us all.....more booze and more boobs (the female kind...we have enough of the other kind of boobs in Congress already). So, we are looking for volunteers out there who are willing to bare it to save America!!! (There has got to be a catchy slogan in there somewhere)
Still not read that anyone supports this guy's policies and programs. (Maybe because most people on here have jobs?) His supporters can only defend him by attacking Bush. Pretty sad.
rdubnpk Whoops. Forgot to leave instructions on how YOU TOO can contribute to the saving of America. Merely indicate via this forum your willingness to give of yourself.....make the ultimate sacrifice.......and I will write back telling you where to send your contribution. And God Bless America!!!
BTW – Interestingly not to name anyone, but if one were to do a search on this Free-For-All forum on the topic from November 2008 titled "Palin..." – one would see the support for Obama was about 50% of the posts in that thread. Strange that many of those posters won't defend Obama now….
