|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jun 23, 2010 12:51:03 GMT -5
Well, there were more Democrats commenting yesterday, so it makes sense that there may be more in the keep McChrystal camp. Members of the Republican leadership released a statement standing behind McChrystal and criticizing the war effort, which goes beyond anything that came from a Democrat.
I don't recall the Petraeus politics or Obama's position on that issue in particular. My recollection is that, by that time in the war, liberals, Democrats, and progressives were upset primarily because we went to war and that it had been conducted so poorly - the latter virtually unchallenged in advance of Petraeus's command. That the surge worked to some degree on the security side in Iraq is not to say an alternative would not have worked or that Obama was wrong for his vision at that time.
However, the surge has not enabled us to achieve all of our prewar objectives - namely to provide a lasting peace in the Middle East (see the democratic peace justification of the Bush administration) or even security (see protests in nearby Iran and continued asymmetric violence in Iraq). Some would argue that it cannot achieve these objectives and would find themselves on firm ground given the bellicose actions of democracies even in that region.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Jun 23, 2010 12:56:14 GMT -5
Well, there were more Democrats commenting yesterday, so it makes sense that there may be more in the keep McChrystal camp. Members of the Republican leadership released a statement standing behind McChrystal and criticizing the war effort, which goes beyond anything that came from a Democrat. I don't recall the Petraeus politics or Obama's position on that issue in particular. My recollection is that, by that time in the war, liberals, Democrats, and progressives were upset primarily because we went to war and that it had been conducted so poorly - the latter virtually unchallenged in advance of Petraeus's command. That the surge worked to some degree on the security side is not to say an alternative would not have worked or that Obama was wrong for his vision at that time. 1) Good to see Bill Kristol and Obama agree on something: www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/why-not-petraeus-crocker-afghanistan2) Obama was against the Surge when it was proposed and while it was being implemented, just like most Congressional Dems. www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/329myyan.aspObama after the 2007 State of the Union: "I don't think the president's strategy is going to work. We went through two weeks of hearings on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; experts from across the spectrum--military and civilian, conservative and liberal--expressed great skepticism about it. My suggestion to the president has been that the only way we're going to change the dynamic in Iraq and start seeing political commendation is actually if we create a system of phased redeployment. And, frankly, the president, I think, has not been willing to consider that option, not because it's not militarily sound but because he continues to cling to the belief that somehow military solutions are going to lead to victory in Iraq." |
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jun 23, 2010 13:01:46 GMT -5
Thanks for those links - I think that quoted remark from Obama is spot on, and is not on point to any discussion as to security in Iraq. His comments in that quote went purely to the political dynamic, for which the surge is not necessarily well-tailored or responsible. Obama is not exactly out in the wilderness on such a position given similar statements from the CFR, GAO, and others.
If you believe that victory in Iraq is defined militarily, that is a pre-existing debate to which the surge issue is secondary. If you believe victory in Iraq is achieved politically, then you may have problems with the surge, even now.
I see the issue slightly differently - a surge makes sense to get the security house in order. Political changes are unlikely if the place isn't secure IMO. Even then, as the Iraq experience suggests, political changes, if any, may be slow going under the best of potential outcomes on the security side. In an ideal world, the surge would have occurred before the war (and as was debated ad nauseum) - i.e. that we would have committed more troops at that time so that some of the asymmetric violence and street looting could have been contained and controlled.
|
|
|
|
Post by hoyawatcher on Jun 23, 2010 13:04:10 GMT -5
I don't have a link but I do have a distinct memory of Obama joining in on the "Betrayus" commentary leading up to his memorable Senate hearing. I seem to recall Obama lecturing him pretty severely on his personal credibility at the hearing. Should make for an interesting dynamic between the 2.
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Jun 23, 2010 16:26:12 GMT -5
Petraeus has been nothing but a good soldier under both Bush and Obama. I have no doubt that will continue in his new position. I don't foresee any tension between the two. Respectful disagreements maybe, but no public clashes.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jun 24, 2010 14:41:33 GMT -5
As everyone's favorite, Rush Limbaugh, said today, President Obama has now fired his own general and selected President Bush's.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jun 24, 2010 15:05:11 GMT -5
So, what happens when we're still in Afghanistan in the summer of 2012 (which we will be) and Mitch Daniels asks David Patraeus to be his running mate?
Could be interesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jun 24, 2010 15:23:40 GMT -5
As a factual matter, President Obama did not fire McChrystal. He resigned, and that resignation was accepted. McChrystal's press statements confirm same. To the extent Limbaugh got this wrong too, it is unsurprising.
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506 
|
Post by theexorcist on Jun 24, 2010 15:26:52 GMT -5
As a factual matter, President Obama did not fire McChrystal. He resigned, and that resignation was accepted. McChrystal's press statements confirm same. To the extent Limbaugh got this wrong too, it is unsurprising. To the extent that almost every single commentator (even the liberal Slate - www.slate.com/id/2257952/ ) accepted that, had McChrystal resigned, he would have been relieved of command, this is a distinction without a difference. You are a depressingly literal person. |
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Jun 24, 2010 15:29:20 GMT -5
So, what happens when we're still in Afghanistan in the summer of 2012 (which we will be) and Mitch Daniels asks David Patraeus to be his running mate? Could be interesting. Petraeus will have had to be retired to run, and, if things are hot and heavy in Afghanistan, him retiring to run is a longshot - I also seem to recall a "cooling-off" period for certain posts, though I may have imagined that part. |
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Jun 24, 2010 15:51:10 GMT -5
As a factual matter, President Obama did not fire McChrystal. He resigned, and that resignation was accepted. McChrystal's press statements confirm same. To the extent Limbaugh got this wrong too, it is unsurprising. God forbid that 95% of the people talking about this issue refer to him being fired. Yes, he resigned and was not fired. But you know that's just semantics. It's the ole Potomac two-step. In fact, Obama can't fire a military officer. He could recall him from his current post, which is, in effect the same. To the extent you extrapolate all of this into a slam on Limbaugh, it is unsurprising. You have to be the most humorless person around. |
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jun 24, 2010 16:20:04 GMT -5
As a factual matter, President Obama did not fire McChrystal. He resigned, and that resignation was accepted. McChrystal's press statements confirm same. To the extent Limbaugh got this wrong too, it is unsurprising. To the extent that almost every single commentator (even the liberal Slate - www.slate.com/id/2257952/ ) accepted that, had McChrystal resigned, he would have been relieved of command, this is a distinction without a difference. You are a depressingly literal person. As noted in the article and in posts that followed, Obama does not have the power to fire McChrystal and did not fire him, so I stand by my remarks. If Rush Limbaugh satisfies any definition of humor, well...good grief. There are funny people in this world, and he's not one of them. I am also not so sure that anything can be gained by a political snipe followed by fingerpointing about humor when someone takes issue with it. I could equally say folks are humorless for not laughing at, not with, Rush Limbaugh. When I posted the recent Daily Show critique of Glenn Beck, it was similarly met without enthusiasm from certain circles. That being said, I look forward to the next time we hear complaints that words have meaning as it relates to liberal activist judges. |
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jun 25, 2010 15:46:24 GMT -5
While I'm inclined to let this whole thing fade away and move forward with Gen. Petraeus (and I'm sure McChrystal wants to put the whole thing behind him as soon as possible too), I find Bates' comments in this story more than a little cavalier and it at least makes me wonder if they were as diligent in their fact checking or as honest in their information gathering as they claim to have been. www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/25/AR2010062504087.html?hpid=topnews |
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jun 25, 2010 16:01:22 GMT -5
Would anyone expect differently from Rolling Stone even if everything there in the Post piece is true? Rolling Stone is somewhere between a People magazine and National Enquirer in my view in terms of journalistic talent, particularly for stories of this kind.
It reflects poor judgment that McChrystal and his shop spoke to them, leaving aside what was said and not said.
Looking forward to Petraeus's command.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Jun 25, 2010 16:11:01 GMT -5
Seems like an all too typical "Blame the Media" response that is so common these days.
I still have yet to read a single comment from anyone that the content of the article was inaccurate or the quotes were incorrect.
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Jun 25, 2010 16:48:28 GMT -5
As everyone's favorite, Rush Limbaugh, said today, President Obama has now fired his own general and selected President Bush's. General Petraeus is not President Bush's general, just as McChrystal was not President Obama's general. They're both America's generals, who serve this country, not just politicians. They both volunteered to join our military long before Bush or Obama were relevant in any way. I wish that our media would follow the same example. |
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,480
|
Post by TC on Jun 25, 2010 17:59:07 GMT -5
Esherick didn't get fired! He resigned!
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jun 25, 2010 18:14:25 GMT -5
As everyone's favorite, Rush Limbaugh, said today, President Obama has now fired his own general and selected President Bush's. General Petraeus is not President Bush's general, just as McChrystal was not President Obama's general. They're both America's generals, who serve this country, not just politicians. They both volunteered to join our military long before Bush or Obama were relevant in any way. I wish that our media would follow the same example. Okay, General McChrystal was appointed to his post in Afghanistan by President Obama while General Patraeus was appointed to his post in Iraq by President Bush. Can you live with this clarification? |
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jun 25, 2010 18:39:29 GMT -5
Esherick didn't get fired! He resigned! ;D - I think he was flat out fired. |
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Jul 2, 2010 20:58:22 GMT -5
McChrystal retires as 4 StarExcerpt
WASHINGTON — The White House sent a powerful signal this week by permitting Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal to retire with all of his four stars, but the general’s most important mentor, Adm. Mike Mullen, still described him as “crushed” during the shock of a transition from commanding nearly 100,000 American troops in Afghanistan to living in exile on the Potomac.
.....
Under Army regulations, four-star generals must serve three years in that rank before they can keep it in retirement, but the president can waive the rule. General McChrystal was awarded his fourth star only last year, when he was made the top American and NATO commander in Afghanistan. He announced his plans to retire on Monday, five days after being fired.
|
|
