
kickerofelves
Enthusiast
Only one branch has 'soldiers', the other one has jarheads.I work with many soldiers of two branches. .
Only one branch has 'soldiers', the other one has jarheads.I work with many soldiers of two branches. .
What makes you think Obama knows who Truman or MacArthur were?I wonder if Obama thought about Harry Truman when he fired McChrystal?
Since you seem to think like a level-headed person who understands what the UCMJ stands for, I'll point you to two people who obviously don't!I think the first, and really so important that all others don't matter, question is "which choice will best protect American lives, innocent Afghani lives, and gives the best chance of attaining our goals in Afghanistan.
Anything else is ego.
It looks like he's been releived of his command. I don't know if that was or was not the right choice.
I wonder if Obama thought about Harry Truman when he fired McChrystal?
America. Land of the "free to talk about things they have no understanding of"...What makes you think Obama knows who Truman or MacArthur were?
Why wouldn't he know who they were?What makes you think Obama knows who Truman or MacArthur were?
Perhaps Obama should have taken his report on Afghanistan to heart when he gave it earlier, but it didn't jive with what he wanted to hear what it would take to accomplish what he wanted.McCrystal knew the right course of action for the soldiers in the theater and for America.
I fully understand where you're coming from. However, where the military sees issues from its own perspective and generally in shades of black and white, politicians have to look at the same issues from a political (obviously) perspective, i.e. many shades of grey. That's where the goals and the strategies to acheive those goals, as envisioned by each of those entities often diverge.And I do know he "reality" of not speaking out against poor leadershup from above.
But, as you yourself say:
Perhaps Obama should have taken his report on Afghanistan to heart when he gave it earlier, but it didn't jive with what he wanted to hear.
McChrystal has many years experience in miliraty matters. How many does Obama have?
I still remember the LBJ years wehre he saw troops as little toy soldiers.
Tendered vs fired- what's the difference if he was ordered to resign?Since you seem to think like a level-headed person who understands what the UCMJ stands for, I'll point you to two people who obviously don't!
America. Land of the "free to talk about things they have no understanding of"...
McCrystal knew the right course of action for the soldiers in the theater and for America. He tendered his resignation. He was not "fired". He did the right thing. I can't wait for the amusement I will be subjected to as a result of this, here and at work...
Because he didn't read it off a teleprompter.Why wouldn't he know who they were?He's an educated man. I know who they were and I live in a different country!
I think the empathy for the General stems from Obama's ambiguously arrogant attitude when it comes to matters which he has no experience and expertise. Furthermore the lack of action and lack of communication on the part of Obama would have infuriated the most patient of people. How long did it take Obama to answer the question of what the course of action would be in Afghanistan? Wasn't it like 6 months? I don't think people understand the negative impact on morale this has for the troops. I know if it were me I would go into "why bother we are just leaving soon anyway" mode.I fully understand where you're coming from. However, where the military sees issues from its own perspective and generally in shades of black and white, politicians have to look at the same issues from a political (obviously) perspective, i.e. many shades of grey. That's where the goals and the strategies to acheive those goals, as envisioned by each of those entities often diverge.
Those of us who have served in uniform often disparage our political leadership as complete imbeciles when it come to military matters, but we see such things from our own narrow perspectives, whereas they have a bigger picture to look at.
McChrystal may have been the best man for the job, but with his experience he should've known better than to flap his gums about his political masters. I question his judgement in this matter, not Obama's.
Looks like the terrorists (Non-Americans) also have the USA 4th amendment rights LOL...retarded!The media is portraying General McChrystal as a rogue / runaway general.
I can't justify the General or his people's remarks in front of the RS reporter, though I can understand and sympathize.
I have a friend who's son came back home from Afghanistan, and he mentioned a few things.
One big military complaint; the Obama administration has set up, ridiculous rules of engagement that favor the enemy. There are many, but one off the top of my head: He mentioned that homeowners had to be warned their house was going to be searched weeks in advance.![]()
Below, more examples in this -
Rules of Engagement Story> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/18/AR2010061803760.html
I play a level-headed person on TVSince you seem to think like a level-headed person who understands what the UCMJ stands for, I'll point you to two people who obviously don't!
So then you a pleased that Obama and Biden are able to adjust their views to meet the facts rather than dogmatically stick to a rhetorical refrain?So, that brings us to Obama's hand picked successor to McChrystal, General Petraeus. The same General Petraeus that Senators Obama and Biden, and many left wingers, bashed for his "failed" strategy in Iraq, called The Surge
You seem to (falsely) imply that the two opinions are solely McCrystal's and Obama's. How many do the many general officers who agree with Obama's position have?McChrystal has many years experience in miliraty matters. How many does Obama have?
Of course there are silly rules of engagement both too liberal and too conservative; but I still wonder what you are inferring.Looks like the terrorists (Non-Americans) also have the USA 4th amendment rights LOL...retarded!
And how many of his trusted advisors had the cojones to tell the emperor that he was naked?You seem to (falsely) imply that the two opinions are solely McCrystal's and Obama's. How many do the many general officers who agree with Obama's position have?
Are you then asserting that the entire collective of general officers of the five branches of the millitary are universally opposed to Obama's strategy for Afghanistan? That seems to be what you are implying in this statement.And how many of his trusted advisors had the cojones to tell the emperor that he was naked?
Remember, the military is subservient to "civilian oversight". Who appoints that?Are you then asserting that the entire collective of general officers of the five branches of the millitary are universally opposed to Obama's strategy for Afghanistan? That seems to be what you are implying in this statement.
Anything less than that and "Obama vs McCrystal" is an irrellevent comparison. We'd have to look at who is on either side and check for relative parity... even assuming we accept an appeal to authority as relevent.
You'll fogive me if I don't assume that the US millitary command structure acts in complete accordance to a children's story.
The electoral college of the United States.Remember, the military is subservient to "civilian oversight". Who appoints that?
"Entire", no. "A sizable amount", most likely. They are the ones with training and experience in these matters, not most elected officials.The electoral college of the United States.
But you didn't answer my question. Do you believe that the entire (non-civillian) command structure of the US millitary is in opposition to the strategy currently in place in Afghanistan?
Only one can be right because the other doesn't have a say. Its not the political arena where you can "run again next term". Millions of lives are at stake and the president has no right imposing his opinion upon a battle hardened general. All that is needed is his support, and he has failed to give it.Perhaps the two are at odds in regards to strategy. Perhaps one is right, perhaps the other, perhaps neither. I'm not even sure that the two had differing strategies in the first place.
Absolutely not!!! What I'm saying is if we are fighting a war, and this war is overseas, the people we are in war with (Al Qaeda/Terrorists) are not subject to the 4th Amendment (Lawful search and seizure)....this is war my friend, not Police conducting searches on its people. Thats what I'm saying.Of course there are silly rules of engagement both too liberal and too conservative; but I still wonder what you are inferring.
Are you asserting that non-Americans should have no rights at all? If so: what realistic scenerio would constitute a "win"? The complete genocide of all non-Americans?