Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Afghanistan Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: General Stanley McCrystal
beautifuldisaster    10/11/2009 10:08:59 AM
From the news: 'White House angry at General Stanley McChrystal speech on Afghanistan- The relationship between President Barack Obama and the commander of Nato forces in Afghanistan has been put under severe strain by Gen Stanley McChrystal's comments on strategy for the war.' Oh, you mean like the 70 days Obama DIDN'T have contact with the General because he was too busy chasing his tail with a losing Olympics bid and his OCD with healthcare reform? 'An adviser to the administration said: "People aren't sure whether McChrystal is being naïve or an upstart. To my mind he doesn't seem ready for this Washington hard-ball and is just speaking his mind too plainly." ' You are kidding me, right?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
beautifuldisaster       10/12/2009 8:37:17 PM
 
And so it begins...the divide between the left and the right on the matter........
 
From Newsweek:  LET GENERALS SPEAK THEIR MIND
 

'Think about the implications of the argument that McChrystal has been too candid. If we accept that argument, then if a general appears before Congress or with a president or a secretary of defense to discuss a strategic matter, is he required to say whatever the civilian leadership has told him to say? If so, does that not risk the creation of a public-relations Nuremberg problem in which the military is forced to follow a script, setting the stage for a culture in which officers follow orders blindly? This is an extreme way to put it, but we are, after all, talking about how democracies wage war.'

 

 
 
Quote    Reply

Ashley-the-man       10/14/2009 11:26:14 AM
Pundits are arguing that the President should rely on his generals for advice on troop levels and on strategy.  The generals are critical for advice and input, but President Bush was caught in a trap where he relied on the advice of Rumsfeld, and his generals, Abizaid and Casey.  All he would hear from his "generals" is that the U.S. should stand down so that the Iraqis could stand up.  The problem was that the Iraqis were incapable militarily and politically from solving their own problems.  The surg was required and General Petraeus's leadership to bring security to Iraq.  Bush had to go outside the chain of command to get alternate opinions.
 
Obama has not served long enough to experience the daily grind of losses of U.S. soldiers and Iraqi civilians, so he has yet to feel the sting of pursuing a course of action and criticism for not following another, but the casandras are growing. 
 
General Petreaus assembled a highly qualified team that constituted the surge and probably no one in the military or civilian establishment commands a higher status in understand counterinsurrgency and the political problems of the region.  One problem for Obama is that Petreaus is such a presence that a politically modivated president has to marginalize him.  Imagine a war in which a General Grant or a General McArthur, or a General Eisenhour were lurking in the background.
 
Who is included in the Obama strategic review team?  This group should take the recommendations of General Petreaus and General McCrystal and meld them into a national strategy.  What we don't know is what process is President Obama using to make his decisions?  Reliance on generals only has proven to be problematic, but reliance on a novice president to weigh complicated issues is even more worrisome.   
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics