The Glade 4.0

I'm not sure I understand the argument you're making, Khross. Are you saying that Obama is actively working to undermine/prevent success in Afghanistan, or that he just thinks we're going to fail there no matter what, so he's looking to scapegoat McChrystal?

Obama is actively working to undermine and scapegoat McChrystal. What part of that isn't clear? State Department memos with content headings higher than classified don't get "leaked" to the general public with no fallout unless someone wants it done.

_________________

Is the State Dept. leak the only evidence? Because on the other side of the scale is Obama's wholesale adoption of McChrystal's preferred COIN strategy and the addition of 30,000 troops and many billions of dollars, despite much wailing and gnashing of teeth by Obama's liberal base, not to mention the fact that Obama just replaced McChrystal with Petraeous, who favors the same COIN strategy that McChrystal did.

Nah, there's all sort of evidence this was a setup from word go. Adopting COIN can be used to discredit Bush and any successes in Iraq, too; you know. I think you're not looking at how the internal politics are playing out on this issue.

_________________

30,000 troops being the halfway point between "High risk of failure" and "Moderate risk of failure." Unconvincing. If you really want to support the guy, who give him at least the 40,000 of the Moderate assessment, and really more like the 60,000 requested for Low risk.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

And those troops were going to come from where? Also, by the same logic, Bush was deliberately undermining his own war in Iraq by not going in with the several hundred thousand extra troops that commanders like Shinseki thought would be necessary. The fact is, generals always want more troops, and Presidents always have to decide how large a force is actually feasible and weigh the pros and cons of various force sizes.

...

Where did the 30k come from?

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Irrelevant to what was outlined as required for success.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Perhaps, but not irrelevant to the contention that Obama is deliberately undermining success. If the extra troops aren't available, or can't be reassigned without damaging other strategic goals, then Obama's not to blame.

See, now you're strawmanning my position. I'm not talking about success in either theatre. I'm speaking of Obama's intentional political use and assassination of McChrystal. I mean, honestly, he refused McChrystal's resignation but relieves him of command? Oh, right, that has nothing to do with politics. You don't want to discuss the real issue here, which isn't the actual logistics or strategery in Afghanistan.

_________________

The nomination of and acceptance by Gen Petraeus saved Obama here. McChrystal had to go and that would have been a shitty situation had anyone other than Petraeus stepped into the role. At the end of the day Obama still looks bad because of the comments in the article, which although they should not have been made public, are not necessarily untrue. The outcome of an overall upgrade is a good thing.

_________________
“Strong people are harder to kill than weak people, and more useful in general”. - Mark Rippetoe

Nothing saves Obama here. You guys aren't even looking at the real issues. Petraeus is another individual that uses COIN Strategies. So how is that an "upgrade" except in the sense of "media" acceptance?

_________________

Strawman.

You stated that Obama was wholly backing McChrystal. I'm stating that he did not do so, because he did not allocate necessary resources.

Perhaps, instead, you'd like to retract or requalify your statement regarding Obama wholly backing McChrystal?

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Obama took a hit for what McChrystal said, but there's no arguing that Petraeus will be rightly perceived as an upgrade. Petraeus was the face of the successful US surge in Iraq, obviously, which you know. I'm sure you'll present some convoluted argument that he deserves no credit so have at it.

_________________
“Strong people are harder to kill than weak people, and more useful in general”. - Mark Rippetoe

Dashel:

Really? Are you even reading the same thread I am?

_________________

What a strange argument, DFK. I said that Obama had "wholesale adopt[ed] McChrystal's preferred COIN strategy", which he did. Instead of the get-out-now strategy, or the bomb-the-f*ck-out-of-everything strategy, or the massive-occupation-force strategy, Obama bought into the COIN approach that McChrystal, Petraeus and others were pushing, and he gave them a significant number of additional troops that was well within range of the force sizes COIN supporters were asking for.

Ok, I guess I still don't know what it is you're claiming Obama is doing, then. Can you please just lay out how and why you think Obama undermined McChrystal, and whether or not you think his actions include undermining the war effort itself?

Actually, he gave McChrystal the minimal possible number of troops for success. That, however, is neither here nor there. The military situation in Afghanistan is secondary to this discussion. McChrystal's successes or failures are likewise secondary to this discussion. This entire situation is about the President using his role as Commander in Chief to politically assassinate an active service member and scapegoat the failures of his political and possibly McChrystal's/the Pentagon's military strategies in Afghanistan. The President's behavior is despicable in a manner that should not be tolerated by ANYONE. And, if you cannot see that, then you are intentionally turning a blind eye to how the Whitehouse has handled Afghanistan, in the media, since last August.

_________________

Will be interesting to see how the Moveon goobs react to this. They certainly loved Petraeus the first time around.

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

Khross: I'm simply commenting on the issue not really following on what has been said in this particular thread. Maybe you're taking "upgrade" the wrong way, I cant tell. McChrystal, from what I have read, seems to be a stand up guy and certainly very brave. That said, Petraeus is probably the one person who can replace him and have it be less than a disaster.

Of course, his appointment does bring to mind the moveon.org hit:



I wonder if that will come up again.

_________________
“Strong people are harder to kill than weak people, and more useful in general”. - Mark Rippetoe

Dashel:

From a policy position, Petraeus will likely change nothing. Petraeus used the same strategy already in place in Afghanistan during the Surge in Iraq. You are aware of this, right? That he comes from the same school of operation and that COIN will not change?

_________________

Ah, ok. If you're just saying that Obama is using McChrystal as a political scapegoat to avoid taking a hit himself for failing in Afghanistan, that's cool. It seemed like you were suggesting that Obama was actually trying to lose the war and that attacking McChrystal was a means of accomplishing that, which is obviously much further into conspiracy-theory land.

I'm fairly certain I've used the phrase political assassination more than once. I'm fairly certain I've even explained that Obama's intent, from at least last August, was to set McChrystal up as a scapegoat for the failures in Afghanistan. I'm not commenting on either military or political success in Afghanistan. That's its own thread. I'm talking about the deliberate and despicable behavior of the Commander in Chief.

_________________

And he's still an upgrade even if only for the reason that McChrystal foolishly spoke like that on the record... to **** Rolling Stone of all publications.

_________________
“Strong people are harder to kill than weak people, and more useful in general”. - Mark Rippetoe

Wholesale adoption, to me, is not a mid-point between high- and medium-risk. Perhaps you have a different definition of "wholesale adoption."

I'm merely pointing out that wholesale adoption would indicate that you'd agree to the utmost in efforts to complete the task. Perhaps, instead, you mean to say that he has "partially supported," or "agreed as far as he felt logistics would allow," or "supported to the utmost of the political situation." Basically, any qualifier besides "wholesale" would be more correct, other than "complete."

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine