• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

McChrystal Rejects Scaling Down

The Prof

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
12,828
Reaction score
1,808
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
1. Mrs Alaska is not the only one "going rogue."

2. On Thursday, at London's Institute for Strategic Studies, Obama's hand-picked commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, spoke with unanticipated candor, saying that suggestions to "scale down" his campaign in the region, proposed most notably last Sunday by VP Biden, would lead to "Chaos-istan."

3. It has been known since September 21, when Bob Woodward leaked McChrystal's secret assessment describing our lack of progress in the theater, that the general is adamant in his recommendation for an entirely new strategy, emphasizing counter-insurgency over counter-terrorism, as well as an infusion of 40,000 additional troops.

4. Of course, the day prior to Woodward's release, the president blitzed FIVE Sunday talk shows to dissemble that he had not yet been briefed about the battleground, that he had not yet been asked for reinforcements,

5. And then, a week later, last Sunday, Biden revealed the White House's probable preference for a "middle ground" approach, employing drones and special forces in the Mountains on the Moon.

6. McChrystal apparently did not appreciate the Veep's posturing, going public with his opinions as he did, the general, that is, in London.

7. When asked if he could support a "scaling back" in Afghanistan, McChrystal kicked back, "the short answer is: no."

8. Thus, today the president summoned his renegade general to Copenhagen, where the pair enjoyed their first personal meeting on AF1, the commander in camouflage fatigues.

9. One wonders just which of the two felt as if he'd been called to the woodshed.

10. Last Sunday nite, McChrystal told 60 Minutes he had spoken only once with Obama since being appointed last Summer to replace David McKiernan to put in place the president's particular policies.

11. President Bush, in contrast, spoke with his Iraqi commanders via videolink "as often as once a week."

12. Who leaked the August 30 assessment to Woodward?

13. Why?

14. Why has the prez been sitting on McChrystal's synopsis for over a month?

15. Is it so he could have time to visit Letterman and fly to Copenhagen?

16. How do YOU think the general feels?

17. Why have so many British commanders quit in recent months?

18. Just yesterday, Obama's Deputy National Security Adviser Mark Lippert resigned.

19. The US situation in Afghanistan, by all accounts, is worrisomely worsening, with record numbers of soldiers killed each of the last two months.

20. Speaking tactfully, the general insisted that he has not been pressured by his civilian bosses to revise his reports.

21. He also claimed in London that he endorses Obama's taking his time to get things right.

22. But it's the worst kept secret in Washington that the general has requested 40,000 reinforcements and that he's declared defeat cannot be avoided without them.

23. McChrystal and his overseer, David Petraeus, are in accord with the president's "comprehensive, new strategy" for the region announced on March 27.

24. It's the president who's backpedaling.

25. While comparisons between the McChrystal-Obama relationship to MacArthur-Truman may, today, be "far fetched," the very fact that Harry's rogue is being mentioned in this discussion is fatefully foreboding.

26. But, either way, reading between the lines, one thing is McChrystal clear: Obama's select commander in Moon Mountains is irreconcilably resolute in his conviction that more troops and a revamped approach are required as part of any recipe for success.

27. If he doesn't get from the president what he's asked for, what's McChrystal supposed to do, stay there and pursue an operation he feels is doomed?

28. McChrystal is both setting up the president and forcing his hand.

29. If Obama goes the Biden route, clearly favored by the White House and the base of the president's party, McChrystal will have no choice but to quit.

30. The camouflage clad commander is on record.

31. Afghanistan is KILLING this president, along with about 50 brave American fighters a month.

32. Soldiers die while our do-nothing president dithers and delays, and his lead commander in the field declaratively disapproves.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/02/world/asia/02general.html?_r=1&hp

LONDON -- The top American commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, used a speech here on Thursday to reject calls for the war effort to be scaled down from defeating the Taliban insurgency to a narrower focus on hunting down Al Qaeda, an option suggested by Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. as part of the current White House strategy review.

After his first 100 days in command in Kabul, General McChrystal chose an audience of military specialists at London’s Institute for Strategic Studies as a platform for a public airing of the confidential assessment of the war he delivered to the Pentagon in late August, parts of which were leaked to news organizations. General McChrystal, 55, did not mention Mr. Biden or his advocacy of a scaled-down war effort during his London speech, and referred only obliquely to the debate within the Obama administration on whether to escalate the American commitment in Afghanistan by accepting his request for up to 40,000 more American troops on top of the 68,000 already deployed there or en route.

But he used the London session for a rebuttal of the idea of a more narrowly focused war. When a questioner asked him whether he would support scaling back the American military presence over the next 18 months by relinquishing the battle with the Taliban and focusing on tracking down Al Qaeda, sparing ground troops by hunting Qaeda extremists and their leaders with missiles from remotely piloted aircraft, he replied: “The short answer is: no.”


The Prof
 
Geez you do know that this is the very same McCrystal that was the lead investigator in the Pat Tillman investigation..

I'm not really sure I would believe what the man says.
 
Geez you do know that this is the very same McCrystal that was the lead investigator in the Pat Tillman investigation..

I'm not really sure I would believe what the man says.




Obama does when he gets around to talking to him :shrug:
 
Geez you do know that this is the very same McCrystal that was the lead investigator in the Pat Tillman investigation..

I'm not really sure I would believe what the man says.

who promoted him?

trash mcchrystal

knock yourself out

that's really gonna help

in afghanistan
 
We can do no better at winning a ground war in Afghanistan than the Russians did. They fought a ground war there for over ten years and in the end they left with their tails between their legs and their economy in shambles. What makes people think we are going to do any better winning a ground war in Afghanistan?
 
We can do no better at winning a ground war in Afghanistan than the Russians did. They fought a ground war there for over ten years and in the end they left with their tails between their legs and their economy in shambles. What makes people think we are going to do any better winning a ground war in Afghanistan?

Largely because the Russians were winning handily before we started supplying the opposition.
 
Largely because the Russians were winning handily before we started supplying the opposition.

Well who do you think is supplying the opposition now?
 
we have no chance in afghanistan, none

yet the president is stuck there

he made it centerpiece of his campaign

and if he pulls out he will be held 100% responsible for our devastating defeat there to the incubus of world- and anti-american-terror

lose lose

and the (political) stakes are gigantic

it is what it is

mcchrystal's gonna quit if he doesn't get what he wants

and he should

why should he take obama's fall

why should he place his imprimatur on a strategy that can only drain american blood for no strategic or security-related gain

americans die to provide political cover for obama's skinny butt

tragic
 
Would someone claiming we don't stand a chance in Afghanistan please tell me why...we don't stand a chance in Afghanistan?

Amazing how you can just...say stuff.
 
We can do no better at winning a ground war in Afghanistan than the Russians did. They fought a ground war there for over ten years and in the end they left with their tails between their legs and their economy in shambles. What makes people think we are going to do any better winning a ground war in Afghanistan?

First of all let me dispense with my anti- Russian rant :it was the Soviet Union not Russia but I will concede that the ethnic Russians did control the prison of nations known as the USSR.

The conditions that the the USSR fought in AFGHANISTAN under was not exactly the same as we find them. They had installed a puppett government which the population was turning against. I realize that some detractors of the US cliam that Karzai is our puppett - not true.

The Soviets attempted to quell the entire population of Afghanistan and were actually doing what they do "best" - ethnic cleansing.

The Soviets very heavily used the ethnic minorities of the Soviet prison cabal in Afghanistan such as the Ukrainians, Georgians, Armenians, Tajiks, Azeri's, Khazaks, ands Chechens. The will to fight in Afghnanstan by the monorites waned since many of the Soviet troops realized that they were there to perform genocide, culturacide, and just general murder.

And yes as anyothe rposter pointed out we helped by supllying the anti-Soviet fighters with arms.

I cheered evry single time I saw clips of a Soviet chopper or fighter go done from a missle even though the pilot or crew may have been one of my cousins.
 
the USSR was in afghanistan for 10 years with as many as 200,000 troops

the soviets exhibited a ruthless WILL to win

they didn't just lose, their evil empire collapsed

our leadership lacks WILL
 
and if he pulls out he will be held 100% responsible for our devastating defeat


I dunno, I think a large portion of "the blame" should go to the dufus who got us into this mess with no clear goals and then put it on the back burner with reduced forces to go on a complete wild-goose chase in another country.

Anyway, Gen. McChrystal is right to petition for what he thinks will bring a "win".

The real question Obama has to decide before commiting more troops is:

... Is there really anything to "win" in Afghanistan.
 
the USSR was in afghanistan for 10 years with as many as 200,000 troops

the soviets exhibited a ruthless WILL to win

they didn't just lose, their evil empire collapsed

our leadership lacks WILL

Interesting don't you think that we were covertly also fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan.
 
I think a large portion of "the blame" should go to the dufus who got us into this mess

it's obama's war because he's president and will be held responsible by the voters for everything, right or wrong

and it's fair to consider it his war because of the way he campaigned so heavily on it

had he run a different campaign, you'd have a point
 
Interesting don't you think that we were covertly also fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan.

of course we did

but afghanistan is practically unconquerable, because of the terrain and other factors

it's why bin laden has been able to hide here and thereabouts for a decade with the whole world out to get him
 
Last edited:
1. Mrs Alaska is not the only one "going rogue."

2. On Thursday, at London's Institute for Strategic Studies, Obama's hand-picked commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, spoke with unanticipated candor, saying that suggestions to "scale down" his campaign in the region, proposed most notably last Sunday by VP Biden, would lead to "Chaos-istan."

3. It has been known since September 21, when Bob Woodward leaked McChrystal's secret assessment describing our lack of progress in the theater, that the general is adamant in his recommendation for an entirely new strategy, emphasizing counter-insurgency over counter-terrorism, as well as an infusion of 40,000 additional troops.

4. Of course, the day prior to Woodward's release, the president blitzed FIVE Sunday talk shows to dissemble that he had not yet been briefed about the battleground, that he had not yet been asked for reinforcements,

5. And then, a week later, last Sunday, Biden revealed the White House's probable preference for a "middle ground" approach, employing drones and special forces in the Mountains on the Moon.


First of all I would like to say that as a part of the US Special Operations we are already spread pretty thin. I have not been home for the last 3 Christmas’s and it looks like I will miss next years too. While this is what I volunteered for it is also what is causing a lot of experinced guys to get out for. You can only ask so much before it becomes to much. My wife is about done and that means so am I. So while politicians love to talk about using Spec Ops troops so as to make out involvement seem lees you have to remember that it puts a great strain on our elite troops and once the experienced troops are gone they take a long time to replace.

And second of all anyone who says the war in Asscrackastain is unwinnable has no idea what they are talking about.
 
thank you for your service, you are a hero

thank your wife and all your people, their sacrifices approach the severity of your own

sadly, general mcchrystal himself says, without reinforcements the war is unwinnable

please win for us, hang in, you have the devoted love and support of all patriotic americans

cliff
 
Funny but I don't remember electing McChrystal as President??. Doesn't our Constitution make a clear point of having civilians control the military?
Didn't Truman fire MacArthur...& not vice versa? (any general's voice should only be one of the voices a President listens to when setting U.S. policy)

Afghanistan cannot be "Won" militarily alone & McChrystal can speak only to the military side of the problem. I still have not heard a clear definition (by McChrystal or anyone else) of exactly what "Victory" or "Winning" in Afghanistan is for the U.S. & when we can therefore leave? (& what's more important...Neither has Obama & I think that's why he's taking his time deciding what to do over there.)
 
Last edited:
thank you for your service, you are a hero

thank your wife and all your people, their sacrifices approach the severity of your own

sadly, general mcchrystal himself says, without reinforcements the war is unwinnable

please win for us, hang in, you have the devoted love and support of all patriotic americans

cliff

Thank you for the kind words but I am now hero. The Two of my brothers that were killed this past week are the real heros and there families need all the love and support they can get. The sad thing is they were fighting in the war on terror that no one knows talks about. That is the fight down in the Philippines. There loss will be missed just as much to there families no matter where they died.
 
Back
Top Bottom