McChrystal cleared

[Lemon law]

Neither one of them could shine Sherman's boots. Or Osama's for that matter. I tend too look at winners not losers though.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In all due respects Zebo, you only show your own ignorance about military matters.

Point granted, Sherman had overwhelming force and part of winning the war between the States was making the enemy howl. Which led to the Confederate States of America surrendering sooner.

But the war part of the current US occupations was over in six months or less after we started. Now, in both Afghanistan and Iraq, the objective in a military occupation is winning the peace. And all keep making them howl after the war is won does is to insure we will lose that winning the peace part of the deal. Because right now, the Taliban in Afghanistan is not a government and instead is an guerrilla war insurgency. And unless the set of collective Nato nations are willing to pony up the 620,000 troops needed to police all of Afghanistan, all we get is a game of wackomole.

 

[Moonbeam]

Neither one of them could shine Sherman's boots. Or Osama's for that matter. I tend too look at winners not losers though.

That would mean something if you know what wining or losing is.

 

[Lemon law]

Or I can come back to Zebo with a snappy comeback, wars and military occupations are not won by the criteria of who has the shiniest boots.

 

[hal2kilo]

Let's consider this for just a minute.

We are engaged in a hot war in Afghanistan.

Obama's top general there, who actually is committed to doing the war the Obama way, has a Rolling Stone anti-military, anti-war reporter embedded with his senior staff.

Said Rolling Stone reporter writes a story that is anti-military and anti-war (was anyone expecting any different?) and couched in terms understandable to a lefty readership, where he claims the general's oh-so-rude staff of snake eaters made unkind remarks in the course of a round of drinks in a Paris bar while they waited for a delayed flight.

The President, a sensitive sort, with the Vice President, a doltish sort, by his side, within a day or so of reading one of his favorite journals after Mother Jones, without substantive corroboration, fires this general, and likely much of his staff of special warriors, for the unkind remarks claimed by the writer, which, BTW, were not corroborated.

The general says "fuck it" (my words, not his, but then again, I am longer out of the Army than he is,) resigns and retires to teach at Yale where he now has unlimited access to New Haven pizza, the best around.

It turns out the article author lied and he has mysteriously declined comment since the story was published, referring all inquiries, of which there were many, to the Rolling Stone PR department, who, of course, know nothing.

McChrystal is now cleared and can hold his head high, but then I never thought he need stop.

Obama and Rolling Stone, however, need to hang their collectivized heads in shame.

A beer in the Rose Garden won't fix this.

Kaki Clad Cocksuckers lying! I'm shocked I tell you. Just Shocked.

 

[Zebo]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In all due respects Zebo, you only show your own ignorance about military matters.

Point granted, Sherman had overwhelming force and part of winning the war between the States was making the enemy howl. Which led to the Confederate States of America surrendering sooner.

But the war part of the current US occupations was over in six months or less after we started. Now, in both Afghanistan and Iraq, the objective in a military occupation is winning the peace. And all keep making them howl after the war is won does is to insure we will lose that winning the peace part of the deal. Because right now, the Taliban in Afghanistan is not a government and instead is an guerrilla war insurgency. And unless the set of collective Nato nations are willing to pony up the 620,000 troops needed to police all of Afghanistan, all we get is a game of wackomole.

Insurgency is nothing new but were swiftly delt with in the past. Involves nothing about "winning peace"... who wrote that? some loser I'm sure. Sounds like something Patreus would say when he's not telling Americans to STFU. Need to go back further like say second boer war or as recent as Hama Massacre in Syria. Don't wanna fight like that? You aint winning period against someone who is willing. Better think twice about fighting dont you think? Or just search and destroy missions and GTFO.

600K LOL Japan controlled almost a billion Chinese with 400,000. Spain controlled tens of millions with thousands. You don't need that many you need tactics and strategy.

 

[werepossum]

Much as I admire McChrystal's service and despise Rolling Stone magazine, it's pretty clear from McChrystal's apology statement that he felt he did something wrong, if only by omission or inaction. Personally I think the Messiah should have donned his big girl panties and risen above it, but I don't think revelations of the reporter's admittedly devious behavior have really "cleared" the good general.

I certainly have no hate or disgust for his behavior, and it's possible that McChrystal, generally a supporter of Obama and at least the centrist left, fell on his sword to protect his Commander-In-Chief. If so, then I laud him even more for sacrificing himself for his commander and his side's cause. But until that seems reasonably certain, I'm going to accept the man at his word (of his apology) and assume that he screwed up according to military rules, even if the reporter is scum of the Earth and hell-bent on ruining him and hurting our country's war effort.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

NON Prof John states, "There is a chance that McChrystal may have decided that he had enough and didn't want to serve this president any longer or that he wasn't happy with Obama's approach to Afghanistan which completely excluded any mention of obtaining victory there."

Excuse me Johnny, there is no chance of that idea being true. The Afghan war was pretty well totally lost by GWB&co, McCrystal played no overall role in Afghan Nato command during the GWB era, but was tapped by Obama as have the right counterinsurgency type ideas that Bush never tried.

But there is no I in team, and when McCrystal and especially his staff tried to blame everyone and their brother in law by asserting he was the only M in team, it went over like a lead balloon.

But the things McCrystal had to do to start winning in Afghanistan was more idle talk and empty gestures. Instead of reducing the Nato caused Afghan civilian deaths, he if anything increased them, he did nothing to reduce corruption, built nothing, and was a fanboy of big military offensives that caused huge Afghan civilian misery, but accomplished nothing long terms. To some extent he has a right to be critical of US and Nato civilian ambassadors who were little more effective than their GWB counterparts. But you don't air those grievances in public, and because McCrystal surrounded himself with yes men officers, that is what the Rolling Stones reporter tapped into loud and clear with some alcohol to lubricate their mouths. But no, no honest General could think McCrystal was doing what was needed in Afghanistan.
McCrystal was simply doing what ineffective people do, blaming others for his failures
while not doing all he could do.

I'm not sure what the general said but it's interesting that you invest him with so much discretional power when Bob Woodward paints Obama as one who kept the reigns held tight. Perhaps you ought to question him instead.

 

[Lemon law]

Again, in all due respects Zebo, you again show your ignorance of military matters by saying, "Insurgency is nothing new but were swiftly delt with in the past."

Tell us all about that in Vietnam, all about it in Ireland where an Irish insurgency dated back to the time of King Billy. We have all kinds of insurgencies now, and we have had many of them in the past.

And in fact the USA owes its existence to an insurgency against England.

Zebo, your initial premise is false and all that comes after that failed premise is an epic fail.

Why should the USA be especially ashamed that we did not win in Vietnam, after all Vietnam had a 3000 year plus history of expelling foreign domination, no matter how many hundreds of years it took them.

Insurgencies have always been part of history.