Obama reins in Stanley McChrystal
President Obama has sent a not-so-subtle warning to Gen. Stanley McChrystal: Keep your mouth shut. Respect the chain of command.
During the Bush administration, top military commanders, notably Gen. David Petraeus, got used to conducting themselves as if they were peers of the president —giving frequent television interviews, testifying on Capitol Hill to the cheers of love-struck senators and generally speaking their minds. Bush encouraged it, implicitly if not explicitly.
But Obama intends to run a tighter ship, taking seriously his role as commander-in-chief. Last week, McChrystal gave a speech in London, warning that a strategy less broad than the one he advocates in Afghanistan would be “shortsighted.”
Yesterday, on CNN’s “State of the Union,” national security adviser James Jones sent McChrystal a message. “Ideally, it’s better for military advice to come up through the chain of command,” Jones said.
Jones said he had not spoken to Obama since the president met with McChrystal. But he indicated that the Obama administration, facing the most far-reaching foreign policy decision of its time in office, expects McChrystal and his military superiors to broaden the range of alternatives for how best to proceed in Afghanistan as the strategy review unfolds over the coming weeks.
“We will be examining different options,” said Jones, a retired Marine general and former supreme allied commander in Europe. “And I’m sure General McChrystal and General Petraeus and Admiral Mullen will be willing to present different options and different scenarios in this discussion that we’re having.”
As military analyst Andrew Bacevich, a West Point graduate, told me in a recent interview, “The principle of civilian control must be sacrosanct. The notion that a president is obligated to defer to the policy preferences of a field commander is absolutely absurd.”
Obama may have told McChrystal something very much like that when he summoned the general to Copenhagen for a meeting the day after the London speech.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2010 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
76 comments Add your comment
Shawny
October 5th, 2009
8:08 am
It’s his experience as community organizer that makes him so qualified militarily.
Hear No Evil, See No Evil, Speak No Evil
October 5th, 2009
8:27 am
So the military leaders need to remain quiet. Right. How dare they state a need for additional troops or share their opinions as to how the war is proceeding. After all, Obama’s considerable military experience makes him much more qualified to conduct the campaign. I wonder if they also need to be quite when subpoenaed to appear in front of a congressional panel to explain why something didn’t turn out right?
Former Atlanta Mayor Bill Campbell
October 5th, 2009
8:37 am
So what am I supposed to do with all the merchandise I planned to sell at the Chicago Olympic tent city?
arnold
October 5th, 2009
8:38 am
Obviously some of you have never served in the military. There is a rigid chain of command that stops at the top, which is civilian controlled. The civilians control the military. The sooner right wingnuts understand this, the sooner we can have intelligent discussions. Of course, a right wing nut has to possess intelligence.
Veerrrryyyy interesting
October 5th, 2009
8:48 am
So, Arnold, if it’s “civilian” controlled then the socialist healthcare package being pimped by the Dems is actually a civilian plan, not a government plan, right?
Jimmy62
October 5th, 2009
8:50 am
The problem is when the President decides he knows more about winning a war than his generals. Obama’s vast experience on the international stage (i.e. absolutely none) completely prepares him to overrule the experienced advice of his generals. Bush was intelligent enough to understand that he doesn’t know everything. Obama isn’t.
Gailfro
October 5th, 2009
8:55 am
I see what you mean about right wingnuts, arnold. They can’t tell the difference between healthcare and military!
Community Organizer
October 5th, 2009
9:02 am
Thank God McChrystal has been put in his place. Now Obama can take his time forming steering committees and working groups and, maybe a year from now, tell our military commanders how to win this war.
Joey
October 5th, 2009
9:04 am
A major example US weakness around the World is:
That the one place President Obama provides a show of strength is when he uses the Chain of Command to yank the chain around the neck of General McChrystal.
Veerrrryyyy interesting
October 5th, 2009
9:05 am
Gailfro
October 5th, 2009
8:55 am
You missed the point (wow, that’s a shock,huh?) – if Obama has his way, he will control both. Isn’t that comforting? I can just see him telling a doctor who is concerned about lack of research funding that his/her comments must go up “the chain of command”.
Shawny
October 5th, 2009
9:06 am
The thing is, and it is truly sad, is that if Bush were president and were putting the general(s) in their place, Cynthia would be railing about how that knucklehead needs to listen to the military experts. But since it is Obama….
Road Scholar
October 5th, 2009
9:11 am
You folks have never been in management or government. There is an old adage: We agree to not disagree in public. McCrystal was insubordinate; he’s lucky to have his job. Who leaked the supposedly secret report anyway? One man’s opinion, especially when a war is being waged, is dangerous, without a sounding board and contrary/different views/ideas considered, discussed, and dismissed. Keep throwing rocks at Obama. He may then stop listening to your side, like Bush2 did.
Donovan
October 5th, 2009
9:13 am
“The principle of civilian control must be sacrosanct”. Yeah, LBJ thought so as well and you know how successful his war went. To Comrade Tucker, anyone who goes against her darling Obama is either a racist or a mutinous employee. What does she or the liberals know about the prosecution of a war. Those clowns who hijacked Congress have as their leaders a man who said, “the war is lost” and a female whack job from California who said, “the CIA lied”. Should we now believe in the credibility of a commie journalsit working for the AJC who puts her trust in the ability of a community organizer to run a successful war? Yeah, right!
Joey
October 5th, 2009
9:18 am
Maybe what we need regarding Afghanistan, and for Iran as well, is a good Congressional Debate. Give every Senator and House Member the opportunity to fully air her/his views about how to solve these critical and improtant problems. A open discussion with no pre-conditions.
TnGelding
October 5th, 2009
9:19 am
Shawny
October 5th, 2009
8:08 am
Those of us that hang out here think we’re qualified.
RAMBLE ON!!!
October 5th, 2009
9:21 am
But Obama intends to run a tighter ship, taking seriously his role as commander-in-chief.
BHWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I’m sure your fan base of six people will really believe that Cindy.
TnGelding
October 5th, 2009
9:22 am
Joey
October 5th, 2009
9:04 am
We really don’t even know what was discussed. The subject might not have even come up. We do know what Gen. Jones said.
Road Scholar
October 5th, 2009
9:24 am
Joey: The repubs don’t like it, no matter the topic! Oh Wait! It’s a war! Let’s spend some money!
Joey
October 5th, 2009
9:24 am
Enter your comments here
Joey
October 5th, 2009
9:34 am
TNGelding: Cynthia’s post indicates that she knows or has an excellent idea what was said.
Road Scholar: In my best southern; Can your repeat that again? I don’t see how your 9:24 that you addressed to me, relates to anything that I wrote.
Kyle Davis
October 5th, 2009
9:47 am
Reguardless of the situation, we as Americans need to continue to pray for all of our leaders and keep our faith, that God keeps our soldiers and our nation safe.
Say What??
October 5th, 2009
9:47 am
Hey, Cindy, will O soon “rein in” unemployment…..the deficit…..a nuclear armed Iran…..etc?
Say What??
October 5th, 2009
9:49 am
Road Scholar
October 5th, 2009
9:24 am
Or you could have said “The libs don’t like it, no matter the topic! Oh Wait! It’s an entitlement program! Let’s spend YOUR money!”
jconservative
October 5th, 2009
10:10 am
What most of you are not realizing re the McChrystal report is that this is a report on how best to carry out Obama’s March 2009 plan on Afghanistan. Read the report. McChrystal does not say the Obama plan is a good or bad plan, just that he believes this is the best way to meet that plan’s goals. It is not a new strategy on how to win in Afghanistan. The discussion now taking place is the result of some Obama advisers, mainly Biden, not agreeing with the March 2009 plan.
But regardless of troop levels, the Afghanistan central government is the key. Will it be accepted by the populace? “We can keep the patient on life support by providing security assistance indefinitely, but if you don’t get an improvement in governance, you’ll never be able to take the patient off the ventilator.”…From Stephen Biddle, member of the McChrystal advisory group.
Say What??
October 5th, 2009
10:14 am
jconservative
October 5th, 2009
10:10 am
I doubt you’ll get many intelligent replies to this one. Just comments about W and stuff like that.
Tommy Lee Maddox
October 5th, 2009
10:14 am
I thought the publishing of McChrystal’s memo was another example of the Administration’s new-found transparency. Mind you, it does not compare to the New York Times frequently publishing reports of ongoing covert military operations during the Bush Administration.
Could you imagine today’s media during WWII? Circa June 5, 1944: “Allies plan on storming the beaches of Normandy tomorrow – no, not Pais de Calais, but Normandy.”
SeanE
October 5th, 2009
10:44 am
How funny…
Obama is…”taking seriously his role as commander-in-chief”. So Tucker wants readers to connect the dots that, because Bush encouraged his top military to be speak out in front of the camera, and Obama’s repeated hand slapping when anybody with more expertise voices their analysis (because it hasn’t been spun, filtered and white-washed by the white house), means he is taking commander-in-chief role seriously? That’s not being a commander-in-chief, that’s trying to put a lock down on talking to the media. Others very good at that in the past: Stalin, Mao, Kim Jong-IL, etc.
Gimme a break.
Say What??
October 5th, 2009
10:46 am
Tommy Lee Maddox
October 5th, 2009
10:14 am
Amen, Tommy Lee, amen.
Mary
October 5th, 2009
11:01 am
I think that when you have men under your command, some who are falling like flies, dying in the desert, knowing you need more troops as their commander you are going to speak up. As a mother whose son is in the military I salute Gen. McChristal for asking support for our troops. If we are going to remain in Afganistan we need more troops. If not, then abandon Afganistan before it becomes more of a slaughter as it presently is.
cas
October 5th, 2009
11:04 am
As with all his duties this commander and chief wants the visibility, prestige, and authority of the job but not the accountability. Rather than catering to his ego regarding his people responding to the press he should be addressing whether his (not former President Bush’s) programs can be effective. He may be totally inexperienced but liberal sentiment and the media’s perception governing such critical things as rules of engagement and how they effect the safety and effectiveness of his troops should not be his instruction manual. If he wants to run a tighter ship he may want to start by acknowledging he has placed his people in harms way and they will be his primary concern and get his primary support.
dude
October 5th, 2009
11:09 am
Hmm….Inexperienced Community Organizer……….4Star General..
Inexperienced Community Organizer….5Star General…
Someone should shut up, but I’m not sure it’s who you think it is.
Bullying Protester
October 5th, 2009
11:11 am
Enter your comments here
C.T. as usual is wrong and does not have an inkling of what occurred between the Pres and McChrystal. Military commanders do not give speeches in an international forums such as took place in London without clearance from someone in DoD and the WH, especially this commander. The recent outrage over comments by McChrystal and the leaks are a smoke screen to give Obama cover for inaction and indecision, thus out trots Jones on the circuit. McChrystal and Petraeusa aren’t freelancers, and they are not in the business of undermining their bosses for political gain. Who adopted this CI strategy and, more importantly, whose is responsible for the US strategy (not just the military component) in Afganistan or any other theater? Obama, Jones and the rest of the administration need to do their jobs and stop making excuses or defending their lack of action and continuing reversals. Also, Jones may not be around much longer. Civilian control of the military has never in doubt or challenged since Harry Truman fired Douglas MacAuthur, and comments coming from Bacevich are another example of deliberate distortion of the facts. We badly need a comprehensive US strategy for the region and the ball is clearly in Obama’s court. NO MORE EXCUSES!
Call it like it is.
October 5th, 2009
11:18 am
Obama reins in McChrystal?? And pray tell Ms. Tucker what was said? I guess no matter what you have to believe that your man was laying down the wood on the General. I just wonder if he brought him to ask his opinion? Either that are this might just be another case, where Obama needs to once again make sure we all know he is the man, in case we might have forgotten.
How about you do some real news work and find out what was said, then comment on it.
GW
October 5th, 2009
11:18 am
Stay the Course!
booger
October 5th, 2009
11:20 am
I think the one conversation with the general since he took command says a lot more about Obama’s seriousness about his role as commander and chief than a gag order to his commanders.
Joan
October 5th, 2009
11:25 am
Maybe I am mistaken, but didn’t Obama say he was going to get the troops out of the Mideast? I mean the liberals were all over Bush about the wastefulness of a war over there. Now I gather we are going to stay over there until we have McDonald’s franchises on every corner.
i am i am
October 5th, 2009
11:43 am
obama runs a tighter ship….HA HA HA HA!!!! how many cabinet/czars pics of the buffoon either stepped down or have been run out of town? which of his campaign promises did he actually keep? a congress is out of control. the white house staff constantly has to have the media explain away their idiotic statements. and, because of his need to but into local affairs, he had to have a sit down beer.
tighter ship? this administration has more leaks than the pentagon.
keep believing that he is your savior.
John H
October 5th, 2009
11:57 am
We are not a military dictatorship — thank God. The military works for us, the citizens, and the Commander in Chief representing us, the people, is the President — be it Obama or Bush or Johnson or the man who warned us many years ago: “Beware the military industrial complex …” Yes, Republican President Eisenhower warned us of that and he knew a thing or two about the military and about winning wars that had to be won.
Afganistan is Vietnam all over again — U.S. lives and money propping up a corrupt government in a country that has repeatedly be the deathbed of empires. Had Bush and company paid some attention to the war eight years ago instead of being diverted by Iraq, maybe we’d be in a different situation. But that didn’t happen and now Obama, with the advice of Generals (note the plural) and civilian advisors needs to figure out how best to work with the horrible hand he was dealt. I pray to God he takes Vice-President Biden’s advice, and concentrates our efforts on taking out Al Quieda and its leadership and not on a military-led and ultimately futile attempt at nation building (something I remember other past Republican Presidents warning us about).
Daniel
October 5th, 2009
11:57 am
Ignore the advice of generals AT YOUR PERIL.
History is full of leaders who did just that, from kings and queens to prime ministers and presidents, and even the occasional dictator. Not one of them went down in history as having done the right thing.
They just went down.
booger
October 5th, 2009
11:58 am
I suppose this is part of Obama’s policy of transparency.
Cynthia, your disdain of the military is well known and I know you enjoy seeing your man slap down a General, But do you really think this is in the best interest of our country? In the meantime rest assured that the brave young men and women in the military will continue to fight and die so you can gloat over the commander and chief’s gag orders.
Old Physics Teacher
October 5th, 2009
12:03 pm
I guess you guys are too young to remember this happening before? Google “Truman and MacArthur.” “Those that forget history…”
J Cline
October 5th, 2009
12:07 pm
I hope McChrystal keeps the pressure on. From where I sit (in eastern Afghanistan) if you can’t send us some help, then send us home. I got a 16-month old baby boy waiting on me. Don’t waste my time, or my life, on half-measures.
DirtyDawg
October 5th, 2009
12:14 pm
The NYT reporting of stuff in Iraq during the Bush/Cheney admin, was usually ‘leaked’ by the admin so they could go on MTP and cite a NYT article as reasons to go to war. You knuckle-dragging neanderthals (thanks Cong. Grayson)…your man Bush, and particularly ‘the man behind the cretin’ – Cheney…took eight years to get us into this mess, and you’re trying to crucify Obama because he hasn’t solved it eight months?
Daniel
October 5th, 2009
12:19 pm
John H,
Whether or not “Afghanistan is Vietnam all over again” depends on how it’s fought, if fought at all.
Like Vietnam, the “Afghanization” of the fight in Afghanistan will result in the fall of Afghanistan, and our troops will have, once again, all died in vain.
So yes, if Obama fails to “Stand and Fight” (like liberals tend to fail to do in war), and “Afghanistanizes” the war, you will likely be correct.
But UNLIKE Vietnam, the “Afghanization” of the fight in Afghanistan – with its inherent failures – will roll out a blood-red carpet to a murderously ruthless terrorist enterprise which will then – once again – “explode” onto the world scene, only this time backed by a nuclear-armed Iran (as if the Iranian-made Explosively-Formed Penetrators now killing Americans are not warning enough, along with all the other Iranian threats and actions since the beginning of their “revolution”).
You complain Obama was “dealt a horrible hand.”
Seems to me he’s been given both a Taliban AND and an Al Qaeda both sequeezed tightly within a few mountainous provinces. This is hardly a “Horrible Hand.”
We won WW2 with the enemy in control of nearly half the globe. How hard can it be to keep them bottled up in a barrel while you shoot them like fish?
If Obama ignores his generals, however, they won’t be in that barrel for long, as it’s already begun to leak. Why do you think the generals, both US and NATO, are expecting more help, not more waffling, wavering and wasting of time and lives, “just like Vietnam.”
I truly wish this were not the case, but history starkly illustrates that American liberals will NOT fight a war to WIN. Like most full-blown elitists, they somehow know far, far better than their own generals. But NOTHING could be less the case.
Ivan
October 5th, 2009
12:26 pm
Wow, the glorification of Obama keeps piling up bigger and bigger. What is exactly being piled up here?
—–
“But Obama intends to run a tighter ship, taking seriously his role as commander-in-chief”
—–
Like flying off to Denmark to pitch for the Olympics instead of doing something about the huge uprising in Afghanistan? Some Commander-in-Chief. Oh, I forget, Ms. Tucker and other liberals only care about soldiers dying when it’s a Republican in charge.
Morris
October 5th, 2009
12:38 pm
It is funny to read all the military experts here. I wonder why no one has hired any of you to lead their brigades?
ctucker
October 5th, 2009
12:45 pm
Booger wrtiers: Cynthia, your disdain of the military is well known and I know you enjoy seeing your man slap down a General, But do you really think this is in the best interest of our country?
Where in the world did you get the impression that I have “disdain” for the military? My maternal grandfather served in France in World War I. My father and his brothers and brothers-in-law served in World War II (my dad was also an officer in Korea,) I have several relatives, friends (and an ex-beau) who served in Vietnam. What makes you think I disdain the military?
Ivan
October 5th, 2009
12:52 pm
Morris
I must have misread the part in Amendment One that stated I could not have an opinion about government decisions unless I was an “expert” on the subject. I’ll reread it, again.
Before I do though, let me play along. I think, were I in Obama’s shoes, had my first decision on doing some about Afghanistan happened much earlier, and did NOT include a trip to Europe, I think I would be headed in the right direction.
Jimmy62
October 5th, 2009
12:55 pm
Don’t look to Cynthia for informed discussion. I’m waiting for her to admit that cash-for-clunkers was a huge debacle. A quick look at year-on-year decline in sales for car companies, combined with a precipitous drop in sales since the program ended proves that all we did was push up some sales a few months, and destroy who knows how many billions of assets for no reason.
Cuzzin Vinnie
October 5th, 2009
1:13 pm
Arnold is a left wing fruitcake. However, he is right about respecting the chain of command. You shouldn’t look down your nose at those whom you don’t agree with, Arnold. In this case, you are slighting those who protect you and pay for your social programs.
booger
October 5th, 2009
1:13 pm
I guess eight years of your rants about our then commander and chief must have made an impression.
TnGelding
October 5th, 2009
1:17 pm
J Cline
October 5th, 2009
12:07 pm
I salute you for your service and apologize for the politicians that placed you there. Hunker down.
Jimmy62
October 5th, 2009
12:55 pm
Make that rapidly depreciating or worthless assets. GM and Chrysler’s inability to replace inventory reduced the effect of a very successful program.
TnGelding
October 5th, 2009
1:19 pm
booger
October 5th, 2009
1:13 pm
He abdicated to Petraeus after delegating to Cheney.
Earl
October 5th, 2009
1:41 pm
So, what has every U.S. military commander – who was losing the battle (losing the nation-building) -in the last ten years (make that a hundred years) said? Do they say, oh, I’m not doing a very good job; or, oh, this mission is a no win situation; or, oh, the enemy you want to kill really isn’t here; or, oh, there is no real need for us to be here at all, so why not just send us home…NO, of course not, they say, “Oh, if I just had more troops I would win for sure!” An Americanized version of Iraq, Iran or Afganistan is not just improbable- it is impossible! America should get out of Iraq and Afganistan as quickly as possible…and if any of them then annoy us – we bomb the life out of them (nuclear facilities, Al Q camps, whatever)!
John H
October 5th, 2009
2:10 pm
Daniel,
Appreciate your response to my comment. I too wish to minimize the number of soliders who die in vain. And so we need to make judgments as to when we’ve made a mistake. When we’ve taken on something that turns out not to be in the interest of our country or our national security.
You know the French told us to stay out of Vietnam. Many others shared with us the whole domino-strategy fear that if Vietnam went communist, then all of southeast asia would follow (and some thought Australia might even be endangered). Well what happened? Yes, Vietnam went communist, the fighting stopped, and now they host many U.S. companies and have turned into a trading partner. The dominos in the rest of southeast asia didn’t fall. If anything, communist Vietnam helped to stop the genocide that was occuring in Cambodia (which had been destablized by our military involvement in Vietnam in the first place). The dire outcomes predicted by ‘the loss’ of Vietnam simply didn’t occur. As such, the decision made by President Nixon and Ford to stop our military involvment was the right, albeit tough, choice. Given what happened, would have you wished another 1, 5, 10 or more thousand U.S. troops to be killed or wounded? Billions more in U.S. wealth expended to prop up the corrupt and unsupported government of South Vietnam? Would we as a nation be any safer than we are today had we ‘won’ the Vietnam War? Does anyone today worry about communist Vietnam threatening the U.S. in any way?
I agree with you that Vietnam and Afganistan are not exactly the same situation. But to my reading of history and the present, at times it is absolutely the right decision to cut your losses and recalibrate your strategy. I agree that we don’t want Afganistan to become a base once again for Al Quieda. But what about Somolia? Sudan? Yemen? None of these countries are too friendly with the U.S. and all could possibly be a base for Al Quieda. We need to take the fight directly to Al Quieda and eliminate them. We need to stop occupying muslim countries — a policy which actually serves as a prime recruiting factor for Al Quieda.
I too am not in favor of half measures. I agree with the Powell Doctrine — overwhelming force and the clear and unquestioned support of the American people. But overwhelming force in Afganistan, has been idenitified by many as 100 of thousands of U.S. troops. McChrystal’s request isn’t overwhelming force — it really is just more meddling as you and I and J Cline (serving in Afganistan right now) don’t want. But the U.S. people don’t support even McChrystal’s request let alone one for true overwhelming force. And with our econony in hock, we can’t afford to put into Afganistan the overwhelming force you’re looking for (even if it could win Afganistan for us — something it didn’t do for the British or the Soviets).
I mourn deeply the lives of American soliders lost anywhere as they serve our country. I also mourn the lives of soliders to be lost if we refuse to look at what we’re doing and make the right choice as to what is worth fighting for and what isn’t. What actually makes us safer and what doesn’t.
John H
October 5th, 2009
2:24 pm
Daniel, PS: you wrote that history shows ” American liberals will NOT fight a war to WIN.” You also note that we won WWII when ‘half the globe was in enemy hands (my definition, btw, of a situation where the security of the U.S. is clearly at stake). Remember who convinced the U.S. people to fight that war … who rallied the nation and lead us to military victory? President Franklin D. Roosevelt — one of the most liberal of all our Presidents. For that matter, American’s succesful intervention in WWI was led by another liberal, Democratic President, Woodrow Wilson. Moreover, remember who shutdown Vietnam — Nixon and Ford, Republican Presidents. And as I wrote in my early post, who warned us of the ‘military industrial complex,’ President/General Eisenhower, another Republican.
You know, honestly, I don’t think good decisions about when to go to war, when to step away, or how to win them, is the exclusive territory of conservatives or liberals, Democrats or Republicans. It is the territory of thoughtful and brave leaders who know when it matters and when it doesn’t. When we can win militarily, and when we are putting American soliders at risk for little or no true security reasons. I honor both the conservatives and the liberals who have the wisdom and courage to know when to fight and when not too.
Daniel
October 5th, 2009
2:29 pm
Old Physics Teacher,
I bet I am not as old as you are, but had Truman had the guts to listen to not just MacArthur but also to Patton previously, quite literally tens of millions of lives lost at the hands of Stalin and Mao would have been saved.
There would also be democracies in Russia and China today (and please don’t tell me Russia is a democracy as their brutal attack on Georgia clearly shows otherwise, along with Putin’s so-called “premiership”), as well as a united, democratic Korea.
In addition, had Patton and MacArthur’s warnings been heeded, we wouldn’t have Russia supplying Iran with nuclear technology, nor would we have North Korea not only starving uncounted multitudes of her own people to death they wouldn’t be exporting their nuclear technology to Syria (or trying to) nor would they be holding all of east Asia hostage with their nukes.
It takes courage, foresight, intuition and determination to take the right path, no matter how “politically” unpleasant. Churchill saw both Hitler and Stalin for who they were long before WW2 even began. He agreed with both Patton and MacArthur.
But the Democrat Truman, who could have literally changed the entire face of the post-war world and completely prevented the Cold War (and Korea and Vietnam, so say nothing of what’s happening now), and very possibly without a shot being fired (we were, after all, the only nuclear power at the time), bringing about at least a century or more of peace with tens of millions of innocent lives more to enjoy it.
But no. Ignoring his generals is what Truman did, just as you point out, and look what’s happened as a result. Immeasurable, almost infinite suffering and death.
So I don’t agree with you at all. Obama’s failure to listen to his (and NATO’s) generals is more than just arrogant, conceited and elitist, it is downright stupid and extremely dangerous. His misguided thoughts (approach?) on Iran are no less disastrous.
Evil is as evil does and evil has no place on this planet in any form or on any level. But try telling that to the libs, who work tirelessly to free murderers, rapists and thugs from prison, ensure dangerous regimes remain in power, and cut off at the knees the efforts of people to gain their freedom from tyranny (all the while flooding the world with profane, disgusting insults towards those who “have eyes to see and ears to hear”).
David from WI
October 5th, 2009
3:36 pm
The working relationship between the president and the highly educated military experts known as his generals. It is important for the men to respect each other but Dems typically do not garner the same respect from the military because of the dems (usually) contempt for the military. I guess advanced degrees and multiple college degrees are only impressive if you are a fellow politician but not when you are in the officer corp of the US military. But noooo in the fantasy land that is the far left the educated military personal are somehow stupid brainwashed dolts that are akin to bullies. The truth is the officers (and others) are college graduates with many having dual or advanced degrees but no, that would bean they are smart and EXPERTS on military tactics? I thought Obama listened to experts. I guess its selective.
Don’t forget Gen. Stanley McChrystal can always say two words to the president.
I QUIT.
dude
October 5th, 2009
3:51 pm
I am someone who completely supports our military efforts, but with this commander it is much better to take our defeat now while fewer americans die for it, because there is NO doubt that this commander does not have the intestinal fortitude to see the hard slog. He’s way too interested in appearances and his own charisma.
Get ‘em out NOW. When you have a commander who is as unserious and inexperienced as this one, there isn’t much point in muddling about.
Daniel
October 5th, 2009
3:52 pm
John H,
I fully appreciate your willingness and ability to value leadership from whichever party can provide it. I applaud you for saying as much because it is a very refreshing departure from the blanket condemnations of a party just for being that party we see all too often these days.
However, let’s not forget Wilson waited until Europe had already “torn itself to pieces,” with previously unimaginable death tolls on all sides, immense damage across huge swaths of Europe, as well as U-boat attacks on civilian ships (also with previously unimaginable death tolls) before finally actively engaging who was by then a nearly exhausted enemy.
Wilson’s waiting until it had already become the “war to end all wars” hardly permits history to recognize him as a pivotal leader in the attainment of peace.
As for Roosevelt, the very same thing can be said of him with respect to Europe as I just said of Wilson. Not only had Europe suffered years of conquest by the Nazis before Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt very much sat quietly and passively by as Japan tore into China long before Hitler tore into Poland. Japan slaughtered China’s citizenry for y-e-a-r-s without our doing anything more overtly about it other than to allow the AVG (All Volunteer Group) to ‘form and fight’ on behalf of the horribly suffering Chinese.
Granted, it wasn’t particularly easy to see the United States as a “World Power” or even “Leader of the Free World” back then, in either case.
But Churchill, who had been right all along about Hitler, found only a mostly deaf ear in Roosevelt. Roosevelt repeatedly refused to follow-through with the aid he led Churchill to believe was coming. Roosevelt eventually “sent aid,” but it was positively too little, too late and much less than America was capable of. Roosevelt was, in truth, actually willing to let England fall, a fact becoming more and more apparent to historians today.
That isn’t very “leader-like.”
Great Britain came unbelievably close to defeat thanks to Roosevelt’s doing next to nothing. The three things which actually “saved” Britain were Hitler’s cancellation of Operation Sea Lion (the mismanagement of the Battle of Britain by Hitler likely meaning little had Sea Lion proceeded), Churchill’s lerdership of Great Britain itself, and Hitler’s subsequent declaration of war on the U.S. on Dec. 10, 1941. These are what saved England. Roosevelt can not take even a sliver of credit for England’s survival to December 10.
These are not impressive or admirable ‘records of leadership’ on the part of either Wilson or Roosevelt.
Once war (for us) began under Roosevelt, he did adequately lead the nation. But had he engaged in at least some form of “pre-emptive brinkmanship” (at the very least) in the mid-to-late 1930’s, it is hard to say what Japan or Germany may or may not have done.
Roosevelt also flatly refused to allow Japan parity with the U.S. on battleships, something the Japanese took as a serious ’spit-in-the-face.’ The difference was minimal, but the ramifications were enormous.
The bottom line is, liberals can not see or sense danger until it is very clearly already too late to prevent that danger from causing the harm it is predisposed to cause. Therefore, they won’t or can’t do anything about it until the costs become stratospheric or perhaps impossible to afford. LBJ was no different in Vietnam, seeing the North as little more than misbehaving boys on the block, not the implacable and determined enemy they actually were. And he treated them accordingly, leading to a very black and costly chapter in American history.
Obama’s treatment of McChrystal’s assessment on Afghanistan, and NATO command’s assessment as well for it matches McChrystal’s to a “T,” is just plain inexcusable. Totally inexcusable. And it sure isn’t anything which can be called “leadership.”
Vince
October 5th, 2009
4:13 pm
Sorry. Ill take the Generals advice over Obamas on this issue any day of the week. Besides, when things get tough against OBamas strategy, he does not stand and fight…he changes the strategy, as we are seeing.
Nathan
October 5th, 2009
4:20 pm
Obama’s not disregarding McChrystal’s opinion, he’s just demanding that these discussions take place behind closed doors until he makes a decision. Those commentators on here backing McChrystal’s behavior need to rediscover your man sack and take a lesson from the Don: “Santino. Never tell anyone outside the Family what you are thinking again.” Soldiers don’t publicly disagree with the man in charge. Period. One more slip and Stanley will find himself on a boat like Fredo…that or doing armchair commentary on CNN. I don’t know which is worse.
John H
October 5th, 2009
5:02 pm
Daniel,
I agree with you both in the cases of Wilson and WWI and Roosevelt and WWII that they did not enter the conflict at the beginning. I disagree with you though on the reason or the wisdom of it. Not to get into great detail, in both cases, my read of the history clearly shows that the American people were not ready to step into those fights in 1914 or 1939 for a variety of deeply held reasons. Wilson and FDR knew what Colin Powell puts forth today in his doctrine — you can’t fight a succesful war with the necessary overwhelming resources unless you have the substantive backing of the American people. When you do, as did Bush Sr. with the first gulf war and as these two Presidents were ultimately able to forge as well, that’s when you more times than not see successfully conducted military operations. The logic here is that you cannot disconnect public support from the war effort. Both Vietnam and Gulf War II had only superficial public support that quickly erroded as the misleading or false pretenses for the wars were uncovered. In hindsight (and we can agree that hindsight is never actionable intelligence) it would be nice to think that early military action could have prevented death and destruction later on. And in some cases that might be. But premature military action, and here the case with Gulf War II I see as pretty clear, has had disastorous consequences as well.
The American people, overall and throughout time, have been hesitant to commit themselves, our country, to war. We can argue whether on average that’s a good or bad thing, but it seems clear from history and supported by the wisdom of Colin Powell — you are highly unlikely to achieve military success unless the people are informed, told the truth, and commit full to the effort. As such to my eye, it took great leadership skills, by Wilson, FDR, and dare I say Bush Sr., to ultimately convince the American people (not to mention our allies) that these conflicts were worthy of the American public’s ongoing support. And with that support they had a key ingredient to success.
MichaelBob
October 5th, 2009
5:28 pm
General McChrystal would better serve the country if he pushed to discuss this directly with his Commander in Chief rather than in London. His choice to openly state that any decision is wrong if it is different than his was completely inappropriate. Any organization is undermined by this type of break in the chain of command. I believe McChrystal’s way is probably the best way even if there’s an sadly great cost in lives. The region must be stabilized. Obama’s job is to make a decision that the American People consider to be thoughtful because of that cost. If you love this country as I do then we must respect a thoughtful decision. No more Vietnams.
sandi
October 5th, 2009
5:30 pm
Enter your comments here
Wow, I was afraid for a minute there that this was gonna be another Vietnam……ya know the elites in Washington telling the 4 stars who are over there what to do. Makes perfect sense to me. But wait this is Obama, Mr. Hopey Changey. Nothing to worry about, I’m sure!
MichaelBob
October 5th, 2009
6:04 pm
Well Sandi,
I’ve seen demagogues politicize decisions and fan flames of patriotism and fear to push their ideas. It seems that the President is in the process of a thoughtful decision process. With Gates, Gen. Jones, and others involved a decision will be made. At least it will be a thoughtful one.
DirtyDawg
October 5th, 2009
6:19 pm
I smell a conspiracy…has anybody else noted that McChrystal and Petrayeus both have three syllable last names…and so did Westmoreland.
MichaelBob
October 5th, 2009
6:36 pm
LOL, thanks for the amusment.
DebbieDoRight
October 5th, 2009
10:47 pm
Sandi another Vietnam? How about something a little more recent….how about another IRAQ, or another AFGHANISTAN I (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld); remember those?
Joe Serriatio
October 5th, 2009
11:37 pm
We will lose this war if Obama does not support the military and adhere to their requests.
TnGelding
October 6th, 2009
12:26 am
dude
October 5th, 2009
3:51 pm
Did you sleep through 2008 when he mopped the floor with the GOP? Get real!
Daniel
October 5th, 2009
2:29 pm
At the cost of how many American lives? The USSR and China were our allies and with the right leadership could be again.
Zibby
October 6th, 2009
12:34 am
Well, the military must have someone as the commander in chief they can respect and rely upon.
That would be the current temporary occupant of the White House… it’s like having to listen to Slick Willie tell them how to do it… had a chance to take out Bin Laden on his watch and totally missed it…
Does anybody honestly feel safer with PBO in charge right now?
I sure don’t.
Tom Middleton
October 6th, 2009
12:41 am
Cynthia, could we talk about the “Powell Doctrine,” Colin Powell’s belief in using overwhelming force when we go to war or not going to war at all?
It seems to me that besides Reagan’s Grenada (a joke), the Gulf War he and Daddy Bush put together was the only recent war done right. It was successful, over in no time, and we didn’t spend years and political campaigns trying to analyze what went wrong.
We could do that now, you know, but our allies would have to get involved in Afghanistan in much larger numbers than they’ve been willing to do so far. Come back to us, General Powell, for we need you now more than ever!
Jeff Beaumont
October 6th, 2009
6:51 am
It is time we stopped being the worlds police force. We have enough fire power to protect our country if the need should arise, we voted in this President to stop all the wasted money on war. It is time to bring our troops home.
SouthernGal
October 6th, 2009
7:24 am
Maybe if Obama had spent more time with the General instead of flying off to Copenhagen on behalf of Chicago…there would of been no need for a public plea for more troops.
dan
October 6th, 2009
10:04 am
What a complete=TOTAL disappointment OBAMA has been so far. His lack of experience is obvious as was noted by France. I fear the worst now under his leadership or lack there of.