Gen. McChrystal squelches talk of pressure, resignation
In a post about Afghanistan the other day, I included reports suggesting that Gen. Stanley McChrystal might resign if President Obama did not approve committing additional troops.
McChrystal has now stepped forward, forthrightly and professionally, to end that speculation and to endorse the debate now taking place in Washington. As the New York Times reports it:
General McChrystal said he agreed to speak to The New York Times on Wednesday after he became increasingly concerned about reports of rifts between the military and the civilian leadership, and about rumors he was considering resigning if his assessment was not accepted.
The general denied that he had discussed — or even considered — resigning his command, as had been whispered about at the Pentagon, saying that he was committed to carrying out whatever mission Mr. Obama approved.
“I believe success is achievable,” he said. “I can tell you unequivocally that I have not considered resigning at all….”
“This is the right kind of process, and the way I see duty,” he said. “I have been given the opportunity to provide my inputs to the decision. Then it is my duty to execute that decision.”
I’m glad the general set the record straight.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
214 comments Add your comment
Taxpayer
September 24th, 2009
5:30 pm
Let me try it this way. One step at a time. No trick questions. Just trying to understand where you’re coming from.
Do you think the mission in Afghanistan is critical to protecting the US?
I think that if there is to be a continuing mission in Afghanistan, then it must be to protect the US citizens (and even property but not to the same level necessarily, etc.) from an imminent threat (without going into the specifics of determining that there is an imminent threat other than it takes more than tea leaves or crystal balls to satisfy moi) or to pursue known accessories after the fact (since the terrorists that were in the planes are no more). Of course, that still leaves quite a bit of latitude in defining the mission even after an assessment has determined the need for said mission. For example, the mission might simply be to establish a base for launching drones while we wait for word of a sighting or it may be something else. The mission is most definitely dynamic because any good plan includes regular assessments and provision for changes as needed.
Now, it is your turn. Answer you own question with no embedded questions. Fell free to include all the ifs, then and elses you may need though.
Normal
September 24th, 2009
5:38 pm
whistling dixie
September 24th, 2009
5:16 pm
BTW Normal You are supposedly a guy and you call me poor baby? HaHaHaHa!
Whistlin’ whatever do you mean? But if you want to meet me for a drink and talk about it, let me know
Paul
September 24th, 2009
5:41 pm
Public Option 5:21
I didn’t say the military has not done nation building in Iraq and Afg. They have. But going in, particularly in Iraq, they avoided it like the plague.
And what did Gen Petraeus do that failed so badly in Iraq?
Taxpayer
Just a sec – not quite done.
(we’ll get there, but it’ll just be a repeat of what I’ve often written).
I think I see your point on the first. Afghanistan is critical to US security but how we do the mission is up for grabs, is that correct?
So I also understand you believe Pres Obama when he says Afg is critical.
So if Pres Obama says the only viable chance we have to do the mission there is to send in ten or twenty thousand more troops, you say what?
Normal
September 24th, 2009
5:42 pm
Upstairs again y’all, Jay’s really workin’ it
Dusty
September 24th, 2009
5:44 pm
Mz G,
Thanks for the bite cure. I should have tried the aspirin bit. I did slap on some hydrocortisone ointment, not that it did any good. Went to a meeting this morning and slipped my shoes off under the table. No need to suffer!! Now I’m home running around barefoot! At least I have a good excuse this time. (I like to go barefooted.)
Sorry to mention ant bites with all these good meals being mentioned. I’d better go drag something out of the freezer. Big Foot loose in the kitchen!!
whistling dixie
September 24th, 2009
5:45 pm
Normal ..An hour ago you were off to cook your culinary delight! What happened?
As far as having a drink…..ah no! Swapping recipies is not my idea of a good time/
Paul
September 24th, 2009
5:46 pm
Dusty
I’m such an optimist. But keep cheering me on!
Taxpayer
September 24th, 2009
6:01 pm
Taxpayer
Just a sec – not quite done. (we’ll get there, but it’ll just be a repeat of what I’ve often written).
Yes, you are. Because I am.
Normal
September 24th, 2009
6:02 pm
Whistlin’ when you cook, you have to take time to let the preparations breathe for flavor…sip a little Merlot, and anticipate the results…yummy!
Dusty
September 24th, 2009
6:03 pm
Public Option,
Just a few words for you. I am neither general nor ambassador as you well know. I wish we were not in a big conflict also. My father, husband and one son have all been in the military. My heart goes out to the families of the troops serving now. Just the thoughts of what can happen are torture.
Nevertheless, when we have American troops fighting for us on our orders, I support them. I hate having them in combat. I support them. I can only hope and pray that the military planners with all their information will do what is beat for our country and the current circumstances. That is the best I can do.
Perhaps you are doing what you think is right. Maybe so but I do not think that it would make even one person fighting for us feel supported. I think it is a dispicable attitude and poor use of free speech. Try and vent your anger at those who are not laying their lives on the line for us.
N.J.
September 24th, 2009
7:08 pm
Unfortunately any claims about who financed Obama can be put to rest by the fact that much more of his contributions were released and openly reported to the Federal Election Commission than John McCain’s were 90.2 percent of his contribution came from online supporters. This amounted to $656,357,572 Total PAC contributions were less than two thousand dollars (1,830) Other funding, made up 88,626,223 which was 12 percent of his funding.
32 million dollars of McCain’s money came from wealthy retired investors.
Obama totally disclosed where 90.2 percent of his campaign funds came from
McCain gave full disclosure of of 87.2 percent of where his money came from.
The PAC financing is where McCain outshone Obama almost a thousand fold in collecting money from Special Interests.
McCain on the other hand had 54 percent from individual contributions, and he took almost a thousand times as much PAC money as Obama 1,407,959 for which ZERO percent of where it came from was disclosed to the FEC. McCain also took $83,306,833 from “Other sources” which made up 23 percent of his campaign funding, most of which was non disclosed and 84,103,800 in federal funding which made up another 23 percent of his campaign funding.
N.J.
September 24th, 2009
7:22 pm
And a list of contributors shows only one Wall Street investment firm in Obama’s top five corporate contributors. All of McCains top five were Wall Street investment firms.
McCains five top contributors:
Merrill Lynch $373,595
Citigroup Inc $322,051
Morgan Stanley $273,452
Goldman Sachs $230,095
JPMorgan Chase & Co $228,107
Obama’s top five contributors:
University of California $1,591,395
Goldman Sachs $994,795
Harvard University $854,747
Microsoft Corp $833,617
Google Inc $803,436
Obama had three other Wall Street investment firms in the lower end of the top 20 contributors Mc Cain has a total of 11 or 12 out of the top 20 Contributors being investment firms or investment bankers
Merrill Lynch $373,595
Citigroup Inc $322,051
Morgan Stanley $273,452
Goldman Sachs $230,095
JPMorgan Chase & Co $228,107
Wachovia Corp $195,063
UBS AG $192,493
Credit Suisse Group $183,353
PricewaterhouseCoopers $167,900
Bank of America $166,026
Bear Stearns $117,498
Lehman Brothers $114,357
Obama had:
Goldman Sachs $994,795
Citigroup Inc $701,290
JPMorgan Chase & Co $695,13
Morgan Stanley $514,881
So it appears that McCain was far more in the pockets of Wall Street than Obama is. Obama’s largest group of contributors who contributed the most money were all education related organizations. Universities. Obama is beholden to educational institutions, McCain to Wall Street.
N.J.
September 24th, 2009
7:23 pm
Mc Cain was so beholden to Wall Street investment firms and banks that I stopped counting how many of his top contributors were on Wall Street.
Tom
September 24th, 2009
9:10 pm
The man is an imbecile. Typical of today’s military thinking. Beyond…duh.