The McChrystal decision
A few new and interesting tidbits on the decision process:
(1) it was made quickly, in near-record time for the usually Hamlet-like Obama
(2) Secretary of Defense Gates initially advised against it, because he believed that McChrystal was vital to the war effort
(3) Obama’s audience with McChrystal lasted a mere 30 minutes
(4) although ostensibly the decision as to who would replace McChrystal was not made till after the firing/resignation, Petraeus was already waiting in the White House Situation Room
I offer the further observation that it is deeply ironic that Obama has chosen General Petraeus in order to implement an Afghan equivalent of the surge that Senator Obama criticized so heavily and so long in Iraq (including disapproval of Petraeus’s decisions)—despite, and even long after, its success there. When it was politically expedient, Petraeus was no good. Now that Obama needs him—well, politics makes strange bedfellows.
I enjoy the irony of listening to the Obama supporters (MoveOn.org) who vilified Petraeus as Betrayus now looking to Petraeus to save Obama’s bacon in Afghanistan. There is one big potential problem—David Petraeus’s health. Rumors in military circles are that Petraeus is battling prostate cancer. When he passed out last week during a Congressional hearing it was something more than just being “dehydrated.” Whether or not he is physically up to the task of taking over McChrystal’s job remains to be seen.
Neo:
You assessment is extraordinarily polite. Ironic is the least of what it is. From where I sit it is a healthly helping of Barack Obama’s gross dishonesty and false public posturing. Gibbs (Sauron’s Mouthpiece) stated beforehand that all options were on the table. Do you honestly believe that Obama went into his meeting with McChrystal with his mind not made up. More likely it was not disimilar to his meeting with Netanyahu. Hell, any meeting for that matter. Obama listens to others for the mere sake of being able to say he did.
Saul Alinsky is probably the only person Obama would give a real listen to.
When it was time to make the decision to go to war or not, the Democrats voted for war. Including current VP Biden and SoS Clinton.
When we were hip deep in the war, and it was hard going and unpopular, these same Democrats exploded in temper tantrum, opposing the war they voted for at the worst possible moment.
And they opposed the surge, and were proven wrong when it worked.
They howled that Bush lied, but in their two years controlling both houses never really pushed the issue. If Bush did lie to get us into war, impeachment would be a reasonable result. But they never really pushed it, realizing that they were the ones who were lying all along.
It was a snap decision by Obama; he puts more thought into what to have for lunch than any military decision.
The wars are just distractions to Obama, like the gulf mess (although Obama has now decided to use it to maximum advantage).
Obama, along with much of his idiotic voter base, forgot what happened 2 years ago. He only looks five minutes ahead and forgets anything more than five minutes in the past.
Since someone, somewhere did not treat Obama with the respect that a dictator is accustomed to, someone was going to have to pay – and quickly.
Now the thinned skinned Obama can go after some other malcontent.
War? What war?
I’ve been hearing/reading more than a few pundits who think that appointing Prateus to Afghanistan means that Obama will have to (or now has a reson to) revise his July 2011 pullout deadline. The question of the day is what if he doesn’t? I’m getting the feeling that everything moved so fast because the administration wanted to get this whole episode behind them as quickly as possible, so as to stay on schedule. Expect to hear a lot of people say that Prateus’ confirmation needs to move though the senate as quickly as possible, perhaps even forgo the traditional hearings.
it is deeply ironic that Obama has chosen General Petraeus
not really, read catechism of a revolutionary.
he has no loyalty to anything except one thing. so there are no actual positions to take of merit, just positions to take as moves on a board. whatever any minute calls, is what it is. no point has any meaning in any other context than to win.
hows that for a peek into something that no one wants to look at and learn.
this is the implication of no morals, and pragmatism.
its a sociopaths view of the world where everyone, including yourself are puppets and objects to be maneuvered by cause response playing.
if you take the time to understand this, then everything done over the past 200 years makes a heck of a lot of sense.
if you dont, and you try to align their actions to your way of thinking, your going to be confused, or try to explain it in wrong terms.
worst of all, you wont predict them.
however if you get them, then predicting them is easy. their positions are not secret, but unconscionable!!! (and so are available to be occupied and owned without competition)
it is deeply ironic that Obama has chosen General Petraeus
not really, read catechism of a revolutionary
he has no loyalty to anything except one thing. so there are no actual positions to take of merit, just positions to take as moves on a board. whatever any minute calls, is what it is. no point has any meaning in any other context than to win.
hows that for a peek into something that no one wants to look at and learn.
this is the implication of no morals, and pragmatism.
its a sociopaths view of the world where everyone, including yourself are puppets and objects to be maneuvered by cause response playing.
if you take the time to understand this, then everything done over the past 200 years makes a heck of a lot of sense.
if you dont, and you try to align their actions to your way of thinking, your going to be confused, or try to explain it in wrong terms.
worst of all, you wont predict them.
however if you get them, then predicting them is easy. their positions are not secret, but unconscionable!!! (and so are available to be occupied and owned without competition)
See? Obama *CAN TOO* act quickly and decisively (when him’s pwecious wittle ego has been bruised).
Hmmm.
It may have been a change in the works that the magazine article helped along.
It may have been done to put Petraeus on the Iranian eastern front this summer.
I think this may have more to do with the troops massing on the border of Azerbaijan and Iran, and the beefed up presence of US naval ships in the gulf in the last month.
I don’t know how to do HTML, sorry. It’s cut and paste time.
Iran on war alert over “US and Israeli concentrations” in Azerbaijan
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report June 23, 2010, 1:23 PM (GMT+02:00)
http://www.debka.com/article/8868/
US-led armada secretly drilled bombing Iranian targets, missile defense with Israel
DEBKAfile DEBKA-Net-Weekly June 21, 2010, 6:54 PM (GMT+02:00)
http://www.debka.com/article/8866/
Ahmadinejad Warns Karzai against an Afghan-Based US Strike on Iran
http://warsclerotic.wordpress.com/2010/03/13/ahmadinejad-warns-karzai-against-an-afghan-based-us-strike-on-iran/
Is Israel Staging War On Iran Through Saudi Arabia?
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7019093606
What’s really unfortunate is that Petreus has been taken away from the work he was doing in the Pentagon which, one might assume, invovled preparing the rest of the military for the twenty-first century.
Michal’s links are the real story. The movement of troops and weaponry encircling Iran and the coordination of training and operations with Israel is very good news. Even if the move is a bluff, it’s a good one.
Even if it means that Obama scores a victory, I hope it is more than a bluff. I think it is the last thing Obama really wants to do, but he may envision that a bold stroke might resurrect his tattered image. It’s somewhat reminiscent of Hitler– a reliance on the bold move which turns everything around at once.
It will be interesting to see how our European allies respond. If they distrust Obama, they may pull out their troops.
I’ve been wondering if McChrystal did this deliberately to cement President Obama to Petraeus’s requirement that troops only be withdrawn as conditions permit.