NY Times reporting “frustration” within military ranks??

Flopping Aces ^ | 10-20-09 | Mataharley

[Starman417]

I'm not sure what the bigger story is here... that the troops are feeling less than confident in their new Commander in Chief, or that this story is being reported in the New York Times.

But here it is... yesterday's byline by Elisabeth Bumiller under the Military Memo, As the Commander in Chief Deliberates, Frustration Builds Within the Ranks

A number of active duty and retired senior officers say there is concern that the president is moving too slowly, is revisiting a war strategy he announced in March and is unduly influenced by political advisers in the Situation Room.

“The thunderstorm is there and it’s kind of brewing and it’s unstable and the lightning hasn’t struck, and hopefully it won’t,” said Nathaniel C. Fick, a former Marine Corps infantry officer who briefed Mr. Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign and is now the chief executive of the Center for a New American Security, a military research institution in Washington. “I think it can probably be contained and avoided, but people are aware of the volatile brew.”

Last week the national commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Thomas J. Tradewell Sr., gave voice to the concerns of those in the military when he issued a terse statement criticizing Mr. Obama’s review of Afghan war strategy.

“The extremists are sensing weakness and indecision within the U.S. government, which plays into their hands,” said Mr. Tradewell’s statement on behalf of his group, which represents 1.5 million former soldiers.

~~~

A retired general who served in Iraq said that the military had listened, “perhaps naïvely,” to Mr. Obama’s campaign promises that the Afghan war was critical. “What’s changed, and are we having the rug pulled out from under us?” he asked. Like many of those interviewed for this article, he spoke on the condition of anonymity because of fear of reprisals from the military’s civilian leadership and the White House.

Yes... Nero is fiddling while Rome burns. Instead, the POTUS uses the excuse of the recent Afghanistan election and accusations of corruption. Funny... that didn't mean much when Iran had it's election, and Ahmadinejad's military might was killing protestors in the streets.

But since Karzai and challenger Abdullah Abdullah have a runoff election scheduled, it would seem that excuse gets flushed down the toilet.

Or is the CIC now fiddling, waiting to see the outcome? Which then begs the question, is the US support for Afghanistan contingent upon who the population elects?

Perhaps the most eyebrow raising moment in the article is the lengths the WH mouthpieces will go to defend Obama's indecision on his own "new strategy" for Afghanistan.

[forYourChildrenVote4Bush]

If this was bush, the times would have him hanging by his blls

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Are you kidding. The Slimes would be praising Bush.

[RetiredArmy]

I’ll tell you one thing, THIS IS ONE OLD RETIRED TROOPER THAT HAS ZERO, NADA, NONE, NILTCH, NO, CONFIDENCE IN THE HEAD COMMIE IN CHARGE!!! NOT ONE DANGED LITTLE BITTY BIT!!!!