Posted on 06/24/2010 7:40:55 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
Why would General Stanley McChrystal give that kind of access to a lefty rock-n-roll magazine? Maybe because he's a kindred spirit who felt the need to assure Rolling Stone's Michael Hastings that he voted for Obama — even against McCain, a military legend who shares McChrystal's transnational progressive outlook.
"Now it can be told," elaborates Marc Ambinder at the Atlantic "The story about [McChrystal] voting for Obama is not contrived. He is a political liberal. He is a social liberal. He banned Fox News from the television sets in his headquarters. Yes, really."
Yes, really. The revealing Rolling Stone profile also tells us that the general "banned alcohol on base [and] kicked out Burger King and other symbols of American excess." (Recall the very similar Obama edict that American forces not fly the Stars and Stripes at their base during their humanitarian mission in Haiti — a self-loathing trend that has also taken hold on college campuses.) Even McChrystal's undoing here — ironically, by Rolling Stone, not Fox News — is, as VDH suggested yesterday, attributable to a disturbing contempt for authority and decorum that McChrystal and his top aides made little effort to conceal from Hastings. (Byron has more on that, here.)
I got in some hot water here last year for arguing that Gen. McChrystal, for all his undeniable valor, is a progressive big-thinker who has been conducting a sociology experiment in Islamic nation-building. It's a flawed experiment that assumes Afghan Muslims will side with us — i.e., the Westerners their clerical authorities tell them are infidel invaders and occupiers — against their fellow Afghan Muslims.
(Excerpt) Read more at corner.nationalreview.com ...
You may find yourself in a beautiful house, with a beautiful wife ... And you may tell yourself, “This is not my beautiful house”
Pretty rich irony, isn’t it? Obama fired a progressive general who voted for him, and replaced him with Bush’s general. I dropped by DU briefly, and they Were Not Pleased.
So it appears that Obama was forced to sack someone who emulated his liberalism. This is just bizarre.
>> Maybe because he’s a kindred spirit who felt the need to assure Rolling Stone’s Michael Hastings that he voted for Obama — even against McCain, a military legend who shares McChrystal’s transnational progressive outlook.
McChrystal, like McCain, is a sh!thead. What more need be said?
It’s my understanding that they took out all the eating “establishments” except for the chow hall. That was good for morale, right?
Same song was going through my head.
Glad I’m not the only one :)
December 11, 2009
Rules Of Engagement Are A Dilemma For U.S. Troops
Partial Transcript:
MONTAGNE: So, in being very, very careful about shooting at what they absolutely believed to be insurgents, they ended up, in effect, losing these guys. How did that make them feel?
BOWMAN: Well, they weren’t happy at all. And some of them stormed out of this command center. And we talked with one of them afterwards. This is Lieutenant James Wendy(ph).
Lieutenant JAMES WENDY (U.S. Marines): There’s no way that anyone other than the enemy would’ve been injured.
BOWMAN: So, why weren’t you allowed to shoot?
Lt. WENDY: Honestly, I don’t know. I’d like to say I wish we could play by the big boy rules, you know, but, you know, it’s just the way it is. And if I had known how frustrating it’d be and was able to better prepare myself for that mentally, I think that maybe I would’ve been better off.
MONTAGNE: What about the military leaders? Is it reaching the top? Are they hearing these complaints about these rules of engagement that are so restrictive?
BOWMAN: You know, they are hearing these complaints. And I had a few minutes this week with their overall commander, General McChrystal, and I told him the same story, Renee, I told you. And I asked him about the rules of engagement. Here’s what he had to say:
General STANLEY MCCHRYSTAL (U.S. Commander, Afghanistan): I’ve been at this a long time now, since 9/11, and there were a tremendous number of times when I’ve seen activities done, which, on the surface of what was seen, looks exactly one way, looks completely convincing. And then in the aftermath, what you saw was incomplete. In fact, what we find is civilian casualties who are unarmed civilians.
I think when we err on the side of maturity and caution, there is a cost. And I know that we’re asking an extraordinary amount from them to operate with such restraint and self-discipline, but I think it’s how we win the war.
BOWMAN: So, that being said, there’s still a widespread frustration among the troops, of feeling that their hands are tied in going after insurgents.
No; I did not see a single thread on that. I know progressives are supposed to be for open borders, but I will say this. A LOT of DUers are out of work. They are in pain, just as is any other person who really, really needs a job. I’m not sure amnesty by fiat will be all that popular even at DU.
Otoh, if it is unpopular, they won’t dare to say so. DU is operating under new draconian rules that sternly forbid criticizing Obama. They are walking on eggshells right now, and none of them are liking it all that much.
The night before the general is scheduled to visit Sgt. Arroyo’s platoon for the memorial, I arrive at Combat Outpost JFM to speak with the soldiers he had gone on patrol with. JFM is a small encampment, ringed by high blast walls and guard towers. Almost all of the soldiers here have been on repeated combat tours in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and have seen some of the worst fighting of both wars. But they are especially angered by Ingram’s death. His commanders had repeatedly requested permission to tear down the house where Ingram was killed, noting that it was often used as a combat position by the Taliban. But due to McChrystal’s new restrictions to avoid upsetting civilians, the request had been denied. “These were abandoned houses,” fumes Staff Sgt. Kennith Hicks. “Nobody was coming back to live in them.”
One soldier shows me the list of new regulations the platoon was given. “Patrol only in areas that you are reasonably certain that you will not have to defend yourselves with lethal force,” the laminated card reads. For a soldier who has traveled halfway around the world to fight, that’s like telling a cop he should only patrol in areas where he knows he won’t have to make arrests. “Does that make any f–king sense?” Pfc. Jared Pautsch. “We should just drop a f–king bomb on this place. You sit and ask yourself: What are we doing here?”
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/mcchrystals-real-offense-96873364.html#ixzz0rpXAhumH
Who wrote the ROE?
McChrystal
Wrong
Heh, maybe Patreaus will change the rules of engagement and dare the libs to come after him.
Yes. He did.
Obama is in a pretty horrible spot with Afghanistan. I don’t think he cares anymore. He just wants things turned around because otherwise Afghanistan becomes not Bush’s Vietnam but his.
McChrystal's boss
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.