Skip to comments.Obama Can't Outsource Afghanistan- George Bush succeeded by talking to his generals regularly
Posted on 10/01/2009 8:14:47 AM PDT by opentalk
So our top commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, has told CBS's "60 Minutes" that he has spoken with President Barack Obama only once since June.
This is a troubling revelation. Right now, our commander in chief is preparing to make one of the most important decisions of his presidencywhether to commit additional troops to win the war in Afghanistan. Being detached or incurious about what our commanders are experiencing makes it hard to craft a winning strategy.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
I have a sneaking suspicion that “O” has difficulty talking to MEN
Why not ? He’s outsourced just about everything else so far.
He can take US tech's playbook and outsource the war to India. They're in the neighborhood and can take all their incompetent engineers and turn them into soldiers.
You mean MEN of Character?
How exactly did GWB succeed? OBL is still at large. That is not a success.
I don’t think the PResident needs to have a regular discussion with his generals.
But I think the President NEEDS to hear his General SPEAK to him every month or so, so the General can be sure that the PResident is getting the truth of the war, unfiltered by political hacks.
Bush LISTENED TO the Generals. That’s what I want from any President.
Where is bin Laden?
In another article “burned by Obama”, His administation is not listening to economic advisors either. Has is own agenda.
Using that analogy, we didn’t win WWII unless we captured Hitler.
The object of war is not to catch every leader of the opposition, it is to defeat the enemy army, and to prevent them from being able to inflict harm on your people.
Anybody can go into hiding. It took us years to find Saddam Hussein even when we had control of his country — but we had defeated his government long before we caught him.
He’s more hands on trying to secure the Olympics for he and his Chicago cronies.
The commander in chief is abdicating his RESPONSIBILITIES.
Zero is simply another Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson without the ebonics lingo.
Leaving aside the argument that OBL is most likely dead, and has been for some years. Contrary to what the left says, getting OBL is NOT a measurement of success, it is just an outcome; one of many. Dislike Bush all you want; Lord knows there are enough reasons, his strategy of engaging Al Queda forces gutted them in Iraq, Afghanistan and around the world. Their capabilites have been curtailed, their leadership has been killed, and the most best and brightest of their fighters were wasted in battles fought far from the American homeland.
Now, all that is truly being squandered by the Democrats and the Pres—ent in Chief through a half assed strategy that doesn’t look towards victory and ROEs that get US servicemen killed..
Even the Selective Service registration form that Zero made available appeared to be fraudulent.
OBL is a dead as Elvis Presley.
A voice on a tape is no proof of the continued existence of either person.
I was saying, the anti-Military and anti-patriot types who support “O” are NOT my idea of MEN....
When I think of MEN in my mind they all have to measure up to my father and brother.
Neither one of them EVER did or would bash the US or the Military or would suffer anyone to do THAT kind of thing in their presence.
“I have a sneaking suspicion that O has difficulty talking to MEN”
I think you just may be right!
Cool...another noob troll
OBL may be dead. However, the proof that he is alive out weighs any proof that he is dead, does it not?
As a command model, I'd call that one "Listener in Chief." I want my president to be the Commander in chief, which means that the president is engaged in a two-way conversation.
At the very least, the president is responsible for making the large, strategic decisions, and to do so he needs to be asking questions and giving direction ... not just "listening."
Perhaps my view on this is skewed by the fact that I'm currently reading Churchill's WWII memoirs. He was -- rightly so -- deeply involved in what his generals were doing. The lesson one takes away from Churchill's approach is that there's a delicate balance between being the Commander in Chief, and letting the generals do their jobs.
Only a president who is intimately involved could possibly have the insight to distinguish between matters he must handle and decide on himself; and matters that are better left to the generals.
Obama, of course, has absolutely no context or background from which to draw -- he's lost and naive, as his egregious UN speech so forcefully showed.
So, in effect, we're presently without a real Commander in Chief, no matter if he begins to take notice or not. Longer term, however, even a president as inexperienced as Obama must play the game; it's the only way left for him to gain the necessary insight.
How in God's green earth can you make a corrupt community organizer into a Commander In Chief when he has no interest on his own initiative to be involved in this war??
The only thing a trip to Afghanistan will do is burn up a lot of fuel in ScareForce One. Zero could care less about Afghanistan! He has already proven this by his involvement since being elected. There is only one thing a trip could do and that is provide his lapdog media a tingle in their legs.
Cool...another noob troll
I have been posting here for months, and I am not a troll.
Is that how you debate the topic?
“If you can’t win on the merits, by all means, insult the opposition.” LMAO
Now, would you like to try again?
OBL is still at large. How do you define that as a success?
Name one war that was won in modern history by capturing the leader???
Obama explained that. He said its not an American battle but a NATO one. So we should put a Belgian in charge or something.
I don’t believe I want the President to be giving direct inputs to the generals in monthly conversations. I want the President to get the facts from the mouth of the generals, and then have the discussions with the joint chiefs and his secretary of Defense, and then issue orders which are passed down to the generals through the chain of command.
And I don’t mind the President issuing those orders directly and personally to the Generals, I just don’t think the relationship should be one where there are monthly two-way discussions with the Generals — it seems that would be too interfering. The President is the “Commander in Chief”, but only rarely does the President have enough personal knowledge to tell a General how to do his job.
I don’t want the President micro-managing the operations of the war.
I hope this clarifies my position.
“...his strategy of engaging Al Queda forces gutted them in Iraq, Afghanistan and around the world....”
GWB’s strategy? I don’t think so. The surge strategy is not GWB’s strategy. In fact, had GWB listened to Gen Shinseki at the outset of the Iraq war, we would have been out of there by now.
Also, I don’t dislike GWB. I do think he was surrounded by idiots who he relied upon for advice. However, that is a common problem with our leadership these days. We don’t have any real leaders stepping up.
But hey...I can’t say I blame all the natural leaders for choosing not to step up. Just look at how the left destroys anyone who does.
If we’d gotten OBL 09/12/01, would you have argued against wiping out the Taliban and AQ in Afghanistan?
Do Panama and Grenada count?
Name one war that was won in modern history by capturing the leader???
I see what you are saying, but the fact that the mission statement has been changed from bringing justice to those who facilitated 9/11 to what has become a nation building campaign makes your question unanswerable.
Had we killed or captured OBL when Delta forces were within a few hundred meters of his location, then the US could have dropped a copy of the US Constitution off in Kabul and pulled out, declaring victory.
Seems to me when Bush tried to define it that way he was smacked down, remember the "wanted dead or alive" comment he was ridiculed for? Now all of the sudden it defines his success in Afghanistan? That's the lib's position and by your post, your position too.
We didn't kill Hitler nor did we even demand Hirohito show up to surrender Japan...I guess we weren't successful in WWll by your logic.
If you don't want to be accused of being a noob troll, don't post like one.
If wed gotten OBL 09/12/01, would you have argued against wiping out the Taliban and AQ in Afghanistan?
The Taliban are not Al Qaeda, but no I would not. At the time, I was fully prepared to fight the war.
Let me ask you this. How long does it take to kill or capture this guy? We got Saddam in about a year, right?
Here is my honest opinion about the war in Afghanistan. Get OBL by next fall or get the hell out.
Forget about the nation building.
Seems to me when Bush tried to define it that way he was smacked down, remember the “wanted dead or alive” comment he was ridiculed for? Now all of the sudden it defines his success in Afghanistan? That’s the lib’s position and by your post, your position too.
We didn’t kill Hitler nor did we even demand Hirohito show up to surrender Japan...I guess we weren’t successful in WWll by your logic.
If you don’t want to be accused of being a noob troll, don’t post like one.
So, according to you, debating the topic is trolling. Got it.
You disagree with my position, and I am a troll. Got it.
Now that I understand you debate style Ron, I will remember to ignore your posts from now on.
George Bush succeeded in Afghanistan by sending in the CIA and Special Opps to secure a tribe by buying their friendship. Once they established that, they used that Tribe along with our own troops to create a front with the neighboring tribe and bought them out as Al Quida and the Taliban would move to the next tribe. We did this throughout the entire country until we had Osama holed up in Tora Bora and started negotiations to buy out the tribe in that area while Osama, Al Quida and the Taliban crossed over into Pakistan. Since then we have been guarding what we paid for while the tribes have spent all their money and have let the Taliban creep back into their areas. Since we don't have any more money to buy tribal friendships, maybe we should get out while we can still afford to get our troops home. Bush did talk to his generals on a regular basis, but he succeeded by buying tribal alliances.
But not surprising.
There are no fellow Communists in our military that Barry could have a conversation with based on the common ground of workers' struggles, the evils of American imperialism, and racism.
Victory is not in Barry's vocabulary when it comes to America.
You funny....I just debated your points with my post and you neglected to debate my points in your reply, you're quite the debater.
Your position is that of the left and you can't support it and get upset because you don't like my style calling you out, lol.
Let me tell y’all a little something about myself.
When it comes to the question of sending our finest to die in a foreign land, I don’t have a political side. I don’t give a rat’s hind end what side you are on. Don’t be wasting my buddies for your political gain or to build nations, and I don’t care if your name has a D or an R.
That is pretty darn simple. No unnecessary blood.
I want to see OBL’s head on a platter, but I do not want to try and build a country in Afghanistan. That place is nothing but worthless tribal back country.
Get OBL, let the Afghans have a copy of the US Constitution and get our boys home.
It does... thanks for expanding. I agree with you.
In analyzing and in criticizing-indeed, in understanding his motivation- the commander in chief's handling of the war in Afghanistan we ought to make sure we understand Obama's own calculus.
For the first time in the history of the Republic it is not unthinkable that we have a commander-in-chief who does not consciously pursue a policy which he believes to be in the best interest of the United States of America. The first time in the history of the Republic we may have a commander-in-chief who does not want to Republic to prosper with the operating system, the constitutional system, that he inherited from generations of presidents before him. In fact we have a distinct possibility that the commander-in-chief regards changing the governing system in America to be the highest priority and he views the war in Afghanistan in the context of advancing or retarding the change in our governing system he seeks.
There is a second calculus to consider. If Obama is as narcissistic as many claim, the first question Obama will ask himself concerning pursuing the war in Afghanistan will come long before he asks himself what is in the country's national interest and even before he asks himself how this might advance or retard the revolution he seeks, he will ask himself how does this reflect on the image of Barak Obama? If Obama is truly a narcissist this equation is one which he cannot put aside because he is psychologically compelled to look at the world through the prism of his own solipsism. I for one cannot judge whether he is such a narcissist but it is plain that the evidence mounts daily which increasingly confirms the judgment which must be drawn from his biography, his associations, and his own pronouncements that he is a man driven by his own ego.
So when the president of the United States decides whether to surge or not to surge in Afghanistan the dismaying reality is that the interests of the country will be counted no better than third place. Small wonder that the president has not talked to his field general but once. For Obama the decision is not a military one but an ideological one, or a psychological one. If Obama decides to surge it will be to advance Barack Obama or at least to avoid damage to the public image of Barak Obama for a military fiasco. If he elects not to surge the motivation will be that he must maintain his image with his home base.
This is a helluva way to wage war and a disgraceful way to sacrifice American lives.
If OBL was alive he would have been made White House tsar in charge of Terrorist Outreach.
You crack me up Deb. :D