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 presidency—whether 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 ...
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?
~SC
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?
~SC
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 we’d 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.
~SC
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.
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.