Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Congressman: Generals may quit if Obama stays pat in Afghanistan
thehill.com ^ | October 1, 2009 | Jordan Fabian

Posted on 10/01/2009 10:52:33 AM PDT by Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!

A conservative congressman said on Thursday that top generals may resign or retire early if President Barack Obama does not make a significant changes to the military's Afghan strategy.

"Sure, I think that's a legitimate concern," Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) told Washington Times Radio this morning. "If the president chooses [not to readjust the strategy] but stay there, I think you'll see that kind of a thing happen, then I think you'll see those kinds of resignations."

Ryan expressed worry that the current strategy in Afghanistan is not working. Administration officials have said they are conducting a strategic review of the conflict there. He called for the White House to enact changes quickly

(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: afghanistan; bho44; bloggersandpersonal; democrats; nationalsecurityfail; obama; obamatruthfile; obamatruthfiles; war
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-59 next last
To: Sacajaweau

COULDN’T care less. Sheesh.


21 posted on 10/01/2009 11:20:26 AM PDT by Past Your Eyes (You don't have to be ignorant to be a Democrat...but if you are...so what?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ScottinVA

The grunts should be allowed to resign as well. This idiot in the white house will produce his own version of an American holocaust with thousands of decent American soldiers dying to satisfy his dithering.


22 posted on 10/01/2009 11:39:33 AM PDT by DPMD (~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NoObamaFightForConservatives

This is not good. How many will have to resign before 0 gets the sycophants he wants in there? Sycophants that might follow orders to order their troops to shoot down citizens in the street. Martial law would be a lot easier to declare if the military is run by a bunch of 0 buttboys. Just sayin’.


23 posted on 10/01/2009 11:42:06 AM PDT by Jaxter (Si Vis Pacem Para Bellum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: norton

[I’m not aware of any attempted mutiny when they were ordered to bomb Serbia. ]

Serbia happened under Clinton, but that was before 911. Now our military would be much less likely to support Islamic regimes for any reason, which is what they would be doing if they shot down Israeli warplanes.

The “soft coup” is that Obama must know that he can’t trust his own military, thus his actions are limited within a sphere. If he says “over the top”, the troops might not charge.


24 posted on 10/01/2009 11:43:51 AM PDT by FastCoyote (I am intolerant of the intolerable.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: NoObamaFightForConservatives

They need to rise up and throw his as* out of office - he’s gone against the US Constitution and has seriously eroded national defense - he’s no President - but a dictator.

IMPEACH the National Socialist!


25 posted on 10/01/2009 11:45:58 AM PDT by BCW (http://babylonscovertwar.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NoObamaFightForConservatives
I can't imagine any general in the military that puts the welfare of his troops above rank remaining in the military. They must not have a conscience. It will be the grunts that will pay for the ineptitude of Obama.
26 posted on 10/01/2009 12:06:08 PM PDT by Nosterrex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pctech
There is no WIN WIN with Obama, he's already stated that Victory isn't his goal.
But then he has no goals. Obama couldn't plan a birthday party.
27 posted on 10/01/2009 12:10:54 PM PDT by MaxMax (Um, Ah, hmm, um, er, ah, achoo, er, um, sneeze, er, BUSH'S FAULT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: FastCoyote
The Clintons didn't trust the military either, and didn't hide it.

The armed forces swear to defend the Constitution and there is nothing in that document that disallows attacking an ally if ordered to do so.

I don't believe the US military is capable of mutiny beyond unit level and then it's unlikely.

Lastly, there is always a General Turgdson or a Major Kong around to get the job done.

PS: Yes, I know that congress also swears to uphold the constitution, but that's a different breed of cat.

PPS: In the meantime, I have fingers crossed in hope that you are correct.

28 posted on 10/01/2009 12:18:22 PM PDT by norton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: NoObamaFightForConservatives

The world is fixin’ to change again, too. At least this country. The level of instability is increasing hourly. We are rapidly approaching crisis on multiple fronts - economic, political, military, social - you name it. What specifically happens and what triggers it are totally unpredictable. What is a near certainty, IMHO, is that we will have serious crisis and a new type of breakdown within a year.

Have you all noticed how the left is using their media to set up the right to take the fall for any violence set in to motion by any of the above factors? They just don’t get the fact that they and their media mouthpieces have zero credibility with us and we are rapidly approaching the point where we would pay just about any price to be rid of them. The best scenario is that we as states just start ignoring them and their edicts.


29 posted on 10/01/2009 12:29:41 PM PDT by Neoliberalnot ((Freedom's Precious Metals: Gold, Silver and Lead))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: norton; FastCoyote
I missed your main point;
a Soft Mutiny would require that senior officers either (a) quit in advance, or (b) disobey orders and attempr to resign upon receiving the word.
They are not (yet) doing the first and would be considered beyond 'soft' if they tried the latter.
Only likely scenario would be indifference in executing the orders..."gosh, how could I have missed that shot?"
Even if that were wide spread, it only takes one Major Kong to lite the fire. (And remember that he was a good guy)
30 posted on 10/01/2009 12:29:54 PM PDT by norton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: G Larry
Rules of engagement put U.S. troops in danger

http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/stories/2009/09/30/0930york_edit.html

31 posted on 10/01/2009 12:51:57 PM PDT by Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: G Larry

http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/stories/2009/09/30/0930york_edit.html


32 posted on 10/01/2009 12:52:28 PM PDT by Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Past Your Eyes

It irritates me too, I swear there is an ever increasing tendency for people to say the opposite of what they intend to say. Grade school teachers used to have a fit when we country kids said something like, “I don’t know nothing about that”. Now people with college degrees say something similiar or even worse and not an eye is blinked, when did we stop speaking English?


33 posted on 10/01/2009 12:52:56 PM PDT by RipSawyer (Trying to reason with a leftist is like trying to catch sunshine in a fish net at midnight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: G Larry

—Bring GIs home - before job is done—

Oct. 1, 2009 12:00 AM

I never thought I would say it’s time to bring our troops home from Afghanistan before the job was done. But with President Barack Obama as commander in chief snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, I must say it’s time.

As a retired Army officer who did two tours in Vietnam, I know the futility of trying to win a war when the soldiers’ hands are tied by ineffective rules of engagement.

Obama has decided that the new rules of engagement require our troops not to engage the enemy or return fire unless they can guarantee that no civilians will be hurt or killed and that they must withdraw (retreat) when they are attacked.
Our troops are now sitting ducks who cannot fight back. This is unconscionable and either must be reversed or we must abandon Afghanistan to the Taliban and al-Qaida.

This will probably cause the fall of nuclear-armed Pakistan with the rest of the Middle East not far behind.

So much for (in Obama’s words) “a war of necessity.”

The destruction of Israel is inevitable. The domino theory is alive and well. God help us all. - David Rogers, Phoenix

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/2009/10/01/20091001thurlets011.html


34 posted on 10/01/2009 12:56:02 PM PDT by Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: MaxMax

“Obama couldn’t plan a birthday party.”
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

He wouldn’t need to. Rahm and Michelle can take care of it.
Chavez will furnish the smokes and snorts.


35 posted on 10/01/2009 12:56:34 PM PDT by RipSawyer (Trying to reason with a leftist is like trying to catch sunshine in a fish net at midnight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: NoObamaFightForConservatives

If we aren’t there to win, then bring those patriotic men and women HOME!!

It is unconscionable to require the deaths of the best of us for a political coward.


36 posted on 10/01/2009 12:57:18 PM PDT by TruthConquers (Delendae sunt publicae scholae)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BCW
"Obama has decided that the new rules of engagement require our troops not to engage the enemy or return fire unless they can guarantee that no civilians will be hurt or killed and that they must withdraw (retreat) when they are attacked."

from my last post

37 posted on 10/01/2009 12:57:44 PM PDT by Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Niuhuru

Why is the MSM not reporting that Obama's Rules of engagement in Afghanistan are killing our military guys there?


38 posted on 10/01/2009 1:11:09 PM PDT by Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: norton
I'm not aware of any attempted mutiny when they were ordered to bomb Serbia.

No and their should have been, all we did was kill Christians and establish a drug haven for Muslims.

39 posted on 10/01/2009 1:41:56 PM PDT by itsahoot (Each generation takes to excess, what the previous generation accepted in moderation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: norton
I'm not aware of any attempted mutiny when they were ordered to bomb Serbia.

No and there should have been, all we did was kill Christians and establish a drug haven for Muslims.

40 posted on 10/01/2009 1:42:12 PM PDT by itsahoot (Each generation takes to excess, what the previous generation accepted in moderation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-59 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson