Skip to comments.Gen. Casey: America may be in Iraq and Afghanistan for another decade
Posted on 07/10/2010 9:31:48 AM PDT by Sub-Driver
Gen. Casey: America may be in Iraq and Afghanistan for another decade Posted: July 10th, 2010 11:49 AM ET
From CNN Audience Interaction Producer Eric Kuhn
Aspen, Colorado (CNN) - The United States may still be in Afghanistan and Iraq for another ten years, according to Gen. George Casey.
America could be in conflict in the region for another "decade or so," Casey, the army's Chief of Staff, said Friday night at the Aspen Institute's Ideas Festival.
Earlier this week in Aspen, the United Arab Emirates Ambassador to the U.S., Yousef al-Otaiba, stated he thought the United States should use force to stop Iran's nuclear program if sanctions did not work.
When Casey was questioned about potential military action, he noted, "There are no good solutions and the solution may be worse than the cure."
(Excerpt) Read more at politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com ...
And Congress and the American people. The General was a bit presumptive.
We’ve been in S Korea for what....like 60 years...
Bring our troops home, every last one. Then station them on the borders. When the crazy Jihadi Arabs are dancing in the street make the whole country a parking lot. Screw NATO and human rights. These bass turds lost every one of their “human rights” when they flew planes into the WTC and killed 3000 innocent Americans. LOL sorry for the rant. But these people ought to shut up and either let our troops fight the war or bring them home.
Precisely. Gen. Casey is another poor excuse for a military leader. If the Marxist Onada slithers into another term there is no way the foreign-born Presidency Usurper will continue prosecuting the WOT.
Gen. Casey has not been heard from on the subject of Middle East ROE or “Don’t Ask, Don’t tell” policy. He’s simply one more senior militry leader who sees himself as a manager not a warrior.
It's a shame that Bush didn't make a glass parking lot out of Falujah all those years ago when they were cutting off heads and burning out soldiers alive and hanging their bodies from bridges.
He he had done that.. you would of had our enemies lining up in lines 100 miles long to surrender, and thousands of our soldiers would still be alive and our national debt wouldn't be skyrocketing, and the zero wouldn't ever have become President.
Over the last three to five years, it has come to my attention that the U. S. is no longer interested in keeping the shipping lanes open. That’s what our Navy was supposed to be there for, it’s main task.
Then the Somali pirates started taking ships in the Indian Ocean and our Navy did next to nothing about it.
Now China is actually sending a Navy contingent to the area.
So the question is, has our government been doing the very thing you mentioned in your post? Has our Navy been compromised to the point we can’t keep the shipping lanes open? Or is it just that we chose to ignore situations today that will force other nations like China to step up?
We are seeing a global military shift right before our eyes. And yet, some of my friends think this is going to bode well for us as a nation, and the planet as a whole.
When China is the go-to nation to protect the high seas, I want the folks who demanded our troops all come home, to stand up and admit to what they ushered in.
We are seeing nations build up Navy components today, that never saw the need to do so before. It’s my premise that the vacuum the U. S. has created by shrinking it’s Navy, is the real reason.
Under Reagan we had a 600 ship Navy. Today we have less than half that.
How is it already paying off? Not so good IMO.
Excellent post. All true!
And Casey is a jackass.
Oh No! Ya Think?
Been telling my friends there is no way we are leaving, at least in this generation.
Ceding ground to China, Russia and Iran is untenable.
Watching Paksitan implode is absolutely unacceptable.
Any attempt to, once again, wipe Israel from the map must and will be stopped for moral and spiritual reasons.
“Gen. Casey has not been heard from on the subject of Middle East ROE or Dont Ask, Dont tell policy. Hes simply one more senior militry leader who sees himself as a manager not a warrior.”
I don’t know about ROEs in SW Asia. However, GEN Casey, and the other service Chiefs, have all opposed repealing DADT. It is ADM Mullin, the Chair of the Joint Chiefs, that has supported repealing DADT. ADM Mullin is the “bad guy” in this particuliar case.
FR has plenty of those individuals who wish us to go on isolation status, especially now that Obama is president.
And that is exactly what is wrong with this country these days, complete and utter stupidity from the people.
The people are half the reason this country is in the state it is in, by continuing to elect idiots to office and to continue to be influenced by the MSM.
Thank you. That was certainly my first reaction. Once again, you’re right.
10 more years ? Thank you military industrial complex . Ike warned us about you 45 years ago . Did Afghanistan attack us on 9/11 ?
Iran and North Korea love news like this, as do all terrorists and dictators, worldwide.
And how can this ongoing trend, finally, be ended, for always?I’m concerned that conservatism is, actually, on its way out, because of the numbers of, both, politically ignorant voters throughout the U.S. and politically stupid voters throughout the U.S. still voting for leftists, at every political level. Also, if leftist legislation, that’s already in place as law, really can’t be undone by future, non-leftist politicians, then the left will win in the long-term.
Not one senior military officer of any service has meaningfully challenged Onada imposed ROE, DADT or the legitimcy of his presidency. All of these officers swore to uphold and defend our Constitution. That oath transcends loyalty to mere men or women occupying the Oval Office.
If you don’t understand that you understand nothing.
As for McChrystal—it remains to be seen what the Rolling Stones stunt was intended to accomplish.
“As for McChrystalit remains to be seen what the Rolling Stones stunt was intended to accomplish”
GEN McChrystal just was naive in granting that reporter access....he wasn’t attempting to accomplish anything except maybe some positive publicity for the war effort in Afghanistan. It backfired on him. He wasn’t attempting to insult President Obama. He was personally picked by President Obama as the wonderkid to do the impossible.
A TRILLION DOLLARS in reparations would be a good place to start.
Wheres the RNC ?
Casey has spoken against DADT. I’ve not seen anything from him on the current ROEs.
Casey has spoken against REPEALING DADT. I’ve not seen anything from him on the current ROEs. All 4 of the major service chiefs are on record against repealing DADT at least until the study is completed. That was reported here on FR about a month or so ago.
There’s a difference in mouthing platitudes ans saying something meaningful.
That says all I need to know about McChrystal. The man was not general officer material to start with. And it also demonstrates that the US Army senior leadership promotion system is broken. A lot of people who wrote efficiency reports about this man enabled a loon to ascend to general officer rank.
Talk about mouthing platitudes, what is this supposed to mean. He sounds like a guy who doesn't know where his sentence started by the time he gets to the end. Either that, or this is Casey Stengel rather than George Casey, for us older Freepers who remember Stengelese, or even Yogiisms.
“That says all I need to know about McChrystal. The man was not general officer material to start with. And it also demonstrates that the US Army senior leadership promotion system is broken. A lot of people who wrote efficiency reports about this man enabled a loon to ascend to general officer rank.”
GEN McChrystal was for most of his career part of the Special Ops community. They tend, of necessity, to be mavericks and cowboys. He was good in that role and quite competent up to the rank of Major General; meaning he should have been highly rated. However, above that rank you have to be something of an executive/politician. Being a warrior no longer is the important part.
He just got put into a role that exceeded his grasp of things.
On DADT, I strongly oppose repealing it....actually I would like to return to pre-DADT where even a closet homosexual was not welcome. However, President Obama has foolishy decided he is going to do this regardless of the damage.
Except for ADM Mullin, the other Joint Chiefs have opposed repeal of DADT but not to the point of forcing their resignations. IF they did, they would be forced to resign and be replaced by ADM Mullin types. They then could do nothing to slow down ill advised policy.
Contrary to popular belief, officers of the armed forces are not in the position to challenge the legitimacy of a POTUS. That would be a Coup, which is not acceptable under our Constitution. So, don’t expect senior officers to overthrow a POTUS....ain’t gonna happen. Persons aren’t going to trapple on the constitution to “save” the constitution. Court challenges are the only way...and you can see what has happened to LTC/Dr. Lakin.
Nice theory on military challenging any POTUS—let alone a usurper who has never met the Constitutional requirement for office. I agree that it would ordinarily not be in a military officer’s domain to challenge a legitimately elected president. But Onada is not. Therefore, the traditional standard does not apply. Secondly, military officers always have the right to resign if a particular policy puts soldiers at increased risk. Certainly the current ROE in Afghanistan are in that category.
Moreover, as a line officer I have a responsibility to disobey any order that puts my soldiers in greater jeapardy or at a disadvantage. Or, for that matter, is illegal, immoral or unethical. The idea that once someone dons the uniform they give up their humanity and responsibility for the soldiers under them is at best short sighted and repugnant. At worst it is cowardly.
As human beings we always have the option, right and ability to choose. Sometimes doing the right thing can be painful in the short term. But, the ultimate outcome for doing the right thing is always good.
DADT makes it possible for gays to serve in the armed forces. I have no problem with that so long as they keep their private life private. Gays have been in the military from time immemorial. During my 20 years in the Army I cannot recall a single incident where a gay person pushed him or her self on a “straight” soldier.
Most gay soldiers do not want to be seen as such—not just because of DADT—but becuase of the negative attention it would draw to them from their fellow soldiers. Only the gay activist community—which is desperate to be thought of as “normal”—is aggressively pushing their agenda.
It’s called elitist speak. At first blush they appear to have said something really cogent. But when you read or listen to it again you realize all they did was put a bunch of words together.
Remember, elitists (Marxist, fascist or libertarian) are always way smarter than you and me.
Onada’s oratory is a case in point. When you actually read what he said it makes no sense whatsoever.
“During my 20 years in the Army I cannot recall a single incident where a gay person pushed him or her self on a straight soldier.”
Well, I have been in and out of military service since 1972, both enlisted and officer, active and reserve. I am currently an officer of the USAR. I don’t know what Army you were in for twenty years, but I have seen homosexuals make advances on others. You must have not been looking too hard.
That brings up an interesting point. Seems that you have known some homosexual soldiers. If you did, why didn’t you turn them in. DADT is NOT about keeping your sexual orientation private...it is an agreement with the military that you WILL NOT engage in homosexual conduct. Under DADT, as before it, homosexual conduct is entirely prohibited. If someone was so reckless in their behavior that you found out they were homosexual...you should have turned them in. That is what an honorable “line” officer would do. Seems your concept of honor is somewhat mixed up.
I don’t have any use for President Obama. The sooner he is LEGALLY removed from office the better. However, I would never participate in ANY military attempt to remove him....that is a Coup and we don’t live in a banana republic.
In regards to ROEs. I am more sympathetic to your views. I have serious problems with fellow soldiers being endangered to keep a politician happy. Fortunately, I haven’t been placed in a command situation (meaning combat) where I had to chose. I would like to think that I would have the moral courage to put my soldiers first. LTC West did that and barely escaped court martial. He was allowed to retire. However, I’m not really sure that I can judge the rightness of a ROE...I don’t have the big picture. Whether we like it or not, civilians rule the military. The military exists to protect citizens and must remain subordinate to civilian rule. When the military, individuals or groups, make up there own ROEs....that is anarchy.