WAKE UP AMERICA
Posted on 06/27/2010 9:10:14 PM PDT by stolinsky
In the article McChrystal tells some troops that the Russians killed a million Afghans and still lost. Undoubtedly McChrystal's first priority was winning the counterinsurgency struggle with the Taliban, as much as that can be done. Part of the theory behind that seems to be that killing more civilians may result in even more military being killed and ultimately in losing the war.
That wasn't McChrystal's view though.
McChrystal put the kibosh on those plans.
The idea for the medal originated with British Maj. Gen. Nick Carter, NATO commander of troops in southern Afghanistan. Carter floated the idea during a visit to Kandahar in April by British Army Command Sgt. Maj. Michael Hall.
But McChrystal, who is leading coalition forces in Afghanistan, told reporters during a press conference at the Pentagon today that the military does not need a new medal to recognize a particular kind of valor.
The mistaken notion pushed by the media is that the General is the one who is behind this reduction of air and arty and restricted ROE. Not exactly true. The rules of engagement that everyone is so upset about - and rightly so aim was to reduce civilian deaths but NOT by reducing the protection and support of our troops to the reduction of the use of air and arty to the level it has been. That has been pushed by the Afgan Government and our State Dept. as well as NATO brass. http://tinyurl.com/25atz84
The ISAF ROEs current directives (tho we don’t know the absolute specifics out of necessity) are “…are consistent with NATO publication MC 362/1 NATO Rules of Engagement.” McC’s predecessor, McKiernan, tightened up on the ROEs via NATO orders back in Dec 2009. (Nato tightens rules of engagement) http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/09/nato. Per a Congressional Research Service Dec 2009 release about NATO in Afghanistan, the UN Security Council governs NATO’s responsibilities in Afghanistan, and the ISAF is a NATO led force. NATO generally operates strategy by committee, and no single commander calls the shots. Therefore I have to assume that any ISAF ROEs are a product of NATO rules, tempered perhaps by any additional agreement with the Karzai government. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33627.pdf However to lay them solely at the feet of McChystal is not entirely accurate.
Then he should have resign at that point!
Sorry, but I give a damn about who was pushing the directive. It caused unnecessary deaths on our side and should have been stopped when that was realized! Those that did nothing are as responsible as those that carried out the original directive.
McChrystal crossed the line in a big way. He deserved precisely what he got and received even better than he deserved. Wes “The Weasel” Clark was fired in a telephone call from the Chairman. That's about what McChrystal deserved.
Obama already owned this war. He handpicked McChrystal and signed on to the general’s COIN strategy. Obama even approved 51,000 additional troops. No, this was already Barry’s albatros with or without replacing McChrystal. After 18 months in office we are now on the third commander of Barry’s war in Afghanistan.
Endless war, a recipe for four-star arrogance
By Andrew J. Bacevich
Sunday, June 27, 2010; B01
Long wars are antithetical to democracy. Protracted conflict introduces toxins that inexorably corrode the values of popular government. Not least among those values is a code of military conduct that honors the principle of civilian control while keeping the officer corps free from the taint of politics. Events of the past week — notably the Rolling Stone profile that led to Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal’s dismissal — hint at the toll that nearly a decade of continuous conflict has exacted on the U.S. armed forces. The fate of any one general qualifies as small beer: Wearing four stars does not signify indispensability. But indications that the military’s professional ethic is eroding, evident in the disrespect for senior civilians expressed by McChrystal and his inner circle, should set off alarms.
Earlier generations of American leaders, military as well as civilian, instinctively understood the danger posed by long wars. “A democracy cannot fight a Seven Years War,” Gen. George C. Marshall once remarked. The people who provided the lifeblood of the citizen army raised to wage World War II had plenty of determination but limited patience. They wanted victory won and normalcy restored.
The wisdom of Marshall’s axiom soon became clear. In Vietnam, Lyndon B. Johnson plunged the United States into what became its Seven Years War. The citizen army that was sent to Southeast Asia fought valiantly for a time and then fell to pieces. As the conflict dragged on, Americans in large numbers turned against the war — and also against the troops who fought it.
After Vietnam, the United States abandoned its citizen army tradition, oblivious to the consequences. In its place, it opted for what the Founders once called a “standing army” — a force consisting of long-serving career professionals.
excerpt
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/page/217424_Endless_war_a_recipe_for_four-
You know that. I know that. The progressive aments in the PRNJ don’t know that. They are convinced that it is still Bush’s war and that sub Zero has performed with brilliance.
Check out the comments on www.nj.com....You’ll see what I mean. Keep your barf bag at hand at all times.
You know that. I know that. The progressive aments in the PRNJ don’t know that. They are convinced that it is still Bush’s war and that sub Zero has performed with brilliance.
Check out the comments on www.nj.com....You’ll see what I mean. Keep your barf bag at hand at all times.
I thought the following quote might be of interest. What was it Goebbels said about lies being repeated often enough?
“The House Republican Leader John Boehner and his GOP colleagues want to raise the Social Security retirement age to 70 and cut benefits in order to pay for George Bush’s war and their failed policies of the past,” House Democratic Whip James Clyburn, D-S.C., said in a written statement. “Democrats will not stand for this.” This kind of statement about Afghanistan being “George Bush’s War” from the House Democratic Whip no less....”
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.