jump to last post 1-19 of 19 discussions (57 posts)

Obama Relieves General McChrystal of His Afghanistan Command

  1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
    Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago

    Should President Obama have fired General McChrystal? Should we revise our approach in Afghanistan? How much longer can we allow this seemingly endless war go on? Is their a bright side to what we are doing?

    1. profile image60
      C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Yes, Obama was duty bound as the Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces to relieve Gen McChrystal.
      Yes, we should revise our approach. Fighting a non-conventional war via conventional means is wasting lives and tax payer dollars.
      According to the President we can allow it to go on until July 2011. Then we must begin to withdraw.....
      Lots of terrorist have been killed, this could be a bright side.

    2. Jeff Berndt profile image92
      Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      1) I think the President should absolutely relieve a general for speaking publicly against the administration, just as any superior officer should relieve (or at least reprimand) a subordinate who talks out of turn.

      2) Yup, I think we should. Of course, we can't go back in time to refight the battle of Tora Bora to fix that colossal blunder*. So we need to figure out just what the heck the objective is, now that Bin Laden probably isn't even in Afghanistan anymore.

      3) How much longer? Hell, it should have ended in December, 2001. I think the best thing would be to concentrate on pinpointing where Bin Laden is (Remember him? The guy we invaded Afghanistan to catch because the Taliban wouldn't give him up?), capturing him, and carting him back to the US.

      4) Is there a bright side? Well, the Taliban no longer control Afghanistan, which is a Good Thing for anyone in Afghanistan who has a uterus. Saddam Hussein no longer controls Iraq, which is a good thing for Iraq, I guess, but why we invaded Iraq I have no idea; even the guys who made the call to invade Iraq kept changing their story.

      *I'm not even sure who to blame for this...

      1. luvpassion profile image60
        luvpassionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        While it's true that Obama correctly accepted the generals resignation, it will not be with out consiquence.

        To quote Colonel Malham M. Wakin of the United States Air Force Academy faculty:

        “We are concerned, all of us, about a picture of a profession that leaves us feeling that a man must give up his rationality, his very creativeness, the source of his dignity as a man, in order to play his role as a soldier.”

        What should especially concern the contemporary Americanm, Though my husband will undoubtbly disagree with me here, In this view of the man of loyalty is (I would suggest,) a twofold sort of thing.

        First, when soldiers have in fact engrossed themselves in their jobs and obeyed orders without an opinion, they have aided in perpetrating some of the most horrible crimes in human history.

        Second, soldiers are more loyal to those that side with them on the battle field then in Washingtonl.

        So although the general's remarks in the article reflect the mindset of many in the military...his choice to air those views in public forum were good cause for the commander and chief to seek his resignation.

        1. SpanStar profile image61
          SpanStarposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Luvpassion,

          I in fact agree with pretty much all of your points as they are pertinent and relevant the only problem is as most organizations will tell you there is a time and a place to rectify or attempt to rectify a situation. So often we are told that we need to work within the system, no different here. The president used protocol when it came to dealing with the general, if the Gen. had taken the same approach most likely we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

        2. profile image0
          china manposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          This is exactly what any serviceman or woman does in service to his or her country.  The Colonel is confused as to his role and as such is ineffective and should also be removed from his position.  The armed forces of any country are there to do what they are told - when they don't they threaten the elected nature of their government.

          Every dissenting service personnel should be dumped out of the forces without any hesitation or apology.

  2. Ralph Deeds profile image69
    Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago

    McChrystal has been replaced by General Petraeus. Will he be an improvement?

    1. rebekahELLE profile image91
      rebekahELLEposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I do believe in light of everything, the right decisions have been made. It is a turning point, and difficult, but necessary.


      yes, he will be an improvement for the very reasons that General McCrystal was relieved of his position. How can a war move forward without those commanding it standing with the commander in chief? He is well-known, well respected and realizes his command is pivotal.

    2. profile image60
      C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      An improvement how?

      1. Friendlyword profile image60
        Friendlywordposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        If nothing else; it will be an improvement in maturity. The juvenile actions of General McChrstal and his team embarrassed the United States.

      2. Ralph Deeds profile image69
        Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Will General David Petraeus do a better job or take a different approach than McChrystal? My answer is that I'm sure that Petraeus won't make the mistake of criticizing the President or the White House but I doubt that he will be any more able to achieve our objectives in Afghanistan than was McChrystal. Our objectives don't strike me as realistic. (I hope I'm wrong.)

        1. profile image60
          C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Ralph, I would agree. Petraeus probably wont make the same mistake. I don't think he will make any serious changes in regards to strategy. McCrystal designed the "counter insurgency" styled strategy thats in place in Iraq and Afghanastan. On the issue of objectives. My problem is with the "Nation Building". I don't think it will work, at least not without a long term commitment to occupation...after the shooting stops. It's nearly ten years.....

          1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
            Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I'm skeptical of nation building, too. Afghanistan has never been a nation in the usual sense but rather a collection of independent, uncivilized Pashtun tribal areas.

            1. profile image60
              C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Most of the middle east is "tribal". IMO we will never achieve the level of success in "nation building" in Afghanastan as we did in Iraq. I also believe that the success' in Iraq are temporary. Once occupation is over the "reversion" will begin.

    3. profile image0
      Brenda Durhamposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Honestly, I no longer care because I can't even keep up with all the people who either have quit or been fired by the O Great Incompetent One Himself.
      I just wanna know WHO is gonna replace Obama when his 15 minutes of fame are over....

  3. Ralph Deeds profile image69
    Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago

    Speaking on MSNBC, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) called it a “historically-significant moment in the Obama presidency,” heralding Obama for a “decisive show of presidential leadership.” “This was a Commander-in-Chief,” Lieberman declared. "He found the best person to replace McChrystal."

    UPDATEThe National Review’s Rich Lowry calls Obama’s decision a “home run.” “I'm not sure how Obama could have handled this any better,” Lowry writes, adding, “In short, Obama has made the most of a rotten situation

  4. habee profile image90
    habeeposted 6 years ago

    Why didn't he use Patraeus in the first place? BO made a sound decision here.

    1. rebekahELLE profile image91
      rebekahELLEposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      habee, I thought I was already following you. that 999 just has to go!! big_smile  congrats on 1000!

    2. Flightkeeper profile image78
      Flightkeeperposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      A democrate president appoint a man who the democrats reviled when they thought Iraq was a lost cause? Ironic isn't it that he appoints this same man to fix Afghanistan.

      1. profile image60
        C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Well, because they brow beat him and he took it.

  5. SpanStar profile image61
    SpanStarposted 6 years ago

    Anyone who's served in the armed forces understands the chain of command and they are full aware that the military is not a demoncracy.  One can say what they like and even do what the like but it is with the knowledge mostly likely their will be a price to pay.  People look up to officers (supposably) and when you have the title General much is expected of you regarding protocol.

    Frankly I'm surprised at how they do what they do because I can remember back on some officer who I think was a Major-something like Major North-(you'll have to help me with this and I can't find any information on the web about) when he with held information and had to stand before congress.  A military soldiers understands that they are here to serve the country and the Commander & Chief.  It would seem that withholding information from the Commander & Chief is Disobeying A Direct Order.

    1. Uninvited Writer profile image81
      Uninvited Writerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Oliver North... let's not get started talking about him smile

  6. Flightkeeper profile image78
    Flightkeeperposted 6 years ago

    Should anyone be surprised by this news? If he didn't fire McChrystal, Obama would even be more of a laughingstock on the world stage than he is now. In the meantime, I'm wondering how long Petraeus will realize that Obama has put him in a no-win situation.

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
      Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Obama a "laughingstock on the world stage?" Suggest you do a little fact checking before expressing your partisan opinions.

      Since Barack Obama entered office, the world's view of the United States has 'improved sharply,' according to a  poll carried out by the BBC World Service.

      Nearly 30,000 people in 28 countries were asked to rate countries on their positive impact upon the world. This year 46% of the respondents rated the US's influence as positive - the first time since 2005 that the survey returned more positive votes than negative for America.

      "After a year, it appears the 'Obama effect' is real" said Steven Kull director Program on International Policy Attitudes (Pipa) at the University of Maryland, who helped conduct the poll.

      More here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/1 … 42598.html

      Obama has done a lot to improve world opinion of the U.S. which reached a new low under his predecessor.

    2. profile image60
      C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Petraeus has been broken by the Left Leaning Senate. Petraeus, won't make them look bad and he's competent. AND....GET THIS! He has publicly stated that it's time to re-address "don't ask, don't tell".

      1. profile image0
        Brenda Durhamposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Really?
        If that's true, then there ya go, you've stated the obvious.  It's all about furthering Obama's nasty agenda.   Again.
        And the fool who went around dissing America can't stand it when someone disses him or foot-in-mouth Biden.   If I were McChrystal, I'd retract my apology for the article and tell Obama to kiss my elbow!

        1. profile image60
          C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Military protocol is cut and dried. I happen to agree with McChrystals comments. I also agree that since he chose to make them public, he had to be relieved.

          1. profile image0
            Brenda Durhamposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Um...I can see your point.
            So...on that basis, do you not think that Obama should be relieved?   ...a LONG time ago?
            McChrystal didn't give out any secrets relative to national security, did he?   He simply showed his disrespect for a President who has disrespected the whole nation.
            Whatta ya call the fact that he fired McChrystal?
            I call it one more step in Obama's agenda to put the whole nation under his non-transparent thumb.

            1. profile image60
              C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              No, I don't think Obama should be relieved. He's a sitting President, duely elected by the people. Now if he does something that's impeachable, thats a different story. So far there has only been one instance of anything close....thats the issue of his staff offering jobs for dropping out of an election. Of course thats not getting attention because of Gen McChrystal and the oil spill. Then there is the Arizona issue of course.
              If you don't like him now, just wait. Cap n Trade or Amnesty will be next! There is a STRONG chance one will be done by summer's end.

              1. profile image0
                Brenda Durhamposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                One deflection after another.
                People got tired of the Bush Administration after about the 6th year??!
                This current one is practically intolerable for even 2.   Yet it sits, festering conflict in all corners of our society.  I'm beginning to think the Left are succeeding in dividing and conquering.   Reckin I should go bury my head in the sand like all the other good little fence-sitters.....

  7. Flightkeeper profile image78
    Flightkeeperposted 6 years ago

    Oh please, we could have elected an idiot for president after George Bush and world opinion would improve.  Oh that's right we have and world opinion improved.  Meanwhile the Brits are finding out that this guy ain't so hot. The Chinese premier isn't taking him seriously and Sarkozy thinks he's naive. Oh and most people in the middle east don't believe anything he has to say. That poll was taken a long time ago.  Things have changed. lol

    1. PrettyPanther profile image85
      PrettyPantherposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Yeah, he's really tanking. 

      Obama Still a Global Pop Star

    2. Ralph Deeds profile image69
      Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      You said Obama is a laughing stock. I say he has done much to repair our country's standing around the world. One concrete example is his negotiation of another step toward nuclear disarmament. Another is agreement by the Security Council to apply additional sanctions against Iran. Another is China's allowing the remimbi to float.

      As a result of Obama's pressure and policies toward Chins, China just announced that it would allow its currency to float upward which will help with our trade deficit problems.

      1. Sab Oh profile image61
        Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        " I say he has done much to repair our country's standing around the world"


        Yeah, Brazil and Turkey now respect us so much that they hopped into bed with Iran and gave us the finger while all giggling and hugging each other...

        1. donotfear profile image91
          donotfearposted 6 years ago in reply to this



          lol lol

  8. Uninvited Writer profile image81
    Uninvited Writerposted 6 years ago

    Ooh, the Chinese premier doesn't like him and psycho Sarkozy thinks he is naive? He probably dislikes him because he is taller than he is.

    Politicians will always expect a President to give them what they want, when he doesn't give into everything they want, they criticize.

    However, we are talking world leaders. It's different with the public.

    1. Sab Oh profile image61
      Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Why do you call Sarkozy a psycho? Because he is not liberal enough for you?

      1. Uninvited Writer profile image81
        Uninvited Writerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        No, because he is hype-sensitive about his height. He has said his body guards are not allowed to be taller than he is and he wears lifts. He wouldn't let people stand behind him on a platform because they were taller than him. I would call all that slightly psycho...

        http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/ju … bodyguards

        And before you say it, it has been widely reported in many sources.

        Now, HE is a laughing stock.

        1. Sab Oh profile image61
          Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Uh-huh... nothing to do with your politics then?

          ..............................

  9. Flightkeeper profile image78
    Flightkeeperposted 6 years ago

    World Sees Obama as Incompetent and Amateur
    http://www.usnews.com/articles/opinion/ … l?PageNr=2

    Here's Obama being two-faced: he goes golfing but he makes fun of Hayward's yachting weekend
    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/201 … s-yac.html

    Obama wants the G20 to spend and the rest of them say he's an idiot and will control their expenses instead
    http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-0 … flict.html

    OBAMA IS A LAUGHINGSTOCK!!!!

  10. Flightkeeper profile image78
    Flightkeeperposted 6 years ago

    Re: China floating the yuan, from CNN blogs

    "After Chinese leaders denied for months they  would cave to international pressure, the Saturday announcement by China’s central bank is widely seen as a way to defuse the issue from being raised at next week’s G-20 summit in Toronto, especially since China’s May exports shot up nearly 50 percent year-on-year. But is that the whole story?

    China is notorious for playing its cards close to its chest. In an interview with state-run news agency Xinhua in December, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao said China would “absolutely not yield” to international pressure to raise the trading value of the yuan, which the Peterson Institute for International Economics had claimed was 40 percent under its market value against the dollar at the time. Wen echoed his refusal to budge at the March Chinese parliamentary meeting.

    But now, China clearly sees an advantage to floating the yuan. Why?

    The World Bank released a report on Friday that again urged China to strengthen its currency as a way to encourage domestic consumption and reduce inflation. A stronger yuan also would cut import costs for resource-hungry China."

    Obama had nothing to do with their decision.
    http://business.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/1 … relations/

    lol

  11. habee profile image90
    habeeposted 6 years ago

    Flightkeeper, looks like you did your homework!

    1. Flightkeeper profile image78
      Flightkeeperposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Hi Habee! It really didn't take much to google for this stuff. Some people just don't want to see the situation as it is.

  12. Flightkeeper profile image78
    Flightkeeperposted 6 years ago

    By the way, it's not so different with the public.

    Confidence is waning in Obama
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 … TopStories

  13. Greek One profile image79
    Greek Oneposted 6 years ago

    Lincoln was right when he replaced McClellan

    Truman was right when he replaced MacArthur..

    and Obama was right when he replaced this big mouth who somehow forgot who his boss was

    1. lovemychris profile image80
      lovemychrisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      He should have been replaced a long time ago, when he covered up the truth about Pat Tillmans death.

      Ask Tillmans mom how she feels about McCrystal. Yeah, her son was "fighting for your freedom" too!!~!

  14. Uninvited Writer profile image81
    Uninvited Writerposted 6 years ago

    So...was that a personal attack?

  15. donotfear profile image91
    donotfearposted 6 years ago

    I still haven't read the "comments" that McChrystal made in the outstanding lol Rolling Stone magazine.  I need to read it. 

    If a military leader makes slanderous & disrespectful remarks about their commander in chief while serving under him then the logical decision would be to do exactly what was done.  On the other hand, how do you define 'disrespectful' remarks in regard to it?

    Again, I'm going to go read the actual interview.

  16. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    Uh NO...knew they were evil incarnate after 9/11, 2001.

    You got nothing on us Bush and Cheney haters Brenda...but of course, the real hate is reserved for those they work for...which is NOT the American people!

    But you didn't see it back then did you? So we had 7 more years of their particular brand of evil. Gee...thanks! For nothing!

    You want to own up to the past, then the present can be considered. One follows the other, sure as night follows day.

    Skipping a whole 8 years and setting the blame on BO will never get to the truth.

    And the truth is what we want is it not?

    1. profile image0
      Brenda Durhamposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Indeed.
      But it needs to be done now, starting in the present.
      It will do no good to keep reverting back to the past.
      For instance, Al Gore just lately got accused of sexually inappropriate behavior.  What good does it do for the woman to bring it up now?   Gore's already done enough damage over the years with his false climate-change agenda.  What's done is done.
      The woman should've pushed the charges against him years ago, held him accountable THEN.

      Obama is counting on people with your line of thought, so that he won't be held accountable at all, or at least until he's retired from his 4-year stint of tyrannizing the nation, sittin' in the Bahamas or something with his fat paycheck from American taxpayers for the rest of his life, when it will make no difference then.

      1. lovemychris profile image80
        lovemychrisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Bulloney!
        Crime is crime is crime. And the crimes that Bushco committed have NO statute of limitation!
        The reason people think they can get away with everything is because if attitudes like yours!
        You let Bush do it, how you gonna complain about Obama now?
        Had Bush been stopped, we would not be in this mess.
        And it's never too late for justice.
        FOR INSTANCE..there is a tea-bagger candidate here in Mass.
        When he was a supervising police officer 20 years ago, he let a fellow officer sexually abuse 2 teenage girls...
        It is coming up now...big time!
        20 years does nothing to erase the crime or the lesson the damage.
        He will never be a rep because of it.
        People need to be held accountable for things they do.
        ALL of them, or none.

        1. profile image0
          Brenda Durhamposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Sure thing.
          Start with the "great" Obama.  Let him show transparency and accountability for.....anything at all.....and that would be a start.

          1. lovemychris profile image80
            lovemychrisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            NO! You need to start at the beginning!

            We have all the proof we need to arrest and prosecute those former leaders for war crimes.
            That is the transparency Obama needs to show...go after them and make them accountable for all that death and horror that they inflicted.

            1. profile image0
              Brenda Durhamposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Aww....O's too busy harrassing Arizona for his own ulterior motives.

  17. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    hmmm.just heard on the news...compensation for 9/11 first responders. They are working on it now!!!
    That was 10 years ago....they are JUST NOW getting justice....what little they can get.

    It's never ever too late.

  18. MikeNV profile image75
    MikeNVposted 6 years ago

    The people who served under him supported him.  There are large numbers of Troops who are very much Anti-Obama because he is putting their lives at risk with his "rules" for engagement. 

    Each time I read another "War" article I read the comments and there are always a handful of comments from Soldiers who have served who are very much against Obama and his pathetic attempt at leadership.

    They are often sitting ducks... told not to fire until fired upon.  Reeks of the Korean and Vietnam Wars.

    There is no reason for the United States to be in Afghanistan except to keep funneling money into the War Machine and those who profit from it.

    The USA manufactured Terrorists are not all hiding out in Afghan Caves.

    The US Government keeps manufacturing reasons and the people of the United States are getting Fed up with this pretend war.  American Soldiers are dying for nothing.

    Obama of course is a pathetic liar and instead of keeping his campaign promise to end the war keeps pushing it.

  19. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    The troops supported Bush? That phony invasion?
    But they don't support it now?

    Somehow that makes NO sense.
    I thought we were going after Bin-Laden, and then diverted to Iraq for...????
    How is it they supported that?

 
working