I have had about enough of the republicans repeating that Obama should listen to the generals. I heard it again today from I think it was Romneys campaign manager. When asked what Romney would do instead of having a plan about the wars his response was....now get this...."Mitt would do a total review and do what Barack Obama never does, listen to the Generals in charge" So Mitt is ducking another answer. That isn't a surprise. But what gets me is this narrative that Obama doesn't understand the military so he should follow what he is told basically. From what I hear he overrode the Generals in the killing of OBL. A real risk given the narrative and the Jimmy Carter history. Had it failed Obama would have been damn near impeached and I know he knew it.

All this is beside the point because what really riled me up was this stuff from Gen. Stanley McChrystal. Does anyone remember Vietnam and Westmoreland? Does anyone Remember MacArthur? McClellen? Now it's McChrystal. These guys will endlessly move the goal post. Remember Patreaus and the surge? This is what
McChrystal said on Thursday that the biggest problem facing the U.S. will be to create a stable, legitimate Afghan government that can serve as a counterbalance to the Taliban. What the hell? That has been the entire goal.



Look it's time to go. I don't give a rats azz what the Generals say. They are too optimistic. But Americans keep dying and in the end it will make not one ounce of difference. There is a reason the CIC is a civilian. And being advised on military maneuvers is one thing but the CIC makes the decisions. These guys keep being wrong or changing the parameters. Enough is enough.

Stanley McChrystal: Understanding of Afghanistan ?frighteningly simplistic? - Tim Mak - POLITICO.com

Than stop listening to the truth...

No one's forcing you to enter reality...You can blindly stay out of that arena for as long as you wish...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

Look, How many times have you heard a general say. Sorry but we just can't do this. About never. They are forever optimists. "Give me more troops and we can get it done". In fact here he is saying just that two years ago.
The "TRUTH" ?? The truth is now he is saying that after 10 years we are a little over half way to what he considers success and it's our fault because we really didn't understand Afghanistan. Seriously. He says we are only half way there because we didn't understand the language. The Surge was going to put us over the top.

Again , This is why you don't just simply listen to the generals. Most people who come back from fighting in these places have a couple of outlooks. They are happy to get out of there yet feel they should stay to be with their commrades. It's a natural feeling that most can understand. What makes a general different. Nothing. They don't want to leave others in the field and they don't want the deaths to be for nothing. So they often double down, It's a gut reaction we have seen play out for a thousand years. Nothing new here. Did he know anything about the soviets success in Afghanistan? The guy felt like he knew enough two years ago.

It really is time to be done with this.


Friday marks the tenth anniversary of the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. Over the past decade, more than 2,500 international troops have been killed, including nearly 1,800 American troops in the ongoing “Operation Enduring Freedom.”

McChrystal pointed out that coalition forces have lacked — and still lack a solid comprehension of Afghanistan’s situation, culture and history, and made the bleak assessment that the work is only about half done.

“We didn’t know enough, and we still don’t know enough,” he said at the Council on Foreign Relations, reports the BBC. “Most of us — me included — had a very superficial understanding of the situation and history, and we had a frighteningly simplistic view of recent history, the last 50 years.”Read more: Stanley McChrystal: Understanding of Afghanistan ?frighteningly simplistic? - Tim Mak - POLITICO.com

What a complete surprise that Romney would review a failed war effort and shockly listen to what the generals had to say. You'd think they had some expertise in war fighting or something. We are much better off with the Dear Leader's approach of "leading" with fractured diplomacy with Hillary, a special envoy, Senator Kerry, an ambassador and the VP telling Karzi each of them represents the US while the commanding general is excluded from their talks.

Of course when remarks by McCrystal's staff bruised the Dear Leader's precious ego, he fired him without bothering to ask if just maybe there was some reason for the criticism. Meanwhile we continue to handcuff our troops with hugely restrictive rules of engagement such as those in the Medal of Honor ambush that cost 4 Marines their lives when fire support was withheld.

Why should anyone want to review that?

So you are claiming the "generals" were opposed to killing UBL? Please provide quotes with attribution from these generals stating their opposition. There probably were recommendations to bomb the compound rather than send in the seals but that is not the same as sparing UBL.

I remember Vietnam, a war mismanged by the WH with hugely restrictive ROE. Sound familiar? It was a war lost due to political considerations, not military failure.

MacArthur was fired for wanting to expand the scope of the war. McClellan was dismissed, both times, after the Army of the Potomac failed on the battlefield. Both generals had extensive personal interaction with the CIC before they were fired, unlike the Dear Leader with McCrystal.

You have captured the Dear Leader's approach perfectly, ignore the generals, take victory off the table and surrender as soon as the blame can be placed elsewhere. But there is no need to review that approach, right?

Stanley McChrystal: Understanding of Afghanistan ?frighteningly simplistic? - Tim Mak - POLITICO.com[/QUOTE]

[/QUOTE]Yes, The generals wanted to bomb UBL and Obama went with the mission. It was his political capital on the line for that dicision not the generals. Look, I support the military, Generals and all. It is a good place to get information if you are CIC. Obama has done better by the military then the last administration so the idea that Obama shouldn't be CIC because he doesn't understand the military is BS. Bush, Cheney, Rice and Rumsfield all failed our military and you can list the ways. Obama has supported the military and vets more then they did and he has taken the war to the enemy more successfully. So overall Obama is a better wartime POTUS. No question about it.

There is no real end game so how in the hell can we be half way there. And what happens in ten more years? will we be 75% of the way to an ending anyone believes will happen. C'mon

I don't hate McCrystal. He is probably a real good guy who cares deeply about the men under his command but this is just getting to be a bad joke.