"The wimps in the White House"

[Michael Hogan]

From guardian.co.uk

by Matthew Weaver

Tuesday 22 June 2010

Excerpt:

General Stanley McChrystal, the US commander of all Nato-led forces in Afghanistan, has issued a pre-emptive apology for criticising

Barack Obama's administration in a magazine profile due to be published later this week.

McChrystal told Rolling Stone magazine that said he felt "betrayed" by the US ambassador to Kabul, Karl Eikenberry. One of his aides revealed

that McChrystal was "disappointed" by his first meeting with an unprepared Obama.

Today, McChrystal issued a statement offering his "sincerest apology" for the comments and the profile. "It was a mistake reflecting

poor judgment and should never have happened," he said.

The statement adds: "Throughout my career, I have lived by the principles of personal honour and professional integrity. What is reflected

in this article falls far short of that standard."

According to the article, due to be published on Friday, although McChrystal voted for Obama, the two didn't get on from the start.

And Obama felt McChrystal was too outspoken last autumn when he called for more troops to be sent to Afghanistan.

"I found that time painful," McChrystal admitted in the article. "I was selling an unsellable position."

Obama agreed to deploy an extra 30,000 US troops but only after months of dithering that many in the military found frustrating.

The troop commitment was coupled with a pledge to begin bringing them home in July 2011, setting what strategists advising McChrystal

regarded as an arbitrary deadline.

Full article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/22/stanley-mcchrystal-apologises-rolling-stone

[Terry Mauro]

American soldiers are dying in Afghanistan, fighting an enemy that thrives on the opium trade, that the President refuses to target," LaRouche declared. "That kind of policy is tantamount to treason, and warrants the President's immediate impeachment. It cannot be tolerated."

LaRouche also called for the immediate dismissal of Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, who has been pivotal in the disastrous Obama policy.

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2010/3714lar_demands_impeach.html

[Michael Hogan]

This story's gonna have legs.

http://www.democracyarsenal.org/2010/06/the-four-reasons-why-obama-has-to-fire-stan-mcchrystal.html

[John Simkin]

This story's gonna have legs.

http://www.democracyarsenal.org/2010/06/the-four-reasons-why-obama-has-to-fire-stan-mcchrystal.html

It reminds me of the conflict between Harry Truman and General Douglas MacArthur in April 1951:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAtruman.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAmacarthur.htm

[Greg Burnham]

McChrystal's behavior mimicks the insubordination of General Walker toward JFK. Granted, Walker never apologized like McChrystal did; and while his comments lack the vitriolic severity of Walker's ill conceived bloviations, still he was completely out-of-line. He needs to come home and keep his mouth shut, in my opinion, or face even worse consequences. It's probably too late for that already--there should be worse consequences than simply being allowed to "come home" I would think.

The military can never be allowed to form or influence policy due to their having directly communicated with the public. The military is the means by which policies--that were decided by civilians--are implemented. The military is not--and should never be--a maker of policy.

The President, whoever that might be at any given time, needs to be advised, and even influenced, by the best minds in the military. However, whenever a member of the Armed Forces, particularly a "ranking" officer, begins to attempt to influence policy through the application of "political perception" pressure--it is cause for grave concern, IMO.

Edited June 22, 2010 by Greg Burnham

[Jack White]

McChrystal's behavior mimicks the insubordination of General Walker toward JFK. Granted, Walker never apologized like McChrystal did; and while his comments lack the vitriolic severity of Walker's ill conceived bloviations, still he was completely out-of-line. He needs to come home and keep his mouth shut, in my opinion, or face even worse consequences. It's probably too late for that already--there should be worse consequences than simply being allowed to "come home" I would think.

The military can never be allowed to form or influence policy due to their having directly communicated with the public. The military is the means by which policies--that were decided by civilians--are implemented. The military is not--and should never be--a maker of policy.

The President, whoever that might be at any given time, needs to be advised, and even influenced, by the best minds in the military. However, whenever a member of the Armed Forces, particularly a "ranking" officer, begins to attempt to influence policy through the application of "political perception" pressure--it is cause for grave concern, IMO.

Exactly, Monk.

How about Patton?

Jack

[Jack White]

Breaking: General Stanley McChrystal tenders his resignation - Telegraph By Toby Harnden A senior Capitol Hill source tells me that General Stanley McChrystal had tendered his resignation to President Barack Obama and that the White House is actively discussing a replacement who could be quickly confirmed by the Senate. The source said that among the names being touted as possible successors are General James Mattis, the outgoing head of the US Joint Forces Command and due to retire after being passed over as US Marine Corps commander, and Lieutenant General William Caldwell, commander of Nato’s Training Mission in Afghanistan. Of course, offering to resign is not the same as actually resigning and it remains to be seen whether Mr Obama will accept the resignation.

[Michael Hogan]

This story's gonna have legs.

http://www.democracyarsenal.org/2010/06/the-four-reasons-why-obama-has-to-fire-stan-mcchrystal.html

It reminds me of the conflict between Harry Truman and General Douglas MacArthur in April 1951:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAtruman.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAmacarthur.htm

Writing for The Huffington Post, David Colbert presents an interesting article on the Truman - MacArthur conflict.

Colbert quotes liberally from Merle Miller's book Plain Speaking: An Oral Biography of Harry S. Truman.

Miller's book was the subject of controversy. Another historian with a book of his own on Truman, Dr Robert Ferrell,

claimed that Miller had fabricated many of Truman's quotes.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-colbert/harry-truman-talks-about_b_621832.html

[John Simkin]

Writing for The Huffington Post, David Colbert presents an interesting article on the Truman - MacArthur conflict.

Colbert quotes liberally from Merle Miller's book Plain Speaking: An Oral Biography of Harry S. Truman.

Miller's book was the subject of controversy. Another historian with a book of his own on Truman, Dr Robert Ferrell,

claimed that Miller had fabricated many of Truman's quotes.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-colbert/harry-truman-talks-about_b_621832.html

Another article on the Truman/MacArthur connection:

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2010/062210d.html

[Christopher Hall]

We certainly have a rich tradition of wimps in the White House.