Update: Obama Replaces McChrystal with Petraeus
Diane Ellis ·
Jun 23, 2010 at 10:55am
Breaking story here.
- Comment (9)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
| © 2012 Silent Cal Productions | Help • About • Contact • FAQ • Code of Conduct • Terms & Conditions • Privacy • Store • Site Map • DMCA |
Comments :
Jun '10
Re: Update: Obama Replaces McChrystal with Petraeus
Only because I said I would in another thread (and because it is so rare): The President did the right thing here, two times over. General Petraeus may be the only one with sufficient bona fides to rescue/rework the Afghanistan strategy, at least with the fighting men and women.
Bonus point: If the President succeeds in ticking off MoveOn.org ... well, that's enough Obama kudos for one day.
Re: Update: Obama Replaces McChrystal with Petraeus
Agree, Jim. He did the right think here.
Jun '10
Re: Update: Obama Replaces McChrystal with Petraeus
Aside from letting the reporter in to begin with, I think the only failure you can saddle McChrystal with is, failing to instill the proper respect for civilian authority--or at least discretion--in his aides. The aides seemed to be the ones gossiping about the chain of command--not McChrystal. Not directly anyway.
May '10
Re: Update: Obama Replaces McChrystal with Petraeus
Wait wait wait -- this means I was wrong.
Jun '10
Re: Update: Obama Replaces McChrystal with Petraeus
Amazed that the WH managed to stumble into a win in what looked like a sure no win situation. This is actually a very very good move.
Jun '10
Re: Update: Obama Replaces McChrystal with Petraeus
I don't want to throw water on everyone's fire. Petraeus,by everything I know, in all my inglorious ignorance, is our finest, most capable General. I pray for him God's speed in a successful endeavor. I am sure that sentiment is shared by all who comment here. He is mortal. Afghanistan is brutal. Our objectives are hazy...
Feb '10
Re: Update: Obama Replaces McChrystal with Petraeus
I know all the talk show guys are using this as yet another excuse to bash Obama, but I think this was a good decision. I hope Petraeus uses this chance to change the strategy in Afghanistan for the better.
Afghanistan is not Iraq. It's a different culture, a different geography, different sets of regional conflicts, and a different generational phase. Just because one strategy works in one place does not mean it's a general-purpose strategy for all conflicts that may appear similar on the surface.
Re: Update: Obama Replaces McChrystal with Petraeus
Hi etoiledunord--Your point about respect got me wondering...
Thinking about McChrystal’s loose lips today, you have to ask: is this the kind of thing that would have happened under George W. Bush? Could the commander of the president's central foreign policy operation have shown such irreverence under Bush?
I don't think so. The previous president commanded more respect from his subordinates in a way that seems to elude President Obama. The McChrystal interview shows that the military commanders in the field are less than impressed by the authority of the president they serve—a president that's extended his hand to Iran, bowed to the Japanese emperor, and, through a subordinate, apologized to China for Arizona. Obama's behavior lacks the strength that Americans have come to expect from the leader of the free world.
It would be absurd to try to justify the open gossip of McChrystal and his staff—but the frustration that clearly inspired this incident is indicative of something larger going on.
Ed Morrissey over at Hot Air hits on a similar point:
May '10
Re: Update: Obama Replaces McChrystal with Petraeus
It's not surprising, because he sees the United States as more flawed than good. He believes he represents the aspirations of "the World" rather than the interests of the country that elected him. He wants us to be "just another country" in the same way he apparently views Great Britain.