[golfhobo]

Okay, here's another one that I'd really like to hear opinions on. I'm sure there probably WILL be alot of partisan shots taken here... but, let's TRY to stay somewhat on topic. :lol:

What do you think of Gen. McChrystal's breach of military etiquette?

What do you think of Obama's reaction / decision?

Do you think the change will help or hinder the war effort in A-Stan?

For the record... I was originally of the opinion that Obama should decline to accept his resignation. I changed my mind, and now feel it was for the best. Details and rationale might come later. But first... what do YOU think?

[Mr. Ford95]

I thought it was funny that his own hand picked General totally dissed him and spoke his mind. He had to be taken down by Obama for that but it put Obama in a no win situation. Fire him and you further the stigma that you can't handle criticism, leave him in place and it appears your a wimp.

Back to what was said, an interview with Karzai in Afghan pretty much validated what the General said to Rolling Stone about what has gone on over there. Unfortunately, for speaking the truth and not playing the politics game of shutting his mouth, it got him fired.

[Twilight Flyer]

I'm sure there probably WILL be alot of partisan shots taken here... but, let's TRY to stay somewhat on topic.

I’ll stay on topic, Hobo, but you have to know that there will be a lot of shots taken here. I will be no exception because I believe those shots are warranted.

What do you think of Gen. McChrystal's breach of military etiquette?

It was a breach of military etiquette only because the interview was critical of the chosen one. Had it been Bush, libs would have screamed from the mountaintop how it was all about free speech and our soldiers fight and die for things like that.

All that being said, there is a time and a place for everything. His comments should have been a matter of public record on the floor of Congress, not in Rolling Stone magazine. Credibility is lost because of the venue. That’s the only issue I take with things because his words were the truth. What’s even richer about it is that McChrystal is/was a big supporter of the POTUS.

What do you think of Obama's reaction / decision?

Typical, but I agree with Mr. Ford. It was a no win situation and I’d be lying if I said I didn’t crack a smile over it. But his reaction was no surprise. The little tin god is all about control and ruling everyone and everything. Can’t be having a general making disparaging remarks about the naked emperor. I was surprised not to hear the phrase ‘Off with his head!’

Do you think the change will help or hinder the war effort in A-Stan?

I probably will be more in agreement with you on this one. I don’t know that there is any easy solution, if any, to what is going on in Afghanistan. I heard a good sound-bite the other day that really sets it up. I am paraphrasing, but it was something along the lines of: ‘That Taliban are strong and they want to win. The loyalties of the people of Afghanistan are very divided, further adding to the difficulties.’

So, whatever happens, it’s going to be business as usual with a general doing his level best to figure out what the best losing scenario is going to be. So in the end, I don’t know that it will help or hinder the war effort. I don’t see any easy solution, but then again, I’m no general, either. However, Patraeus is still probably the best one to have in charge over there.

[Windwalker]

Originally Posted by Twilight Flyer

However, Patraeus is still probably the best one to have in charge over there.

Patraeus is the only one with previous "first-hand" knowledge of the situation there. In the past, he was the general in charge of it, back during the Bush era. Seems he was replaced because of politics as well.

[GMAN]

It was a no win situation for Obama. I think that it was more what the generals aides said than what he said that got him into so much trouble. I find it ironic that he fired such an ardent supporter. There are some who still eat their young. It is a shame that Obama got rid of what has been reported to be the best, most experienced general to fight terrorism.

[Mr. Ford95]

Actually GMAN, the troops over there were against him and glad to see him fired. In their view he was handcuffing them too much which was putting our soldiers in more danger.

[ironeagle_2006]

Just been reported the FIRST thing Patraeus is doing is SCRAPPING the current Rules of ENGAGEMENT. His and this is coming from a couple buddies serving right now over in Afghanistan simple YOUR SHOT AT RETURN FIRE. YOU SEE A WEAPON SHOT THE SUCKER. No more having to call HQ to get permission to fire back. You take fire that person is DEAD. Your in a hot area your weapon is off safety and your finger is on the trigger. He means BUSINESS same thing he did in IRAQ and look how he turned that place around.

I highly doubt the Far left Loons are going to be happy with his ROE's but he has stated my job is to win WARS you win the peace after I am done. Even Karzi is celebrating that Patraeus was given command.

[GMAN]

Originally Posted by Mr. Ford95

Actually GMAN, the troops over there were against him and glad to see him fired. In their view he was handcuffing them too much which was putting our soldiers in more danger.

If that is the case, then I am glad that he is gone. The politicians need to get out of the way and allow our troops to win this war. We have NEVER won a war where the politicians have run the war. We saw that in Korea, Vietnam and now in the Middle East. Our troops deserve our support and the citizens should do everything we can to see that they have the tools they need to win this war. If they are to fight then they should be allowed to win. Troops know how to win without the constraints that politicians place on them.

[repete]

He spoke out and allowed his staff to do so also and that in itself made him responsible. It has nothing to do with etiquette it's military regulation! Plain and simple.
What I find ironic is now Gen. Petraeus is in charge and it's "wonderful choice" and Obama's a" genius" for appointing him, BUT just a few years ago Obama was on the witch hunt and Petraeus was in the sights!
Other than that I got nothing

[Mr. Ford95]

Yes GMAN, that was the case. I was reading an article yesterday that talked with the RS reporter about how his story has been received in the field since he's still out there. He said he overheard a lot of soldiers talking about how they may finally be able to defend themselves when fired upon in this guerrilla war.

Politics has gotten a lot of our soldiers killed in Afghan since McChrystal was put in charge. Politicians do not like civilian causalities, it makes them have to apologize and apologies are not in their creed. If ANY civilians were near our soldiers when they were fired upon our soldiers were not allowed to fire back. What would happen is, the enemy would pick off a few civilians and then we were getting blamed for it. Politicians thought the best way to keep that from happening and to keep them from having to apologize was to simply not fire back at all. With that, any witnesses couldn't say we killed some civilians. As soon as the enemy realized we wouldn't fire back they started stepping up their attacks on our soldiers when civilians were near.

I've also never seen politics win a war. With a new leader in Afghan this will help us start to get things back under control as long as our Govt. allows Petraeus to do what he knows how to do, kick tail. They must also give him what he needs, not tell him no. If he says he needs 30K troops, give him 30K troops, he has something up his sleeve and politics will ruin it if he's told no.