http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/105021-reports-mcchrystal-out-
President Barack Obama said Wednesday that he had accepted Gen. Stanley McChrystal's resignation as commander of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, The Hill has confirmed.
Obama has selected Gen. David Petraeus to replace McChrystal.
Watch CBS News Videos Online
If the player doesn't work, try this link:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6610940n
This is strange for two reasons.
First, prior to the meeting, McChrystal and the Pentagon both denied that McChrystal had submitted his resignation. Then he suddenly resigned... we're told. So although the "official" story for the history books is that the General resigned, in reality he was fired from his job. I'm telling you, this President and this administration do NOT deal well with dissent.
Granted, McChrystal was out of line for his comments... top military brass are supposed to be apolitical. And he wasn't. So he deserved some form of punishment. But with everybody from the troops all the way up to higher-ups in Afghanistan saying they wanted McChrystal to remain in charge, this is something of a surprise. But like I said, you don't cross THIS President... the vindictiveness level is pretty high.
Second, the selection of a replacement General is puzzling. I remember General Petraeus from when Bush was President. And I also remember what the liberals called him then. They called him "General Betray Us." Now, suddenly, he's a great guy and the right General just because PresBo is in charge? This I do not understand.
So that's what is happening, and those are the aspects that I find interesting and puzzling.
Taking it a little far on this one. McChrystal would have been fired no matter the President. As far Petraeus, I figure its to try and get some of that surge magic going in Afghanistan, no matter that its an entirely different situation.
ReplyDeleteI will offer this observation. McChrystal and his staff were awful stupid to let a reporter in and discuss in such a manner this comments. This is stuff that political figures do...not Generals or their staff.
ReplyDeleteSecond, Eisenhower had no armchair quarterbacks making comments night after night, or influencing the President to call and shift to plan B or plan C. These generals are being drawn into stupid discussions because of our new affection with the media.
Finally....there's an entire campaign that was supposed to start up within a week or two in Afghanistan. To pick any other general besides Petraeus...would make no sense. He can walk in...work his staff into the picture....take his number two (a 3-star) and use him a great deal...and this can work for the time being. To pick anyone else....would involve weeks of discussion over the campaign and they might disagree with the whole plan.
Frankly...the general and his team screwed up. This trip to DC to meet the President was a total waste of time though....because it was simply a chance for the President to jump on this guy and spend ten minutes criticizing him and his team. I would have faxed my papers in and just said "enough" and retired today at noon. That would be simple enough.
Taking it far? Hmmm... I don't see it. I agree McChrystal was wrong to say what he said... for the reasons I already listed. I just find two facts: 1) He was fired, he didn't resign... pretending anything else won't convince anybody. 2) It's kind of funny they now embrace a General they used to demonize.
ReplyDeleteI would say that "they" haven't embraced anyone that "they" used to criticize. Personally, I haven't heard any shouts of joy from the MoveOn crowd and to paint all Democrats, or liberals for that matter, as such is disingenuous. If "they" did, however, it would be funny.
ReplyDeleteAs a wise retired Navy officer, says this is a win/win for Obama. When things go pear shaped, who gets the blame, and who gets any 2012 chances tarnished?
ReplyDelete