Rebane's Ruminations
June 2010
S M T W T F S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930  

ARCHIVES


OUR LINKS


YubaNet
White House Blog
Watts Up With That?
The Union
Sierra Thread
RL “Bob” Crabb
Barry Pruett Blog

George Rebane

ObamaMcChrystal President Obama fired General McChrystal this morning for allowing his staff to be frank with at least one Rolling Stone reporter embedded in McChrystal’s headquarters in Kabul.  Apparently it was also no secret that the general did not think highly of Obama’s civilian national security team, nor Obama’s leadership of the entire military effort.  All of this was most certainly adequate grounds for the general’s dismissal, and it’s difficult to conceive how after this our middle east policy could have gone forward with McChrystal and his staff still in Afghanistan.

But in the middle of all the hubbub surrounding this historic act and how the Afghanistan war will now be managed, very little is being said about the substantive aspects of McChrystal’s criticisms.  McChrystal’s points were sufficiently detailed and came from an experienced and highly respected military leader so as to demand examination on their own merits.  The entire episode again shines a light on Obama’s competency to handle the post into which he was emoted with absolutely no credentials beyond looks and elocution.

We should all be keeping an eye on how the various media handle this momentous event.  I predict the lame stream media will not touch it, and Fox News will have difficulty in getting their arms around it.  But not to worry, the blogosphere will no doubt continue to cover the competency controversy, and some of it may even escape out into the airwaves.

Posted in , ,

4 responses to “Obama fires his general”

  1. Michael Anderson Avatar
    Michael Anderson

    George,
    I agree that the MSM (which includes Fox) will do a poor job of dissecting this imbroglio.
    It is most important to remember that our political system puts the military control levers in the hands of civilians. We are fairly unique in this. It causes great difficulty, but it also has its benefits.
    The difficulty it causes is that sometimes the military chafes against the civilians, and then usually the civilians gain the upper hand, and we move forward.
    In this case, we have a really bad strategy going on in Afghanistan and Pakistan, pretty much since 9-11. McChrystal fought tooth and nail for the surge, and Obama eventually relented. Perhaps he should have said “no surge” instead, and this whole thing could have been avoided. Certainly we can take out bad guys in the hinterlands with remote control vehicles fairly effectively. We’ve come a long ways since terrorist camps recruited directionless males from all over the planet to do stupid things in Afghanistan, and we didn’t do much to stop it. Now we’re keeping a close eye on these developing dysfunctions, and when they get too far gone to be fixable, we bring in the Predator.
    My biggest concern are the young males like Faisal Shahzad who live in an American culture that rewards their radical views. These boys are not hippies, or Marxists, or socialists or communists. They have broken minds, polluted by the obviously contradictory messages that the MSM spews into the environment every day (much like a blown out oil well).
    We have a lot of work to do to identify and isolate this threat. It doesn’t help at all that our southern border is a disaster, due to a Drug War that has failed for going on 70 years.
    We have a lot of things to fix. I always enjoy the Gail Collins-David Brooks joint columns in the New York Times, and this weeks version is prescient: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/23/americas-love-hate-affair-with-big-government/
    Brooks predicts we are in for a major political upheaval, and I agree. We’re at least 40 years overdue to clean out the nonsense. Enjoy.
    M.

    Like

  2. RL Crabb Avatar

    Seems no matter how we shuffle generals in this conflict (I hesitate to call it a war, since we’ve never declared it so) the main question is…is it possible to win?
    I still think the only solution is to get out, and take all the abused women and children whose minds haven’t been poisoned yet with us. Complicated? Expensive?…Yeah, but not as bad as staying for another ten years and bleeding American blood and treasure.
    The radicals will go nuts without female companionship and their kind will die out without the means to create a new generation of extremists. A win-win situation for all concerned.

    Like

  3. Michael Anderson Avatar
    Michael Anderson

    Bob,
    You and I are of the same generation, Vietnam, and we HATE long drawn-out undeclared “police actions” that serve the Military Industrial Complex, but not much else. These wars last longer than WWI and WWII–it’s a sickness. We must break our addiction to war, the Age of Endless War. As you said, we are squandering our nation’s blood and treasure.
    That said, we have lots of political and economic problems, not only in the Middle East, but all over the globe. People are suffering in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Venezuela, Africa, still in the Balkans, Russia and China hinterlands, etc. It’s a mess.
    We are very privileged, living in Nevada County. We have the luxury to live our lives in peace, and comment on world events from our comfortable couches and expansive porches.
    Any way we can reduce violent conflict, and solve these really tough problems via some other means, is all to the good in my book. From our privileged observation posts in Nevada County, I can only hope that we all pledge to work as hard as we can to do just that.
    Michael A.

    Like

  4. RL Crabb Avatar

    You’re right, Michael. It is easy to sit here in Paradise and play General Armchair, but it doesn’t look like the pros are doing much better. The U.S. is stuck trying to win a war with one arm tied behind our back. Realistically, we should invade Pakistan if we want to nip this thing in the bud, but that ain’t gonna happen.

    Like

Leave a comment