EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- How the US Turned Three Pacifists into Violent Terrorists
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- Cornel West: Obama 'Is a War Criminal'
- Revealed: How US State Department 'Twists Arms' on Monsanto's Behalf
- Victory in Seattle as Teachers Win Battle in Standardized Test Boycott
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama's Real McChrystal Problem: Afghanistan Plan in Trouble
Gen. Stanley McChrystal's MacArthur Moment was more than an embarrassment for the White House - it was a reminder of just how badly Barack Obama's "good war" in Afghanistan is going.
The challenge facing Obama in responding to Gen. Stanley McChrystal has an obvious parallel in Harry Truman’s firing of Douglas MacArthur at the height of the Korean War. (AP photo composite by POLITICO)
The challenge facing Obama in responding to his loose-lipped Afghan
commander has an obvious parallel in Harry Truman's firing of Douglas
MacArthur at the height of the Korean War.
But it may actually be more comparable to a more chronic presidential leadership crisis - Abraham Lincoln's dilemma during the Civil War, when he was forced to repeatedly reshuffle his general staff in the face of vacillating public opinion, insubordination and, above all else, uncertainty about how best to win a bloody war he couldn't afford to lose.
"Afghanistan is a mess, and it's getting worse. To make matters worse, the president's been dealing with internal squabbling on this for some time," says Steve Clemons, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation, a nonpartisan Washington think tank, who has written extensively on Afghanistan.
"If there's a bright side to all this, it's that the president has an opportunity to reattach himself to a new policy, fire this guy and start with something new," Clemons added. "It's a tremendous opportunity to reset. But he can't do anything until he fires McChrystal."
The general has already apologized for comments attributed to him and his leadership team in a caustic Rolling Stone story, in which his aides reportedly portrayed his commander in chief as a disengaged dilettante - and blasted Obama's Afghanistan team as feckless. He's been summoned back to Washington to face an infuriated Obama and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who could remove him from command, reprimand or demote him.
On Tuesday, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs declined to say whether McChrystal would remain as the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan.
"All options are on the table," Gibbs said.
Yet even if Obama sacks his Afghan commander, McChrystal's comments have laid bare a nasty internal battle among members on Obama's joint military-civilian Afghanistan team splintered by personality conflicts and divided by approaches to ending the longest war in American history.
Underlying everything is a far bigger problem. Obama's strategy of shifting the military's focus - and 30,000 troops - from Iraq to Afghanistan hasn't yet yielded a major breakthrough. And it's not clear how many troops he will be able to pull out of the country by next July, his self-imposed deadline for commencing a withdrawal.
The disaster in the Gulf has obscured a steadily increasing drumbeat of bad news and ill omens on Afghanistan. After mixed results in the campaign to retake Marja, the Pentagon was forced to delay a critical summer offensive in Kandahar, the cradle of the Afghan Taliban insurgency. Earlier this year, simmering tensions between the administration and Afghan President Hamid Karzai broke into the open with U.S. officials sharply criticizing Karzai on issues ranging from corruption and nepotism to the fitness of the country's fighting forces to electoral reform - set against the backdrop of a resurgent Taliban.
Then came Gen. David Petraeus's fainting spell as he testified about Afghanistan before a Senate committee earlier this month, which many on the Hill saw, fairly or not, as a bad omen.
That lack of tangible success seems to be splitting official Washington, slowly but inexorably, into camps of hawks and doves, with Gates bearing the flag for those who favor a relatively open-ended large-scale commitment of troops in Afghanistan, with Vice President Joe Biden and others pushing for a far more scaled down approach. Obama is somewhere in the middle.
People close to Obama say the president recognizes the McChrystal situation isn't just about any one general but recalibrating policy after a delay of the summer offensive in Kandahar and harmonizing a fractious team of military and civilian advisers.
The president, they hope, will use the McChrystal imbroglio to iron out differences among an array of key players, including Gates, Biden, Petraeus and a pair of strong-willed State Department advisers - AfPak troubleshooter Richard Holbrooke and Karl Eikenberry, the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan.
It won't be easy. Obama - whose appeal to the Democratic base is rooted in his opposition to the Iraq War - faces strong popular headwinds on the war, with poll after poll showing a majority of Americans supporting some kind of withdrawal.
Many in the military still view the Afghanistan war as winnable and argue that this biggest threat is defeatism back home.
In the Rolling Stone piece, freelance reporter Michael Hastings, illustrates the difficulty in selling a rapid drawdown to the Pentagon: "[F]acts on the ground, as history has proven, offer little deterrent to a military determined to stay the course. Even those closest to McChrystal know that the rising anti-war sentiment at home doesn't begin to reflect how deeply f----d up things are in Afghanistan. ‘If Americans pulled back and started paying attention to this war, it would become even less popular,' a senior adviser to McChrystal says."
Such realism," Hastings adds, "doesn't prevent advocates of counterinsurgency from dreaming big: Instead of beginning to withdraw troops next year, as Obama promised, the military hopes to ramp up its counterinsurgency campaign even further. ‘There's a possibility we could ask for another surge of U.S. forces next summer if we see success here,' a senior military official in Kabul tells me."
Gates hasn't gone that far. But he has expressed optimism the U.S. has a chance of prevailing if commanders are allowed to finish the job - which includes winning the hearts and minds of civilians.
That seems to put him into conflict with Biden, an Afghanistan skeptic, who recently told Obama biographer Jonathan Alter to "bet on" on a significant percentage of U.S. troops departing the country when withdrawal begins in July 2011.
Last fall, when the White House was in the midst of reviewing its Afghan strategy, McChrystal said a counterterrorism strategy, Biden's approach to the war, would lead to "Chaos-istan," during a question and answer session at the Institute of International and Strategic Studies in London.
That comment led to a meeting with Obama on Air Force One, which was parked on a tarmac in Copenhagen where Obama had gone to promote Chicago's unsuccessful bid for the Olympics.
The White House pushed back against the anecdote, arguing that Biden had been rushing out the door when Alter quoted him - and Gates questioned Alter's veracity.
But administration sources say Biden's remarks were in keeping with his long-standing opinions - and McChrystal reportedly recognized Biden as an adversary.
One McChrystal aide's nickname for the vice-president:
Joe "Bite Me."
Like everything else surrounding the war, opinions on how Obama should punish McChrystal are divided.
The president made a misstep by summoning McChrystal to the White House, says John Ullyot, a Republican strategist and former press secretary for the Senate Armed Services Committee. Obama's decision to summon the general to Washington has plucked the disciplinary decision out of the military chain of command and politicized it, Ullyot says, while giving the media an extra day to ruminate on dissension in the ranks.
"While it's easy to say yes you should fire him, you're in the middle of an operation here, and you've got to really worry about the kids on the ground," said Larry Korb, a defense expert with the Center for American Progress, who noted that McChrystal wasn't quoted directly in the piece disparaging Obama.
"If I were McChrystal, I would offer my resignation and then if the president takes it, you go gracefully, and it's a win-win," Korb said.
But a trio of Senate hawks often critical of Obama's foreign policy stances - John McCain (R-Ariz.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) - suggested they would support McChrystal's removal.
"We have the highest respect for Gen. McChrystal and honor his brave service and sacrifice to our nation. Gen. McChrystal's comments, as reported in Rolling Stone, are inappropriate and inconsistent with the traditional relationship between commander in chief and the military," they wrote in a statement released Tuesday.
"The decision concerning Gen. McChrystal's future is a decision to be made by the president of the United States."
Jen DiMascio contributed to this report.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

42 Comments so far
Show AllThere are calls for McChrystal to resign. Wattafah? This whole war is moronic. Wouldn't you want to keep as many morons as possible engaged in such a moronic endeavor? Between this endless war and apparently endless oil super spill, why don't we all just do ourselves a favor, bend over as far as we can and kiss our asses good-bye?
Senior military official sez: "There's a possibility we could ask for another surge of U.S. forces next summer if we see success here."
***
Another surge of U.S. Taxpayer dollars, is more like it.
Anyone who thinks they can afford to win a war is nuts.
Heard already, McChrystal has offered his resignation to the POTUS. This war was a bad idea from the beginning. Evidently not thought out very well at all. When you continue to kill civilians, you continue to build reinforcements of insurgants/freedomfighters/terrorists. If the goal was to establish pipeline routes thru Afganistan, as seems to be the preivious throttle for this war, not one man OBL, I doubt the price was this high. Just recently they announced the trillian dollar mineral deposits that they have known about since the 70s, well this just seems like a propaganda stunt to further validate our presence and occupation of a foreign land. Change we can beieve in is change we can't see. Now we are hoping for change, even in our pockets. GET OUT while we still may at least try to maintain some dignity.
The article on the front of Common Dreams thinks that what McChrystal said may somehow crystallize the antiwar movement into action. I somehow doubt that what the general said will now suddenly push the antiwar movement into organizing hundreds of thousands of protesters to march onto D.C. in order to rival the antiwar demonstrations that took place some forty years ago. Many liberals still believe that because Obama is a Democrat he cannot be nearly as bad as that Republican named G.W. Bush apparently totally forgetting the fact that a Democrat named Lyndon Baines Johnson ultimately sent over 500,000 soldiers into Vietnam.
As Gore Vidal once noted, another example of the United States of Amnesia rearing its ugly head.
"Hey, hey O-bomb-a
How many kids did you kill today?"
Wilson WWI, FDR WWII, Truman Korea, Kennedy Bay of Pigs+ Vietnam. Democrats love war maybe even more than Republicans.
McChrystal is not a man of honor. The attacks on Afgans are not honorable.
There is no honor in killing hundreds of thousands of women and children, there is no honor in creating millions of refugees.
Wars on Iraqis and Afgans were based on a pack of lies pushed by government and military people with dual citizenship.
The Likud wanted the US military to invade all of Israel's neighbors. Sharon and the Israeli ambassador said so on national TV even before the US invasion of Iraq. And now the new Likud leader, Nit-wit-yahoo, is trying to get the US to destroy Iran.
"McChrystal is not a man of honor"
Well, of course not. He is the top war criminal.
But how honorable is his boss, the top criminal against humanity who continues the aggression?
Dismissing McWhosis isn't going to make up for the real crime.
Voting for one of the "two" big parties was a collective war crime. That simple.
All those who sincerely reject war of aggression and voted for Obama (or McCaine) must be honest and finally admit to being idiots. They certainly do not have the excuse of having been duped.
"The Likud wanted the US military to invade all of Israel's neighbors. Sharon and the Israeli ambassador said so on national TV even before the US invasion of Iraq. And now the new Likud leader, Nit-wit-yahoo, is trying to get the US to destroy Iran."
Netanyahu said, on more than one occasion, that the 911 attack on the US was very good for Israel.
>>
What Netanyahu said 9-12-2001:
A DAY OF TERROR: THE ISRAELIS; Spilled Blood Is Seen as Bond That Draws 2 Nations Closer
JAMES BENNET
Published: September 12, 2001
Asked tonight what the attack meant for relations between the United States and Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, the former prime minister, replied, ''It's very good.'' Then he edited himself: ''Well, not very good, but it will generate immediate sympathy.'' He predicted that the attack would ''strengthen the bond between our two peoples, because we've experienced terror over so many decades, but the United States has now experienced a massive hemorrhaging of terror.''
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F07E4D91238F931A2575AC0A
<<
AND, LATER ON...
>>
Report: Netanyahu says 9/11 terror attacks good for Israel
Last update - 17:34 16/04/2008
By Haaretz Service and Reuters
The Israeli newspaper Ma'ariv on Wednesday reported that Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu told an audience at Bar Ilan university that the September 11, 2001 terror attacks had been beneficial for Israel.
"We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq," Ma'ariv quoted the former prime minister as saying. He reportedly added that these events "swung American public opinion in our favor." ...
Continued...
<<
Obviously, Obomber and the military-industrial complex are entering disorientation zone, what with the catastrophic oil spill, the economic meltdown, the massive indebtedness of the government and the country at large, and the foundering occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.
"Something's happenin' and you don't know what it is, Mr. Jones..."
Folks, you had better get your compasses while they are still available.
This is a never ending war on the entire Pashtun ethnic races.
There are lots of them and they are very mad at us.
The US will blowup any peoples to save the US dollar faces.
So the world takes US printed money to avoid a US mid-life crisis.
It also pays the enemy just to get the foodstuffs into US bases.
To stop or retreat is to be weak, not willing to stay the course.
The war goes on because the US fears to appear weak.
If the US can no longer punish the poorest of nations with its mighty force
The mighty US dollar will fall as other currencies all nations seek.
So when I see the US flag, I see dollar signs and not heavenly stars.
And those red stripes that flow are the rivers of blood.
Across the bones of a once living green earth, soon like the planet Mars.
The dollar wars soldier on in vain, and do the world no good.
Disengaged dilettante: I think that is the prefect description of Obama.
The USA will withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq when the USA goes bankrupt.
Good Grief.
I agree with whoever said this is some sort of publicity
stunt for some sort of reason we will never know.
to me , I believe it is all a part of the
makeup for the remake for the elections coming up
we will do doubt see many press stories where
Obama looks like the in charge , tough guy
between now and November.
There are only a couple press stories I take
seriously which is a shame in itself.
Why did McChrystal lose it? An answer: neither side is winning, aka stalemate. He doesn't want to be stuck with a war that can not be won. He decided to get fired or resign.
"the military want "to ramp up its counterinsurgency campaign even further..." well, sure. the military is not supposed to make policy. it is controlled by civilians. at any given time if you ask the generals if they want to stop killing people and bring the troops home, they are sure to say "oh we wanna keep shooting" it's all they know how to say.
Now if i may i'd like to take us back for a moment to september 01. after the 2 passenger planes crashed into the 2 towers, and as washington would have it "knocked them down" usans were understandably annoyed.
so much they were like raging bulls- they'd go charging after anyone the president pointed at. he pointed a Afghanistan. using his well known powers as a clairvoyant,
he told us somebody over there was responsible. the citizens took his word for it then, and went off to start murdering Afghans, a terrible habit they can't seem to break. after nine years killing Afghans has become just one of those things usans do. nobody knows why. they did not ask questions when the bombing started so long ago, and they don't ask questions now. when obomber was running for president he told us he would make murdering Afghans
the centerpiece of his exciting new presidency. Still even after all the murders already committed upon some of the most abused, bombed, hungry, people on earth, nobody said "But mr obomber sir, why would you want to do that?" he still did not need a reason. he did once say something about people in Afghanistan wishing us harm. well this is certainly true- most of the world wishes us harm- but Afghanistan is the last country in the world capable of invading the u.s..
but the generals have found some "insurgents" they want to kill.
when you invade any country there will be resistance. it's called "defending one's country from invaders". you can never stop anyone from doing that.
To compare 0bama with Lincoln is absurd:
Truman made some bad decisions, but he did have a war to finish that did actually bear some relation to national security and even to individual liberties - though that relation may have been incidental.
Not even Truman or Roosevelt HAD to fight. There was no hard need for Roosevelt to provoke the Japanese, less to leave those ships at Pearl as bait, accidentally or otherwise. But to compare Truman's motives to 0bama's is absurd. 0bama is just killing people to control hydrocarbon access and, as recently surfaced, mining rights.
Lincoln could have let the South secede, and maybe he should have, but there were a lot of reasons not to do so. It would have made no guarantee for peace, since England might have banded with the South to reconquer the North, especially given that the West would have been an ongoing provocation. And again, as incidental as the issue was to most of the combatants and, probably more so, the politicians, the issue of slavery had been broached.
Still, the South fired on the North, and Lincoln eventually freed the slaves, sort of. And there were questions of civil law involved, if one happens to respect that sort of thing.
Lincoln's is a far from spotless record, but nothing like 0bama's. Lincoln held a country together, for better or for worse. 0bama is tearing at least three countries apart, and ordering summary executions -- a style of murder, to drop the damnable pretence of authority.
I have very little good to say about McChrystal in general, but if he disagrees with 0 about the war, he can't be all bad. 0bama's in the war to smooch up to the contractors that will pick up all that new-printed money to spread uranium through the desert and cook up creative accounting. The US government isn't full of apple-pie schoolboys just certain that Afghan women want Christ and Pepsi and GI Joe. This is not just a simple mistake. It's a scam - scam, fraud, and murder, just like when Cheney did it.
The problem 0bama has with McChrystal is not half the problem the people under McChrystal have with 0bama.
(On the need to fight WWII and the Civil War, google Zinn and "Good War" or read Human Smoke, by Nicholson Baker - a novelist, but this is not a novel.)
Bardamu Good Post!
McChrystal's history with JSOC, a black-ops outfit which routinely has assassinated as part of its mission, should be a clue to what his real interests, values and standards are. I think he could legitimately be diagnosed as a psychopath. He doesn't want a resolution to the conflict. He only seems to want to ramp it up. Time to go, Stan.
when those inherent imperial antagonisms come to be too antagonistic 'tis coz the ship of "state" be sinking!
Could the american empire get any more evil?
Could our 'leaders' get any more clueless?
they are "arguing" over whose "ideas" about "victory in afghanistan for the empire is BETTER"....that's all.
in a new york times report on this imbroglio,
"Whether or not General McChrystal remains at the helm of the Afghan war effort, Mr. Obama will try to use Wednesday’s meeting to urge his fractious Afghanistan staff to pull together, said his press secretary, Robert Gibbs. The president, Mr. Gibbs said, will say that “it is time for everyone involved to put away their petty disagreements, put aside egos and get to the job at hand, "
it's interesting that they say that the president will "ask everyone to put aside their ego and get to the job at hand"....
which is of course the EGOTISTIC Imperial project.
isn't it ironic? they argue about EGOS..when the American Empire Project ITSELF is one huge EGOTISTICAL notion :
"america is the center of the universe...all shall bow before it".
how about Obama, all the way down to the last american on the street forgo a LITTLE BIT of that HUGE Egocentric "american" ideology? ...and recognize that there are actually OTHER PEOPLE on the planet that aren't born in order to make america feel "Great" by bowing before the Empire?
VERY well said! When do we talk about ending the whole freakin insane Imperial BS?!
Using up rapidly depleting resources to fight resource wars. We are so f***ed if we cant stop these egomaniacal, sociopathic little boys in the MIC. Do they realize they are bankrupting this country financially and morally? Are they too blind to see this?
the american Empire is - funnily and tragically enough - JUST LIKE that "giant spaceship" of aliens in the Hollywood blockbuster :
"INDEPENDENCE DAY" ....
"they are like locusts...their entire civilization in a big spaceship traveling from galaxy to galaxy...consuming every planet's resources until there's nothing left...and they move on to the next planet".
so -- in a twist to the movie's premise :
where the "us president" in that movie declared to the world:
"from now on - on THIS day - july fourth - it will no longer be known as an AMERICAN holiday...of independence...we have to set aside our petty differences and TOGETHER declare that TODAY is all of humankind's and our planet's INDEPENDENCE day.... "
what the WORLD needs is a NEW INDEPENDENCE DAY for all of humanity and the planet...and "set aside our petty differences" and declare that TODAY is OUR independence day....FROM United States Imperialism.
They aren't blind. They just don't care because they aren't normal.
They're mentally damaged as the criminally insane, all of them. Especially everyone running the US and Israel. Israel also wants us in Afghanistan so we will not pull out anytime soon. The huge majority of Zionist believers in Congress will make certain of it, despite the expected populist con job before midterms.
It's on to Iran and full speed ahead.
Boycott the entire process. Boycott the elections.
Corporations, Wall St, and American Zionism is in total control of the US.
Don't give these puppet traitors a minute of your time at the polls.
F__K 'EM.
What is really, really , getting my crawl
are the ones defending these criminals,
especially over on that "other" political blog.
I really want to thank all of the posters on
common dreams for making me feel not so isolated
Here is a great video , lot of truth, some humor
http://tv.globalresearch.ca/content/meaning-austerity
Obama's real McChrystal problem is that Afghanistan will forever be a thorn in his side without killing every Afghan man, woman and child.
Sun Tzu said, when waging war, " ... if victory is long in coming, then men's weapons will grow dull and their ardor will be damped. If you lay siege to a town, you will exhaust your strength."
"Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain."
"Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor damped, your strength exhausted and your treasure spent, other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue."
"There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare."
The concept of perpetual war is Fascist. Mussolini said, "War is the normal state of the people. "
The bigger question is why ten more years in Afghanistan? Why can't Obama just leave? Why could Johnson not just walk away from Vietnam? Why could Bush not bring the troops home from Iraq?
It has always been about the money.
Riddle me this: Putin said, "(the new Russian T-50 fighter)...will be superior to our main competitor, the F-22, in terms of maneuverability, weaponry and range." and will cost one third what similar western fighters sell for.
There is something really wrong here. How can Russia sell a jet for one third what we pay Lockheed Martin/Boeing? Think about it. To what extent have we been gouged all these years by private defense contractors? We have been giving defense contractors blank checks in form of cost plus contracts since WWII. Of course the MIC believes in perpetual war. To them it is not about "guns and butter", it is about their "bread and butter".
We have become the Soviet Union. The irony is that Ronald Reagan made it so. We have become what we despise. The MIC is not capitalist because it has no risk of loss. Spend a dollar, get a dollar and ten cents back guaranteed by the US Treasury - that's cost plus contracting. Our major industries are all too big to fail and that is Soviet style economics. Again, no risk of loss - no capitalism. Our major corporations are all good party members. They pay their party dues in the form of campaign contributions come election time. Welcome to the USSA.
We need some stategy
In the November elections,
I am not worried about voting for a winner.(never havebeen)
so probably make a write in for congressman..even though
this is the first time in twenty-five years that a
Democrat has even challenged for this position in this
district.....Don't care , Dems are not getting my support.
In the primaries of 2012, I am a little puzzeled what
I am going to do,, first , the democrat presidential
primaries are rigged. I know in the General Election I will
vote green. But how I am going to influence the primaries
is my question...I am pretty sure the Dems are going to
get thumped, and rightfully so. So , should I , even though
I won't vote for him in the GenElect.. switch and registar
republican and vote in the primaries for Paul to make sure
one of the other Rupublican asses don't get the nomination.
That crap about Ron Paul being a racist is mostly
democrat journalism,,the Democrats have a dismal track
record on race themselves, so their finger pointing to Paul
is meaningless to me , all politicians are prejudice, to us
Or I could stay registared Democrat, and vote for the
candidate that I believe has the least chance of winning
the general election.
Anyway, we need to start strategizing......if it is at all
possible now to turn this around, that is what we need to
use this internet for,,,,besides our bitching , which is nice
but how are we at all going to turn the tables on these
criminals is what most of our discussions on the internet
should be right now......otherwise, what the fuck good is
the internet????????????????????????????????????????????
If Common Dreams is not going to support this idea, then
I guess there is no need for me posting here either....
Probably many might like that.
But if Common Dreams is going to wrap itself around another
Democrat and not let a third Party be discussed , I will
find somewhere.
The Democrats deserve no support whatsoever from any press
outlet. They are criminals just like the Bush Administration.
I know the Democrats have many, many tricks up their sleeves
Ther are liable to pull, Whitehouse, or Feingold out of their
bag in 2012. They will be just the same as Obama no matter
what rhetoric they use. They are first and foremost
Democrats and will do what the Party bosses tell them.
The 2012 presidential elections offer the best opportunity
for a third party in my 61 year lifetime..
Remember, you don't have to win an election to win many
battles...That is what Debs, Bryon, LaFollet all did, they
used their poplar support to get reforms, even though the
never won an election. We would not have many of the reforms
we have today without the influence of third parties,
In this culture , everyone feels like they have to vote for
an winner...you don't....but you can still win battles.
And who knows,,,,,maybe , just might, win the 2012 pres.
Democraps suck. I gave up on them after Daddy's election back in 1988 (with the help of Willie Horton.)
Obama wanted this war- God knows why, I guess, no one else does.
Are these the military guys who are upset with our policy with Israel, especially our uneven policy? Policies have a way of interlocking at this level-
Afgan war is a Sisyphian task. Always was. remember the USS LIBERTY
Rolling Stone is going to save the dormant antiwar movement?
If you believe this, I've got a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.
People need to get back in the streets. This is definitely not happening and certainly not being encouraged by the likes of Rolling Stone. Until(or more properly stated, if) this happens, not a thing will change.
Dormant? Check out antiwar.com.
Bring America Back !!!!
**Team Obama was elected specifically to END this WAR !
They have failed completely and have proliferated it on all
fronts, as well as creating the Drone Crusade.
**This is and always was an illegal, immoral, war which King
"W" Bush lied us into ! The only "victory" in an illegal
war is to END it !
**You cannot campaign on CHANGE then keep in power the same and identical Neocon warmongering criminals who started it:
i.e. Robt Gates and his boots on the ground, including General McChrystal.
Get out of Iraq; Get out of Afghan; stay out of Iran !!!
END this WAR NOW !!! Wake up America !
Billy McChrystal, your act is no longer funny. Killing women and children for Dick Chaney's Halliburton and the Peace Prize Preznit. Shame on you. Oh, the Pat Tillman cover up?: nice try, you get an E for effort.
Shame on you, pal, not on Mccristal or even Obama, if you voted for the Repucrat President (or Rep or Senator). Whoever voted either Democrat or Republican is the criminal.
For a pertinent look at the character of McChrystal, see Seymour Hersh's damning article here on CD in May 2009:
"McChrystal was Cheney's Chief Assassin" [...And now, Obama's]
"Seymour Hersh says that Dick Cheney headed a secret assassination wing and the head of the wing has just been named as the new commander in Afghanistan."
http://www.commondreams.org/print/42178
"On July 22, 2006, Human Rights Watch issued a report titled "No blood, no foul" about American torture practices at three facilities in Iraq. One of them was Camp Nama, which was operated by the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), under the direction of then Major General Stanley McChrystal..."
"...An interrogator at Camp Nama known as Jeff described locking prisoners in shipping containers for 24 hours at a time in extreme heat; exposing them to extreme cold with periodic soaking in cold water; bombardment with bright lights and loud music; sleep deprivation; and severe beatings."
"When he and other interrogators went to the colonel in charge and expressed concern that this kind of treatment was not legal ... the colonel told them he had "this directly from General McChrystal and the Pentagon that there's no way that the Red Cross could get in."
"...When Human Rights Watch asked whether the interrogator knew whether the colonel was receiving orders or pressures to use the abusive tactics, Jeff said that his understanding was that there was some form of pressure to use aggressive techniques coming from higher up the chain of command...
'We really didn't know too much about it. We knew that we were only like a few steps away in the chain of command from the Pentagon, but it was a little unclear, especially to the interrogators who weren't really part of that task force.'"
So McChrystal is now Obama's man. But now that things are falling apart and the wheels are coming off, Stanley is throwing Barry under the bus, or so it seems. It may all be part of the stagecraft toward renewed escalation (Vietnamization).
Judging Obama by MLK's standard, not "by the color of [his] skin, but by the content of [his] character", he fails miserably. His Nobel Prize should be revoked. He has completely betrayed voters for change.
Anyone who read candidate Obama's published interviews with the Chicago Tribune in the spring of 2008 and had followed the so-called "debates" could have firmly predicted the mess our current president has created in Afghanistan/Pakistan. I did and was berated for my "audacity" to call him an imperialist. It was totally predictable after I had considered the unbelievable naivete/amateurism of candidate Obama who glibly divided wars into "dumb wars" and "not-dumb wars". In his opinion Iraq was in the first category and Afghanistan in the second. He did not explain why that was so nor did he explain how he was going to "win" the not-so-dumb war in Afghanistan other than promising that he would invade Pakistan if that was needed, the second to the abhorrence of the other candidates which included the now Vice-President Biden and Mrs. Clinton. I firmly conclude that general McChrystal is not the problem but president Obama is. Afghanistan is Obama's abysmal failure from the day he announced his candidacy hence he should abdicate and allow Mr. Biden to try to clean up the mess he created, stop the wars and bring the troops home if Biden dares. Also must-stepping down: secretary Clinton, secretary Gates, and the president's additional bevy of war-mongering advisers. This Augias-stable calls for another Hercules. Unfortunately I don't see any such person in Washington.
McChrystal knew what he was doing. He and his staff made disparaging and insubordinate remarks about their bosses because McChrystal did not want to be stuck with an unwinnable war. He wanted OUT.
Regardless of why the good general did what he did, it's obvious why the U.S. is still in Afghanistan; IT'S THE MINERALS STUPID! All the b.s. about the Taliban, democracy was another Bush lie and now Obama's lie.
A trillion dollars worth of cobalt, copper, gold, iron and lithium... how many Afghan and American lives is this all worth? Our economy is in a major tailspin, our schools are laying off teachers, our states are cutting back on badly needed social services... when does the madness stop?