Saturday, July 10, 2010

McChrystal Commentary Nailed Beyond Media Reports

I think this guy nails it! was talking to youPeter Heck - Guest Columnist - 6/28/2010 10:20:00 AM
Some Excerpts:

[when news broke of General Stanley McChrystal in essence saying the exact same thing to Rolling Stone magazine. This isn't just a story to be brushed off. This is a bombshell.

Don't be distracted by the media comically chastising the General for daring to speak out against "The One" (yes, the same media that hailed military officers who were willing to "speak truth to power" in criticizing George Bush). That isn't the story.

The true meaning of the McChrystal episode is titanic, because it is quite apparent the General was sending a stern message directly to the American people.

For more reasons than I can count, it is beyond obvious that McChrystal's public criticism of Obama was not a lapse in judgment or a mistake. It was unquestionably intentional. First, four-star generals have not achieved that rank without knowing the chain of command and the expectation of subordination to superiors. Second, all of McChrystal's advisers were touting the same message, demonstrating this was no fluke, nor an offhand comment taken out of context. Third, McChrystal spoke the inflammatory words to Rolling Stone, a well known anti-war, anti-military magazine. Fourth, reports are that McChrystal actually saw the piece before it went to print and offered up no objections to its content.

If all that is true, then it naturally begs the question: Why did he do it?

McChrystal is one of the lead authors of the "counterinsurgency" strategy that, despite the nay saying of liberals like then-Senators Obama and Biden, transformed Iraq from a quagmire into a success. He knows the strategy works. But as its architect, he also knows this new military policy requires two vital elements: lots of troops, and as much time as necessary for them to do their job.

Bush committed to stay in Iraq until the job was finished. The result speaks for itself.

First, Obama – having championed himself as the anti-war candidate – cut the number of troops McChrystal requested. And then, in what has to be one of the most foolish wartime moves in history, he announced an arbitrary date for the beginning of American troop withdrawal.

This may please the ex-hippies in the anti-war crowd that Obama courted during the 2008 campaign, but it has [Afghanistan].

Having pressed his case privately with Obama's war team in Washington , McChrystal certainly saw the handwriting on the wall, and as a final recourse, pled his case to the American people.

Were his actions a breach of protocol? Yes. Did they rise to the level of insubordination? Probably. Was Obama justified in removing him from command? I think so. But after we're done hammering McChrystal for going over the President's head, we better give some serious thought as to why he was so willing to put his career on the line like that.

The reason is as clear as it is frightening: our political leadership in Washington is clueless. And their incompetence is costing us not only resources and money, but most importantly the precious lives of brave American soldiers.

General Stanley McChrystal was willing to lose his job to send that message to the only people who can do something about it. He was talking to you.]

The interesting commentary is also that from private to general our troops are still U.S. Citizens, and with that have 1st Amendment rights. Obama's firing McCrystal for what he said and certainly not what he did as far as not following direct orders is a 'RED FLAG' as to what Obama thinks of our first Amendment turned against him.

The marks of good leaders are certainly ascribed to not only the rights they enjoyed while getting to their positions, but what they ascribe to while in the seats of powers to those who may oppose them Constitutionally speaking of course.
Therein lies’ the quagmire of America at this time: We have a usurping president who at the very least lied about his qualifications for office in the Declaration of Candidacy, understood very clearly in our Constitution, and the office of the President is charged to protect our Constitution.

The problem follows; he wouldn't have the same respect for our Constitution once he got there. What did people voting for him expect?

1 comment: