Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Walk a Mile...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
Sheila Samples Donating Member (264 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-06-10 01:43 AM
Original message
Walk a Mile...
I know you need your sleep now,
I know your life's been hard.
But many men are falling,
where you promised to stand guard.
~~Leonard Cohen

My friend Bernie says he's suffering from Afghanistan information exhaustion. "During all those months that Obama was dragging his feet about escalating the war in Afghanistan, did you ever get the impression," he asked, "that foxes were in the hen house, chickens were squawking and running around crazily, wolves were tearing the foxes to pieces, and farmers were shooting wildly into the coop with no regard for the innocent?"

I stared at him, mouth agape, my mind trying to shore up all that activity. "Well ... I --"

"And that's just the generals -- David Petraeus and Stanley McChrystal -- and their boss, or cohort, defense secretary Robert Gates. They were everywhere -- everywhere!" Bernie said, rolling his eyes. "And still are. Turn on the TV, pick up a newspaper, open a magazine, check out Congress, look under a rock -- peek behind a tree -- and there they are. They're a three-man brigade -- "we're going in, we're coming out -- we're winning, we're losing. Or maybe not. We won't know for 15 years...20 years...or until it's over --"

Bernie shook his head in disgust, and headed for the door. "You keep telling me to walk a mile in Obama's shoes; that he's got a lot on his plate. Well," Bernie said grimly, "every time I try to do that, I nearly drown. And, if you're paying attention, you know he's having trouble keeping his own balance out there on those turbulent partisan political seas."

President...who?

Bernie says he'd like to give President Obama credit, or blame him, for the decision to expand the war in Afghanistan, but is convinced that Obama's input was neither wanted nor accepted by the three top war dogs. I agree. What those of us familiar with military protocol -- with a properly functioning chain of command -- witnessed was a crude, but effective, military coup.

Aided by an eager and complicit media, for months these insubordinates fueled the fire of Obama's inability to come to a quick decision to meet their demands. They brushed him aside as idealistic and inexperienced. Commander-in-Chief? C'mon, get real. During the recent health-care fiasco, Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) put into words what all Republicans, not a few Democrats, and far too many military brass think of Obama...

"...I believe he didn't serve in government long enough to understand really how things work...Remember, he was in the Senate four years, but effectively only two years because he spent two years where he was hardly ever here at all -- he was campaigning for president. He really does not have an understanding of how Congress operates."


The hateful audacity of Chuck "Obama wants to kill your grandma" Grassley is the typical Republican mindset concerning this president. Each time Republicans push him or challenge him, rather than push back or kick ass, Obama backs down, preferring to compromise to reach a bipartisan agreement. Unfortunately, Republicans don't work that way. They want it all, and the only way they know to get it is to -- as Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol said -- "go for the kill."

The military also goes for the kill. But that is its mission -- what it is trained to do. And Obama needs to understand the military does not function on compromises or bipartisanship. It has a chain of command, and when the Commander-in-Chief, after considering input from field commanders, makes his decision -- gives an order -- all those throughout that chain of command, whether they agree or not, salute and continue to march.

That is not happening here. After ten "war council" meetings and months of considering input, an angry Obama rejected McChrystal's plan that had been leaked to Bob Woodward at the Washington Post, and informed McChrystal that his goal of doubling the force would not be met.

Two days later, on Dec 1, Obama announced his decision from the US Military Academy at West Point. He didn't mention smoking terrorists out, getting them on the run and bringing them to justice, but he dredged up 9/11 and why we should remain convulsed in fear. He spoke of "huge challenges," "bold action," "seizing the initiative," and "long-term consequences." While we were trying to figure out if former president George Bush had left a copy of his speech on the Academy podium, Obama announced he was sending an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan but insisted since America has no interest in fighting an endless war, 2011 was a definite time frame. He said unequivocally that there would be no counterinsurgency and, beginning in July of 2011, the troops would begin to come home.

Or not. Nobody saluted. Gates, Petraeus and McChrystal, along with Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Adm. Michael G. Mullen continued to march in lockstep. They raced to the media both here and abroad, where they shrugged aside Obama's promise of a July 2011 transition, saying it was an "open issue." They insisted that counterinsurgency and special ops remained "embedded" in their war strategy. Ten days after being rejected by Obama, McChrystal's request to double the size of the Army and police to 400,000 remained unchanged.

Foxes, Chickens and Wolves

Obama should take a long, hard look at the Dick Cheney "stay behinds" who are wreaking havoc, especially in defense; insubordinates who openly challenge his decisions and defy his orders while whipping up confusion with daily conflicting announcements and interviews. Perhaps he should start with Cheney who not only stayed behind but remains in his Virginia bunker, just a stone's throw from CIA headquarters, where he "goes for the kill" by giving hate speeches and issuing press releases accusing Obama of being a coward that are published verbatim by the media.

Just hours after Obama's speech, the placid, eerily serene Gates, along with Mullen and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, testified before Congress that troop withdrawal depended on conditions on the ground rather than a deadline. The consensus seemed to be that their commander-in-chief was simply indulging in "wishful thinking."

Days later, according to Think Progress, Gates, Petraeus, Clinton, and another Cheney "stay behind," National Security Adviser James Jones, were all over the Sunday talk shows. Gates told CBS Meet the Press, "We will have a significant -- we will have 100,000 forces -- troops there. And they are not leaving -- in July of 2011."

Jones agreed with Gates on CNN's State of the Union, repeating what he had told BBC two days earlier -- "It's very important that people in Afghanistan hear this very clearly: this is not a withdrawal of the United States from Afghanistan in 2011, it is a decision to turn over to the Afghans some of the responsibility where they are ready to accept that responsibility. But in no manner, shape or form is the United States leaving Afghanistan in 2011." (emphasis added)

These stay behinds, their shoulders blazing with stars, now so eager to expand their military industrial killing spree throughout Afghanistan and Pakistan -- even Iran -- are like wolves circling their prey. They are presenting a powerful, united front against Obama.

And none has refused to follow orders more relentlessly than McChrystal, former commander of the clandestine Joint Special Operations Command, whose secret assassination teams answered only to him, and he answered to no one. McChrystal is a frightening lone wolf. Check him out here, here, here, and here.

It's difficult to imagine President Obama, after promising change -- promising to stand guard and end our wars of aggression -- deliberately putting himself in a position where he appears impotent when he is ignored and over-ruled by subordinates. He has been warned by those who have been there, done that. He is being warned by the people who are gathering for massive national anti-war marches in Washington D.C., Los Angeles and San Francisco on March 20 -- the seventh anniversary of Bush and Cheney's illegal war of aggression against Iraq.

It's time for Obama to put aside empty, soaring speeches and come to grips with who his enemies really are. It's time for him to step onto dry land and walk a mile in his own shoes -- while he still has a pair.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-06-10 03:41 AM
Response to Original message
1. This seems like a substantive well written post
how much is speculation derived from Grassley's statement applied to the others?

I have heard the idea that a form of coup did occur before, just wondering how solid this is.

What's your best evidence?

Anyway, I thought it was very insightful and has me thinking.

Looking forward to reading more of your ops.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sheila Samples Donating Member (264 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-06-10 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. Mithreal...
Grassley put into words what all Republicans think of Obama. Grassley has been in the Senate for how long -- decades? And this black kid comes moonwalking through the Senate door, spends two years as a junior senator, then catapaults into the oval office. One day he has to make an appointment to speak to Grassley (and the other hoary bastages), and the next day he's their boss. I don't have to "speculate" about the others. Just listen to them, watch them block everything he suggests, go to their tea parties, tune in to Fox "News"....

When the military gives the middle finger to their commander-in-chief -- and gets away with it -- you are looking at a coup. We have a group of General McArthurs milling around out there who should have been replaced on Inauguration Day. It is astonishing that Obama surrounded himself with Bush/Cheney "stay behinds" whose backgrounds are chilling -- especially Gates and McChrystal. Google "Gates Iran Contra" and "McChrystal assassination." Petraeus is, as General Fallon said, a stupid little "ass kisser," concerned only with his own career.

My problem is primarily with Obama, because he is intelligent enough to have known what he was getting into. He is either being held hostage by this motley crew or he is approving what they are doing behind the scenes. I worked six years for the Air Force and 24 years for the Army -- and this chain-of-command disarray ain't the way the military works.

How solid is my evidence? Well, I'm not a prosecuting attorney -- just a writer who researched the material for this article for two months. Follow the links I offered, and decide for yourself.

Thanks...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-06-10 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Understood.
I do a lot of the same when I think about things, try to put the pieces together. I think you did it well, was really interested in more supporting evidence for the idea that Obama is held hostage by the military commanders. There seems to me no smoking gun evidence, just a lot of speculation. I will keep an open mind though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NoSheep Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-06-10 04:26 AM
Response to Original message
2. Call your Senators and Congress-folk.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-07-10 03:25 AM
Response to Reply #2
12. And say what? President Obama must clarify his CIC role?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-06-10 05:57 AM
Response to Original message
3. The Steam-Rolled President
or maybe, just rolled.

The same dynamic is obvious in economic policy, too.

And as for healthcare, well, there Obama earned the right to have his ass handed him.

the man is not hardened enough to be a leader, and he has prima donnas for supporting staff. Not to mention the Bushite sleepers, who seem to dominate the Justice Dept.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-07-10 03:24 AM
Response to Reply #3
11. It is looking that way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pokercat999 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-06-10 07:16 AM
Response to Original message
4. After one year, we know, if he continues as is, he will be the
weakest one term president in history.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unapatriciated Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-06-10 12:06 PM
Response to Original message
5. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
varelse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-06-10 02:01 PM
Response to Original message
8. Well done
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gleaner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-07-10 02:14 AM
Response to Original message
9. I admire your post ....
It is well researched and informative. As I think of the generals in charge though, and Obama allowing them to set the course and maybe even the agenda I can't help but think of Truman. Truman fired General Douglas MacArthur, who was very popular with the American people because he felt that given continued tenure, MacArthur would make a bad situation worse. He also disliked his insubordination.

None of the military leadership in either Iraq or Afghanistan has been effective. None of them are popular with the American people. Why doesn't Obama fire them and get fresh advice from military officers and other advisors who have no interest in maintaining Bush's follies or saving their own faces? If Truman had the cojones to flush MacArthur in the face of much opposition, couldn't Obama find a modicum of backbone and take charge of the situation we are facing. Instead of giving us old platitudes, he could see if there are any compelling reasons he can believe to continue these wars and talk about thosereasons. Then there are the "secret" wars with Pakistan and Yemen. How does he think those will end? Afghanistan and Iraq have been waged for over eight years to what outcome, and for what purpose? It is time to stop betting the lives of our military and the lives of the rest of us on the tissue of lies, deceit and greed that Bush used to justify these actions and try to force us to live in fear while he pursued nothing but his own ends.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-07-10 03:23 AM
Response to Original message
10. This op deserved a lot more discussion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cornermouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-07-10 05:48 AM
Response to Reply #10
13. The Sheila Samples posts usually do deserve a lot more
discussion. k & r if it will let me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rucognizant Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-07-10 06:18 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. K & R
HERE TOO.....SHE IS KNOWLEDGEABLE!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-07-10 01:10 PM
Response to Original message
15. .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 25th 2014, 02:28 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC