Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

NeoCons Behind McChrystal 'Threats'

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 » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 09:37 PM
Original message
NeoCons Behind McChrystal 'Threats'
Source: The Nation

Will McChrystal Quit?

Yesterday morning, at a meeting of the neoconservative Foreign Policy Initiative, a former top US military officer suggested that General Stanley McChrystal might resign from his post if President Obama doesn't go along with his pending request for more troops for Afghanistan.

Brig. Gen. Mark T. Kimmitt, a former Bush administration official and Centcom officer, in answer to a question from the panel's moderator, said that he hoped that the differences between the White House and its generals didn't escalate to such a dramatic level. But, he said, if Obama doesn't give McChrystal the resources he needs, then the four-star general might quit. "Most commanders would offer their resignation" if they perceive that the commander-in-chief isn't giving them what they need, he said. In that case, McChrystal might have to say: "I'm not capable of doing it. Maybe somebody else is."


At the conclusion of the panel, I asked Kimmitt about his comments, and he emphasized that he isn't predicting that McChrystal might quit. McChrystal, he said, is presenting Obama with three choices: a maximum option, that would involve up to 40,000 more troops, a middle option, and a low option. Under all three, Kimmitt said, McChrystal believes that he can do the job. On the other hand, if he doesn't get the low option, probably something like an additional 15,000 troops, the general might consider quitting.

Needless to say, the resignation of McChrystal, who's been elevated to near-hero status by the Republican right, would be a frontal challenge to the White House. So far, in a sign that the White House isn't playing patsy for the military, the administration has resisted bringing McChrystal back to Washington to testify, Petraeus-style, before Congress. And they've downplayed the significance of McChrystal's role, saying that his input is just one of many sources that are providing information to the White House as it considers the next phase of its failing Afghanistan strategy.

At least one report today suggests that Obama might refuse to support additional forces in Afghanistan, instead relying on targeted Predator-type attacks on Al Qaeda targets in Afghanistan and Pakistan:

"President Barack Obama's strategy against al-Qaida may shift away from more troops in Afghanistan and toward more drone strikes against terrorist targets.


"As the war worsens in Afghanistan, Obama could steer away from the comprehensive counterinsurgency strategy he laid out this spring and toward a narrower focus on counterterror operations.

"Two senior administration officials said Monday that the renewed fight against al-Qaida could lead to more missile attacks on Pakistan terrorist havens by unmanned U.S. spy planes. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because no decisions have been made."

more: http://www.thenation.com/blogs/dreyfuss/475977/will_mcc...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
MadMaddie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 09:40 PM
Response to Original message
1. Where were all of the Neocons when the troops got pulled
and sent to Iraq? Now they are concerned about troop levels in Afghanistan?

Condi Rice speaking out about Afghanistan troop levels.....

The nerve of these people is mind numbing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 09:40 PM
Response to Original message
2. The neocons found a way to hurt Obama on Afghanistan.
I never could see them arguing against a war. I wondered how they would hit Obama politically on it. They love to politicize war. It's their specialty.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msongs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 09:41 PM
Response to Original message
3. US military has had EIGHT years in Afghanistan. shouldnt it be fired for incompetence by now? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jeanpalmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 01:56 AM
Response to Reply #3
8. Really, that's where the focus should be
The military should have to answer for its failures. Obama should have directed the Pentagon to file a report explaining why it hasn't won the war and why after 8 years we're in this predicament? They'd either have to blame W or themselves.

The military is setting Obama up to be the fall guy for this debacle. He ought to turn the tables on them, because it really is their fault. All along the way they made some really bad judgments, decisions and recommendations. They should have to own up to these mistakes and take responsibility for them. If McChrystal can file a report on what he thinks he needs there, he can file another report explaining why the war hasn't been won and who's responsible.

Obama has allowed himself to get boxed in on this war. He has put himself in the position of being blamed for defeat if we leave or change missions or blamed if we stay and get bogged down. It's not too late, but Obama has very little time left to extract himself from this no-win situation. The Republicans have to be ecstatic that he's in this predicament. It's sickening to watch the Republicans shift the blame to Obama for something they're responsible for. Obama has to find a way to shift the blame back to them.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rick Myers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 09:48 PM
Response to Original message
4. These people are SAVAGES, PREDATORS!!!
There is NO doubt that Darth Cheney has some moles deep in the CIA and Pentagon. And then Condi Rice shoots off her mouth for the first time, to SCREAM TERROR, TERROR, TERROR... And there's Addington, Scooter, John Yoo, Dougie 'The Psycho" Feith, Rummy, Wolfowitz, et al.

War crimes trials NOW!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uzybone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 09:59 PM
Response to Original message
5. Why do generals almost always want more troops
without a clear objective? McChrystal just wants to water the sands of Afghanistan with American blood.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChimpersMcSmirkers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 11:19 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. That's a bit weak. They want more troops because that's what they understand.
That's what they're taught, and they don't like to lose. If you think that they are in it for blood lust then you're sadly mistaken.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DCKit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 11:25 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. The more $$$ he generates for the MIC now, the bigger the payday in his next job. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShortnFiery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 02:02 AM
Response to Reply #5
10. The decent General Officers in The Pentagon were pushed - forced into early retirement
during the EIGHT years of BushCo. :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShortnFiery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 02:01 AM
Response to Original message
9. Not just Neo-cons but also Neo-libs who are making profits off of WAR. eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
annabanana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 06:26 AM
Response to Original message
11. All the neocons are pounding as hard as they can on every
nail they can find to keep the blood flowing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
and-justice-for-all Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 06:35 AM
Response to Original message
12. "Stanley McChrystal might resign..."
Buh :hi: Bye
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 06:54 AM
Response to Original message
13. I hope the prez can separate himself and the mission from these bloodsuckers...
These people are not about the best interests of this nation.
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 Fri Apr 25th 2014, 02:24 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) 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