McChrystal: A Social and Political Liberal who Banned Fox News

[Clio the Leo]

The Night Beat: Obama Borrows the Military Back
JUN 23 2010, 8:50 PM ET

So many false analogies. McChrystal was in no way this decade's Douglas MacArthur. And there are many ways in which Gen. Stanley McChrystal is not like Gen. George McClellan, famously sacked by President Lincoln in 1862. Where McClellan had, as Lincoln noted, "the slows," McChrystal, if anything, had the "fasts" -- was an effective battlefield commander, a soldier of first rank, and was never insubordinate. But McClellan, in his private letters, was contemptuous of his commander in chief, calling him a "gorilla": "What a specimen to be at the head of our affairs now!" The sad irony of the day is that McChrystal himself, initially skeptical about Obama, had grown to trust his commander in chief. But McChrystal's staff -- they were stuck in McClellan mode. And indeed, there may have been a reason for this: civilian control of the military means little when the civilians can't tell their knees from their elbows in Afghanistan.

More about McChrystal: Why was his nickname "The Pope?" The Pope is a nickname that special operations forces and their admirers bestow on the commander of JSOC because Janet Reno once complained about the futility of trying to pry information out of JSOC units. They were like the Vatican, she grumbled, to which people responded, "Hell yeah." Hence the name. People who served under mcChrystal when he was CJSOC still call him the Pope. The current Pope, by right, is McRaven. But he's just a weeny Navy guy, or so tease the Army guys, half seriously. One of the reasons the name stuck was because JSOC was unleashed by the Bush administration. McChrystal knows where the bodies are buried. I do not mean this metaphorically. He literally knows. He knows because he buried them.

Even more about McChrystal: now it can be told. The story about him voting for Obama is not contrived. He is a political liberal. He is a social liberal. He banned Fox News from the television sets in his headquarters. Yes, really. This puts to rest another false rumor: that McChrystal deliberately precipitated his firing because he wants to run for President.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/10/06/the-night-beat-obama-borrows-the-military-back/58635

[doc03]

1. Unless he wants to run as a real liberal? n/t

[Kalun D]

2. That's What I Thought

Read the R.S. article, there's nothing that bad in there. McCrystal resigned because he wanted to. I think he was sick of having to fight an un-winnable war.

[amborin]

5. ny times says miltary thinks it's unwinnable....

[Arkana]

6. So...

...he basically did the equivalent of an army grunt purposefully getting caught smoking weed so he gets sent home?

(A classmate of mine actually did this--he was sent to Afghanistan, and the second day his friend was shot to death. He nearly had a nervous breakdown, but the military wouldn't send him home--so he got "caught" toking up.)

[Clio the Leo]

8. "win"?

.... I've never understood this "win" business .... this war is not something to win or lose .... it's not a game of Yahtzee .... NO war is "winnable" because someone always loses. Lives, money, collective pieces of the souls of a nation.

We take for granted the blood shed against the British to liberate this nation, we are thankful for that "win" .... but what did their mothers lose? .... And would we, for one second, renig our freedoms to England if we could have caused those young men to live full and productive lives?

This is not a game, it's a balancing act .... military blood vs the blood of innocent American citizens .... the battle was lost when man first raised his fist in anger against his fellow man at the dawn of creation.

We've merely been trying to survive since then ... and that's all we're doing now. Trying to survive ... the best way we know how.

[vaberella]

10. What's killing me is that this poster is thinking something that wasn't in the article.

Because they read "liberal" they think McChrystal pushing for no time limits on the war and more troops than 30,000 is liberal. Further more..everyone bloody well knows that McChrystal shared in Obama's views on Afghanistan but this poster is saying otherwise---that he didn't want to fight any more. Nonsense.

[Clio the Leo]

12. as is the notion that "liberals" think uniformly....

.... we dont do that, that's what REPUBLICANS do. ;)

[vaberella]

14. Dude, I don't think liberals are for endless war.

I'm sorry but that's so contrary to anything liberal. More death, needless killings, the ridiculous expense...he might be a libertarian...but he's no liberal. I can see how those titles might be confused.

[Clio the Leo]

18. no one's for "endless" war .....

.... some might be for fighting a war until the enemy is destroyed, as LONG as it takes .... unless we're talking about the Jews and the Muslims :) "endless" war is message board hyperbole.

[vaberella]

22. whatever...a war WITHOUT a timeline freaks me out. n/t

[Clio the Leo]

27. war by itself is enough to freak anyone out.....

... be it state sponsored or insurgent lead.

[Kalun D]

16. This Isn't About Survival

This is about rich greed pigs making more money, that's all.

We won WW2 against much more formidable enemies. We won't win this war because it would take too many of our boy's lives for a reason that is obviously fraudulent and the longer it goes the more money they make. It's an intentionally reduced conflict that is just a big money pit.

"Terror" is a fabrication of the

M ilitary
I ndustrial
M edia
C omplex

You need to stop believing what the Orwellian corporate owned TV tells you about "terror". The chances of getting killed by terror are 100 times as remote as getting killed by lighting.

Let's talk about real threats like pharmaceuticals and GMO's, stuff the TV doesn't talk about but that kills tens of thousands every year.

[Clio the Leo]

21. "The chances of getting killed by terror are 100 times as remote as getting killed by lighting."

easy to say if you didn't lose a friend to a "lightening strike" (at 8:45am on a random Tuesday morning in September)

I have personal reasons for disagreeing with you and respect your right to your alternate opinion.

[Kalun D]

29. Agree to Disagree, and that's okay of course

but couldn't the $Trillion dollars spent on war be better spent on schools or jobs?

[golfguru]

24. Getting killed by nature is quite different than getting killed

by a bomb placed amongst civilians. Lightening, Earthquakes,
Tsunami's etc are unavoidable. But terror is man made and can
be stopped.

[Kalun D]

30. One $Trillion Dollars

how many lives were saved by spending 1 $Trillion dollars on war?

most experts say also that these wars are only creating more terrorists

is there any more cost effective ways of saving lives?

for instance how many are still dying in the USA from lack of health care? Certainly more than are being killed in "terror" attacks

"terror" is just an extremely exaggerated "threat" fabricated by the MIMC in order to have an excuse for profit center wars in oil rich regions.

ever since the Russians folded they've needed a new enemy, "terror" is perfect because as soon as your through in one country you can move on to another just by claiming that's where the "terror" is now

[golfguru]

42. I agree with you...our methods of fighting terror sucks big time

We could have done it much cheaper and more effectively.
But the M-I complex must be fed.

[golfguru]

23. Wars are winnable, Guerrilla wars are not

Japan was decisively defeated in WWII and surrendered unconditionally.
So did Hitler's Germany. Saddam Hussein's regime was also decisively
defeated.

The war against Taliban & Al Qaeda is not a "classic war" involving
uniformed soldiers. It is guerrilla warfare similar to Viet-Nam war
with the Viet-Cong. These type of wars seldom end with decisive win.

[Kalun D]

31. So why are we there?

[golfguru]

41. Because we are fools....just like sending troops to Viet-Nam

to fight a guerrilla war in rice paddies and jungles, 6000 miles long supply line, forbidden to attack source of enemy supply (North Viet-Nam Capital and trails in
neighboring countries) and worst of all the war strategy executed by politicians
in Washington DC. The Soviets could'nt design a worst war for us!

[vaberella]

9. You didn't read the article properly. The man wanted an ENDLESS war.

That's why he wanted more troops---the 30,000 wasn't what he wanted and he also wanted no time limit. Good lord, your post is laughable.

[Kalun D]

20. I can see your point

He didn't want to fight a war in which his hands were tied. A war he was not allowed to win.

[vaberella]

25. A war where he had to send troops home starting next year.

He wanted to have the chance to extend it if need be, he wanted more troops. I don't know if that was about winning---in some respects it smack of ego problems. He did feel his hands were tied because Obama gave a strict timeline. If we start to win or not troops will start coming home---in a systemic withdrawal starting next summer. Petraeus reiterated this at the Senate meeting last week. McChrystal was pissed off--Biden didn't even want an escalation of troops to 30,000. McChrystal wanted to win because I get the impression he didn't want this to be another Vietnam. I get the feeling that Obama is aware this could be our Vietnam and was tired of losing more troops but also felt that we needed to silence the threat so he gave McChrystal a job and two years to do it. Well the 30,000 troops wasn't doing it for McChrystal and he didn't like 2 years he felt he needed more. Obama said he wanted results and yet within the first year, with one year to go for withdrawal beginnings---there were no positive results just negative. This is probably Petraeus said to the dismay of the Repubs on the Senate comittee this is going to start ending for us starting next year. Biden's plan was to start removing troops since last year and focus on the drones. McChrystal's was to use drones and increase troops to around 40,000+, Obama then made the comopromise between the two with conditions. This was discussed when the whole thing started last year.

[Kalun D]

32. Thought I read somewhere

the general consensus a guerilla war took 10 years minimum to win

[vaberella]

38. Guerilla war that can be turned around I think...well we might have.

The thing is a good number of the people, by the President's advisers, don't like AQ. So they would be very glad if AQ was not around. A recent news article stated that the soldiers actually intimidated the people and came across as military while I believe the Chinese or someone else came dressed in civilian clothing when they spoke to the people. The ultimate problem was that the soldiers on the ground weren't taught how to "win hearts and minds". The people are already extremely dissatisfied but our guys weren't really working these people to trust them except with money which really means nothing when they don't have a set infrastructure to get things. They'd sooner collect the money to buy they're way out of Afghanistan rather than staying and building a steady infrastructure. So you have a major disconnect with us and them. But these guys could have been our forces---and rather they don't trust us and fear AQ. That causes problems for our success over there. We could have had a civilian army of our own who knew the terrain and who were willing to help---so then it would have been more of a win for us.

This was again mentioned in another article about the military men under McChrystal weren't really doing the Obama's real game plan which is to win "hearts and minds". There could be a change in formation if Petraeus comes around. Iraq and Afghanistan are similar and then not. Luckily for us we had people in Iraq willing to join forces with us in a decent number so the winning of "hearts and minds" wasn't necessary. We have wary people on the other hand in Afghanistan.

I've never heard of any major military successful beating in guerilla warfare. So this 10 year mark is a bit weird. In any case, we had a chance to actually win this one since we have a wary civilian population who would have joined us if need be.

[CTLawGuy]

40. That was my understanding too

McChrystal wanted a huge troop increase and no timetable.

[Jennicut]

37. McChrystal didn't want to listen to those that felt Karzai was untrustworthy.

He and his aides dismissed those who felt that the war needed a more definate time limit and that COIN was not the next thing to sliced bread. I think you might be off on this one. Eikenberry, Holbrooke and Biden all were very skeptical of Karzai and McChrystal made best buddies with him.

[dflprincess]

3. McChrystal as a liberal doesn't really jive with what Sy Hersh wrote about him

May 2009: Seymour Hersh - McChrystal Was Cheney's Chief Assassin; Camp Nama
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/05/16

Also a DU thread on the topic

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8617527&mesg_id=8617527

[noamnety]

7. That doesn't disprove that he's a liberal.

You can be a liberal and believe that assassins are a good thing, that habeus corpus is a bad thing, and that torture isn't a war crime.

[vaberella]

11. I can't say this enough. I've never heard of a liberal who wants an ENDLESS war...

and upset because he didn't get enough troops because Obama wants us out. That doesn't equal LIBERAL.

[noamnety]

15. It was a tongue in cheek post on my part.

Personally, no, I don't consider anyone a liberal who supports those things, no matter how high up they are and no matter if they define themselves as a liberal or not. :)

[dflprincess]

43. You can believe all that and CALL yourself a liberal but that doesn't make you one.

It takes more than disliking Fox to be a liberal.

[Arkana]

4. Heh.

So much for that story.

[vaberella]

13. He may not like Fox but that doesn't make him a liberal.

The man was plenty for escalation and shared Obama's views, if not even more radical (contrary to Liberal) views about the war. He wanted no time limits and 10,000-20,000 more troops. Voting for Obama doesn't make him liberal. A lot of Repubs voted for Obama and they are still Repubs.

[JI7]

19. he could be liberal like supportive of gay rights, govt programs etc but pro war also

after all the military is one of the biggest govt programs there is.

[vaberella]

26. dude again..

I don't see senseless death of civilians, of expense, and in particular this war as being something liberal. Actually I just don't see a lot of liberals who are pro-war. Libertarians, yes. And Libertarians are supportive of gay rights and pro war too.

[JI7]

28. yeah, but it could explain why he might not like Fox News

he likes Hillary Clinton.

[vaberella]

39. I see. There are a few here. n/t

[FrenchieCat]

33. His staffs reflect similar "liberal" thinking, I would reckon.....

From the article:

Who's he going to dinner with?" I ask one of his aides.

"Some French minister," the aide tells me. "It's fucking gay."




That's being socially Liberal? :wow:

[JI7]

34. similar offensive comments are made on DU all the time

when it comes to race, sexual orientation, sex etc.

[FrenchieCat]

35. But doesn't make it liberal.

[JI7]

36. true

but some of them still think they are liberal.

remember a former member that attacked all dems for not being liberal but came out in support of arizona racist bill ?

[JI7]

17. this was more of a case of Civilian vs Military leadership

and being a liberal doesn't excuse McChrystal from what he did.

but hopefully this means we wont see him become a media whore pundit .

[bonzotex]

44. Marc Ambinder is not particularly bright...

I'm not really inclined to take any of his analysis seriously. That whole article is just a word stew of DC gossip - which is pretty much his style.

[Spazito]

45. Ambinder's sources re McCrystal are...

"... several people who worked for, and continue to work for, Gen. McChrystal...". Pardon me if I don't trust them any more than the aides who were with him in Paris during the Rolling Stone interview, in fact, they could be the same people.

His cover-up of Tilman's murder, his want for endless war in Afghanistan doesn't compute with him being a liberal in real sense at all.

[LeftyAndProud60]

46. He's a liberal that became disenchanted w/ Barack Obama. I said it before and I'll say it again,

He'd fit right in here. I wonder what his screen name will be.