Joint Chiefs Chairman Calls Obama Plan Risky

[Purveyor]

Source: ASSOCIATED PRESS

(06-23) 08:24 PDT WASHINGTON, (AP) --

The U.S. military's top officer told Congress on Thursday that President Barack Obama's decision to withdraw up to 33,000 troops from Afghanistan by next summer is riskier than he originally was prepared to endorse.

Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the House Armed Services Committee that he supports the president's plans, which have been widely interpreted as marking the beginning of the end of the U.S. combat role in Afghanistan.

Mullen said the pullout plans are "more aggressive and incur more risk" than he had considered prudent.

"More force for more time is, without doubt, the safer course," Mullen said. "But that does not necessarily make it the best course. Only the president, in the end, can really determine the acceptable level of risk we must take. I believe he has done so."

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/06/23/national/w072221D01.DTL

[kestrel91316]

1. Mullen needs to submit his resignation immediately. His job is to say, "Yes, sir!"

[Unvanguard]

3. He did. The headline buries the lede a bit.

What Mullen is saying is basically reasonable: it's safer (in terms of "winning") to keep more troops there, but considering the extent of the costs carrying on the war imposes on the United States, it's a reasonable policy decision to accept some risk in trade for other benefits.

[elleng]

13. Right. Thanks. Damned headlines.

[lark]

17. Of course, the aim is to make Obama look bad

so they put forward the worst possible twist.

[hugo_from_TN]

14. When testifying to Congress his job and duty is to tell the truth.

Sheesh.

[kestrel91316]

15. Indeed. But if that's the way he feels then he needs to leave.

He doesn't get to oppose his boss. There is ONE boss, and it ain't Mullen.

[24601]

18. His one boss is the Secretary of Defense. When senior officers

are undergoing confirmation hearings, they are routinely asked to pledge to provide their honest opinions to Congress when asked - I won't even say "especially when under oath" since I believe you will get the truth from him, oath or not. Remember former Army Chief of Staff GEN Eric Shinseki (currently the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs)? He disagreed with Rumsfeld & Bush on the number of soldiers that would be needed Iraq. Do you believe he too should have resigned?

No, the very sad truth is that the opposition to Mullen here is because his view on this issue is different than most on DU - and that's not a good reason to resign (actually he will be retiring this summer, not resigning). Think also that without his support, DADT would not be on the way out.

I haven't agreed with him on every issue, but he has been a good steward of the office and deserves our thanks, not our scorn, for his service and adherence to the Constitution.

[Wilms]

2. Risky? Try telling that to these guys.

[lonestarnot]

4. blah blah blah warmonger investors, 2 billion a weekers fuck you!

[krabigirl]

5. Risky? Leaving them there is riskier. Enough is enough.

[Metta]

6. His job is making war. His vision is narrowed by those blinders.

It's what he knows. Still, ....

[ProSense]

7. Mullen: ‘I Support The President’s Decision’ On Afghanistan, ‘As Do Gens. Mattis & Petraeus’

Think Progress:

The right has been attacking President Obama’s decision to withdraw 33,000 troops from Afghanistan, claiming that he ignored Gen. David Petraeus’s advice. “It has been widely known that General Petraeus objected to this proposal,” Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said on Fox News last night. However, this morning in testimony to the House Armed Services Committee, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen said that Petraeus does support Obama’s decision. “I support the President’s decision, as do Generals Mattis and Petraeus,” Mullen said.

The RW and media don't seem to understand that this is the President's decision to make.

[SoapBox]

8. Didn't the Thugs hate the surge in the first place? And now that we want to bring out

the surge troops...they are mad again?

*whip lash*

[jwirr]

9. Of course it is risky. Many of us remember what happened in Vietnam.

But is it more risky than letting the USA continue to deteriorate? That is what is at stake here. We can either follow the other empires down the drain because we are spending too much on world control instead of home improvements or we can pull back - work on a diplomatic solution - and start using our money to prepare the USA for the 21st century - alternatives and self sufficiency.

I don't think we have a choice. We need to come home.

[pezDispenser]

10. I'm honestly confused

What is the overall mission? Does the general public know what the goals are? I think knowing that would help me decide if I felt it was worth risking or not.

[Dawson Leery]

11. The military is under civilian control.

The military is to receive orders from the President, a CIVILIAN!

[elleng]

12. 'Riskier than . . .,' more like it.

[Kolesar]

16. The McChrystal "surge" plan was risky

and it didn't work.

[WhiteTara]

19. What a traitor. Ask for his resignation

immediately. Send him to the brig for insubordination.