The General, and the community organizer

[Don T. Lukbak]

Paul R. Hollrah
AuthorCommentKCPeteThe General and the Community Organizer by Paul R. Hollrah

Lead[-]
Posts: 2905
07/07/10 06:12:18

Tags : None
Channel-surfing from ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN through MSNBC and Fox News, the inside-the-beltway pundits had a field day trying to get inside the heads of Barack Obama, Joe Biden, General Stanley McChrystal, and McChrystal’s top aides. The one thing common to all of the analyses, by the most famous and highly-paid talking heads in the Western World, was that they are all wrong… dead wrong. What is certain is that they all owe General McChrystal and his senior aides an apology for assuming that they are lame-brained numbskulls.

The facts of the McChrystal case are not in dispute. General McChrystal and his senior officers allowed a reporter for Rolling Stone Magazine, Michael Hastings, to have almost unprecedented access during an extended stay in Paris. The extended stay was due, in part, to an excess of atmospheric ash from Iceland’s Eyjafjallajokull volcano, keeping the McChrystal party grounded for days. Hastings subsequently published a lengthy profile of General McChrystal on June 22, titled, The Runaway General.

In an interview with CNN, Hastings reported that he had a tape recorder in his hand most of the time and that McChrystal was “very aware” that his comments would find their way into print. He said, “McChrystal and his people set no ground rules for their conversations, although they did ask that some parts of their conversations were off the record.”

As Hastings wrote in his profile, McChrystal thought that Obama looked“uncomfortable and intimidated” by the roomful of military brass during their first meeting. Of their second meeting, an advisor to McChrystal quoted the general as saying that it was “a 10-minute photo op.” He went on to say, “Obama clearly didn’t know anything about (McChrystal), who he was. Here’s the guy who’s going to run his f_ _ _ing war, but he didn’t seem very engaged. The Boss was pretty disappointed.”

As General McChrystal flew from Afghanistan to Washington to face Obama in the Oval Office, the almost unanimous opinion of the talking heads was that the comments made by McChrystal and his staff were off the cuff and inadvertent. But to believe that is to totally ignore who these men are.

General McChrystal and his top officers are not simple-minded, knuckle-dragging brutes. To the contrary, they are intelligent, thoughtful, highly educated, patriots… graduates of West Point and other fine universities… who are dedicated to duty, honor, and country. To think that such men would be so careless as to speak unflatteringly of Obama, Biden, and other top administration figures, in the presence of a reporter for a notoriously left wing publication, defies logic… at the very least. To think that men who are trained to be careful and deliberate in everything they do, could do something so careless and so unguarded is simply beyond comprehension.

I would argue that McChrystal and his aides knew exactly what they were doing.

From the day that he became the handpicked “spear carrier” for Obama’s unique brand of warfare… playing at being Commander in Chief while playing to his far left constituency… McChrystal’s life had been one of constant frustration. After telling Obama exactly how many troops he needed to carry out his mission, Obama dithered for months before deciding to give him just half the troops he requested. McChrystal could not have been happy about that.

The Obama team insisted on new Rules of Engagement designed to reduce collateral damage (civilian casualties). Obama’s ROE required that U.S. troops must be able to see the enemy with weapon in hand before they were allowed to return fire. One videotape circulated on the Internet showed a platoon of Marines pinned down by enemy sniper fire. But since the enemy was firing from some distance behind the open window of a building, the Marines could not actually see the weapon being fired. Although they were taking deadly fire, they were prohibited by the ROE from putting small arms fire or an RPG through the window opening.

Under Obama’s politically correct ROE, our soldiers and Marines were required to fight with one hand tied behind their backs. McChrystal had to have been happy about that.

A strict new interrogation policy, dictated by Attorney General Eric Holder, required that prisoners must be delivered to an Interrogation Center within twenty-four hours of being captured or be released to return to the battlefield. A great deal of actionable intelligence was lost as a result and battle-hardened enemy fighters were returned to the field to kill Americans. McChrystal must have found that to be incomprehensible.

But the greatest insult to our troops in the field, and to the officers who lead them, may be a new battlefield medal designed by the Obama team. It is called the Courageous Restraint Medal and is awarded to soldiers and Marines who demonstrate uncommon restrain in combat by not firing their weapons even when they feel threatened by the enemy. Should we be surprised to learn that the preponderance these medals were awarded posthumously? McChrystal must have found that to be an insanity.

I suggest that, having his best military judgments subjected to the White House political sieve for nearly a year and a half, McChrystal decided that he’d had enough. And when he announced to his senior staff that he was prepared to retire they decided to push back… to make the most of a bad situation. It was clear that, if McChrystal were to simply take off his uniform and walk away, his retirement would be page-twenty news for a day or two before the mainstream media and the American people forgot all about him.

They had to make the most of his retirement because it provided a one-time opportunity to show the American people, as well as our enemies and our allies, that the man who claims the title of Commander in Chief of the U.S. military does not command the respect of our men and women in uniform. To make the most of that opportunity they had to choose their messenger very carefully.

They knew that, by openly showing their disrespect for Obama in front of just any newsman, they may not attract the attention they desired. Like any astute observer of the MSM, they knew that most reporters would turn on their own mothers if it meant a good story. But they could not take a chance that a mainstream media reporter might suffer a rare pang of conscience when confronted with the prospect of ruining the careers of some of the most senior officers in the War on Terror. They had to fix the odds as much as possible in their favor so they chose to use Michael Hastings and Rolling Stone Magazine.

During the long hours that General McChrystal was in the air between Kabul and Washington, Obama knew that he had just two choices… both bad. He could declare McChrystal to be an irreplaceable asset in the war effort, give him a public reprimand, and send him back to Kabul. Or he could fire McChrystal, sending a clear message that, at least in his own mind, he was the Commander in Chief.

In the former case, he was certain to appear weak and ineffectual… a man not totally in charge. In the latter case, he might at least win a few rave reviews from the Kook-Ade drinkers in the mainstream media. He chose the latter of the two options.

But what is now lost in all of the hand-wringing and speculation is the fact that McChrystal and his people have succeeded in doing exactly what they set out to do. They wanted to plant the seed in the minds of the American people that Obama is not up to the task of being Commander in Chief and that he does not command the respect of the men and women of the uniformed services… from the newest Private E-1 up to the top four-star generals and admirals.

That seed is now firmly planted and it cannot be unplanted.

From this day forward, no one will have to tell the American people that Stanley McChrystal is a true warrior, a man’s man, and that Barack Obama is nothing more than a… community organizer. Well done, General!

Mr. Hollrah is a native of St. Charles, Missouri. He holds a BS degree in Civil Engineering from the University of Missouri and is a 2001 inductee in the Civil Engineering Academy of Distinguished Alumni. From 1962-70 he served as a Senior Project Engineer for Cities Service Oil Company (CITGO) and the Sun Oil Company (Sunoco) in New York and Tulsa, Oklahoma.

http://community.history.com/topic/1...R-Hollrah.html

[Cousin Dupree]

That Courageous Restraint Medal? It doesn't exist. It was briefly considered (by NATO commanders, NOT "Obama's team") but never implemented.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/restraint.asp

[JohnnyFarangly]

Originally Posted by Cousin Dupree

That Courageous Restraint Medal? It doesn't exist. It was briefly considered (by NATO commanders, NOT "Obama's team") but never implemented.

Please dont interrupt Mr Lukbak's BS postings with facts.

I understand Hastings and McChrystal 's staff got shitfaced while in Paris.
Probably explains some of the rants.

[O'Mike]

Be careful for all your praise of McChrystal. There is very little doubt that he was a fine warrior and a fighting man with a good repetition. However that did not make him a good commander! He is a liberal and one of bho's boys. Yes they eat their own in this case.

Because the media was previously sympethatic to bho's boy McChrystal we saw very little MSM coverage of his inability to lead our effort, and the lefts changes he (McChrystal) implemented.

Under McChrystal:
Dilution of the Rules of Engagement, hamstringing the troops on the ground.

Troop deaths rose sharply this year in Afghanistan (But the national media, sympathetic to Obama, rarely makes note of that.)

He has also made bad command decisions that cost American lives, like leaving a bridge unguarded that troops had to recross after an offensive, etc.


We tend to lump all military personnel into one political camp, especially the leadership, and forget they are political animals, and represent both parties. They climb the ladder through abilities, and many use a high level of political skill to advance, and liberal leaning officers will have an advantage for a few years.

Stanley McChrystal got promoted beyond his abilities, final answer. He will get his feathers smoothed out by a positive media spin, and him keeping all his stars in retirement (even though bho had to break the rules for that due to lack of time in grade on SM's part). So American can now welcome home a decorated warrior as a hero, we might get a new TV analyst and possibly a book from him. Best of all the troops fighting in Afghanistan can now hopefully get a more competent commander that will protect their asses better.

[Don T. Lukbak]

Originally Posted by Cousin Dupree

That Courageous Restraint Medal? It doesn't exist. It was briefly considered (by NATO commanders, NOT "Obama's team") but never implemented.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/restraint.asp

Thanks, cuz...I'm pissed off at the author, who's just an ordinary American expressing his opinion on an enigma as far as I can tell, and even more pissed off at myself. I had honestly believed the "courageous restraint medal" was a trial balloon bruited about by DOD civvies, but did not YET exist in fact. Hell, I've even seen lib bloggers on Daily Kos or Huffington or one of 'em go on and on bragging on what a great idea a courageous restraint medal is! I'm gratified to learn it was just from a NATO feather merchant. I subscribe to Marine Corps Times and missed McMichael's article, which serves me right for wasting my time reading crap on Daily Kos.

O'Mike made some interesting points, maybe good ones, about General McChrystal ... I don't have the inside information that Farangly apparently does, consequently cannot speak with his assured certainty ... to me the General is a mystery. His reputation is solid as a warrior as far as I can tell. I understand the ROE are extremely restrictive in his AOR; even though he is a proponent of protecting civilians in 4th Generation Warfighting, and restrictive ROE are part of that, I have wondered whether he has been pressured by Obama to even further restrict them. I don't know. Farangly probably does. The increased operational tempo under Nobel Peace Prize recipient Obama, as well as these more restrictive ROE very likely account for the near doubling of American troops killed during 18 months under Obama over 7+ years under Bush (Oct 2001-Jan 2009, 625 killed; latest casualty figures I could find, 1124 killed). Undoubtedly this mode of warfighting is deadlier for American troops in the short term; the sacrifice is made in hope and expectation that fighting in this manner will bring a more satisfactory conclusion to the conflict and thereby reduce total mortality.

The good news, for me at least, is Gen. Petraeus is in the catbird seat now...if he wants to give his grunts a bit of relief with regard to ROE I believe he can do that without Obama jacking with him. He needs more troops, maybe he can get those too...we're just spread so damn thin that potential rival nations are running wild in the knowledge we don't have the manpower to slap them down. The bad news is the idea of unnecessary losses our troops sustain trying to eliminate civilian casualties. Minimize, sure; eliminate, it ain't going to happen and tying the hands of our warriors is demoralizing beyond belief.

[Don T. Lukbak]

Originally Posted by JohnnyFarangly

Please dont interrupt Mr Lukbak's BS postings with facts.

NO! Please do, repeat do, interrupt my BS with facts. Will you do that? Do that for me? I was born ignorant and every day's a battle trying to beat back the frontiers of ignorance. Unlike Farangly, I'm far from dominating the struggle, so will appreciate any help any of you can provide in trying to figure out truth.

Thank you kindly.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by Don T. Lukbak

NO! Please do, repeat do, interrupt my BS with facts. Will you do that? Do that for me? I was born ignorant and every day's a battle trying to beat back the frontiers of ignorance. Unlike Farangly, I'm far from dominating the struggle, so will appreciate any help any of you can provide in trying to figure out truth.

If you are genuinely in search of the "facts" and/or the "truth" you might start by getting rid of the ridiculous photoshopped avatar.

That might go a long way toward giving you at least a little credibility!

[Don T. Lukbak]

Originally Posted by bigtex

If you truly are in search of the "facts" and the "truth" you might start by getting rid of the ridiculous photoshopped avatar. That might go a long way toward giving you at least a little credibility!

Go back to your "graphic novels"...where else would you have learned to confuse decoration with substance? Here, I'll type it slowly:
S u b s t a n c e.

Hell, it's even more apropos than usual in this thread; I can't think of a more likely incarnation of this deity as seen through McChrystal's eyes. But only he is qualified to comment on the definative vision.

You favor a puma, good on you. Some schmendrick from PETA or WWF criticises your choice of avatars I'll take your side. But do not fuck with me about my joker with the Sicilian smile.


You have anything constructive to add, genius?
You know, concerning content? Surprise me.

[Don T. Lukbak]

Originally Posted by O'Mike

Under McChrystal:
Dilution of the Rules of Engagement, hamstringing the troops on the ground.
Troop deaths rose sharply this year in Afghanistan (But the national media, sympathetic to Obama, rarely makes note of that.)

****************************** *************************

The controversy over Rules of Engagement in Afghanistan covers the spectrum of opinion, from O'Mike's opinion quoted above through acknowledgement of restrictive ROE as part of effective G4W warfighting (for a fine book on G4W read The Shield and the Stone, by Marine Col. Thomas X. Hammes), then on to justifiable concern that Gen. McChrystal may have adjusted the ROE in something like an ideal balance only to have them screwed up by some Obama administration or NATO drive-by feather merchant...the truth is probably lurking in there somewhere. I had confidence in McChrystal, his voting record notwithstanding, but also view Obama as Murphy's Law in human form: if there's any possible way to screw up a good thing, Obama will do just that.

Confusing situation for mere civvies.

So I was delighted to see Max Boot's words of reassurance today in Commentary.

Hype and Reality over Rules of EngagementMax Boot - 07.20.2010 - 9:13 AM
"Having recently returned from more than two weeks in Afghanistan, I was struck by how overblown the whole debate over “Rules of Engagement” has become. Back home, bloggers are becoming apoplectic, claiming that, as one website put it, “Obama’s Rules of Engagement in Afghanistan Costing Our Troops Lives.” From such hyperbolic reporting, you would think that American soldiers and Marines are routinely being killed in firefights that they might have won had they been able to summon air or artillery support. Not so. The biggest killer of our troops is IEDs, which no amount of bombing can stop. In fact, too much expenditure of firepower can make it harder for our troops to uncover these deadly booby traps, because it alienates the population — the prime source of intelligence.
The National Bureau of Economic Research has just released an interesting paper on the effects of civilian casualties. It is written by four social scientists, one of them a U.S. Army colonel (Joe Felter) currently serving in Afghanistan. Through a careful study of collateral-damage incidents, they determined that every coalition-caused civilian death results in “6 additional violent incidents in an average sized district in the following 6 weeks.” In other words, being too indiscriminate in the application of firepower creates more enemies than our operations can remove. Which is precisely why General Stanley McChrystal — not President Obama — instituted tight limits on the use of force.
His restrictions have been in part responsible for a decline in American air strikes and in Afghan civilian deaths. As CNN notes: “Civilians killed by U.S. and NATO forces ‘reduced considerably’ to 210 during the period [the first half of the year] because of restrictions imposed on the use of airstrikes. … Deaths in airstrikes dropped by more than 50 percent to 94.” That means, in effect, that U.S. troops created fewer enemies for themselves than they have in the past.
The risks incurred by U.S. troops under this policy are somewhat ameliorated by the fact that their numbers have tripled over the past year. That means they can win more fights without having to call in air support. But there is no doubt that the tight restrictions on air strikes have somewhat increased the risks faced by ground forces, even though McChrystal always made it plain that troops have a right and a duty to act in self-defense.
This has resulted in a handful of highly publicized cases, recycled many times in news accounts, in which troops complain that they were prevented from calling in badly needed air strikes. It appears likely that McChrystal’s broad directives, while well-intentioned, were interpreted too bureaucratically and too narrowly by some units. That is something that General David Petraeus and his operational commander, Lieutenant General David Rodriguez, are now studying to determine whether adjustments are necessary.
But don’t expect Petraeus to declare Afghanistan a free-fire zone. Nor should he. He is mindful, as McChrystal was, that the Soviets killed more than a million Afghans in the 1980s and still lost the war. The “kill them all” approach to counterinsurgency seldom if ever works, and it is certainly not an option for the armed forces of a liberal superpower that must operate under the glare of media scrutiny. Our armed forces must strike a delicate balance between aggressively hunting insurgents and sparing the population among whom the insurgents hide. That is hard to do, and it requires tremendous discipline and fortitude on the part of the troops, but it is the only way to win a war like this one."

Boot is a regular contributor on LA Times and the author of a couple of excellent books on military matters, including one of my favorites: The Savage Wars of Peace. He's a truthteller.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by bigtex

If you are genuinely in search of the "facts" and/or the "truth" .... !

How IS Austin doing? Feel right at home with the 38 percenters?

[enderwiggin]

Originally Posted by bigtex

If you are genuinely in search of the "facts" and/or the "truth" you might start by getting rid of the ridiculous photoshopped avatar.

That might go a long way toward giving you at least a little credibility!

This doesn't make any sense. "If you wanted the truth, you wouldn't share your opinion." Huh?