State of the Union: National Security Adviser Jones Chides McChrystal
By Heather Monday Oct 05, 2009 10:00am
From CNN's State of the Union. Looks like some pushback against the Lindsey Grahams of the world from Jim Jones.
National Security Adviser Chides McChrystal:
President Obama's National Security Adviser James L. Jones suggested Sunday that the public campaign being conducted by the U.S. commander in Afghanistan on behalf of his war strategy is complicating the internal White House review now underway, saying that "it is better for military advice to come up through the chain of command."
Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, who commands the 100,000 U.S. and international forces in Afghanistan, warned bluntly last week in a London speech that a strategy for defeating the Taliban narrower than the one he is advocating would be ineffective and "short-sighted." The comments effectively rejected a policy option that senior White House officials, including Vice President Biden, are seriously considering nearly eight years after the U.S. invasion.
McChrystal's statement came a day after he was challenged by senior White House officials over his dire assessment of the war -- and what it will take to improve the U.S. position there -- during a video conference from Kabul with Obama and his national security team. Obama then summoned McChrystal to Copenhagen the day after the general's speech for a private meeting aboard Air Force One.
Of course no one in the media is bothering to ask why Obama would have promoted the likes of Gen. McChrystal in the first place given his record.
McChrystal's Pat Tillman Connection:
Now the man who greased the chain of command that orchestrated this great deception is prepared to assume total control of US operations in Afghanistan: Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal. It was McChrystal who approved Tillman's posthumous Silver Star, a medal given explicitly for combat, even though he later testified that he "suspected" friendly fire.
Yet despite this, both Democrats and Republicans are rushing to heap praise on McChrystal, including Sen. John McCain. It was McCain who rushed to speak at Tillman's funeral and then, when the cover-up became known, pledged to help the Tillman family expose the truth. McCain later turned his back on the Tillmans when they raised the volume and demanded answers. As Pat's mother, Mary Tillman, said last year, "He definitely eased out of the situation. He didn't blatantly say he wouldn't help us, it's just that it became clear that he kind of drifted away."
And now the Tillman family, amidst bipartisan praise for Obama's new general, must once again raise the inconvenient truth.
[....]
What particularly rankles about Obama's choice of McChrystal, whose background is in the nefarious and shadowy world of "black ops," is that his actions in the Tillman cover-up feel emblematic instead of exceptional.
[....]
Clearly President Obama is trying to "own" the war in Afghanistan: upping the troop levels, making it his "central front" in the battle against terrorism and now placing his own general in charge. But the president is also disappointing a generation of antiwar activists who voted for him expecting an end to imperial adventures and torture sanctioned by the executive branch. Now a man who should perhaps be on trial at the Hague is in charge of Afghanistan. Obama needs to know it's not just the Tillmans who are enraged by this terrible choice.
Jones was not the only one to push back on the McChrystal PR campaign this week and it seems that a number of informed voices seem to share my concern that McChrystal is “teetering towards insubordination.”
Transcript below the fold.
KING: The president sat down face-to-face with General McChrystal the other day on Air Force One in Europe. Did he express any disappointment that the commander has been so public? Essentially many in Washington think, almost putting the commander in chief in a box by publicly saying, "I need these troops?"
JONES: Well, I wasn't there, and -- and what happened between -- the conversation between the -- and I've not spoken to the president since he talked to him, so I can't comment on the conversation.
KING: Is that an appropriate -- would you act that way as a commander? Do you think -- is it at all unseemly that the men in uniform, and I know, sir, you wore the uniform for many years, that they are out openly campaigning for this one? It's on an open question for the president?
JONES: Ideally, it's better for military advice to come up through the chain of command and I think that General McChrystal and the others in the chain of command will present the president with not just one option, which does, in fact, tend to have a forcing function, but a range of options that the president can consider.
And as I said, and forgive me for repeating myself, troops are a portion of the answer, but not the total answer. It's this coordination that has to...
Login or Register to post comments.
like the health care/insurance industrial complex has an agenda......profit.
I need to stick my head out from under this rock more often. I didn't know that he was involved in the Tillman cover up. So who first suggested McChrystal for his new position? Was it Gates or maybe Petraeus? I don't know how these things work.
McChrystal should be dismissed for leaking this report.
Gates should be next.
It's well past time for a purge of the Busheviks in the military (and the rest of the government).
Doesn't matter who suggested it Obama is accountable here.
My guess is since it is primarily a propaganda war, Obama felt MacChrystal was the slickest, given his credentials in the Tillman cover up.
If he can cover up the death of a star, maybe he can cover up the death of a war.
Do you seriously believe what you said in your last two paragraphs? Do you believe the President is that devious?
all this time i thought adm. mullen made the mcChrystal appointment.........i forgot for a moment that president obama is at fault for everything. snark
... but he is the president now, so he is responsible for.
I agree, it's his military now.
overall i agree/understand but the notion that president obama can just flick a switch and change everything in afghanistan is not realistic( to me anyways). this is much bigger than obama. the beginning of the end may not resemble the end... people recognize.
Again, I didn't say these wars were Obama's fault. I said that he is the president now, he is responsible for them.
we disagree i'm going to leave it at that. i understand the path/explaination of least resistance.....i just see it a little different maybe i should think more in absolutes.
What?
Being responsible for something is a neutral concept. It does not imply blame or praise.
The buck stops at the presidents office, why is that hard to understand? Nothing grayish about that, even if it was said by a guy with pepper hair.
you have it figured out. we see it differently.
fixing the defective tail lights on my new Chevy.
Yes and the hinges on my front door still squeak. Where the hell is Obama with that can of WD-40?
The rational people in this site seem to be caught in the crossfire between the chicken little screams of those who can't fathom Obama doing anything right, and the lame snark bits of those who can't wrap their head around the fact that the office of the presidency implies responsibility.
Get your rational fanny in the kitchen and fix me and the gang a sammitch.
I'm thinking you may be calling me a lame snark bit speaker with a head that is not made of spandex. I think you are pretty close actually, but a lame snark is better than no snark at all. I did get that right didn't I? You meant lame snark and not land shark.
Times 2
On a very personal note, if I freaked out over everything that was freak out-able, I fear I would awaken some day as a very old lady who had allowed herself to miss many opportunities to laugh and enjoy her life. I refuse to let that happen. I'll pick my freak out-able moments just as I pick my battles. I will do what I can when I can make a difference but not fret over the times that I can't.
If I wanted rational conversation I wouldn't be pecking on a keyboard to a blog and lamenting the quality of the company I keep.
... I think "lamenting" does not mean what you think it means.
I believe "lamenting" does mean what Ricky thinks it means, at least according to my dictionary.
I wasn't mourning, nor expressing grief. I definitively did not feel sorrow or regret either.
You don't feel sorry for us who cannot wrap our head around facts? Where's your humanity? I'm mourning for myself right now and would welcome you to join me.
... no need to be so melodramatic, just ask for your money back wherever it is you bought that dictionary from.
... but maybe you can ask your buddy to join you in your grief support groupp, he was having suicidal thoughts earlier on.
those Chevrolet products have been no damn good since '61.
I believe that politics will play a role in Obama's decision to continue the war, rather than pragmatism.
Afghanistan is a lost cause. That is what my reference to the dead war was. This war cannot be won, only prolonged and if Obama thinks it is a central front in the war on terror then he is involved in a devious cover up of the facts at hand as they pertain to Afghanistan.
Getting out and ending the war in Afghanistan will be what the D's run on in 2012.
It is a remake of Nixon running on ending Vietnam ~ TWICE!
Only Obama will have to tie up the loose ends in Iraq first - somewhere around the time the 2012 election cycle kicks in.
It is politics and politicians after all is said and done.
what General McChrystal's reaction would be if one of his subordinate colonels [or majors, or captains, or...] went on national television to complain about strategies and decisions being made by higher-ups. I always thought that the military was about following orders from your superior. I suspect that a discussion of the concept of Chain of Command came up during the incidental meeting last week in Copenhagen between General McChrystal and Commander-In-Chief-Of-The-Army-And-Navy Obama. At the very least, I hope it did.
If the military was about following orders, McChrystal wouldn't be playing at politics with his Commander-in-Chief.
Would anyone hire this man to do anything with his existing record? Like Petraeus, they are failed soldiers. Their commands have been destroyed by their own hand. They followed orders that made them war criminals. They willingly followed where so many of their superiors refused.
Tells it all. It also tells you Obama is not in charge, or is incompetent. I fear both realities.
His staff however, seems to have dropped the ball pretty often with respect to some of the people working on this mess left by the previous administration.
I believe it was in the book "Fiasco", by Thomas Ricks, that tells you what Petraeus was like after the invasion of Iraq. According to the description, Petraeus was exactly the kind of guy you would want representing the US at that time. He was smart, respectful of the Iraqis and good at calming the villages. Odierno was portrayed as the real jerk and asshole.
There's a new book out about the Tillman coverup. I can't recall the title but the author was on the Daily show last week and the book seems it would be a very interesting read.
American public are lawbreakers, and should be prosecuted, not promoted.
Welcome to Htrae...Another Bizzaro World moment, brought to you by the US power structure.
holds the American people accountable?
It is looking more and more that Obama is not in charge and/or as mentioned incompetent. Is he really over his head as PROTUS? He seemed like a pretty smart guy, so what is happening? Like the rest of the Dems he has to find a pair but as PROTUS they must be even bigger. Trueman declared MacArthur insubordinate when he criticized him publicly and removed him as commanding general and MacArthur was a damn big name at the time. That was cajones.
Boxers or briefs?
With rocks or hammers?
Or are you talking about where you keep your socks?
See? There's that reference again. This time it's not grow a set but find a pair and an "even bigger pair". I didn't know that finding an even bigger pair was an option. I thought you were stuck with the "set" you grow.
"the man was speaking in Spanish. He was takling about drawers. Drawers come in chests. Or in pairs. You don't get a "set of drawers." Unless, of course he really meant dwarfs. They can have a set. If they are male dwarfs."
Thank you! That was almost helpful.
calls "lame, snarky bits?"
Nope. Don't take my workd for it.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/spanish/cajones
My first husband's father was cuban and not once did I hear him use that word as anything other than what we ususally hear it used for. If he had ever said the kitchen knives are in the cahone on the right, I think everyone present would have fainted.
Even in Cuban.
Do you think people in Southern Cal live in The Ball?
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?ter...
orders from his commander in chief not because he was running his mouth, which he had done for the better part of a few decades.
the face to face meeting on AF1 included a mention of McArthur - what else needed to be said?
SUX!
We need to declare victory and bring the troops home.
If not he is certainly tweeting in that direction.
Take is easy, I am still nursing a nasty hangover from yesterdays ball games and I can't wait for tonights "thrilla in Minnesota."
If the line takes a wide stance they will get lots of penetration.
Keep your eye on the tight end.
Packers.
Only got promoted in June.
He will be demoted soon. Less than 90 days
many of us, including myself, were proud of commanders who bucked GW and his bullshit machine.
IF McCrystal is being honest, he's showing a lot of balls by putting his career on the line.
I don't know, but I'm guessing his #1 priority is his men, and right now, this war isn't serving their interests very well. We seem to be in a 'ante up' or 'get out' situation, and McCrystal may well be unwilling to let great young men die while the WH machine grinds its' gears.
I'm not hammering Obama, because right now is a tough time to make a choice about AFG given the growing unwillingness of the citizenry and our allies to stay and fight.
If we're leaving, we need to get the fark on with it, or go balls to the wall, there is no in-between.
....of keeping your friends close and your enemies closer......
Something smells of Cheney somewhere. McChrystal just doesn't feel right. Somebody is up to something. Like a bad screenplay. Contrived. Melodramatic. Trust your feelings, not your thoughts.
Besides, did you see Meet the Press last week (or before)? They can't bring the troops home because there's no friggen jobs for the vets to have. The Bush unemployment rate would skyrocket.
They have to use the military to subsidize our unemployment problems. I tell ya, this is a plan. This didn't just "happen"...
I SMELL CHENEY IN DIRTY BUSH! Theirs is the politics of EVIL STUPIDITY!(Hey, that too can work with a bunch of morons).
Obi-Juan
you hit the nail on the head there..
follow the money,
and be aware of war profiteers, who hide money in tax shelters, and banks in foreign countries, also.
oh yea..includes bankers also.
follow the money
did you hear the news?
those at the top of the defense spending, such as congress will toil with our veterans, money for ages, before letting them have any. check out this one:
http://iava.org/press-room/press-releases/con...
I'm of the opinion that if Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal is going over the head of his Commander-In-Chief and is leaking his information to the media and the Republicans, he is in line for a charge of insubordination. As I remember, Harry Truman didn't put up with that shit from Douglas MacArthur and fired his ass.
Login or Register to post comments.