Keith has a special commentary

[malaise]

coming up.

[mmonk]

1. Thanks for the heads up.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

2. Oh, thanks for the heads up!

:)

[muntrv]

3. He's reading off the list of generals Dimson fired for disagreeing

with the potus.

[malaise]

6. Interesting perspective

Refuse the resignation. Not sure I agree since he can also sabotage the President's agenda.

[TwilightGardener]

32. McChrystal did not merely disagree. He was openly dismissive of members of the administration.

[Uzybone]

4. Oh lord Keith

anything to rile up viewers.

Obama needs to can Stanley. If this was a one time slip up, then ok ...keep him. But McChrystal is a repeat offender.

[WeDidIt]

5. I'm listening

And I actually agree with Keith

Smartest move Obama can make is to refuse to accept the resignation.

[JDPriestly]

48. I trust that the smartest thing Obama can do is precisely what he

will do.

I disagree with Obama on a lot of things, but I have absolute trust in his judgment about people like McChrystal. Obama is not driven by his ego. He is extremely balanced. Michelle and the girls keep him in line.

So, he will not react egotistically. He will decide what is best for the country. Of course, it may be necessary to reprimand or demote McChrystal in order to maintain respect for his position under the Constitution as Commander in Chief. That will depend on McChrystal and how remorseful he is and how willing McChrystal is to respect to the Office of the President in the future. This is not about Obama. This is about the chain of command established in the US Constitution.

[WeDidIt]

51. He has a lot of options

He can relieve McChrystal of command, pull back a star or two, and give him a desk job. Furthermore, he can refuse to accept any resignation of commission and warn the general, any further violations of Article 88 of the UCMJ will result in an immediate Article 32 hearing.

That would solve it all, shut the asshole up, and keep him off Fox News for the duration.

[babylonsister]

7. He's making a great case for keeping McCrystal. Would shut the

rethugs down, for starters, and Obama would have a very pliant general.

[HipChick]

9. +100...

[malaise]

10. All true

but he's a right wing hack and will never be loyal to Obama.

[babylonsister]

13. But he would be on tenterhooks, knowing his every move was

being scrutinized. Maybe he'd even get an ultimatum. Hey, politics...dirty...

This should be interesting.

[ShamelessHussy]

18. i doubt it, he will receive the MSG that he can get away with it

and so will others, and that is why this can not be tolerated.

[babylonsister]

23. You don't have a clue. Do tell me what exactly he's gotten away

with besides being an ineffective general who seriously screwed up? And he's been nailed there, too...

McChrystal’s counter-insurgency plan is failing. It’s failing not because some of his aides said mean things about Biden, and not because he’s got a long-running spat with Karl Eikenberry, our Ambassador to Afghanistan. It’s failing because the Special Ops guys, whom McChrystal led killing bunches of people in Iraq, are not hard-wired to win hearts and minds. It’s failing because both the tools at McChrystal’s disposal (a bunch of JSOC guys) and the conditions on the ground mean counterterrorism, not counterinsurgency, is the best approach: precisely what Biden argued during the Afghan policy review.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x351043

[ShamelessHussy]

24. IF, he is not removed, he will have gotten away with insubordination, and sowing doubt

that can not be tolerated, as it is insidious, and will infect the whole chain of command over time.

Now, I sure don't have a clue about what your argument is, that's true... best I can tell, you are in favor of keeping and ineffective general in place, even after displaying a repeated pattern of insubordination, because you think that will make him more subordinate, and more effective.

yeah, i don't get it.

:shrug:

[babylonsister]

28. I'm in favor of keeping him corralled, but obviously will defer

to whatever the President thinks. I just don't like the thought of the rethugs having more ammo to turn against Dems, and you know they're salivating at the thought.

As far as 'infecting the whole chain of command', I doubt it. Most soldiers do what they're told to do whether they like it or not. You could also come to the conclusion McCrystal is a really bad role model.

[malaise]

43. I agree with Jonathan Alter

The President may want to remind the military that in America civilians, and not the Pentagon, are in charge.

[babylonsister]

47. I like that! Can you imagine dimson ever saying that? nt

[tabasco]

40. tenterhooks

[babylonsister]

42. Bless you...

seriously. I usually try to catch myself, and that's one I always 'snag' myself on.

And I hope you are well, tabasco.

[rocktivity]

14. It would also shut down his future political ambitions

not to mention delay his job at Fox News.

:headbang:
rocktivity

[babylonsister]

17. Good points! nt

[mmonk]

22. And possibly humiliate him.

[bluethruandthru]

33. He should be demoted.

Keep him around so he can't go to Faux news or take a job with a contractor.

[babylonsister]

34. Now there's a solution. Demote him and have him pushing

papers somewhere where he can't influence anything. But I'm sure he has enough time in to retire, so that's what he'd do. I think.

[bluethruandthru]

35. If he retires after being demoted, maybe that will screw with his benefits? n/t

[Fuzz]

8. Interesting take, he wants Obama to make him his bitch.

Don't agree, but interesting take.

[neverforget]

11. I understand what he's saying but McCrystal needs to be canned.

Insubordination is something that should not be tolerated when it comes to the President.

[ShamelessHussy]

15. he needs to go, or Obama will never be respected by those he needs to be respected by most

the military, and the rest of the Gov.

[Uzybone]

20. +1000

how many times can Obama be the one to bend over backwards?

McChrystal is his employee. This ain't like congress talking shit, this is the military.

We cannot have military folks speaking about our civilian leaders this way.

[mmonk]

12. Another gem.

KO can definitely come up with them.

[tridim]

16. If it can be determined that he's not insane, go for it.

I think the guy is off his rocker.

[Kind of Blue]

19. Brilliant commentary!

And I'm so inclined to agree. The fire him all day long chant did not completely sit well with me and Keith does make a great argument.

[Scuba]

21. Bust him to private.

[Imajika]

25. McChrystal needs to be fired...

I understand the arguments about keeping him, but the things McChrystal said are just too over the top. No one will forget McChrystal said this stuff and it will come up again and again anytime there appears to be daylight between the White House and military.

McChrystal has to go.

[IndianaGreen]

26. We need to bring all the troops home now!

We lost Afghanistan back in 2008 and the only thing we are accomplishing there is killing a lot of civilians because we fear lose face, as we did in Vietnam.

[Imajika]

38. I'm afraid your probably right...

I really do think what you say is most likely the truth. I don't see how we "win" at this point. I also suspect this is what the President really thinks, but politics have made him feel he has to go through the bloody motions.

I have a hard time advocating just leaving because I know many Afghans have put their faith in us and risked their lives to support the American effort, but a fair look at the situation leaves little doubt in my mind that we are just dragging out an inevitable loss. Many will die even after we leave though.

Fire McChrystal first, then maybe the President can put a different team in charge that will put military face on advocating leaving Afghanistan. Some good could come out of McChrystal's stupid comments I suppose.

[malaise]

46. +1,000

End the fucking wars.

[Liberal In Texas]

27. Interesting idea. Pres. Obama could lock McChrystal's balls in the top drawer of his desk.

It would certainly deflect the nattering RW.

[babylonsister]

31. Exactly, and that does have a great appeal. nt

[Liberal In Texas]

37. I suspect that that option isn't viable. They dissed the gov't of Afghan.

and that creates a situation where the Karzai government loses face, which is more serous in that part of the world than Americans realize. McChrystal really can't go back there again, and the Pres. has to make an example of the general just to keep the disrespect to Karzai at a tolerable level.

[babylonsister]

44. That would make sense, except I've read Karzai supports McCrystal.

Still. I'll see if I can find that.

[TwilightGardener]

29. Not watching, but no one can make a case compelling enough to

force Obama to subordinate himself and his staff to members of the military. The military may or may not like him, may or may not agree with McChrystal, but the one thing the military DOES is respect rank, above all. If he is not let go, then why shouldn't a little nothing senior airman mouth off now? General got away with it. Why should a Colonel keep quiet about his feelings toward the CiC in front of his troops? He doesn't have to--it'll be a fucking free-for-all of disrespect and disregard for the CiC, which is what the RW wants. Edit to add: One also has to question McC's judgment. I don't think he should be in command--no discipline.

[treestar]

30. Yawn

[stray cat]

45. long day?

[jenmito]

36. I was surprised that he wanted Obama to make him stay. Interesting take, not sure

I agree, but makes some good points.

[jillan]

39. Keith really turned my thoughts inside out. I kinda agree now.

[elleng]

41. Have to listen again; very interesting.

[Swamp Rat]

49. Better idea: bust McCrystal to private THEN fire him, along with all his aides.

Warlord McCrystal is THE clear and present danger.

[Vinca]

50. The only problem with Keith's idea is the talking point that would ensue

from both the right and the MSM: Obama's a wimp and was intimidated by McChrystal. The POTUS has no choice but to let McChrystal go.

[Sparkly]

52. I thought he made some good points.

I hadn't thought of it this way before.

He suggested McChrystal wants to be let off the hook in Afghanistan, but should be forced to continue taking responsibility for the mess he helped create. If he wants out, this isn't the way.

It reminds me of an editorial endorsing the Shrub in 2004, saying that since he made the mess in Iraq, he'd be more motivated to clean it up. That was crap, but the difference is in the idea that McChrystal is trying to get out of this because he can't own up to the potential that it's all failed.

It's way over my head what the president should do, but this makes some sense and it hadn't occurred to me before Keith's commentary. I also don't think Obama should be overly concerned with "what the rightwing will say" since they'll always say SOMEthing, no matter what he does. Worrying about their every possible response is a way of being bullied by them.

I'm kind of hoping he's thinking the way Keith is.

[deutsey]

53. We lost power last night from a thunderstorm, so I missed the commentary

I did hear another commentary earlier yesterday saying the same thing: McChrystal knows he's in an impossible situation in Afghanistan and doesn't want to be tarred with the emerging failure. If he's fired, he becomes a martyr and the mess in Afghanistan is blamed on Obama's alleged incompetence.

That would explain a lot. Until this explanation, I couldn't figure out why he and members of his staff could say such inflammatory things to a reporter