Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Clive Crook: McChrystal and Obama

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-23-10 10:59 AM
Original message
Clive Crook: McChrystal and Obama
Edited on Wed Jun-23-10 11:00 AM by babylonsister
In a nutshell.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/06/mcchrystal-and-obama/58530/

McChrystal and Obama
Clive Crook

Jun 22 2010, 1:28 PM ET | Comment

snip//

One wants to put it all down to McChrystal's innocence when it comes to dealing with the press. Bitter venting about the clowns in head office is routine in the best-run organizations. One wants to say, this is how people talk about their bosses when they think the conversation is private. But how could McChrystal and his top aides have thought they were talking privately, with reporter and notebook along for the ride? McChrystal is no longer entitled to be innocent. He has been told to watch his mouth already, and he has been warned about testing the limits of the chain of command. He was slapped down over the leaking of his report to the White House last year, predicting failure in Afghanistan unless the US committed extra forces. Now this.

Obama might wish he could overlook it. McChrystal was his choice, part of his seizing ownership of the war. The president was applauded for it. Nobody doubts the general's superlative qualities as a soldier and leader of men. But how can Obama let this go and retain his own authority?

If he sacks him, he removes the officer he has been describing as uniquely qualified to do the job, which sets back the mission and calls the president's own judgment into question. If he leaves him in charge, he looks weak, affirming a gathering line of criticism. That is the dilemma McChrystal has created: in either case, Obama loses. On balance, I think, the best thing would have been for McChrystal to offer his resignation publicly and immediately, and for Obama to refuse it with a final warning to shut up. That opportunity has already slipped by.

Needless to say, the timing is as bad as could be. Even before this, Afghan policy was in worsening disarray. The rate of US casualties is rising. Allies are bailing out. Despite earlier assurances and scaled-up operations, Helmand is not stabilised: Marjah remains a "bleeding ulcer," according to McChrystal's previous assessment. The much-advertised campaign in Kandahar has been delayed. The US says a good local partner is indispensable; it does not have one. Karzai is sending mixed messages (to put it kindly) about détente with the Taliban; he is hinting that the US and its allies are losing; his well-regarded security and interior ministers are gone.

The promised review of policy in December is already looming, to say nothing of the promised start of the drawdown next summer. Things are going badly, and because of the deadline Obama imposed on himself and McChrystal, time is running out. Right now, keeping this strategy on the road until December looks hard enough, let alone through next summer and beyond.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Guy Whitey Corngood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-23-10 11:02 AM
Response to Original message
1. He's screwed either way. It's clear that these right wing jerk offs have no respect for Obama.
Edited on Wed Jun-23-10 11:03 AM by Guy Whitey Corngood
Whether it's that douchebag yelling at him during the joint congress address. Or this fucking guy thinking he can bully him as he were the actual Commander In Chief.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-23-10 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Yes, he is. This sucks; as if Obama needed another heaping
on his overloaded plate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guy Whitey Corngood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-23-10 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. Yes, if this guy had problems with the management of the war (his own shitty strategy apparently).
Edited on Wed Jun-23-10 11:28 AM by Guy Whitey Corngood
There a number of avenues he could have taken to address this. He could've approached the President or VP. He could have chosen to establish a relationship with Obama after stabbing him in the back last year. I may disagree with a lot of Barack Obama's decisions but one thing he has shown consistently is that he'll listen to you. The General wasn't put in that position to be ignored or patronized. I'm sure he would've had the President's ear if he wanted. Oh but no, he had to go out and pull this shit. I don't really support this war but even I realize there are ways to do things. This MacArthur wannabe is either trying to cover his ass, setting up the White House, or both.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-23-10 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. That's what I'm sensing........
Some folks really hate this President....
are jealous, arrogant, and simply can't stand to have
this young President be successful........
can't have that.

They will sell this nation down the river
to insure the opposite happen, and that this country
is made to suffer!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 11:13 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC