Will Obama fire McChrystal
Discussion
Is Obama getting rattled,, and is this the opportunity for all parties to show who is in charge?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527487048...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527487048...
It really could go either way.
The trouble is that McChrystal has been one of the more effective military leaders in that conflict. So if he goes, all military actions are affected.
But if McChrystal is not fired then Obama shows he is not in charge of his own military.
McChrystal has offered his resignation, I think it will be accepted.
The trouble is that McChrystal has been one of the more effective military leaders in that conflict. So if he goes, all military actions are affected.
But if McChrystal is not fired then Obama shows he is not in charge of his own military.
McChrystal has offered his resignation, I think it will be accepted.
If your head of the military stands up and says that there is a problem.... rather than getting him to leave, would it not be in the best interest of the USA to discuss the problems with this man and try and get things so they are "right"..... Rather than simply brushing the "problem" and him under the rug?
McCrystal has to be one of the best military leaders the US has, his work in Iraq was very interesting and played a large part in the final few years to down-tempo the militia. It'd be a great loss for the US but politically it may be expedient to accept his resignation and move on to let someone else clear up the end-game. Shame though, he was an original thinker.
Obama (and Blair/Brown/Dave) need to really cry havoc, let slip the dogs of war and let them decide how best to prossecute the mission, (they'd maybe be a bit more reluctant to pull the trigger if so apart from anything else). The 'sort of want to do something but can't really do it that way because such and such doesn't like it and we haven't got that much money and what about this that and the other' attitude once a commitment to deploy is made has hampered more than helped in both campaigns.
Obama (and Blair/Brown/Dave) need to really cry havoc, let slip the dogs of war and let them decide how best to prossecute the mission, (they'd maybe be a bit more reluctant to pull the trigger if so apart from anything else). The 'sort of want to do something but can't really do it that way because such and such doesn't like it and we haven't got that much money and what about this that and the other' attitude once a commitment to deploy is made has hampered more than helped in both campaigns.
tegwin said:
If your head of the military stands up and says that there is a problem.... rather than getting him to leave, would it not be in the best interest of the USA to discuss the problems with this man and try and get things so they are "right"..... Rather than simply brushing the "problem" and him under the rug?
Were politicians (and especially Obama) not full of themselves then yes that is how things should workzax said:
From what I've read McChrystal seems like just the sort of leader they need to have in place over there.
So he'll probably be gone by tomorrow...
Well said.So he'll probably be gone by tomorrow...
Politicians are well versed in putting their own interests in front of an achievable goal. The Obarmination seems to be showing his envy of a capable commander.
king, second meeting (strategy meeting on Afghanistan) he was absent....
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff