Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

McChrystal "Absolutely" Backs Afghan Plan

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 » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
sabra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 11:05 AM
Original message
McChrystal "Absolutely" Backs Afghan Plan
Source: CBS News

Top U.S. Commander in Afghanistan Gives Full Support to President Obama's 18-Month Timetable

(CBS/AP) Updated at 7:18 a.m. Eastern.

The top U.S. commander in Afghanistan says he's "absolutely supportive" of the 18-month timeline for President Obama's troop surge even if Taliban forces try to wait out the increased U.S. commitment.

Gen. Stanley McChrystal told reporters Wednesday that even if the Taliban lay low, the 18-month period allows time to bolster Afghan military and governing capability to make it harder for the militants to return.

McChrystal also pointed out that the 18-month period to begin a U.S. withdrawal depends on conditions on the ground.

Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/12/02/politics/main5861009.shtml
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Jefferson23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 11:30 AM
Response to Original message
1. I'm not interested in what you think McChrystal. Happy now you got what you wanted schmuck?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saigon68 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 06:39 PM
Response to Reply #1
9. General MCCrazy has a Wet Dream
This dirt Bag is going to get to kill lots of (insert Racial Epithet here) Heads.

What a lying loser

Lots of New Gold Star Mothers can thank this scum bag for their soon new to be found STATUS
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thothmes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. Appointed to that position
by the current C-in-C. President Obama's man will carry out President Obama's orders.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
24601 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 08:02 PM
Response to Reply #1
12. No, he got what President Obama wants. That's how it works in
the US. The President and SECDEF provide civilian command over the military. As for Stan McChrystal, he will support the President even if it's not what he would have decided. Guess that puts him one step above you.

I'm sure the President is grateful for your loyalty & support.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jefferson23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 08:14 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Save your snark for someone who cares. Obama is responsible
for his choices, that does not change my statement at all. McChystal got what he wanted and he is a schmuck for asking for the increase. Obama rejected the establishment's advice initially, unfortunately, he listened to irresponsible men like McChrystal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
24601 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 08:23 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. GEN McChrystal requested 10,000 more than he got. And your
regard for President Obama's intellect is incredible. Perhaps the repugs can use your talents writing campaign commercials.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jefferson23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 08:38 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. Obama IS responsible, and so is McChrystal's for his advice, too hard for you?
Edited on Wed Dec-02-09 09:11 PM by Jefferson23
So what he asked for 10,000 more than what he got! He received the INCREASE and it is substantial vs NONE which would have been the appropriate response. Obama made a choice, clearly he did not listen to enough advice such as this one.

"U.S. official resigns over Afghan war
Foreign Service officer and former Marine captain says he no longer knows why his nation is fighting"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/26/AR2009102603394.html



Your talent, I'm still waiting to see it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
24601 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 10:04 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. Yes a Former Captain certainly has the education, training and
experience that outweighs the combined wisdom of the Theater Commander, Unified Combatant Commander, the Secretary of Defense, the National Security Advisor and yes, our President. It's so easy to throw stones when you are not the one responsible for the outcome.

And if our State Department FSO is so right, where's the accompanying resignation of the Ambassador, the President's Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the Secretary of State? Why are they all too obtuse to grasp the subtle nuances gleaned by this young FSO? I enthusiastically agree with him on one point - if he's being honest and really didn't know why we are in Afghanistan, then it's absolutely appropriate that he resign.

All the above officials supporting the President required Senate Confirmation. What vetting did our young FSO receive?

Let me guess, you were insisting that the Iraq surge had failed even before the first reinforcement was deployed? Sorry to disappoint you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jefferson23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 10:20 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. Yea right, because you know what people think before they speak..clueless you are..
Yea everyone would have to be resigning in order to validate the former Captain, failed argument you have there.

So what happened to that talent you were going to parade?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
24601 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 10:41 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. Your words, not mine. But a question - on the off chance that the
President is right and his strategy works, will you still oppose him in 2012?

g'nite
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jefferson23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 11:21 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. STILL oppose him? Your strategy here is childish, presumptuous and obvious.
Good luck to you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-03-09 03:53 AM
Response to Reply #12
22. People who give Presidents their unconditional support, no matter what, are not one
step above ANYone. That was true when Dummya was President and it is true now.

The military is different. The President is commander in chief.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alcibiades Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 11:35 AM
Response to Original message
2. So does Mitch McConnell
"I support the President's decision to follow the advice of Generals Petraeus and McChrystal in ordering a surge of forces into Afghanistan. The additional forces in support of a counterinsurgency strategy will allow our commanders to begin the difficult work of preparing and deploying the ground forces necessary to reverse the momentum of the Taliban. The president was right to call for building a sufficient 'Afghan capacity' that will allow for our troops to come home, rather than setting a hard withdrawal date that's not based on conditions on the ground or the advice of our generals.

We owe it to the American people to ensure that Afghanistan never again serves as a sanctuary for Al Qaeda. We owe it to the brave Americans who are now or will be deployed in pursuit of this objective to provide every resource necessary to prevail. As this surge of forces produces results in security, governance and in capabilities of the Afghanistan Security Forces, we must ensure that the transition of responsibilities is based on conditions, not timelines."

Any policy endorsed by the most partisan Republican in the Senate (apart from Lieberman) must be viewed with skepticism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SandWalker1984 Donating Member (533 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 12:31 PM
Response to Original message
3. Why are we really in Afghanistan? Oh yeah, the pipeline......
Edited on Wed Dec-02-09 12:35 PM by SandWalker1984
Pipeline-Istan: Everything you need to know about oil, gas, Russia, China, Iran Afghanistan & Obama

http://www.bushstole04.com/Obama_Presidency.htm/obama_o...
excerpts:

Afghanistan is believed to be rich in unexplored deposits of natural gas, petroleum, coal, copper, chrome, talc, barites, sulfur, lead, zinc, and iron ore, as well as precious and semiprecious stones.



TAPI's (Turkmenistan - Afghanistan - Pakistan - Iran Pipeline) roller-coaster history actually begins in the mid-1990s, the Clinton era, when the Taliban were dined (but not wined) by the California-based energy company Unocal and the Clinton machine. In 1995, Unocal first came up with the pipeline idea, even then a product of Washington's fatal urge to bypass both Iran and Russia. Next, Unocal talked to the Turkmenbashi, then to the Taliban, and so launched a classic New Great Game gambit that has yet to end and without which you can't understand the Afghan war Obama has inherited.

A Taliban delegation, thanks to Unocal, enjoyed Houston's hospitality in early 1997 and then Washington's in December of that year. When it came to energy negotiations, the Taliban's leadership was anything but medieval. They were tough bargainers, also cannily courting the Argentinean private oil company Bridas, which had secured the right to explore and exploit oil reserves in eastern Turkmenistan.

In August 1997, financially unstable Bridas sold 60% of its stock to Amoco, which merged the next year with British Petroleum. A key Amoco consultant happened to be that ubiquitous Eurasian player, former national security advisor Zbig Brzezinski, while another such luminary, Henry Kissinger, just happened to be a consultant for Unocal . BP-Amoco, already developing the Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline, now became the major player in what had already been dubbed the Trans-Afghan Pipeline or TAP. Inevitably, Unocal and BP-Amoco went to war and let the lawyers settle things in a Texas court, where, in October 1998 as the Clinton years drew to an end, BP-Amoco seemed to emerge with the upper hand.

Under newly elected president George W. Bush, however, Unocal snuck back into the game and, as early as January 2001, was cozying up to the Taliban yet again, this time supported by a star-studded governmental cast of characters, including Undersecretary of State Richard Armitage, himself a former Unocal lobbyist. The Taliban were duly invited back to Washington in March 2001 via Rahmatullah Hashimi, a top aide to "The Shadow," the movement's leader Mullah Omar.

Negotiations eventually broke down because of those pesky transit fees the Taliban demanded. Beware the Empire's fury. At a Group of Eight summit meeting in Genoa in July 2001, Western diplomats indicated that the Bush administration had decided to take the Taliban down before year's end. (Pakistani diplomats in Islamabad would later confirm this to me.)

The attacks of September 11, 2001 just slightly accelerated the schedule. Nicknamed "the kebab seller" in Kabul, Hamid Karzai, a former CIA asset and Unocal representative, who had entertained visiting Taliban members at barbecues in Houston, was soon forced down Afghan throats as the country's new leader.

Among the first fruits of Donald Rumsfeld's bombing and invasion of Afghanistan in the fall of 2001 was the signing by Karzai, Pakistani President Musharraf and Turkmenistan's Nyazov of an agreement committing themselves to build TAP, and so was formally launched a Pipelineistan extension from Central to South Asia with brand USA stamped all over it.

Russian President Vladimir Putin did nothing -- until September 2006, that is, when he delivered his counterpunch with panache. That's when Russian energy behemoth Gazprom agreed to buy Nyazov's natural gas at the 40% mark-up the dictator demanded. In return, the Russians received priceless gifts (and the Bush administration a pricey kick in the face). Nyazov turned over control of Turkmenistan's entire gas surplus to the Russian company through 2009, indicated a preference for letting Russia explore the country's new gas fields, and stated that Turkmenistan was bowing out of any U.S.-backed Trans-Caspian pipeline project. (And while he was at it, Putin also cornered much of the gas exports of Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan as well.)

**********

Here we go again. More of Obama Orwell's "corporate chains" we can believe in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. But he said last night we are not after their resources. We just want
to be partners!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andronex Donating Member (378 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 12:35 PM
Response to Original message
4. Bill O'Reilly and Karl Rove also supports this surge !
Finally we have a consensus !
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nonationbuilding Donating Member (15 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 12:52 PM
Response to Original message
5. McChrystal is a freakin' soldier. He's SUPPOSED to OBEY the commander-in-chief no matter what.
Edited on Wed Dec-02-09 12:52 PM by nonationbuilding
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MidwestRick Donating Member (604 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. But he doesn't...
...have to come on the record and voice his backing of the CiC's war plan. You can bet if he disagreed with President Obama's direction he would have retired or would have given a "no comment" comment to the press when asked his thoughts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saigon68 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 06:40 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. Achtung
Kill the untermenschen
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
24601 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 10:16 PM
Response to Reply #10
17. Learn that German in Vietnam? I thought French was more likely.
But if you think the officers like McChrystal will serve the Constitution differently under President Obama than under Bush, then you don't know him and guys like him. We were cadets when Vietnam fell in 1975 - you have a generational difference in today's senior leadership and a different mindset from the 1960s and 70s.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saigon68 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-03-09 06:29 AM
Response to Reply #17
23.  Nique ta mere!
A dead corpse left in the sun smells bad in any war.

And I don't know how you got your comment from what I posted------ so in that spirit Ta gueule.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 01:44 PM
Response to Original message
7. Palin too
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-03-09 03:47 AM
Response to Original message
21. McChrystal is a war crime . . .
Certainly the citizens of Afghanistan did not attack us --

It's highly questionable as to whether any of the alleged hijackers were anything

but Saudis --

And even more highly questionable is the idea that "hijacked" planes could be flying

around in our skies for an hour or more and NORAD would be AWOL -- !!!

Not believe -- any of it!

This is a war of aggression by the US --



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
24601 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-03-09 08:36 PM
Response to Reply #21
24. Germany didn't attack us either - however, they were allied with
Japan. The Taliban was the closest thing to an Afghan Government at the time - and they are allied with Al Qaeda.

So for the sake of consistency, will you be condemning FDR & labeling Ike & Patton as war criminals?

For the record, I will not. I support President Obama and the officers and men serving under his command.
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 Wed Apr 24th 2024, 01:25 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News 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