Afghanistan disappointed by McChrystal resignation...

**Zacha341** · June-23-10, 05:06 PM

Afghanistan disappointed by McChrystal resignation, optimistic about Petraeus

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...062303930.html

By Ernesto Londoño and Karin Brulliard
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, June 23, 2010; 5:28 PM

KABUL -- Afghan officials said they were saddened and disappointed by the dismissal Wednesday of Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, but they expressed high hopes for his replacement.

"General McChrystal has been a very important partner," said Waheed Omar, a spokesman for Afghan President Hamid Karzai. "We're sad to see him go, but we respect this decision by the U.S. commander in chief."

Omar said the Afghan government is encouraged by the nomination of Gen. David H. Petraeus, the former commander of U.S. forces in Iraq and currently the head of the U.S. Central Command, to replace McChrystal, saying it "shows the commitment of the United States to Afghanistan."

"He has been to Afghanistan a few times, and we think with his arrival we will have another trusted partner," Omar said of Petraeus.

Karzai and Afghan security officials had expressed hope that McChrystal would weather the scandal unleashed by a magazine profile that portrayed him and his staff as dismissive and critical of top Obama administration officials.

Afghan leaders viewed McChrystal as a trustworthy general with a deep and nuanced understanding of their country. Among the cadre of Obama administration officials involved in Afghanistan policy, he had arguably the strongest relationship with, and the most influence over, Karzai and his security chiefs.

The Afghan leaders particularly welcomed guidelines McChrystal issued to limit the use of lethal force in an effort to reduce the number of civilian casualties in NATO operations. He also worked closely with the Afghan government at the national and provincial levels in an effort to strengthen a state many Afghans view as weak and corrupt.

"They're very concerned," a senior U.S. military official who works closely with Afghan commanders said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive issue. "They think McChrystal is the right guy at the right time. For the first time, what they're trying to do and what we're trying to do is in sync, and that's directly attributable to the guy who's in command."

Khalid Pashtoon, a member of parliament who serves as deputy chairman of the Internal Security Committee, called McChrystal's departure a big loss.

"He was very bright and smart and a very active person," said Pashtoon, who recently traveled with McChrystal to the southern province of Kandahar, where a major NATO military operation is underway. "He always called us, sat with us and listened to us. He was an asset. No doubt about it."

Pakistan had no immediate reaction to McChrystal's firing. But Petraeus's appointment as the new commander in Afghanistan is likely to be viewed as the best-case scenario in the neighboring country, where McChrystal had established a remarkable level of trust.

Though his duties officially ended at the Afghan border, McChrystal focused on building a strong rapport with Pakistan's army chief, Gen. Ashfaq Kiyani. Pakistani officials said that through monthly meetings and helicopter tours of areas where Pakistani troops were battling insurgents, McChrystal and Kiyani had developed a common understanding of both the need to combat extremism and the other's constraints.

McChrystal also played a key role in improving Kabul's rocky relationship with Islamabad. Karzai met with Pakistan's intelligence chief recently to discuss cooperation in negotiating with Afghan Taliban leaders.

Yet Petraeus probably has as much, if not more, clout in Islamabad. He was an early proponent of a regional strategy that prioritized improving relations with Pakistan in hopes of persuading it to target the Afghan Taliban fighters who use Pakistani hideouts to plot attacks on coalition forces in Afghanistan.

Petraeus made his first trip to Pakistan in November 2008, shortly after being appointed head of Central Command. He has visited several times since, delivering assurances that the U.S. troop buildup in Afghanistan would not spill over into Pakistan, visiting Pakistani paramilitary forces in the northwestern city of Peshawar and regularly praising Pakistan's fight against its domestic Taliban, an offshoot of the Afghan Taliban.

He visited most recently in May, for the sixth time in 12 months.

"There's a complete understanding of each other's situation," a senior Pakistani military official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because Pakistan had not yet offered an official reaction. "He's not a stranger."

In Iraq, Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari called Petraeus the architect of the turnaround in the war there. Violence has dropped off significantly since the height of the conflict, and many attribute that to Petraeus, who implemented a surge of U.S. troops and paid former insurgents to battle al-Qaeda in Iraq.

Still, Zebari cautioned, "the situation in Iraq and in Afghanistan is really different."

Brulliard reported from Islamabad. Leila Fadel in Baghdad also contributed to this report.

**firstandten** · June-23-10, 06:14 PM

McChrystal bought this on himself by not following or respecting the chain of command. Its funny, military folks that high up preach the chain of command but they don't follow their own rules when it comes to reporting to a civilian commander-in-chief.

Its seems like these generals must think Obama is some kind of boob, that they can say or do anything they like and think he will take it. This was the second time McChrystal F'ed up. I guess he didn't learn his lesson the first time.

Its a good thing Petraeus, learned his lesson early on, when Obama called him on the carpet. He might not like Obama but I bet he now respects him and more importantly respects the office of the President, something McChrystal seemed to not want to do.

**Patrick** · June-23-10, 06:24 PM

Originally Posted by firstandten

McChrystal bought this on himself by not following or respecting the chain of command. Its funny, military folks that high up preach the chain of command but they don't follow their own rules when it comes to reporting to a civilian commander-in-chief.

Its seems like these generals must think Obama is some kind of boob, that they can say or do anything they like and think he will take it. This was the second time McChrystal F'ed up. I guess he didn't learn his lesson the first time.

Its a good thing Petraeus, learned his lesson early on, when Obama called him on the carpet. He might not like Obama but I bet he now respects him and more importantly respects the office of the President, something McChrystal seemed to not want to do.

Still doesn't change the fact that Obama seems to have no idea about what to do with the mess in Afghanistan.

**firstandten** · June-23-10, 06:30 PM

Originally Posted by Patrick

Still doesn't change the fact that Obama seems to have no idea about what to do with the mess in Afghanistan.

Who does ?

Thats still no reason to disrespect your commander-in-chief

Also, I could give less than a hoot about what Karzai wants, he needs to go and crawl under a rock with his corrupt self.

**douglasm** · June-23-10, 06:32 PM

Does anyone? The Russians figured they'd need about 600,000 troops to do the job right, and they'd still have a Vietnam style mess on their hands.

**firstandten** · June-23-10, 06:38 PM

Originally Posted by douglasm

Does anyone? The Russians figured they'd need about 600,000 troops to do the job right, and they'd still have a Vietnam style mess on their hands.

Basically your looking at getting the hell out based on a firm timetable, declare victory and move on.
Pretty much what the President is doing

**Jimaz** · June-23-10, 06:53 PM

Originally Posted by firstandten

It's funny, military folks that high up preach the chain of command but they don't follow their own rules when it comes to reporting to a civilian commander-in-chief....

Good point but they're not really comparable situations. It's a far more serious offense at the Commander In Chief level because that's where we demonstrate to the world that civilians rule over the military in this country and not the other way around. There's a wholly different symbolism operating at that level.

**Zacha341** · June-23-10, 07:59 PM

Indeed he brought it upon himself at minimal to engage in a popular culture scenario where the questions and commentary can be more front-loaded and controversial than what is said by the person being interviewed. Bad move! Perhaps we can start to evaluate the RS article and examine what was actually said by their staff, the style of interview it was and what McChrystal ran off the mouth with [[warning it is a very long set up broken into parts):

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/119236

Originally Posted by firstandten

McChrystal bought this on himself by not following or respecting the chain of command. Its funny, military folks that high up preach the chain of command but they don't follow their own rules when it comes to reporting to a civilian commander-in-chief.

Its seems like these generals must think Obama is some kind of boob, that they can say or do anything they like and think he will take it. This was the second time McChrystal F'ed up. I guess he didn't learn his lesson the first time.

Its a good thing Petraeus, learned his lesson early on, when Obama called him on the carpet. He might not like Obama but I bet he now respects him and more importantly respects the office of the President, something McChrystal seemed to not want to do.

**Detroitej72** · June-23-10, 10:03 PM

Originally Posted by firstandten

McChrystal bought this on himself by not following or respecting the chain of command. Its funny, military folks that high up preach the chain of command but they don't follow their own rules when it comes to reporting to a civilian commander-in-chief.

Chain of command is of the utmost importance in military life. If a lowly Private committed this blatant violation of The Code, he could have been court marshaled and quite possibly tried for treason and/or given a dishonorable discharge.

McChrystal should thank his lucky stars tonight...

**Papasito** · June-24-10, 08:26 AM

McChrystal bought this on himself by not following or respecting the chain of command.

This is laughable at best.
What about the chain of command that disrespects the Military?
How about how they called Gen. David Petraeus
"Betray Us" in a full page ad in the New York Times just a few short years ago?
How Obama himself said the Military would fail in Iraq and the Middle East before he became President, which was under the direct command of Petraueus?
There was quite a bit of hostility toward Gen. Petraeus before Obama was elected.

And where is the evidence besides an entertainment rag and some second hand information that McChrystal actually said these things? There is no audio. Obama is an egocentrical blowhard who got himself butthurt because someone qualified to be a Five Star General [[they are not just "handing out" these positions, mind you) didn't bow down and kiss his ass.

Anyway, it doesn't effect me and my day to day life, so I don't really care that much about any of this. I'm just calling it as I see it.

09-10-07
Democrats today assailed the recommendations of US Commander in Iraq David Petraeus and US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker, who called upon the US to maintain surge-level forces in Iraq until summer of 2008.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/0...-_n_63828.html

**firstandten** · June-24-10, 12:36 PM

Originally Posted by Papasito

This is laughable at best.
What about the chain of command that disrespects the Military?
How about how they called Gen. David Petraeus
"Betray Us" in a full page ad in the New York Times just a few short years ago?
How Obama himself said the Military would fail in Iraq and the Middle East before he became President, which was under the direct command of Petraueus?
There was quite a bit of hostility toward Gen. Petraeus before Obama was elected.

And where is the evidence besides an entertainment rag and some second hand information that McChrystal actually said these things? There is no audio. Obama is an egocentrical blowhard who got himself butthurt because someone qualified to be a Five Star General [[they are not just "handing out" these positions, mind you) didn't bow down and kiss his ass.

Anyway, it doesn't effect me and my day to day life, so I don't really care that much about any of this. I'm just calling it as I see it.

There is a difference between the words that candidate Obama said and president Obama and any five star general worth any of those stars should know, understand and respect the difference.

Actually the Rolling Stone does great investigative reporting and is respected in that area. as more than just an entertainment rag.

Like in my younger days I always read Playboy magazine for the great articles

That McChrystal said those things in the article is not in doubt. He called Biden and gave him a heads up that the article was coming out and that he wasn't going to like what was said.

There is a case that you could make that Obama could have fired McChrystal simply because the strategy that was put in place was not working and McChrystal wasn't getting the job done. Being a jerk just made it that much easiler for Obama to can him

**firstandten** · June-24-10, 12:53 PM

The Freep's Brian Dickerson makes a compelling case as to why McChrystal really got let go.

http://www.freep.com/article/20100624/COL04/6240391/

I tend to believe it. I think McChrystal wanted out and the best way to do it was to do something so out of character Pres Obama would have to fire him

**ejames01** · June-24-10, 03:37 PM

Moveon.org produced that ad. What does any of that have to do with this?

Originally Posted by Papasito

This is laughable at best.
What about the chain of command that disrespects the Military?
How about how they called Gen. David Petraeus
"Betray Us" in a full page ad in the New York Times just a few short years ago?
How Obama himself said the Military would fail in Iraq and the Middle East before he became President, which was under the direct command of Petraueus?
There was quite a bit of hostility toward Gen. Petraeus before Obama was elected.

And where is the evidence besides an entertainment rag and some second hand information that McChrystal actually said these things? There is no audio. Obama is an egocentrical blowhard who got himself butthurt because someone qualified to be a Five Star General [[they are not just "handing out" these positions, mind you) didn't bow down and kiss his ass.

Anyway, it doesn't effect me and my day to day life, so I don't really care that much about any of this. I'm just calling it as I see it.

**Papasito** · June-24-10, 04:28 PM

Moveon.org produced that ad. What does any of that have to do with this?

Moveon.org sponsored by the Clintons who work for Obama? It's all connected.

What it has to do with this is that now Obama has brought in a General who was dubbed a traitor and ran through the riot act when he was serving under Bush, and now is heralded as the next big thing by Obama, clearly pretending that they never crapped on the guy only a couple short years ago.

I think McChrystal wanted out and the best way to do it was to do something so out of character Pres Obama would have to fire him

Yeah like hurt his [[Obama's) widdle e-peen onoz his feelings got hurtz

**ejames01** · June-24-10, 07:46 PM

What is this dude smoking? Is he really debating my just making up things?

Originally Posted by Papasito

Moveon.org sponsored by the Clintons who work for Obama? It's all connected.

What it has to do with this is that now Obama has brought in a General who was dubbed a traitor and ran through the riot act when he was serving under Bush, and now is heralded as the next big thing by Obama, clearly pretending that they never crapped on the guy only a couple short years ago.

Yeah like hurt his [[Obama's) widdle e-peen onoz his feelings got hurtz

**rb336** · June-25-10, 09:38 AM

Originally Posted by firstandten

The Freep's Brian Dickerson makes a compelling case as to why McChrystal really got let go.

http://www.freep.com/article/20100624/COL04/6240391/

I tend to believe it. I think McChrystal wanted out and the best way to do it was to do something so out of character Pres Obama would have to fire him

yeah, gee. that would be SO much more rational than simply retiring

what a crock

**rb336** · June-25-10, 09:42 AM

Originally Posted by Papasito

Moveon.org sponsored by the Clintons who work for Obama? It's all connected.

Moveon.org sonsored by the Clintons? yeah, right. that is why they were so anti-hillary in the primaries. Sheesh, get real papa

**GOAT** · June-25-10, 10:16 AM

Papisito. Come on now. structure of command in the Armed Forces works from the top down, not the other way around. Take it from someone who has been in the AF and is again.

McChrystal is an idiot for his dumb remarks. Petraeus is a fantastic leader. In fact Iraq could have been cleaned up a lot earlier had the Chimp and his minions listened to him from the get-go.

**firstandten** · June-25-10, 02:07 PM

Originally Posted by rb336

yeah, gee. that would be SO much more rational than simply retiring

what a crock

rb, your right I would simply retire but look at it from his POV. Obama is implementing the overall strategy that he came up with and he was on board with the exeception that Obama wouldn't give him all the troops he wanted which led to the leaked memo and his first mess up with Obama. Problem with the strategy was its not working and its a good chance it won't work. For him to retire is an admission that his strategy was wrong and wasn't going to work. Better then to get fired, let somebody else hold the bag when that entire strategy backfires, and save his legacy.

**Papasito** · June-25-10, 02:54 PM

Petraeus is a fantastic leader

That's not what the media and the left said 2 years ago.

The escalation of fighting between Mahdi Army militiamen and their Shi'ite rivals, which could mark the end of Moqtada al-Sadr's self-imposed cease-fire, also exposes Gen. David Petraeus' strategy for controlling Sadr's forces as a failure.
http://www.antiwar.com/porter/?articleid=12589

it is unsettling to hear General Petreaus parrot and advance the jihadist rhetoric of Islamic anti-semitism that they employ to achieve their goal.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201004080041

How about Obama to Petraeus directly?? :
Video : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9wtAqXq7Sg

Daddy did you fix the hole yet? No.
Daddy did you fix the economy yet? No.
Daddy did you fix the Iran nuclear problem yet? No.
Daddy did you fix the illegal immigrant thing yet? No.
Daddy did you fix Afghanistan? Maybe. I asked Bush’s guy Petraeus... the guy who I railed against publicly as a Senator... the guy who I denigrated and ridiculed for his “Surge” plan in Iraq... to fix it for me.

**Papasito** · June-25-10, 03:46 PM

Taliban endorses General Petraeus, say new US Afghanistan war chief 'not smarter' than McChrystal
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/worl...smarter_t.html

"[[Petraeus) is not smarter than McChrystal," Taliban spokesman Qari Muhammad Ahmed Yusuf said in a statement. "Also, his losing consciousness last week in an investigative hearing before the members of the U.S. Congress brought his physical competence and his courage into question."

That would be a reference to the decorated general fainting briefly during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing. Petraeus recovered quickly - blaming dehydration and skipping breakfast - but was told to come back the next day to continue his testimony.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/worl...#ixzz0rtqrWTIn

**GOAT** · June-26-10, 08:30 AM

Like the media has a clue! LMAO! Sorry but endorsements by the media is something I would question in a leader. As for the left, well that is just politicking and the right does it as well. The fact remains his career is impeccable and he is very well liked by the soliders that follow him.

As for the Taliban, when they say they like someone you can make a sure bet that the person is their least favourite. They have to say something!

I will trust the one's I know who served under him over any of the above.