**Update** Although this post is nearly six years old, the disparity between the honor and courage of our military and the entitled, tresonous petulance of their Commander in Chief remains the same.
So, here’s the rub from the UK Telegraph:
In London, Gen McChrystal, who heads the 68,000 US troops in Afghanistan as well as the 100,000 Nato forces, flatly rejected proposals to switch to a strategy more reliant on drone missile strikes and special forces operations against al-Qaeda.
He told the Institute of International and Strategic Studies that the formula, which is favoured by Vice-President Joe Biden, would lead to “Chaos-istan”.
When asked whether he would support it, he said: “The short answer is: No.”
He went on to say: “Waiting does not prolong a favorable outcome. This effort will not remain winnable indefinitely, and nor will public support.”
Apparently McChrystal pulling rank on Obama didn’t go over so well with the talking heads at the White House.
The remarks have been seen by some in the Obama administration as a barbed reference to the slow pace of debate within the White House.
Nice to see that “some in the Obama administration” are able to grasp the obvious.
Gen McChrystal delivered a report on Afghanistan requested by the president on Aug 31, but Mr Obama held only his second “principals meeting” on the issue last week.
He will hold at least one more this week, but a decision on how far to follow Gen McChrystal’s recommendation to send 40,000 more US troops will not be made for several weeks.
A military expert said: “They still have working relationship but all in all it’s not great for now.”
That might be because McChrystal, the man in charge of keeping the free world safe, has dutifully asked his commander in chief for permission to win and all he’s getting is a back seat to Obama’s PR schedule.
But it gets better:
Some commentators regarded the general’s London comments as verging on insubordination.
FYI, ‘commentator’ as defined in the Leftist Media Lexicon (LML) is: “Any random person who acts as an armchair expert on a subject he knows nothing about. Can be a tenured news anchor, Hollywood activist, or the poor disgruntled schlub writing the story. Commentators need no credentials because that would require ‘vetting’, and, according to the LML, vetting is, “not practiced on members of the media or anyone the media proclaims is a commentator”.
Oftentimes, the ‘commentator’ is someone from the academic world:
Bruce Ackerman, an expert on constitutional law at Yale University, said in the Washington Post: “As commanding general, McChrystal has no business making such public pronouncements.”
Constitutional and lawyer…now there’s an oxymoron. Given the Left’s propensity for getting really credible ‘commentators’, I highly suspect Mr. Ackerman also thinks the Constitution implicitly states a president can take over the private sector.
Relations between the general and the White House began to sour when his report, which painted a grim picture of the allied mission in Afghanistan, was leaked. White House aides have since briefed against the general’s recommendations.
Now, here’s some hubris: The White House briefed “against the general’s recommendations”.
Which leads us to this question: Just who is more qualified to call the shots in Afghanistan, the general who is actually in Afghanistan, or our spoiled, man-child president who was stupid enough to use his outside voice when he said, “I’m not interested in victory”?
This question can only be answered by a comparison of the two men.
May I present Barack Obama and General McChrystal.
McChrystal’s work environment:
Obama’s work environment:
McChrystal on the front lines:
Obama on the front lines:
In case you missed that, McChrystal’s world:
What McChrystal fights for:
What Obama fights for:
An average day for McChrystal, his men, and their Commander in Chief. Now might be a good time to say a prayer for your military.