June 23, 2010

McChrystallizing the Firing, and the Move

Filed under: Taxes & Government,US & Allied Military — Tom @ 2:28 pm

Given what has happened, here is what I hope ultimately becomes the key pull from the Rolling Stone piece that hung out Stan McChrystal to dry:

“There’s a possibility we could ask for another surge of U.S. forces next summer if we see success here,” a senior military official in Kabul tells me.

David Petraeus was the only conceivably palatable choice Obama had that could give him instant defense credibility. The choice is as a strong indication of just how severely damaged this president is.

Unlike his Punk President superior, Petraeus is a big boy and above all a patriot. He may not forgive the vitriol thrown at him just three years ago by Obama, Biden, Clinton, and so many others (Why should he? They were wrong, and he was right), but he will not let it affect him.

I don’t think Petraeus takes the job unless he’s been guaranteed everything needed to achieve victory, like the victory we achieved in Iraq. I pray I’m right.



  1. I’m sure the loony left is not going to like the Petraeus selection, regardless…

    What this does do is allow Obama to save face and then back off his July 2011 timeline at the same time, in order to do a REAL surge of say another 60k or 80k to get in the ballpark of the original request by McCrystal of 120k to 150k. This put’s Obama in the more reasonable achievable goal of wiping out the Taliban since it is now painfully clear that the current troop strength (21k + 30K) is not going to achieve the July deadline by any stretch of the imagination. Under what set of circumstances did the so called Commander in Chief think originally cutting a troop request over 80% would yield success? Obama was clearly an idiot thinking he could get away with this emasculation of the military troop strength without horrible negative consequences.

    Now if Obama were smart or getting better advice he would be to complete the RESET by getting rid of those in the diplomatic corps assigned to Afghanistan. Starting with Ambassador Karl Eikenberry & Special Representative to Afghanistan Richard Holbrooke. These two morons started the debacle with their foolish public criticism of Karzai and his brother. Like Abdullah Abdullah said it was not helpful and showed a front that was not united, thus encouraging the Taliban. But once again, this was an expected result since the Mr. I Am In Charge was mouthing the words in a rhetorical exercise and not disciplining his minions to toe the line.

    Comment by dscott — June 23, 2010 @ 4:49 pm

  2. [...] Blog: Thinks Petraeus got a deal. I’m not sure I agree. Deal or no, someone has to step up and serve, and be the selfless [...]

    Pingback by The Anchoress | A First Things Blog — June 23, 2010 @ 6:01 pm

  3. This also takes Petraeus out of the running for 2012. First, he’ll be busy. Second, if he retires next year, either Obama will get the credit for success or Petraeus will get the blame for failure. Either way, no POTUS for him.

    Comment by mike — June 24, 2010 @ 9:44 am

  4. #3, Understand the point, and my guess is that Obama’s peeps are high-fiving about it, but I don’t think Petraeus was going to seriously consider running and putting up with what is now a 2-year marathon where everything else in your life virtually stops. Shoot, a lot of what I’ve read indicates that Reagan would likely not have wanted to go through the 2012 election system in 1980. That’s the way career politicians want it.

    It’s not a perfect parallel, but I can’t imagine Eisenhower would have been willing to put up with the mindless gauntlet our primary election system has turned into. We are poorer for it, because great men like Petraeus (and I’m sure many great women) look at what they would have to go through and say, “Forget it.”

    Comment by TBlumer — June 24, 2010 @ 9:56 am

  5. Interesting, Obama now appears to be backpeddling on the July 2011 pull out. It looks Obama is taking this opportunity to push the reset button on his Afghan War policy. Maybe now we will get the extra 60 to 80K troops needed to “successfully” end our Afghan involvement. At this point Obama might as well go for broke since choosing Petraeus means a fall out with the left wing nuts and anti-war crowd. He has nothing to lose here politically by ramping up troop strength and smashing the Taliban without negotiations. If the Left shuts up about Petraeus then Obama has nothing to pay for a troop build up either, anyway you look at it its a win/win.

    Obama: No hasty Afghan exit

    Comment by dscott — June 24, 2010 @ 7:15 pm

  6. William T. Sherman said “If nominated, I will not run. If elected, I will not serve.”

    Sheridan said “If nominated I will run, for the Mexican or Canadian border, which ever is closest.”

    Those two great warriors didn’t care for the political process back then. I hope we can find another great man to take down the “Government of Weenies” that seems to be now installed.

    Comment by Don M — June 24, 2010 @ 8:13 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.