Thank you for the insightful commentary reflecting your obvious close association with many of the fine men and women in the armed forces. I am sure that you are grateful and aware of the fact that their blood and sacrifice are the very reason you are free to honor them with your well considered assessment herein...sad...

aw-1811170, you are part of the problem in this country today. It's your kind of stupid constitutionally uneducated ignoramus rantings that flys right in the face of common sense and the first amendment: Freedom of Expression (or speech as most know it.) I don't agree with KeepNitReal, but we should be able to say anything we want in a public forum because we live in a great country based on freedom: USA. Now if you want to bow down to the government and accept every word it says like gospel, (with no chance to express opinions of dismay, petition and publicly rally) because you may move to China or North Korea and bow down to their doctrine.

Have a nice day. And no, I won't be sticking around to argue with a loser like you, pull your head out of your ass.

Got your ass kicked in basic training... huh? Loser!!

Not certain what country's military you belonged to....I know it was not the USA's....

I hope you guys realize that the OP is a blatant troll. A damn good one too because all of you fell for it hook line and sinker.

Thaty's right, shut and obey orders or be replaced......

You're so wrong about this, Our military functions on a leaders ability to assess a situation and make a decision, not blindly following orders given to him by someone not in the war zone.

Speaking of being so wrong! You don't know the first thing about Military Procedures. The Commander in Chief is the Commander in Cheif of all military branches. If he doesn't know what's going on at the front lines, as you called it, it is because your General doesn't have an idea of what's going on.

You are a genuine idiot. You miss President Bush who got us into this war. I have served 24 years and in two war zones. You may hate President Obama, but do not sterotype our military. The Military loves a Commander and Chief that takes time and analyze a situation carefully before acting. One who takes the advice of his Commanders, the Pentagon (based on lesson learned), before he makes an informed decision. If President Bush had done that many of our Defense fighting men and women will be living today. His father gave him Gen. Powell who is a military genuis. Had he listen to him instead of Dick Cheney, he would not have sent 30,000 men and women to attack a counrty the size of Iraq. Be considerate and know your history and facts before you stary spewing your unnecessary hatred. President Obama is our black preisident and is doing a great job without your support and many other whites that will never support him despite how much he do for the country.

aw-1811170 You said it all.... Obama will be happy as one term President.... he is only concerned about how things make him look and he can care less about creating real change. I guess that's why his biggests fans are now finally starting to admit that they are disappointed in him and his administration. Even the movie stars are turning down invites to the White House!!

But you liked Bush. You are ignorant!!!

Bush was no better, lets not forget his slow move to help with Katrina and him remaining on vacation and spending thousands of dollars while the country suffers. Let's not forget that Bush and Pres. Obama have two things in common, they are rich and they are politicians...There platform is always gonna be slightly tilted in the direction of those most like them. Lets not throw the race card out there, black people didnt vote for Pres. Obama just bc he was black, no more than white people voted against him bc he was black. People voted how they wanted based on what they needed from the government and what they believed in. If people are stupid enough not to vote for a person just bc he was black and Pres. Obama was black and they didnt support his leadership that is basic racism, bc not all black people think the same or act the same so one black president is not going to make the same decision as another thats like saying that Bush and Clinton are the same bc they are both white...come on!!.. I dont see how anyone could expect any president to come in after Bush and make immediate improvements the US was already on a decline and common sense would tell you that it would take more time to improve it..Do I support everything that Pres. Obama does, no I dont...Did I support everything that Bush did...absolutely not..but do I understand politics yes I do..As someone who who comes from a family of military both white and black as my family is of mixed ancestry..I can say that many of the military 100% support Pres. Obama and many did not support Bush, and vice versa. So lets not get it twisted and assume that the military in its entirety supports Bush and not Pres. Obama. Its all personal choice. Regardless if you are employed by someone even if you disagree you keep your mouth shut!. I own a company and I know that my employees may not agree with every decision I make, but they better not let me hear about it!

You are kidding. Your employees better not disagree and better keep their mouths shut? I hope I don't come across your Company. In business, if disagreement is stated sensibly, thoughtfully, with the good of the Company and employees at stake, then leadership should listen without employees fearing retribution. As long as the employee who disagrees does not do anything underhanded to dig a hole or discredit the company when leadership/owner does not act on the input. You as owner should listen to employees' input negative or positive, as long as it is constructive. Or else, how will you the BOSS keep learning? Even parents keep learn from their children. You sound really arrogant. Eventually you may self-destruct your company with this attitude.

...as would the author of the "Powell Doctrine"...

Diogenes:

Yes, you are correct.

Bam!

Score one for Diogenes!

Ouch!

Sorry, but I don't get it...of course, this isn't the first time...:)

There was an excellent film adaption of the novel as well, Anna Molly. As a young soldier, I remember watching it in a full dayroom on a military base.

However Anna Molly, that novel and movie is an account of an attempted military coup. This is merely a question of insubordination, and whether or not, for President Obama, it rises to the level that triggers a request for McChrystal's resignation.

If it does, I have no doubt that General McChrystal will comply promptly with President Obama's request.

Do you have reason to believe otherwise?

No, not at all. I just meant SEVEN DAYS IN MAY as an example of what ultimately could happen -- at the extreme -- when military leaders begin to forget their proper role, if you know what I mean. MacArthur did it, and, as you may recall, was not exactly happy when relieved of command.

But you never know, either. Have you listened to the Teabaggers recently, Bag Boy? And even some Congress members, talking about "Second Amendment" solutions and overthrowing a duly elected administration. What else is a coup, after all, than a form of "Second Amendment" solution? Might makes right.

Stop listening to Tweety, Anna Molly...and ask yourself this question:

"If the Tea Partiers are so pathetic...why do I feel so threatened?"

The only violence the media has shown involving Tea Partiers has been initiated by those attacking Tea Partiers..a few minor incidents. The overwhelming majority of the Tea Party events are peaceful and orderly. My experience is that you've been factually honest in your posts, Anna Molly...do you really want to dispute my description of Tea Party gatherings?

I welcome your input...be specific if you choose to disagree.

As far as the Second Amendment goes...I don't own a firearm and haven't handled one since my Army days long ago.

However, Anna Molly, should the Obama Administration (or ANY Administration, for that matter) implement any serious restrictions to the right of law-abiding citizens to bear arms, I will take advantage of my current Second Amendment rights long before those restrictions take effect.

That said, I'd prefer we just leave things just as they are regarding the Second Amendment.

By the way, Anna Molly, have you ever noticed that I always refer to you as "Anna Molly"...the name you prefer to use in your posts?

"Bag Boy" is OK...especially considering what others here at First Read have called me. It's a "term of endearment", isn't it?

And anyway...

It's all good...right, Anna Molly?

When that "duly elected administration" is trampling on the very document that they derive their power from, then something, most assuredly needs to be done. It is easily and quickly forgotten that one of the purposes of the Constitution and the very framework of government that our country is built upon, is to give the minority protection from the majority. But unless the minority view isn't racial or sexual, the left ignores this aspect.

(before anyone chimes in, read what I wrote, and don't claim I am supporting a military coup, because I am not, simply asking some to stop being so hypocritical and one-sided)

RedStateRed:

I am well aware of the anger in the South over these types of military tactics. However, Lincoln's intent as he approved such tactics was to end the war and to end it quickly so as to avoid further loss of life on both sides of this conflict. The South may have become angry over these tactics but in the end it saved them thousdands of additional lives if this war had been allowed to continue as it was preceeding. There was no intent or desire by the South to give up and Lincoln knew this. He knew the only recourse was to bring the South to its knees, and quickly.

No one said anything about using nuclear weapons in Afghanistan. If up to me we never would have sent ground troops there in the first place.

Hey...Who in the south is still angry about the civil war??? Really? Who in the hell is still angry here in the south because the confederacy was defeated in the civil war? I was born, raised and spent 3/4 of my life here and I have yet to hear someone bitching about the civil war? We have some uneducated people here. We have some racist people here. I have yet to see, hear or feel the "anger" over the civil war. Just for the record we have a lot of good, open minded, hard working people here too. Stop with the stereotypes already... Also, for the record, I've lived all around the US to include 3 years in central Cali. and 6 years in Oregon and there were racists, redneck types in every place I lived.

Who? If you’re in the South, then look around you. I’ll concede that I should have written “among people with Southern sympathies” instead of “in the South”. You should take note however that I also wrote “many people” not all Southerners. The term “many” is not a precise number and assumes that there are an undefined number of exceptions, therefore it is not a stereotype.

That being said you find a heck of a lot more Confederate Pride in the South than in say Massachusetts, it’s just a fact. That said, some of the most violent feelings of “the South will rise again” are found in Southwest Missouri, not exactly the deep South. Yes, there are out of touch fools even in liberal strongholds. The main point is that you don’t find the same historical anger about the “aggression” of the Union or the “war crime” of Sherman’s march in Iowa as you do in Georgia (obviously not all Georgians but a sizable demographic ). This anger is partially a response to the Union’s expansion of the war to include the civilian economy and infrastructure of the South. Summery, the Union victory was a military victory only. Hearts and minds in the South were totally lost for the next hundred years. Only continued Union military occupation in the years following the war kept a lid (barely) on the resentment of the defeated Confederates. Don’t take things to personal. When one is overly defensive, it interferes with understanding.

JoAnna:

I have determined that you have trouble with the truth.

The truth is General McChrystal was recommended by the brass not "handpicked" by the President. Get it straight!

Again Joanne Smith, you are an idiot. Yes, the President picked him, but it was at the recommendation of Secy Gates and Admiral McMullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and wouldn't you think they would recommend the best and have the background to make that recommendation.

General McCrystal and his aides need to be demoted and fired. Their lack of loyalty and the disrespect they show to the President (any president) is unforgivable. And your views of our President need a major adjustment, your bordering on being there yourself. Think before you post!!!

Firing McCrystal would be the worst thing that the President could possibly do. It would eliminate the only man who has any hope of turning around the Afghan war, and replace him with someone only looking for an exit strategy.

I realize that wouldn't bother some of you, but to me that is an inconceivable thing, to just run away with our tail between our legs because the war got hard. Because we started to worry more about the world sees us a nation that how to fight the war. We have to do what is best for our interests, and the best way to do that is to win in Afghanistan and show the Pakistanis that we are serious about our intent and force them to cooperate with us in ending the Taliban and Al Quida.

Navy,

You're right! A commander can express an opinion to the President, but he is required to carry out orders, motormouthism is prevalent in the military. No one mentions Singlaub' remember President Carter decided to reduce the troop level in Korea. Singlaub disagreed with the decision, instead of remaining in command, he resigned his command and retired, allowing him to state his opinion regarding a decision he felt he could'nt carry out. Secretary of State/General Powell, urged President Bush the Younger, to avoid a decision without fully thinking the results through; i.e. an exit strategy. Here we are 9 years later with a growing war in Afghanistan and mounting casualties! I was 11 years old when the Vietnam War heated up; I caught up with it, and the war passed me by! I still remember the emptiness in my soul in April 1975, friends dead for lack of political forsight.

I have two nephews, one Navy and the second an 11 Bravo/03 Bush in the Tenth Mountain Division; I think about him being in harm's way everyday. It doesn't do my PTSD any good thinking of what he's getting himself into. The mountains of Afghanistan resemble I Corps it's haunting.

Finally, another lesson that today's military commanders should observe. Officers of the armed forces during the ninteenth and early twentieth centuries, were politically neutral. General of the Army Omar N. Bradley stated that the army doesn't shape policy, it's their duty to carry out policy; the founding fathers subordinated the military to the civilian leadership

Disabled NamVet, I am confused if nam passed you by at age 11 how can you be a disabled namvet, unless your speaking of the build up in 1967 when I was drafted and sent to nam in 68 to arrive in time for TET, and was in every conflict the US has been in since then till Desert Storm which I was recalled to duty and sent, our present CIC does not realize what the Russians realized years ago we cannot win in this place at this time. Presently, I will not allow my daughter to enter military service due to our present situation outside the United States, I served 22 yrs 6 months and 16 days, and under the present administration if I was called back to active duty I would resign my commission which was obtained in the field, where all good officers should be with their men.

RedStateRed:

You make some good points. I would only say in regards to Afghanistan, after finding ourselves there as did Obama, it was at that time a solid defintion of victory should have been formulated. If this meant coming home immediately that is fine. But if this meant staying to fight a war than a decison should have been made to wage a war as a war is meant to be waged. And that is only by overwhelming force. This is not to exclude follow-up reconstruction, but it is a waste of our troopers lives, U.S. dollars and U.S. confidence in this conflict to claim to have taken a piece of territory, to build a new school on the same and then to have that school blown up the next week by the Taliban. You win the war first, you destroy your enemy and/or their desire to wage war completely, then you reconstruct infrastructure, minds and hearts. And if in a conflict where you cannot competely destroy your enemy or their will to wage war, then you either do not enter into such a conflict in the first place or you come home.

I don't think Lincoln would have entered into this conflict with Afghanistan, but if he had instead of a nuclear device I think Lincoln would have provided his generals with ground troops in excess of 500,000 and asked his generals to break the back and will of the Taliban.

CA, Tuscaloosa

I don’t know if you’re resistance is ideologically driven or a result of not knowing all the facts but I feel you have been missing my point. I will try one last time to make myself clear.

We cannot break the back and will of our enemies with overt military force.

Your views on warfare are not dissimilar to many Americans who lack an understanding of history. Not United States history but human history. The evolution of warfare has produced an ever changing truth to combat. The methods of total warfare ceased to be practical or productive after WWII.

It is not possible to differentiate between the waging and winning of war and “post war reconstruction.” Since 1945, in every conflict the U.S. has fought, the two have been intertwined beyond separation. The failure to embrace this truth is the reason for our militarily mixed results since WWII. Our soldiers today are suffering because they have been raised and trained in the ideology of total victory. Such a victory no longer exists in the world. Our troops must learn that their duty and what they are paid to do is slowly, painfully and often with great personal sacrifice win the support of the population.

Our enemies are relatively few in number and our potential allies are everywhere. In order to win them to our side, those potential allies have to see our friendship and compassion at work and not be confused by futile attempts to eliminate violent extremism with violent extremism

The enemy may try to see victory as an absolute and attempt to terrorize those they wish to conquer but our enemies are operating from an obsolete playbook. In the modern world great powers cannot act like spoiled empires. The belief that we can crush our enemies is fifty years out of date. If we don’t want to conduct our mission in Afghanistan as an intelligent, well reasoned nation that is determined to succeed in the long term then we should leave, end of story.

Truely spoken. Fire captains are much more political then grunts,for example. The further you are from the real work the tendency to promote your own agenda you can become. I'm not saying generals are not interested in subordinates needs. I'm just saying sometimes the job of a general can and does cross over to political interests. Just ask any VietNam war vet who was actually ingaged in the war effort and had to make on the fly decisions, like pulling teeth. Just check out how many politicians have military experience. Not true combat experience.They have more medals then a Russian commander and that's alot. I see a medal for most compromises achieved behind a drink, just kidding interesting hardware hanging off their chests.

What plagues me is the simple fact many congressman have never served one ounce of there life in the military but they are quick to give idea's on a situation they have no real life experience at or handling.

We have many Generals and Service men that know what needs to be done to either help or get rid of the problem but our government halts any necessary means to defeat the enemy. Instead the servicemen and women are told no,no we can't do that.

War is war and as MaCArthur put it, there is no substitute for victory either allow them to do whats needed to get it done or get the hell out. We lived this same nightmare in Vietnam we lost many lives because of a presidential decision.

Please remember, McCrystal proposed this counter-insurgency strategy and asked for troops. This is HIS strategy. Obama was convinced. Obama publicly supported the strategy and gave McCrystal troops. Forward 12months. Now he says he is not happy with the administration that has given him what he asked for. Coincidentally, resent reports from the war front have all been bad. Maybe this general is not getting the job done, and is looking for a way out.

Lets not forget, the strategy [proposed by McCrystal ] is counter-insurgency. By definition, it requires equal measures of military and diplomacy. How can you run a counter-insurgency, when the people in command [Generals and senior diplomats] have so much animosity?

McCrystal proposed the strategy, asked for troops. Obama was convinced. Obama publicly supported the strategy and gave McCrystal troops. Forward 12months. Now he says he is not happy with the administration that has given him what he asked for. Coincidentally, resent reports from the war front have all been bad. Maybe this general is not getting the job done, and is looking for a way out.

icedini,

"By definition, it requires equal measures of military and diplomacy. How can you run a counter-insurgency, when the people in command [Generals and senior diplomats] have so much animosity?"

Maybe some of the civilian side needs to go as well. We may have too many diplomatic chiefs. One strong general and one strong ambassador.

That's a good idea. Either way, something in this war strategy or execution needs to change. Fast.

McCrystal proposed this counter-insurgency strategy and asked for troops. This is HIS strategy. Obama publicly supported the strategy and gave McCrystal troops as requested [despite the anger of the libs]. Then McCrystal goes to the press and insults our US government. Somehow this shows how Obama hates America? I see your logic.

Hey soupy55: Admit it. It is just not Obama's policies you can't stand, it is Obama. You have hated him from the moment he was sworn in. And just where do you get it that he is American hating? That is Glenn Beck, and Hannity spewing, almost word for word.

Verno & Icdini

Why has BO gone around the world apologizing for America? Why is he trying to change us into a Socialist Utopia that has not worked once in the history of Mankind or in your tow cases womankind?

The gulf states are drowning in oil and he is singing and clapping with Paul McCartney at the Red House and allowing McCartney to take a slap at a former President of the United States (BO is seen laughing at McCartney's comment about Bush not knowing what a Library is), playing golf, heading to Nationals Games, Michelle the Wonderful is taking Air Force Jets to LA to shop and catch a Lakers games, Date nights on the public dole while world class chefs are sitting on their hands in the Red House and the average joe can't afford Arby's, standing by and agreeing with the Mexican President on criticizing Arizona for trying to protect their state. He didn't even tell the President of a banana republic he was wrong and just agreed with him. I would call that America Hating. Carter runs around the world telling anyone who will listen that America is evil and the cause of the worlds problem. The state dept apologizes to China CHINA for the Arizona law and says it violates human rights, I'll say it again CHINA a country that uses slave labor to produce it's products for sale over here, locks people up for criticizing their gov't.

I do not hate BO. I do hate what he stands for as I believe he is trying to change the very essence of this country into something that we are not and that is gov't knows best and we will take care of everything, not to worry. All you had to do is listen on election night to the morons in the street saying they will be getting everything for free now that BO is in charge.

I am not a right wing fanatic as I am pro choice and I could care less about gay marriage (gays should be just as miserable in marriage as straights). I do not watch Glenn Beck and once in a while I will watch Hannity when I need a good laugh. And if you are going to hold them up on the right then you have to also have to talk about tinkle legs Mathews, Rachel Madcow and Keith Doberman. They can be as bad or worse that Beck, Hannity and Limbaugh but you would never admit to that because you agree with them. I think for myself and like most liberals do not follow the drumbeat from the party or the dear leaders. I have been an Independent Voter in the Peoples Democratic Republic of Massachusetts for many years and have voted for candidates from both parties although I do lean to conservative side on most issues especially financial.

As far America Haters go, there are millions of Liberals who are first to blame America whenever something goes wrong. Although BP caused the oil spill, the haters say it is America's fault because of our gluttony for energy, that we consume all of the earth's resources and we never help out the rest of the world. We have freed more people on this planet in our short history than the rest of the countries combined thru out the planet's history. The advances we have made in Medicine, technology, agriculture have benefited billions of people around the world for decades and decades to come. You are most likely anti-nuke, but it is a fact that nuclear weapons have prevented a third and fourth world war. We are the only country that has used them in War because we were the only country that had them and we probably saved 3 times the lives especially American lives than we took. I know that does not give solace to the Japanese or the haters but that is a fact.

You have a right to spout your views of our country and that is the greatest gift America has given the world. I have a right to mine and it does not mean I hate BO because I disagree with his policies and vision of my beloved country. America has given so many so much I just wish the haters would stand up and support her when people denigrate America on one of the hallowed spots in our country, the White House. BO did not do it and that is why I count him as a hater.

Well stated

He apologized for BUSH's failed policies, not for America. There's a big difference. Just like you scream publicly on the internet for the world to see about how stupid Obama and his policies are, then you say you are not criticizing America. At the same time, if I criticize Bush and his policies, that means I am criticizing America? Double standard. Hypocrite. Same right wingers say McCrystal can speak his mind and abuse our civilian government. Not anti-american, right? Freedom of speech, right? But Obama speaks his mind about a prior administration and it's anti-american.

It is amazing how everyone complains about Obama and how he does his job, but nobody brings up the fact that Bush left a true s#*t sandwich for whomever would have been president next. I like Obama but I'll be real curious to see what all of you will have to say if he doesn't get re-elected because it will be something.

McChrystal has been reprimanded before for speaking out of school. He was also the mastermind behind the cover up of the Tillman friendly fire debacle.

He has been allowed to implement his strategy, yet he complains publicly. He chooses to backbite instead of stand up to his superiors privately and honorably.

Given his handling of the Tillman matter, I have a hard time believing he has any moral obstacles to performing what he perceives to be his duty, or his own self interest.

It seems that McChrystal is more politician than General, and team player. He follows his own agenda, and when that agenda fails, he reinvents himself and blames his failure on others. Time for this insubordiante narcissist to be courtmartialed.

You must have just awakened from a coma as Obama has done nothing but ignore and vilify the Republicans who have had no voice in any of Obamas legislation because the Democrats held the super majority. Here's a hint: Remember Obama calling the GOP Tea Party Protesters the derogatory term of "Teabaggers" meant to be a reference to male genitalia? Now how good is he? Forgot those numerous pot shots he continually takes didn't you? Obama only wants conservative viewpoints if it helps him pass more outlandish and free spending legislation.

People who hang tea bags around their necks in public can also be called teabaggers. I believe you are one of the .05% of americans that think of genitelia when they hear teabagger.

I have been voting for Republican and down the party line for the last few elections. However I'm finding it harder and harder to listen and agreed to to the comments from the supposed "leaders" from the GOP and Tea Party. It just seems they lost the common sense and the true love of this country and exercise proper restrain. Anyone going to call me traitors as well and America hater?

By the way I think people in the South are proud of the Cenfederate Spirit out of free-willing, can-do attitudes and the states rights and much less than the racist bias toward others. Of course I have seen and heard enough nasty comments from people still not comfortable of the darker skin colors but hopefully they are the dying breed as we continue to promote racial equality through out this great country. We need comments and discussions from all angles but we must perservere with the utmost respect of one another and perserve the dignity of our discussions. Only then productive conclusions can come out of it.

It isn't about feelings being hurt...what it is about is a 4 star general making derogatory comments about the Commander in Chief. Regardless of who is CIC, or what political party they may be aligned with, it is, and has always been very imappropriate for ANY military member to publicy make such comments about their superiors.

This is not a matter of "freedom of speech", as some suggest. There are limited freedoms in the military. A professional soldier should understand this. Being a soldier means being expendable [to a degree]. If this war effort cannot be won because "one general" leaves, then we have a bigger problem. If our military cannot immediately present a qualified replacement for any soldier, then our military is in need of complete overhauling. Fire him.

Wasn't there also an admiral under Clinton who was forced to resign early over remarks that if the troops didn't have prostitutes available, they would create more problems for the local women? I believe it was in reference to Okinawa and not very well received by Okinawans who had a middle school girl raped by some Marines not long before the remark, not to mention other local women brutalized and hookers beaten up.