McChrystal Talked to Obama Once in 70 Days

I find it hard to believe that Obama is not paying attention to international affairs based on what I hear on the news.

Larry, because ...?

Because he travels, because the Secretary of State has enough influence to get his attention, because international events of a serious nature are on the news almost every night, because he just met with many national leaders in an economic summit a few days ago. Come on, how can he possibly not be paying attention to international affairs?

The whole idea is preposterous.

So working inside the Beltway and taking advice from Beltway creatures (Oh, and getting put down by the President of France because he is disconnected from the real world) gives the President enough first-hand information to make good national security decisions?

Larry, I think he is selling Obamacare and Chicago for the Olympics, and we are getting our asses kicked in Afghanistan.

If we are getting kicked in a war isn't that a sign that the generals are failing? Are those the ones you want him to take advice from?

We are conducting military operations in Afghanistan but that doesn't make it a war. The question is, what are we doing there to eliminate the problem presented by the insurgents. Clearly military operations don't work short of killing the entire population of the area.

If the "generals are failing", commn sense would indicate that Obama needs to talk to his "general" more than once in 70 days....

What would Lincoln, Roosevelt, or Kennedy/Johnson have done?

Roosevelt had an excellent Chief of Staff in Marshall. They shoved aside the generals that screwed up and replaced them with better folks.

Lincoln had very little material to work with since most of the better generals were working for the other side. He had to wait until some "natural talent" had a chance to show itself many thousands of lives into the war.

So Roosevelt didn't need to talk to his generals and mainly didn't.

Lincoln had few generals worth talking to. If he had listened to the ones he had he would have lost that war.

Kennedy/Johnson tried to solve a non-military problem with military means and messed up big time. They listened to their generals. The military were being asked to do a job for which they were not suited.

Common sense is usually wrong otherwise people would do far fewer foolish things.

Communicating by means other than phone is effective. Take Gather for example.

Larry, McChrystal is the President's choice to implement the President's strategy in Afghanistan.

Notwithstanding your lesson in history, thank you, doesn't it seem that after Iraq

this President would take an active interest in Afghanistan. Obviously, the Pentagon, which has leaked McChrystal's report, and General McChrystal don't think the President is engaged in this war like he is in say ... Chicago being awarded the 2016 Olympic games.

Tell me what a win is and then we can declare it.

How much in lives and treasury are you General Randy willing to spent?

Is the President receiving communications from McChrystal? Does the President have other sources of information on Afghanistan? Do you know what the President is thinking about?

I really don't think that taking someone's word for the frequency and type of communication via one single means of communication is a good basis for making any kind of judgment about anything going on.

Additionally, as I have been saying for years, the military is not the solution for the situation in Afghanistan.

Richard is correct in that we haven't defined win in Afghanistan. In yet another similarity to Bush, Obama cannot come up with victory or success entails. Obama talks better but says even less than Bush did on the subject.

So far he's giving US forces in Afghanistan enough to stave off defeat but can't make up his mind to go all out or keep punting.

As for Obama doing face time or not, its irrelevant. What is important and what isn't being done is deciding what has to be or what is going to be done. Obama has less support in his own party with each month on this issue and while Repubs will give him political cover for now, they'd be damn fools to do it for nothing-especially if he keeps waffling.

AC,

when gangs shoot up neighborhoods or when there are riots there can be lots of people getting shot at. That doesn't make it a war. We should have set out to arrest, try, and convict those who contributed to the 9/11 disaster. That isn't a war. We have acted as if it were to the detriment of all involved. That was just plain stupid but that's politics.

AC,

Like I said, it's just plain stupid. Your description of events in Afghanistan seems to agree with my analysis. We have converted what should have been a law enforcement activity into something that resembles a war. Of course it's kind of like a civil war just now but if we play our cards wrong we might be able to get a real war going.

Have we learned anything yet? Doesn't look like it.

The 'powers that be', who got him elected, chose him for a reason--he is articulate, knows how to use cyberspace, and attractive--that's why they keep him out there, not inside the beltway--they tell him what to say, write it for him, put it on the teleprompters and he does what they want him to do.

Mary,

Somehow I don't think that's the way things are. I think that the "powers that be" are having to use other devices. I don't think he is their man in the sense you describe above. I think he does a lot of writing of his own speeches. I think they are much more in control of parts of Congress and parts of the Administration. I think it is hard to tell who is using whom in this Administration.

Why are we waging battles with the Taliban? They had nothing to do with 9/11.

I agree completely that "...the United States has relied too heavily on the military element of national power, and our overall strategy needs to be reworked so that it is more balanced with the other elements of power..."

War is almost never the right answer. It was not in 2001 and it is not today. We have turned a small minority into a major force to be dealt with. We have expanded the influence of our enemies (who were a tiny part of Islam). We have worsened our position in almost every way by using the military option in this way. It is easy for the radicals to paint us as demons when our troops occupy Muslim nations.

We should be reducing Muslim fears of our presence, not increasing them. The more troops we place in Muslim nations the more of a threat to Islam we appear. We are doing the work of our enemies and they must be laughing themselves sick at us.

Islamic terrorists are on the offensive because we gave them credibility. They now have the support of millions of Muslims who were moderates before our actions. We threw away the sympathy and support of moderate Muslims. We made their support for us impossible.

Please consider what the top leaders of al Qaeda desired to attain by attacking us. Consider what their situation was before the attack. Who were their enemies? Who were their supporters? Why were they opposed to us?

If you check out these factors you will understand why they were delighted with our response. Why we are their most valuable asset.

Who would contribute to al Qaeda if there were no external threat? Where would the gain their recruits? How would they gain power in the Muslim world? Who would respect them? Why would they be important at all? Without that Satanic demon in the West, taking Muslim lands, corrupting Muslim culture with our Hollywood movies and television and music and immoral ways, what Muslim would even hear about al Qaeda and their jihad?

Since WWI the middle East has been occupied in one way or another by Westerners. Our relationship with Iran, for example. The British in Iran in WWI. The British since WWI in the parts of the Ottoman Empire. The British in Pakistan. There has been ample opportunity for the recruitment of Islamic terrorists for centuries. But with the decline of colonialism, it looked for a time as if the Europeans were going home to "lick their wounds" from WWII. But then the new boy on the block, the U.S., helped create a new colony in Israel / Palestine. The U.S., as part of the cold war, tried to control and dominate the areas south of the U.S.S.R. This frightened the Muslims, of course. "Here we go again."

In other words the radical Muslims are strongly conservative and wish to restore the world to what they imagine the world was like 300 years ago. They fear change. Their leaders take advantage of that fear, just as our politicians do.

So if we stop being a threat, they will lose their fear. If we become their partners, then we win them over. We create friends instead of enemies.
Of course it isn't that simple but that is the basis of the path to success.

A.C.,

The Panama Canal is a vital region of the world. Does that mean that it is imperative that China have units of her military stationed there? Well, the Suez canal is ...


Great Britain was on the side of the Muslims in Palestine. They figured they could control them better. They were right, too.

Odd. I thought we had good relations with many Muslim nations before 1900. We and they enjoyed a mutually profitable trading relationship. We were trading partners and I dare to say that we could be again.

AC,

So you can readily understand why the Muslims of the Middle East look upon us as invaders attempting to occupy and dominate their homelands and exploit the Muslim people. You can easily understand why they would strongly resent our coming in with military force to oppress them.

Therefore you understand my point if view that if we stop threatening and occupying and exploiting them and their lands that they might, after a time, be able to view us as friends rather than a military invasion force.

AC,

I agree completely with your comment just above. But those people are not the ones who we are having problems with. They are just the opposite pole from those who see our actions as a justification for jihad.

I suggest that we need a completely different approach to the nations of the world and in particular to the Muslim nations. We need to be seen as non-threatening and as a valuable trading partner, one which is quite strong and dangerous to attack but which will not act as an enemy. I see trade as the easiest and most influential means of achieving that end.

The mafia largely operates out of the U.S. Does that justify the invasion of the U.S. by some other nation? The mafia (short for organized crime in general) commits many crimes in other nations including murder. It also costs far more than the cost of the WTC. I could not justify then and I cannot justify now the military invasion of any nation in the Middle East.

War is not the way to deal with a "small in number" category of people. There are too many innocent bystanders who will be killed, injured, or otherwise harmed.

I cannot justify harming innocent bystanders. I will never change that position. There are many other ways of accomplishing our ends.

We do in war, AC. We know that innocent bystanders will die when we fire those weapons. Regardless of what our enemies may have done, there is innocent blood on our hands, too.

If force is actually called for I agree completely. But that's the problem. My standards for what calls for force are probably different from yours and so on. Everybody has different standards.

I am sure you have seen your comrades in arms do things which they knew were likely to harm the innocent. That's almost inevitable in war. That's one of the many tragedies of war.

Apparently, the President is talking to a lot of people on and over a lot of issues both domestic and foreign, but some think their poticular plan/idea should get attention. I guess it's only natural that McCrystal would do anything to have his idea pushed to the forefront. It's gonna end up competing with those ideas/plans of others.

Huh? The folks McChrystal commands are dying.

Don't you think that idea should get the President's attention?

I think that people are dying in these wars DOES have the Presidents attention, and full consideration.

Why do you believe that?

He's gotten McCrystals rwecommendations already. Until he has any further questions on that recommendation, or has something to add to it, or has made a final decision regarding it, why would he need to discuss with McCrystal anything more on the recommendation? President Obama has other recommendations oming in to consider, and weigh all these against incoming info., from daily briefs.

Should he make a final decision he'll contact McCrystal once he has all the neccesary decision making data.

Dorothy, most Presidents have wanted to find out what was going on when American lives were at stake.

I know the President has been busy with the Olympics and all, but is a call every month or so too much to ask?

Number, one the article and information provided, came from the Washington Times which the arm of conservative propoganda. Two, the president get a daily briefing report every morning along with key cabinet members and advisors. Three, Bolton who? Four, if the last adminstration was so damn sharp why did 9-11 happen. Five, if base on all you say, why old why didn't we find Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Six, if base on what the article question as President Obama lack of focus on international affairs is seriously flawed. Im still waiting for Osma bin Laden to get captured.

Ah Richard, 1) attack the messenger, 2) shoot with all talking points, 3) don't respond to the questions raised by the article.

You are doing a good job of following the Obama campaign play book.

BTW, I'm still waiting for Osma bin Laden to get captured too. But in the meantime, our troops are dying and the Prez is too busy to talk to their commander about what we need to do to win in Afghanistan, a war he supports.

I see disagreement, but I see no attack on any messenger. I don't see any messenger, either. I just see an article with a given opinion, and various other opinions, in response.

Randy, if you believe that nosense that you and others like you put out there for public view, than you must believe that G.W. will go down in history as are greatest president of all time. LOL Your side loss, blew it, burn down the house if you will. Furthermore, the misinformation and distortions will not change a thing, President Obama is on the JOB.
Yes, yes, yes, President Obama is on the job this is a fact and I don't believe that in a 70 day period he has not spoken to his appointed General, or that the General in question hasn't spoken to the president, or that they are not in direct communcation with each other, why wouldn't the president not be in contact, don't you think he is as concern about lives at stake as G.W. Why wouldn't President Obama be any less attentive to the U.S. security as the last president.
It is seriously flawed logic to condem President Obama action, but I'm not surprise, it is a sad attempt at grabing at straws, disperation on your part and your politcal soul-mates.
President Barach Obama is dealing with a mess on his plate left by the previous administration and he doing a great job. Now say it with me, the DOW has gone up 50% since Janurary 2009 from the low of 6000, terrorist plots have been stopped, nobody guns have been collected from law abidding citizens. Yes the job picture sucks but it's only been 8 months are so.
Restoring the U.S. position of leadership in world sqander by the last adminstration where huburis knew no bouinds. And who knew and order and conducted and condone torture as a policy under the Stars and Stripes. Invaded a sovereign nation without being attack under dubious intelligence with no longterm plan.
Your offer of this article as proof is a sorry effort of meaningless shots across the bow falling way short of the target. Come back at another time with another scare tatic, Halloween is not here yet.
And if Bolton is your source of insight he and the rest of the neo-cons have been discredited along with the conservative corporate propoganda arm for the lives and U.S. tax payer treasury wasted in an ill concieve military campaign. A campaign that loss its focus for not completing the job in Afganistan in the first place, by invading Iraq and allowing Iran to become even stronger.
The president didn't talk to his general incharge where American lives are at risk, really, will the Dark Side ever see the foolishness of their way.
No, they feed on lies that they themselves create, it's what they do!

Thank you Dorthy, they seem rather nervious this morning, I guess they are unable to bear the pressure of being wrong again.

Dorothy, if you didn't see the attack on the Washington Times, then you should see an optometrist.

Richard, your reply contains a lot of opinions. Would you care to supply some facts to back them up?

But, most of all your partisanship is a concern. I don't care what party the President belongs to, I just happen to believe that if he has troops in Afghanistan they should be there to win. When the Commander in Chief is not communicating with his handpicked commander in the field, I know that is not a winning strategy, especially when the commander feels he urgently needs more troops.

The lives of our troops are not a partisan issue.

Randy, its my opinion are do you deny me the freedom to express my opinion, views. Youi believe in what what you want and I'll believe in what I want, and to think that this president isn't on point, at the job or at odds with or distance from the general he appointed to conduct the country business in Afganistan is in my opinon, is flat wrong.

Win what is a win to you. Be real, we loss already, if the goal with greatest, strong military can't get the job done FIVE years we already loss, what you have is a stalemate.
One, We are in a holding pattern not so much Afganistan but keeping an eye on two area of weakness what Iran will or will not do and that Israel will not strike Iran.
Second to keep an Big Eye on the wealness that is Pakistan, why because they have nuclear weapons and their govenment although paid by us, and work for us, could collaspe. Three, We have to be on ground to and ready we are the trip wire in a country still without a strong central government.
How long? What amount troops will it take? As long as the poppy grows in the hills and mountains of Afganistan a win is an American illusion.
A structured win will be costly and longterm process, G.W. did say one thing you can believe in this will take a long time, alough he never spoke about the cost in lives or treasury.

Randy, thanks for a great article. I saw clips of the 60 Minutes program, and find it unbelievable that our President has no concern for those soldkers in the field. Shame on him!

I also find it unbelievable that the Obama Cons are making excuses and going off on tangents of old history. They need to get their heads out of the Obama Worship quicksand!

Nora dear, please, please tell me, what example do you have that President Obama like any American does not have concern or compassion for service members. Why do you and those that think like you have any proof.
I never see any. It's O.K. that you may not like the guy, or are aganist his policies, but he is an American and he is the president of us all, even I accept that notion when even the other party is in power, that the bottom line isn't, that they are there to protect and serve.
I grant you everybody may not agree as to how the leader of the free world may go about this, but every leader of their nation is about the nation business, which is business. Rules, policy and procedues change and there are those who fight to maintain the status quo, but there we have it.
To believe that the president or any other president is less passionate about the welfare of his family and fellow Americans is wrong and very shameful on your part to believe in; such a rhetorical stand by you and others lack the character of hope for a better future, which is the true American spirit.
Otherwise, without hope for a better future you began to give up on life, and doom those who come behind you, to a life of fear and loathing.

His lack of actions. "Trust what someone does, not what they say"....

Your might want to start applying that very wise adage.

His lack of action.... So Nora what is it you want him to do?

Just what specific proactive thing has he accomplished? Not just talked about and given a date, actually done?

He's had the letter from his head field general since late August requesting additional troops. If he okayed it today, it would take 3-5 months to implement, in the mean time soldiers are getting killed, BECAUSE he sits on his throne and does nothing.

FYI my son got back safely from Iraq, I feel so badly for the mothers of all the soldiers in Afghanistan with a president who will not supply suffiecient forces.

So far, two of the things he said he would do, take the ban off going to Cuba, and closing GITMO haven't materialized.

I saw no lack of concern in the 60 minute interview, and just because some one fails (in your eyes) to worship your opinons and whatever side of an issue you espouse, does not, a worshipper make, out of anyone, over anything.

He's a eunach that wants to be king. The French President is furious with him, and annoucned to the prese that he thought Obama was "egotistically naive"

Which means not only does he not know what to do militarily, his ego gets in the way of letting those who do know do anything about the problems.

I agree with the French President.

Consider the source of this article: the ultra right wing Washington Times.

Yeah, lots of credibility there.

jFACT: Obama has not talked to the General in the Field that he put in charge for over 70 days. He's too busy playing golf and partying huh....

luckky, so you're another one who believes that "shooting the messenger" is a viable debating strategy.

How about giving us information from another source that contradicts what I have posted.

luckky, that's what I told the Dark Side, and they tell me what Bolton thinks, he is so discredited nobody spoke to him while he was their at the U.N., hell he wanted to close the place down. But arch right-wing conservaties want to close everything down if they could get a way with, you name they shut it down and not pay any taxes, god forbid if you're poor.

Hey A C, did you see the editorial in the New York Times apologizing for not having gotten into the investigation of ACORN?? Maybe they're learning how to be real journalists!

Chain of command. McChrystal is in command of a particular theater of operations. While it is a significant theater of operations, that does not place him second in the military chain of command, particularly our military chain of command which places a couple civilians above professional military personnel and the President is not the only civilian in that chain. Not only that but I don't think McChrystal is even at the top of the chain of professional military personnel.

As for Bolton to the best of my knowledge he is not even part of that chain, civilian or military, and if he or anyone else outside the chain of command is being made privy to information about a sub ordinate's about access to other that his immediate military superior that subordinate is either trying to bypass the chain of command or someone acting in behalf of his/her own agenda is trying to upset that chain. If the chain of command is operating properly there is no need for the commander-in-chief of out military forces to have frequent direct communication with anyone more than one or two steps below his position of authority.

I agree...

BUt since Afghainstan is such a political hot potato, with the coming threat from Iran, doesn't he need to be in the loop a bit more?

He is in the loop, but being in the loop doesn't mean he has to have frequent direct communication with the president. As ACW stated McChrystal should be in regular communication with other higher ups in the chain of the command chain who are also part of the loop. If he make military recommendations in which those persons find merit those recommendations will make their way up the chain. The military is not a democratically run organization in which everyone has an equal voice.

He's had the letter for over a month, there are soldiers getting killed, either bring them all home or send in enforcements. Not rocket science, I do think he is capable of logically figuring out what to do. But politics is what holds him back, what keeps him ineffective. (like a political eunuch Webster's dictionary.)

I am pretty sure it was less than a month ago that I heard Defense Secretary Gates state that he had yet to decide if he would even forward McChrystal's letter to the President.

Or if he has been asked to evaluate the request and include that evaluation with the letter when it is forwarded. As for whether Gates has a responsibility to forward the letter to the President, I would think that depends upon to whom it is addressed and even then it is only McChrystal's position that might make it reasonable to conclude there is a responsibility to forward it. Can you imagine the deluge of paper higher ups would be subject to if a commanding officer were obligated to pass all correspondence they received up the chain.

All, you are getting sidetracked. The issue is the President's interest and attention to "his war" in Afghanistan being fought with "his general" and "his strategy". This President now owns the outcome in Afghanistan, but seems to be paying little attention to "his war".

It has been rumored for the last several weeks that this President requested Secretary Gates to "sit on" McChrystal's troop request while the President assessed the political situation (and troops died in Afghanistan). If true, that smacks of LBJ's conduct of the Vietnam war and is reason for concern by all Americans.

The president's way of handling foreign relations was to tour the world bowing and scraping and apologizing for the US being the most generous country in the world.
As embarrassing as that was, his domestic policies are worse.
If he was truly qualified to be American President, would he need dozens of czars?

Whether they are called czar, advisors or assistents every president had need for dozens of them just as the president of any corporation has need of vice-presidents and other advisors who have time to dedicate to ins and outs and daily operations of the numerous departments that make up any but the smallest corporations and even they must hire specialists to deal with the ins and outs of certain fields.

Jan, you are as lost as a blind mouse, bowing and scraping, please but your'e no doubt a suporter of torture of prisoner aren't you. Go ahead tell us the truth. And G.W. kissed the hand of the Saudi prince, right wing party members loss the war a longtime ago and couldn't get the job done, it is as simple as that and President Obama is now the Commander n' Chief, can you dig it! And he can have as many czars as he wants, thank God he is in charge.

Richard, watch your blood pressure, you are letting this hit you too hard. Breathe deep, say a prayer for our President and our country, then say, I am calm, I am calm. Or, watch my 4 minute video - it's guaranteed to get rid of stress - 4 Minute De Stress Video Here

I agree with you Jan S. , a very valid question indeed. The man does not have an effective background, no business, military, accounting, managerial experience at all. A lawyer, a community organizer, a state senator who couldn't or wouldn't make a decision.

Wonder why he can't make a decision now? That's why he has his support "Czars". We are in for trouble big time...

Richard,

No reasonable person supports torture or any form of inhumanity. I am on record as a Right-to-Life supporter. Clearly, approving of torture is in conflict with this ethic.

I am concerned that this president feels the need to have so many advisors - czars - or whatever they may be called. We the people have elected representatives. The president has a cabinet of advisors. As Nora J A. has said, the president is lacking in crucial qualifications. Were that not the case, he would not need so many advisors.

I applaud Mary's advice. Mary, you're a wise woman. Peace!

I agree Mary's advice was wise. I do not agree that the president lacks crucial qualifications or that he does not need so many advisers. Cabinet secretaries also have administrative duties and other duties and that prevents them from keeping up on everything for which the president may need advice. There world has grown very complex and there just too much information for one or even a small group of people to be aware of all of it. I am currently writing an article about being caught in a Catch-22 which I just concluded resulted from someone being unaware how complex things affecting just one small but important aspect of my life, have become. The damned-able thing is that I understand how it could happen and I use to earn a very good living because of my ability to deal with complexities.

''investigation of ACORN''


''ACORN is what makes America special'' -- quoted by that right wing Republican John McCain.

''ultra left wing New York Times''


correction: biggest supporter of Israel which, in theory, you so called Libertarians always object to

Libertarianism objects to foreign intervention but you say that you approve. Very strange indeed.

I sure do.

Do you?

''defies logic''

You obviously do not read the NY Times. I grew up in NYC and read it religiously every week.

The next thing you'll be saying is that the Fox network support the PLO.

Do yourself a favor and read the newspaper or have it read to you so that you can come up with a more intelligent answer.

"At the end of the day we don't win by destroying the Taliban. We don't win by body count. We don't win by the number of successful military raids or attacks. We win when the people decide we win." ~ Gen. Stanley McChrystal

Sounds like the President and his top commander in Afghanistan aren't too far apart. As a matter of fact, they met face-to-face yesterday aboard Air Force One.

Personally, I don't think this war is winnable on any of the above counts.

Do you all remember John Bolton?

"I'm with the Bush-Cheney team, and I'm here to stop the count." John Bolton yelled these words as he burst into a Tallahassee library on Saturday, Dec. 9, 2000, where local election workers were recounting ballots cast in Florida's disputed presidential race between George W. Bush and Al Gore. He left his post in South Korea and flew back to Florida to do the political dirty work of his party.

I'd take anything this former political appointee says with a grain of salt ...

Prima, I agree the war is not winnable until the President defines what constitutes victory and sets an exit strategy. So far, the President has been reluctant to use the words Afghanistan and victory in the same sentence.

BTW. John Bolton was our Ambassador to the U.N. and is a recognized authority on Middle East affairs. I just though I'd give a little balance to your description of him.

The Dark Side never gives in, they feed on the lies they would want us to believe. Reason or facts is not an issue of concern with the right-wing, they're out to score propoganda points and as bitter as they are brainless and they call themselves patriots wrap in the flag concern only for their return to power and maintaining the status quo of the coporate power structure. You think the president didn't have a video link with the anyone in the world to have a face to face. How silly the Dark Side can be spreading fear and loathing.
Oh angry me, no I enjoy watching the right-wing imp spin, and spit their displeasure in all things liberal and democratic, love it as they attempt to remake history. They are the do nothing creature of the past and are doom to failure, with talking heads like, Rush, Sean, Glenn, Ann and Bill. None, I remind you ever servered in uniform.

Some of the unknowing far right pundits believe Obama has not paid attention to the situation in Afghanistan. But they overlooked the fact that the war there is a NATO action and that NATO Supreme Allied Commander Admiral James Stavridis was appointed by President Obama. It is he who answers to the President, not McChrystal.