PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul bucks wisdom on McChrystal




bobbyw24
06-25-2010, 04:14 AM
Ron Paul thinks President Obama got it wrong yesterday when he got rid of Stanley McChrystal.

Of course, Paul, who's earned the nickname "Dr. No" in Congress, is used to being an outlier on congressional issues.

"They should have changed the policy and kept the general. Maybe that would have been better," Paul said on Thursday. "But it's the policymakers that are at fault, not the generals, they tried to follow the orders but the policy behind it is at fault."

Paul, a fierce critic of the war in Afghanistan, said that the inflammatory comments made by members of McChrystal's staff in Rolling Stone were evidence of frustration over what he says is the war's failed policy.

"That McChrystal thing is just a symptom of what we won't face up to, which is that it's a totally failed policy," Paul said. "If we were on the verge of a great success, do you think we'd fire the general? So it was an absolute confirmation of the failed policy, and yet the policy doesn't change."



Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38983.html#ixzz0rrIZRMWm

Up The Deise
06-25-2010, 05:00 AM
Kevin Myers: General McChrystal is a fine soldier, yet his career is in ruins because he trusted a reporter
FIRSTLY, let us honour Lt General Dermot Earley, RIP, a great soldier and patriot, who died on Wednesday. I last met Dermot at an artillery shoot in the Glen of Imaal. We spoke briefly and, considering what was to come, with an eerie relevance. "It's good to talk to a journalist I can trust," he said.

"Sorry, General," I replied, "there's no such thing."

I wish I'd had the chance to have said the same words to US General Stanley McChrystal, whose career came to an end on the very day that Dermot died. I repeat them now to all soldiers. Never trust a journalist. Sooner or later, his ambition to make his name might just outweigh those earnest reassurances he gave you.



http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/kevin-myers-general-mcchrystal-is-a-fine-soldier-yet-his-career-is-in-ruins-because-he-trusted-a-reporter-2234439.html

specsaregood
06-25-2010, 05:49 AM
I don't think Ron has read the RollingStone piece. If he had, I think he would be happy the General is gone. Not because of his comments, but because he was the biggest promoter of national building.

buck000
06-25-2010, 07:43 AM
I personally think McChrystal should have been long gone after his, imho, major disrespect of his soldiers and their families w.r.t. the Pat Tillman coverup.

Plus, the President probably had to bag him just to save face.

So, I believe Dr. Paul is wrong about keeping the general, but right about policy.

The RS article was very good, but folks, as usual, concentrate on the Bad Boy instead of the Bad Policy.

Hastings re-emphasizes the policy aspect in a follow-up article (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/120620).

someperson
06-25-2010, 07:45 AM
I think Dr. Paul is simply trying to point out the fact that the general in charge is irrelevant; the policy will lead to failure, regardless.

0zzy
06-25-2010, 09:16 AM
On CNN he said the President has the right to do this, but criticized the policy and said it was irrelevant who the general was.

specsaregood
06-25-2010, 09:21 AM
I think Dr. Paul is simply trying to point out the fact that the general in charge is irrelevant; the policy will lead to failure, regardless.

But if you read the article that is not the case. It goes in to detail on how McChrystal was one of the leading proponents of the nationbuilding strategy itself. Pushing it in Iraq first then afghanistan. He might be the person most responsible for that strategy becoming accepted by the mainstream neocon military brass. So yes, I think that particular general is relevant.

catdd
06-25-2010, 09:59 AM
Obama is really just trading generals the way teams fire coaches when they have consecutive losing seasons.
RP got it right it's the fault of a failed policy leading to the frustration.

klamath
06-25-2010, 10:05 AM
But if you read the article that is not the case. It goes in to detail on how McChrystal was one of the leading proponents of the nationbuilding strategy itself. Pushing it in Iraq first then afghanistan. He might be the person most responsible for that strategy becoming accepted by the mainstream neocon military brass. So yes, I think that particular general is relevant.
Every general is for the nation building because that is the mission the politicians are giving them is. They are ordered by the civilian command to do the mission and that is what they will try and do. Ask yourself this question, what is the mission both presidents have given the field commanders in Iraq and Afganistan?
A general has two options in the Stan. Kill the entire population there or try and get them to have a stable country.
Killing every last Afgany would not work because it would soon be repopulated with muslims from other counties. So their only option is to try and impliment the stable country doctrine even if they don't believe it will work but they are never going to admit failure because failure is not an option ever given in military training.

specsaregood
06-25-2010, 10:11 AM
Every general is for the nation building because that is the mission the politicians are giving them is. They are ordered by the civilian command to do the mission and that is what they will try and do. Ask yourself this question, what is the mission both presidents have given the field commanders in Iraq and Afganistan?
A general has two options in the Stan. Kill the entire population there or try and get them to have a stable country.
Killing every last Afgany would not work because it would soon be repopulated with muslims from other counties. So their only option is to try and impliment the stable country doctrine even if they don't believe it will work but they are never going to admit failure because failure is not an option ever given in military training.

Did you read the rollingstone article? McChyrstal was intrumental in pushing the nation building, which evidently was resisted initially.

specsaregood
06-25-2010, 10:17 AM
./

catdd
06-25-2010, 10:57 AM
Did you read the rollingstone article? McChyrstal was intrumental in pushing the nation building, which evidently was resisted initially.

Do you think Petraeus or any other general will be any different?

specsaregood
06-25-2010, 11:20 AM
You don't think Petraeus or any other general will be any different?

"don't think"? I don't know. I do know. This guy certainly didn't help the situation and comes from a viewpoint of interventionism being good. Maybe a different general might be able to look at it and at least consider the idea that interventionism and nation building hurts our national security.

catdd
06-25-2010, 11:29 AM
Well it certainly will not be Petraeus , he's already redefining the rules of engagement making it easier to fire on possible combatants - as if there hasn't been enough cases of innocent deaths.

specsaregood
06-25-2010, 11:57 AM
Well it certainly will not be Petraeus , he's already redefining the rules of engagement making it easier to fire on possible combatants - as if there hasn't been enough cases of innocent deaths.

Well actually that is a change from "nation building" strategy that McChrystal was pushing where it was all kumbaya shiny happy people working with your ex-enemies to build a better society. It sounds like Petraeus wants to treat it like a warzone.

klamath
06-25-2010, 01:27 PM
Did you read the rollingstone article? McChyrstal was intrumental in pushing the nation building, which evidently was resisted initially.
Answer the question. What was the mission handed him??? OBAMA determined if we stayed or left Afganistan. The mission to destroy the taliban ended 8 years ago. What the hell are his options if his commaner in chief orders him to lead the mission. What would you do in that position? Remember leaving is not an option as dictated by your Comander in Chief. How would you run the war? Generals are trained to do as they are ordered and for the last 20 years the missions our elected officials have given them is to NATION BUILD. If that is the mission that is given them they are going to try and find a way to train for the missions that are required of them.
All this said I really don't know what McCrystal's personal world views are and he very well might be a neocon or your standard liberal interventionist like General Clark but the nation building missions have all been ordered by Obama, Bush, Clinton and Bush.