Wednesday, June 23, 2010

McChrystal Out, Petraeus In

I want the US to win our wars. I support actions that lead to that end state.

What a difference a president makes:

It is one of ironies of our present warped climate that Petraeus will face far less criticism from the media and politicians than during 2007–8 (there will be no more “General Betray Us” ads or “suspension of disbelief” ridicule), because his success this time will reflect well on Obama rather than George Bush. It is a further irony that Obama is surging with Petraeus despite not long ago declaring that such a strategy and such a commander were failures in Iraq. And it is an even further irony that he is now rightly calling for “common purpose” when — again not long ago, at a critical juncture in Iraq — Obama himself, for partisan purposes on the campaign trail, had no interest in the common purpose of military success in Iraq.


I've heard the president described as a pragmatist. I guess he could be considered so, if you consider it pragmatic to attack your political enemies and cover your own butt, the country be damned. I, however, don't consider that pragmatic--I consider it hyper-partisan and dangerous.

I hope General Petraeus can turn things around in Afghanistan. If that reflects well on President Obama, so be it--winning the war is more important that politics.

6 comments:

Ellen K said...

Isn't it interesting that Obama feels obliged to use the same general with probably the same plan of attack that was requested and protested during the Bush Administration? I wonder how much that hurts libs.

MikeAT said...

The thing that I keep wondering about…McCrystal is too damned smart to talk openly in front of a Rolling Stone reporter. I can only think that he wanted to be sacked today. I wonder why…did he want to get into a position where he could openly criticize Obama? Gotta see how this works out.

mazenko said...

I don't think he wanted to get sacked - he wouldn't intentionally want to go out appearing to in, his words, "compromise the mission."

But it does appear like his core had some serious dissent that couldn't be silenced - and they are apparently a pretty hardcore group of soldiers.

He had to go - though it's a shame. Hopefully, Petraeus can alleviate the concerns and move forward in the mission.

Anonymous said...

fag

Darren said...

Do you have any evidence that either general is a homosexual? If not, what would cause you to say such a thing?

MikeAT said...

Anon, get a clue....

mazenko, maybe he wanted say through a back channel way "we got more problems, etc" but Rolling Stone. Hate to say it, CNN or NPR would give him a fairer shake than RS.