Today President Obama announced the sacking of General McChrystal, the sacking was right in both political and military terms, the President stated the following on the removal of McChrystal, “ I don't make this decision based on any difference in policy with General McChrystal, as we are in full agreement about our strategy. Nor do I make this decision out of any sense of personal insult. Stan McChrystal has always shown great courtesy and carried out my orders faithfully. I've got great admiration for him and for his long record of service in uniform….But war is bigger than any one man or woman, whether a private, a general, or a president. And as difficult as it is to lose General McChrystal, I believe that it is the right decision for our national security. …..The conduct represented in the recently published article does not meet the standard that should be set by a commanding general. It undermines the civilian control of the military that is at the core of our democratic system. And it erodes the trust that’s necessary for our team to work together to achieve our objectives in Afghanistan. My multiple responsibilities as Commander-in-Chief led me to this decision. First, I have a responsibility to the extraordinary men and women who are fighting this war, and to the democratic institutions that I've been elected to lead. I've got no greater honor than serving as Commander-in-Chief of our men and women in uniform, and it is my duty to ensure that no diversion complicates the vital mission that they are carrying out. That includes adherence to a strict code of conduct. The strength and greatness of our military is rooted in the fact that this code applies equally to newly enlisted privates and to the general officer who commands them. That allows us to come together as one. That is part of the reason why America has the finest fighting force in the history of the world. It is also true that our democracy depends upon institutions that are stronger than individuals. That includes strict adherence to the military chain of command, and respect for civilian control over that chain of command. And that’s why, as Commander-in-Chief, I believe this decision is necessary to hold ourselves accountable to standards that are at the core of our democracy. Second, I have a responsibility to do what is -- whatever is necessary to succeed in Afghanistan, and in our broader effort to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda. I believe that this mission demands unity of effort across our alliance and across my national security team. And I don’t think that we can sustain that unity of effort and achieve our objectives in Afghanistan without making this change. That, too, has guided my decision…..I welcome debate among my team, but I won’t tolerate division..." ( This last point shows that Obama still does not get how Washington D.C works, its leaks to press Agenda, its leaks to destroy the opposition, it leaks to get invited to the Oval for a picture with the President )
“… Our nation is at war. We face a very tough fight in Afghanistan. But Americans don’t flinch in the face of difficult truths or difficult tasks. We persist and we persevere. We will not tolerate a safe haven for terrorists who want to destroy Afghan security from within, and launch attacks against innocent men, women, and children in our country and around the world. So make no mistake: We have a clear goal. We are going to break the Taliban’s momentum. ( When, so far its not going well, Obama still does not get Afghanistan, no wonder the McChrystal team lost the plot when it came to Obama ).. We are going to build Afghan capacity. We are going to relentlessly apply pressure on al Qaeda and its leadership, strengthening the ability of both Afghanistan and Pakistan to do the same. That’s the strategy that we agreed to last fall; that is the policy that we are carrying out, in Afghanistan and Pakistan. " Thus who has President Obama chosen to lead the US War effort in Afghanistan, well it is a logical decision, the President has chosen the General that turned around Iraq, President Obama has chosen General David David Petraeus, the policy of the surge in Iraq and turning Iraqis around to support the US has been credited to General Petraeus, the President stated the following on the appointment, “ General Petraeus and I were able to spend some time this morning discussing the way forward. I’m extraordinarily grateful that he has agreed to serve in this new capacity. It should be clear to everybody, he does so at great personal sacrifice to himself and to his family. And he is setting an extraordinary example of service and patriotism by assuming this difficult post. Let me say to the American people, this is a change in personnel but it is not a change in policy. General Petraeus fully participated in our review last fall, and he both supported and helped design the strategy that we have in place. In his current post at Central Command, he has worked closely with our forces in Afghanistan. He has worked closely with Congress. He has worked closely with the Afghan and Pakistan governments and with all our partners in the region. He has my full confidence, and I am urging the Senate to confirm him for this new assignment as swiftly as possible. ” This could be risky move by President Obama, if General Petraeus next year tells the President he can win in Afghanistan with no timetable as he won Iraq the President will be boxed in, if he starts to withdraw troops the General could resign and run again him in 2012 and Obama would still have to deal with Afghanistan and Iraq, the Republicans will give Petraeus a lot of political cover to pressure Obama next year. As stated in last post the removal of McChrystal might work against Obama, a weak General would have to follow the party line out of the Oval, Petraeus wont need to, he might be Obama’s successor, just a gut feeling that Obama is turning in to LBJ.
No comments:
Post a Comment