According to Protein Wisdom, Obama is angry with Gen McChyrstal, whom he picked to lead Afghanistan, for criticizing "That One's" plan, or should we say, lack of one.
According to sources close to the administration, Gen McChrystal shocked and angered presidential advisers with the bluntness of a speech given in London last week. The next day he was summoned to an awkward 25-minute face-to-face meeting on board Air Force One on the tarmac in Copenhagen, where the president had arrived to tout Chicago’s unsuccessful Olympic bid.
It's pretty pathetic to see how a President was more interested in winning something as insignificant as the Olympics for his hometown of Chicago, just to repay political chits and to embolden his own ego. What's worse is the attitude of the media and some bloggers, for whom the Olympics seemed more important that the lives of our military in harms way and the security of our nation.
Yesterday, when driving around on errands, I was flipping between radio stations and stumbled upon replays of what sounded like the Sunday shows. Liberal commentators were attacking Gen. McChrystal and wondering if too much weight was being given to recommendations made by the generals.
This is the problem when you have liberals in charge who, deep down, despise the military. This goes for these bone-headed intellectuals and pundits you hear on the Sunday shows or read in fishwraps like the Washington ComPost. Keep in mind these same libs were telling George W. Bush to listen to his generals, which he regularly kept in contact with.
It is only common sense that a Commander in Chief keep in contact with his general and listen to his recommendations, so that he can make an informed opinion. When the CinC can't be bothered to talk to his General for 70 days, or gives him only 25 minutes while he's campaigning for the glorification of his own ego, it tells a lot about the value of our fighting men and women, as well as the security of our nation from foreign enemies, to "That One."
This strategy of micromanaging a war from Washington worked with disastrous results for two Democrat Presidents: Truman and Johnson. When the Chinese decided to get involved in North Korea, Truman decided to pull the reins on Gen. Douglas MacArthur, which frustrated the General to no end that he was later fired. The micromanagement of Vietnam by McNamara and LBJ, along with the treason of the domestic fifth columnists at home, prolonged that war and led to the withdrawal, which was a disaster for South Vietnam and Cambodia.
War is not the place or place for dithering or half-measures. As Gen. MacArthur told a joint session of Congress in April 1951:
But once war is forced upon us, there is no other alternative than to apply every available means to bring it to a swift end. War's very object is victory, not prolonged indecision.
In war there is no substitute for victory.
There are some who for varying reasons would appease Red China. They are blind to history's clear lesson, for history teaches with unmistakable emphasis that appeasement but begets new and bloodier war. It points to no single instance where this end has justified that means, where appeasement had led to more than a sham peace.
Like blackmail, it lays the basis for new and successively greater demands until, as in blackmail, violence becomes the only alternative. Why, my soldiers asked of me, surrender military advantages to an enemy in the field? I could not answer.
Some may say to avoid spread of the conflict into an all-out war with China. Others, to avoid Soviet intervention. Neither explanation seems valid, for China is already engaging with the maximum power it can commit, and the Soviet will not necessarily mesh its actions with our moves. Like a cobra, any new enemy will more likely strike whenever it feels that the relativity in military or other potential is in its favor on a worldwide basis.