Custom Search
Showing posts with label Commander-In-Chief. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Commander-In-Chief. Show all posts

Tuesday, June 22, 2010

"The Runaway General", McChrystal's Rolling Stone Interview (Warning!)











Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy











The Runaway General



(This article will appear in Rolling Stone 1108/1109 from July 8-22, 2010, on newsstands Friday, June 25.)


"How'd I get screwed into going to this dinner?" demands Gen. Stanley McChrystal. It's a Thursday night in mid-April, and the commander of all U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan is sitting in a four-star suite at the Hôtel Westminster in Paris.

He's in France to sell his new war strategy to our NATO allies – to keep up the fiction, in essence, that we actually have allies. Since McChrystal took over a year ago, the Afghan war has become the exclusive property of the United States. Opposition to the war has already toppled the Dutch government, forced the resignation of Germany's president and sparked both Canada and the Netherlands to announce the withdrawal of their 4,500 troops. McChrystal is in Paris to keep the French, who have lost more than 40 soldiers in Afghanistan, from going all wobbly on him.

"The dinner comes with the position, sir," says his chief of staff, Col. Charlie Flynn.

McChrystal turns sharply in his chair.

"Hey, Charlie," he asks, "does this come with the position?"

McChrystal gives him the middle finger.

On the ground with the Runaway General: Photos of Stanley McChrystal at work.

The general stands and looks around the suite that his traveling staff of 10 has converted into a full-scale operations center. The tables are crowded with silver Panasonic Toughbooks, and blue cables crisscross the hotel's thick carpet, hooked up to satellite dishes to provide encrypted phone and e-mail communications.

Dressed in off-the-rack civilian casual – blue tie, button-down shirt, dress slacks – McChrystal is way out of his comfort zone. Paris, as one of his advisers says, is the "most anti-McChrystal city you can imagine." The general hates fancy restaurants, rejecting any place with candles on the tables as too "Gucci." He prefers Bud Light Lime (his favorite beer) to Bordeaux,
Talladega Nights

(his favorite movie) to Jean-Luc Godard. Besides, the public eye has never been a place where McChrystal felt comfortable: Before President Obama put him in charge of the war in Afghanistan, he spent five years running the Pentagon's most secretive black ops.

The Spill, The Scandal and the President: How Obama let BP get away with murder.

"What's the update on the Kandahar bombing?" McChrystal asks Flynn. The city has been rocked by two massive car bombs in the past day alone, calling into question the general's assurances that he can wrest it from the Taliban.

"We have two KIAs, but that hasn't been confirmed," Flynn says.

McChrystal takes a final look around the suite. At 55, he is gaunt and lean, not unlike an older version of Christian Bale in Rescue Dawn. His slate-blue eyes have the unsettling ability to drill down when they lock on you. If you've fucked up or disappointed him, they can destroy your soul without the need for him to raise his voice.

Looting Main Street: Matt Taibbi on how the nation's biggest banks are ripping off American cities.

"I'd rather have my ass kicked by a roomful of people than go out to this dinner," McChrystal says.

He pauses a beat.

"Unfortunately," he adds, "no one in this room could do it."

With that, he's out the door.

"Who's he going to dinner with?" I ask one of his aides.

"Some French minister," the aide tells me. "It's fucking gay."

Get more Rolling Stone political coverage.

The next morning, McChrystal and his team gather to prepare for a speech he is giving at the École Militaire, a French military academy. The general prides himself on being sharper and ballsier than anyone else, but his brashness comes with a price: Although McChrystal has been in charge of the war for only a year, in that short time he has managed to piss off almost everyone with a stake in the conflict.

Last fall, during the question-and-answer session following a speech he gave in London, McChrystal dismissed the counterterrorism strategy being advocated by Vice President Joe Biden as "shortsighted," saying it would lead to a state of "Chaos-istan." The remarks earned him a smackdown from the president himself, who summoned the general to a terse private meeting aboard Air Force One. The message to McChrystal seemed clear: Shut the fuck up, and keep a lower profile

Now, flipping through printout cards of his speech in Paris, McChrystal wonders aloud what Biden question he might get today, and how he should respond. "I never know what's going to pop out until I'm up there, that's the problem," he says. Then, unable to help themselves, he and his staff imagine the general dismissing the vice president with a good one-liner.

"Are you asking about Vice President Biden?" McChrystal says with a laugh. "Who's that?"

"Biden?" suggests a top adviser. "Did you say: Bite Me?"

When Barack Obama entered the Oval Office, he immediately set out to deliver on his most important campaign promise on foreign policy: to refocus the war in Afghanistan on what led us to invade in the first place. "I want the American people to understand," he announced in March 2009. "We have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat Al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan." He ordered another 21,000 troops to Kabul, the largest increase since the war began in 2001.

Taking the advice of both the Pentagon and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he also fired Gen. David McKiernan – then the U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan – and replaced him with a man he didn't know and had met only briefly: Gen. Stanley McChrystal. It was the first time a top general had been relieved from duty during wartime in more than 50 years, since Harry Truman fired Gen. Douglas MacArthur at the height of the Korean War.

Even though he had voted for Obama, McChrystal and his new commander in chief failed from the outset to connect. The general first encountered Obama a week after he took office, when the president met with a dozen senior military officials in a room at the Pentagon known as the Tank.

According to sources familiar with the meeting, McChrystal thought Obama looked "uncomfortable and intimidated" by the roomful of military brass. Their first one-on-one meeting took place in the Oval Office four months later, after McChrystal got the Afghanistan job, and it didn't go much better. "It was a 10-minute photo op," says an adviser to McChrystal.

"Obama clearly didn't know anything about him, who he was. Here's the guy who's going to run his fucking war, but he didn't seem very engaged. The Boss was pretty disappointed."



Sources: ABC News, MSNBC, Rolling Stone Mag.

Sunday, December 13, 2009

Pres. Obama Admits 2011 Full Troop Withdrawal Won't Happen





















































Watch CBS News Videos Online





Combative Pres. Obama defends Afghan plans



President Obama tacitly acknowledged in an interview broadcast Sunday that few American troops may actually be withdrawn from Afghanistan in July of 2011, the draw-down date he set earlier this month.

“[A]s Commander in Chief, obviously, I reserve the option to do what I think is going to be best for the American people at that point in time,” Obama said on CBS’s “60 Minutes” in response to a suggestion that many U.S. combat forces will still remain in the country beyond then.

He said it would be clear by the end of next year whether the surge of 30,000 American troops into Afghanistan had been effective in securing the country and bolstering its security forces.

“And if the approach that’s been recommended doesn’t work, then yes, we’re going to be changing approaches,” Obama explained.

His comments seemed to put the stamp of the commander-in-chief on the more direct statement voiced a week ago by Defense Secretary Robert Gates that July 2011 would only mark the beginning of U.S. forces returning home.

Asked by CBS’s Steve Kroft why he was even setting a deadline, Obama said that otherwise “the message we are sending to the Afghans is, ‘It's business as usual. This is an open-ended commitment.’”

Obama, who has sat for a series of high-profile interviews with Kroft dating back to before he even announced his intention to run for president, appeared combative at times with a familiar interlocutor.

When Kroft suggested that Obama seemed to lack emotion in delivering his Afghanistan speech at West Point, the president responded with a jab at the Bush administration.

“[O]ne of the mistakes that was made over the last eight years [was] for us to have a triumphant sense about war,” Obama said. “There was a tendency to say, ‘We can go in. We can kick some tail. This is some glorious exercise.’ When in fact, this is a tough business.”

And when Kroft said the address was “greeted with a great deal of confusion,” Obama interjected.

“I disagree with that statement,” the president shot back, observing that “a whole bunch of people understood what we intend to do.”

Obama also made no attempt to conceal his irritation when Kroft brought up the reality TV aspirants who crashed a White House State dinner last month.

It's really a shame that I had to go through a whole 60 Minutes interview without talking about the gate crashers,” Obama said with a laugh. “Good catch.”

Pressed on the incident, Obama offered a bit of unprompted media criticism.

“I don't think that from a policy perspective, this was - the most important thing or even the fifth or sixth most important thing that happened this week, although it got the most news,” he said.

It wasn’t just reporters who seemed to be annoying the president.

He also offered a harsh critique of Wall Street, acknowledging that some banks have paid back the funds they took from the TARP program to avoid compensation restrictions that would prevent them from lavishing big bonuses.

“I think [that] tells me that the people on Wall Street still don't get it,” Obama said… .They're still puzzled why is it that people are mad at the banks. Well, let's see. You guys are drawing down $10, $20 million bonuses after America went through the worst economic year that it's gone through in decades, and you guys caused the problem. And we've got ten percent unemployment. Why do you think people might be a little frustrated?”

The president’s former colleagues on Capitol Hill didn’t go entirely unspared, either.

Asked why new financial regulations had not been implemented, he said with a laugh: “Well, everything appears to take long in Congress. We can talk about health care if you want. This is democracy in action.”

Obama did, though, say he thought the Senate would pass a bill by Christmas.



Sources: CBS, 60 Minutes, Politico, The Daily Beast

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

Obama Promises "To Finish The Job" In Afghanistan...Will He Regret These Words?



































Pres. Obama states his administration will "Finish the Job" in Afghanistan.




Barack Obama is now only days away from announcing his Afghan War Strategy decision.



General McChrystal states that 34,000 more U.S. Troops will add renewed energy for the US Armed Forces already serving in the Afghan theatre.







President Obama stuck in muck with pledge to "Finish the Job" in Afghanistan


President Obama hinted Tuesday that the cavalry is coming when he boldly stated he intends to "finish the job" in Afghanistan's eight-year war.

But he may live to regret setting such a high bar with his mystery war plan, much like his predecessor George W. Bush did by pledging to nail Osama Bin Laden "dead or alive."

It's almost impossible to imagine any Afghan strategy this President could unveil next week, short of an immediate withdrawal, that will bring peace before he faces American voters again in 2012.

It might even prove impossible to "finish the job" by 2016 if he wins reelection.

"The idea we can wave a magic wand over the place and fix it quickly is not realistic," said Afghanistan analyst Peter Bergen.

It's worrisome that Obama might be ready to spring yet another quick-fix plan.

Since 2001, the problem hasn't just been that the Afghan fight was shamefully shortchanged of resources as the Iraq war's ugly stepchild. It also has suffered from arrogant military and civilian leaders who fought every year of the war as if it was the last.

In 2003, ex-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the U.S. had "moved from major combat activity to a period of stability and reconstruction."

His top commander, Army Lt. Gen. Dan McNeill, even predicted withdrawing some of his 8,000 U.S. troops by 2004.

Instead, the Taliban rallied with cash from opium-producing poppy crops and Al Qaeda expertise - and the American body count rose.

Obama is likely to add at least 30,000 to a force that will total 100,000 in Afghanistan. An equal number will remain in Iraq, meaning last year's anti-war candidate will ironically have more soldiers in harm's way - 200,000 - than Bush did at the height of the Iraq "surge."

And don't call this boost a "surge" because insiders know that's a misnomer.

It will be an escalation without any plan on the horizon to draw down the additional forces, like in Iraq.

Bergen says the extra troops can secure more roads and pockets thick with Taliban in the next two years, but ending the war "is a long-term project."

It's not just how many boots are on the ground, it's how they're used.

That's why many strategists are embracing the idea of hiring Pashtun tribal militias or embedding Special Forces to "go native" for years and win tribal allies by spilling blood with them side by side.

But the wisest ideas all involve facing the hard truth that we will be in the fight for many more years amid polls that show the public - American and Afghan - losing patience.

That hard dose of reality required to win gives the enemy plenty of ammo in the meantime for their propaganda denouncing Americans as occupiers who refuse to leave.




View Larger Map


Sources: NY Daily News, MSNBC, Countdown with Keith Olbermann, Google Maps

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

Commander-In-Chief Obama Rejects All Afghan War Options...Is He "Dithering"?

































Obama Afghanistan advisers back to drawing board. Anne Gearan, national security writer for the AP, discusses with Rachel Maddow the news that President Obama has rejected all of the options presented to him on Afghanistan.



Pres. Obama weighs US Troops increase options.



Cheney criticizes Obama on Afghanistan. Former Vice President Dick Cheney accused President Barack Obama of “waffling” on sending more U.S. troops in Afghanistan and warned him to stop “dithering.” Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy and Air America’s Ron Reagan discusses.






Official: Pres. Obama rejects all Afghan war options

President Barack Obama does not plan to accept any of the Afghanistan war options presented by his national security team, pushing instead for revisions to clarify how and when U.S. troops would turn over responsibility to the Afghan government, a senior administration official said Wednesday.

Obama still is close to announcing his revamped war strategy, most likely shortly after he returns from a trip to Asia that ends on Nov. 19.

The president raised questions at a war council meeting on Wednesday, however, that could alter the dynamic of both how many additional troops are sent to Afghanistan and what the timeline would be for their presence in the war zone, according to the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss Obama's thinking.

The president is considering options that include adding 30,000 or more U.S. troops to take on the Taliban in major areas of Afghanistan and to buy time for the Afghan government's small and ill-equipped fighting forces to take over. The other three options on the table are ranges of troop increases, from a relatively small addition of forces to the roughly 40,000 that the top U.S. general in Afghanistan prefers, according to military and other officials.

No open-ended commitment

The main sticking points appear to be timelines and mounting questions about the credibility of the Afghan government.

Administration officials said Wednesday that Obama wants to make clear that the U.S. commitment in Afghanistan is not open-ended. The war is now in its ninth year and is claiming U.S. lives at a record pace as military leaders say the Taliban has the upper hand in many parts of the country.

The options presented to Obama by his war council are likely to be amended.

Military officials say one approach is a compromise battle plan that would add 30,000 or more U.S. troops atop a record 68,000 in the country now. They described it as "half and half," meaning half fighting and half training and holding ground so the Afghans can regroup.

The White House says Obama has not made a final choice, although military and other officials have said he appears near to approving a slightly smaller increase than war commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal wants at the outset.

Among the options for Obama would be ways to phase in additional troops, perhaps eventually equaling McChrystal's full request, based on security or other conditions in Afghanistan and in response to pending decisions on troop levels by some U.S. allies fighting in Afghanistan.

The White House has chafed under criticism from Republicans and some outside critics that Obama is dragging his feet to make a decision.

Pres. Obama's top military advisers have said they are comfortable with the pace of the process, and senior military officials have pointed out that the president still has time since no additional forces could begin flowing into Afghanistan until early next year.

Range of possibilities

Under the scenario featuring about 30,000 more troops, that number most likely would be assembled from three Army brigades and a Marine Corps contingent, plus a new headquarters operation that would be manned by another 7,000 or more troops, a senior military official said. There would be a heavy emphasis on the training of Afghan forces, and the reinforcements Obama sends could include thousands of U.S. military trainers.

Another official stressed that Obama is considering a range of possibilities for the military expansion, and his eventual decision would cover changes in U.S. approach beyond the addition of troops. The stepped-up training and partnership operation with Afghan forces would be part of that effort, the official said, although expansion of a better-trained Afghan force long has been part of the U.S. objective and the key to an eventual U.S. and allied exit from the country.

With the Taliban-led insurgency expanding in size and ability, U.S. military strategy already has shifted to focus on heading off the fighters and protecting Afghan civilians. The evolving U.S. policy, already remapped early in Obama's tenure, increasingly acknowledges that the insurgency can be blunted but not defeated outright by force.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said Wednesday he expects Obama to announce his decision on sending more U.S. troops to Afghanistan within days.

Brown: Announcement in days

Brown told lawmakers in the House of Commons on Wednesday that he had recently spoken to Obama, "and I expect him to announce in a few days what his numbers for Afghanistan will be."

Asked about Brown's comment, the White House referred to press secretary Robert Gibbs' statement Tuesday that Obama's decision was still weeks away.

The head of the U.S. Central Command also said a decision is near.

Gen. David Petraeus spoke to CNN television on Wednesday shortly before heading into the White House war council session, where troop numbers were under discussion.

"I think we are indeed nearing a decision on this very important topic," Petraeus said.




View Larger Map


Sources: MSNBC, Google Maps