Thank You Very Much, Rolling Stone Magazine

Okay, for my regular readers, this won't come as a surprise but I did not care for General Stanley McChrystal much. I certainly respect the man's service to our country and his career but I vehemently disagreed with his strategy for the War in Afghanistan and for his walking on eggshell approach to civilian casualties in that theater.

I'll sum it up this way - Barack Hussein Obama chose McChrystal to replace Gen. David McKiernan in Afghanistan after Obama fired McKiernan. First of all, there isn't a single action that Barack Hussein Obama does that I don't second guess and in my opinion, Obama wanted a general in Afghanistan that would make the number one priority to NOT incur civililan casualties. At the same time, if you remember, at the time when McChrystal was chosen by Obama to take over, blowhard and fake military "expert" Joe Biden was making his push for a "special ops" war in Afghanistan - with fewer troops on the ground and more reliance on predator drones.

In my view, Obama picked McChrystal because McChrystal respected Obama (hell, he even voted for him) - and I believe it was pretty hard to find an Army general that respected Obama at that point.

Well, I have found someone that agrees with me. Take a look at this portion of the article at Family Security Matters written by Gregory Lee:

But Gen. McChrystal’s premature departure may not be such a bad thing after all. Michael Hastings may have unwittingly done more to win the war in Afghanistan than Gen. McChrystal could have done.

Gen. McChrystal forbad soldiers from visiting American fast-food joints in Kabul, denied them access to the Fox News Channel and voted for Barack Obama. If that wasn’t bad enough for soldier morale, his self-imposed rules of engagement made many of the rank-and-file soldiers further question his judgment. Many soldiers bitterly complained that fighting the Taliban was like having one arm tired behind their backs.

The general was so sensitive to collateral civilian casualties, his rules of engagement made it almost impossible to defeat the enemy. Soldiers witnessed Taliban fighters firing at them and then throw down their weapons because they knew the rules did not allow the soldiers to fire on unarmed combatants, even if he had just sent a rocket propelled grenade in their direction. Launching flares above the enemy at night was discouraged because they might fall on a civilian.

One other thing I'd like to add to that - under McChrystal, the use of AH-64 and fixed wing aircraft all but disappeared. We had U.S. troops put in danger at the remaining FOB's because of McChrystal's moratorium on JDAMs and Apache strikes.

So yes, I also thank Rolling Stone Magazine for the end result of their article but I do want to add this - even though General Stanley McChrystal voted for Obama in 2008 and took over Afghanistan believing in the Commander-in-chief's strategies, I think it's pretty obvious that Gen. McChrystal eventually found out he had sided with an incompetent and a Commander-in-chief that not only didn't deserve his vote but didn't deserve his service anymore.

Rolling Stone May Have Just Won The War in Afghanistan


This week past, President Obama relieved four-star general Stanley McChrystal of his duties in Afghanistan after Rolling Stone published an unflattering magazine article about him and his staff’s feelings toward the administration’s national security team. Although the vast majority of the discouraging quotes came from his staff, Gen. McChrystal is ultimately responsible, and the president did what any commander in chief would have done under the circumstances.

Neocons!

He promptly replaced him with well-respected Gen. David Petraeus, who engineered the successful “surge” campaign in Iraq.

Gen. McChrystal and his staff should have realized that there is no such thing as “off the record.” If a journalist hears a juicy quote that supports his or her story, you can count on reading it. The reporter scores points with his publisher and readers, and he documents you saying something stupid forever.
Why would someone believe a Rolling Stone reporter when he tells you that what you are saying is off the record, any more than a reporter for 60 Minutes, the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times or the Washington Post? Rolling Stone quotes the general and his staff, and suddenly there is a change of leadership in America’s grinding war in Afghanistan! What power and influence! The president fires the general, and undoubtedly someone will nominate Michael Hastings, the Rolling Stone reporter, for the Pulitzer Prize.

But Gen. McChrystal’s premature departure may not be such a bad thing after all. Michael Hastings may have unwittingly done more to win the war in Afghanistan than Gen. McChrystal could have done.

Gen. McChrystal forbad soldiers from visiting American fast-food joints in Kabul, denied them access to the Fox News Channel and voted for Barack Obama. If that wasn’t bad enough for soldier morale, his self-imposed rules of engagement made many of the rank-and-file soldiers further question his judgment. Many soldiers bitterly complained that fighting the Taliban was like having one arm tired behind their backs.

The general was so sensitive to collateral civilian casualties, his rules of engagement made it almost impossible to defeat the enemy. Soldiers witnessed Taliban fighters firing at them and then throw down their weapons because they knew the rules did not allow the soldiers to fire on unarmed combatants, even if he had just sent a rocket propelled grenade in their direction. Launching flares above the enemy at night was discouraged because they might fall on a civilian.

According to the New York Times: “One Marine infantry lieutenant, during fighting in Marja this year, said he had all but stopped seeking air support while engaged in firefights. He spent too much time on the radio trying to justify its need, he said, and the aircraft never arrived or they arrived too late or the pilots were reluctant to drop their ordnance.”

Gen. McChrystal felt that “winning the minds and hearts” of the Afghan people was more important than killing the enemy.

Hopefully this will all change when Gen. David Petraeus takes over. If he allows his men to act like warriors instead of policemen, use battlefield rules of engagement instead of domestic police tactics, the entire war effort will change quickly in our favor. If this happens, you have Michael Hastings to thank.

It only made sense for the president to replace Gen. McChrystal with Gen. Petraeus. He obviously knows what he’s doing. Already, leaks to the press suggest that he will take a hard look at the current rules of engagement in Afghanistan and will probably change them to be more soldier-friendly.

Despite top Democrats calling him a liar during his testimony on the Iraq surge – including Hillary Clinton, Harry “This War Is Lost” Reid and the president himself when he was a senator – Gen. Petraeus prevailed in Iraq. Now he is suddenly the go-to guy to finally make things happen in Afghanistan. How ironic.