Ask Me Help Desk - General McChrystal should be FIRED, and we should GET OUT of Afghanistan

General McChrystal should be FIRED, and we should GET OUT of Afghanistan

Hello:

General McChrystal is emblematic of what's wrong in Afghanistan. He's stupid. Read about it here.

Afghanistan is a war that has lost its reason to exist. By the governments own count, there's LESS than 100 Al Quaida fighters there, and we're NOT going to prevent terrorists from coming back in after we leave. Besides, there are terrorists at work in MANY countries that we know about, and they can attack us from THERE just as easily as they can from Afghanistan.

There's MORE reasons than that. I'm sure we'll discuss them. But, it's time to go. I'm not even sure the righty's will disagree with me. Here's hoping.

excon

Well, Obama has got himself painted into a bit of a corner here, fire the guy in the midst of his time-line for withdrawal? Fire him and leave him free to really unleash?

Perhaps he should have engaged McChrystal sooner and differently... but that's still no excuse, insubordination is insubordination. It's probably no different from many great commanders past, theirs just didn't make it to Rolling Stone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

It's probably no different from many great commanders past, theirs just didn't make it to Rolling Stone.

Hello Steve:

Exactamundo. It's EVIDENCE of his stupidity. He LET the reporter into his inner circle, and pretended he wasn't there. What was he thinking? BIG mistake. This would NEVER have happened to any competent general.

McChrystal is a great fighter. But THIS damages our war effort. He's outlived his usefulness.

excon

You are right. Any commander who would give a reporter from Rolling Stone extended access should have his judgement questioned. (my own theory however was this was an intentional insubordinate broadside at the President knowing full well he would get called on the carpet )

I agree with the premise that General McChrystal should've resigned before either voicing his opinion of the CIC ;or accepting the mission with the impossible terms POTUS imposed on the mission.

The mission is unwinnable under the ROE's or the firm timetable for departure. How can you win hearts and minds when the populace knows you won't be around in a year ?

But just to guarantee he gets fired (instead of a resignation ) ;when he arrives at the White House he should demand the President's resignation.

I agree we should withdraw because the President who called Afghanistan "the good war" when campaigning was full of shiite . He never intended to seriously execute the war.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

The mission is unwinnable

Hello again, tom:

They're ALL unwinnable. That's cause there ain't nothing to win. Iraq wasn't won, your surges and mission accomplished banners notwithstanding. I said so then, and I'll be saying so when it falls apart after our occupation ends. Afghanistan can't be won. We can't win in N. Korea or Iran. What about Somalia or Yemen?

What's your plan? Cut taxes? Bwa, ha ha ha.

excon

Like many of the recent wars it seems to be all about the resources that the US can get from a country. Afghanistan has been reported to be a treasure trove of needed minerals.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Like many of the recent wars it seems to be all about the resources that the US can get from a country. Afghanistan has been reported to be a treasure trove of needed minerals.

Yeah, how much of that oil did Bush get from Iraq?

Was World War 1 won or lost ?When the war was over Germany had a free republic;the monarchy ousted .
Nostrodamus you or I isn't. So we don't know what will happen in Iraq .But we will leave a nation with a freely elected government ,the dictator ousted .

Quote:

Afghanistan can't be won. We can't win in N. Korea or Iran. What about Somalia or Yemen?

Of course Afghanistan can be won. . When we leave the Paki's or their surrogates will dominate the nation. Then the Indians and Iranians probably will contest for control and influence. With us there it was possible for Afghani self determination.
Our chance ended when we set a firm timeline for withdrawal ;and the Obots backed the results of the stolen election.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Yeah, how much of that oil did Bush get from Iraq?

Lots:

Crude Oil and Total Petroleum Imports Top 15 Countries

More here: http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/w...aairaqioil.htm

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Lots:

The question was, how much of that oil did BUSH get from Iraq? Those are Obama's barrels.

How do you tell the difference between Bush barrels and Obama barrels?

But here you go:

Quote:

In October, just as the Bush and Maliki administrations were attempting to finalize the SOFA's terms - under the wary gaze of Parliament - the Iraqi cabinet dropped another big one in Parliament's lap: the Iraq oil law. The law would set the rules for foreign investment in Iraq's oil industry, and determine how oil revenues are shared within Iraq. Many in Parliament say both the SOFA and the oil law would prolong the US occupation, allowing American control over both its people and its resources. Parliament will debate the oil law this week.

Cleric Hashim al-Ta'i, of the Iraqi Islamic Party, captured the sentiments of many in a late October sermon on the Baghdad Satellite Channel, saying, "There is a unanimous Iraqi voice which says: No to an agreement that consolidates the occupation and prolongs its life; no to an agreement that consolidates sectarianism and racism and fragments the country into groups and cantons; no to an agreement that mortgages the country and its resources for many decades."

However, that unified voice clashes with another, very powerful voice in Iraq: American and British oil companies, which share the interests of the Bush team, according to Antonia Juhasz, a fellow with both the Institute for Policy Studies and Oil Change International.

"US and British oil companies and the Bush administration have been circling their wagons in Iraq over the last few months to bring both the SOFA and the Iraq oil law to a conclusion before Bush's term in office officially comes to a close," Juhasz told Truthout. "The Bush administration, US oil companies and the al-Maliki government are all on the same timeline for trying to lock in the continued presence of the US military in Iraq, which is the al-Maliki government's only hope of holding on to power - and US oil corporations' only hope of securing their long-sought control over Iraqi oil."

The large oil companies seek long-term contracts that would give them control over much of Iraq's oil and oil production, according to Juhasz. Although Kurdistan has entered into several contracts with foreign oil companies, Iraqi Oil Minister Hussein Al Shahristani declared that any contract signed before the passage of the oil law is void.

In addition to pushing the international SOFA and Iraq's oil law, the Bush administration is attempting to unilaterally carve a place in US law for a takeover of Iraqi oil, according to Jim Fine, legislative secretary for foreign policy for the Friends Committee on National Legislation. In a signing statement tacked on to the 2009 Defense Authorization Bill, Bush excused himself from a provision intended to rein in US power of Iraq's oil.

The statement - if one accepts it as authoritative - would allow Bush to use defense funds "to exercise United States control of the oil resources of Iraq." Bush wrote that prohibiting such a use of funds "purport(s) to impose requirements that could inhibit the president's ability to carry out his constitutional obligations."

Experts view this latest expansion of Bush's powers in Iraq as a kind of rush to the finish line: an attempt to accomplish as many of the administration's oil-control goals before it steps down and the Obama administration - which may well have different ideas - steps up.

Source: t r u t h o u t | In Final Days, Bush Pushes for Iraq's Oil

Quote:

Afghanistan has been reported to be a treasure trove of needed minerals.

Like what ? Dilithium chystals ?

I get it ;we are the nasty earthlings raiding mineral exploiting warriors ;and the Taliban the noble tall blue natives .

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

Like what ? Dilithium chystals ?

U.S. Identifies Vast Mineral Riches in Afghanistan - NYTimes.com

Quote:

huge veins of iron, copper, cobalt, gold and critical industrial metals like lithium — are so big and include so many minerals that are essential to modern industry that Afghanistan could eventually be transformed into one of the most important mining centers in the world, the United States officials believe.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

How do you tell the difference between Bush barrels and Obama barrels?

Bush hasn't been in office for a year and a half. Your report covers last year and this year. Over half of Iraq's oil is exported to Asia and Europe, a fraction to Africa and the rest to the western hemisphere. It's how they make money you know, and they decide who gets to do what.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

But here ya go:

And in reality??

Quote:

they decide who gets to do what

.

And in Afghanistan Karzai ,the pretender President, has already decided that the Japanese will be contracted to exploit their mineral reserves.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

.

And in Afghanistan Karzai ,the pretender President, has already decided that the Japanese will be contracted to exploit their mineral reserves.

I know - get the popcorn out, it should be interesting. http://www.bananas.org/images/smilie...na-popcorn.gif

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

I get it ;we are the nasty earthlings raiding mineral exploiting warriors ;and the Taliban the noble tall blue natives .

You forgot to engage the font Tom. I don't think you really do get it because you don't believe it but you are right, you are the interloper, the invader, and no amount of dogooding and rationalisation will change that. You know the sad part? We are are standing right beside you.

This war has lost direction, it is being fought for political reasons, not to liberate the Afghan people, that has already been done, not to bring criminals to justice, the opportunity to do that was lost long ago, but so it cannot be said you lost this one too. Your commanders know they cannot win, they would have to depopulate the country to do that and yes India, Pakistan and Iran will have more influence there than you do. No, this war continues to keep pressure on the Iranians who are no serious threat to anyone but themselves

The General should be fired, ( although he is right, a general is just not allowed to talk about the commander in chief)

But then the White House should be fired for trying to police, not fight a real war.