Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeee

[Cain]

Daily reminder: running death squads and allowing torture in Iraq is a-OK.  Badmouthing the boss, grounds for dismissal.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Gotta have the right priorities...

[Cain]

It's a good thing Obama is a certified man of peace, or else people might find that suspicious, and start asking uncomfortable questions re: "benevolent" hegemony.

[LMNO]

This is why you should never, ever spend a month in a remote location with a reporter from Rolling Stone magazine.

[AFK]

I must assume heavy amounts of alcohol were involved if Mchrystal didn't think that would come back to bite him in the ass. 

[Cain]

I dunno, the military are pretty arrogant.  Remember, McChrystal is Petraeus' boy, and Petraeus sees himself as some kind of magnificent bastard for manipulating the White House and DC press corps into supporting TeH Surge, via think tank buddies (the Kagan family, Eliot Cohen, Kissinger etc) and giving journalists guided tours around specially created Potemkin villages in Iraq to make the idea look viable.

It's entirely possible McChrystal saw himself as a successor to Petraeus and considered himself untouchable, as he has plenty of friends among right-leaning, Atlantacist think-tanks and almost as many in the press.

[Cramulus]

ghahhhh this is so frustrating

we voted in Obama because he wow'd us with his promise of at least addressing the damage we've done to ourselves over the last eight years. I guess you can promise anything you want if it'll get people to vote for you.


It's possible we're safer for it. I mean, it's not like one can ever know what magnitude of disaster he prevented.


I wonder what happened. Is it that Obama never wanted to fix these things? Or that once he got into office he was forced to accept the grim reality? Or was it that the old-guard people influencing him are very persuasive?

[Triple Zero]

we voted in Obama because he wow'd us with his promise of at least addressing the damage we've done to ourselves over the last eight years.

Is it not just because the other guy was slightly worse?

didn't a lot of people here already call Obama would break a lot of those promises real quick?

don't be too hard on yourself by thinking you really had that much choice in the matter.

[Doktor Howl]

we voted in Obama because he wow'd us with his promise of at least addressing the damage we've done to ourselves over the last eight years.

Is it not just because the other guy was slightly worse?

didn't a lot of people here already call Obama would break a lot of those promises real quick?

don't be too hard on yourself by thinking you really had that much choice in the matter.

Yeah, there's bad, and there's worse.

[Cain]

Although at this stage, the difference between the two is becoming almost comically thin.

As for an answer to your question Cram, it was well known Obama hung around with several corporatist elements, at least economically, during his time at Chicago University.  Therefore it is likely a matter of conviction.  I suspect he calculated to swing left in the election to win vital internet/netroots support, then swung to the more natural (for him) centre to take the election.

Also, remember Rahm Emanuel is his Chief of Staff.  That is pretty revealing (the guy hates progressives in the Democratic Party more than the GOP).

[Cain]

Dr Leo Strauss, as always, has the pertinent insights:

http://www.stiftungleostrauss.com/bunker/?p=3604

So Team McChrystal had to commit seppuku themselves. An appropriately decadent ending for a general out of time and place, contemptuous of the decadent Power he serves. The tableau Rolling Stone presents is about far more than the immediate personalities. We see in microcosm the morphology of fading American Power from the kid on the ground to the Speech-Maker-In-Chief. A lurching, clueless political entity in a terminal spiral. Historical analogies are always suspect. We'll avoid a direct reference to a particular circumstance and refer in general to the Hapsburgs in decline. It's hard to see how the current military-contractor-civilian culture can be returned to a healthy and effective vector. Or whether America cares.

What will Barry do (WWBD)? It's patently obvious he is not in charge of this war any more than say, BP. He may preside. He may exhort. But he is not, contra the tiresome liberal refrain, Roosevelt as Commander in Chief. McChrystal's dismay encountering this detachment is understandable. But the far more political (and loathed quietly by those with stars on their shoulders) Petreaus knows one rolls with it. Petreaus' immediate concern is his own brand viability. COIN's fraudulent intellectual foundations are absurdly clear to those who choose to look. Yet Petreaus just had to ride the Obama slipstream. Didn't the president after all use the 'victory' word? 2011 might as well be tomorrow. What do you think is going to happen?

American retreat is inevitable. One can't envision this crowd (let alone their predecessors) pulling off a graceful exit. Decadence, besides inertia, often presents its own seductive internally consistent logic. For example, inside McChrystal's piece are nuggets of truth and stark honesty. In the fun house mirror of high decadence, these are the worst offenses. Obama does not have it in him to commit himself personally and fully to the immersion necessary to fight us clear to a new place. Like he promised he would in the campaign. This is more than about salvaging a failed war or tending to the Gulf. Judging from what we can observe, Obama just doesn't even see decadence around him. Oh he may say 'Washington is broken' to Nancy Pelosi. A petulant child's complaint.

It ultimately may not matter what he sees. We just don't think the guy's got game.

And

http://www.stiftungleostrauss.com/bunker/?p=3617

When political science attempted to mean something other than a plug on Morning Joe, a number of scholars (notice how we don't use that word anymore? Instead, we get Michael Beschloss) tried to unravel the linkage – if any – between going ashore in Da Nang 1965 and the progressive Johnson domestic agenda. This was before Reagan made the bear step back on American-made color TVs (yes, preposterous we know, but true, we did make them). Academics like Joanne Gowa delved into presidential records and interviews to ask "Do progressive American presidents have to wage war abroad (Cold or Hot) to appease opponents of their domestic agenda." In structural terms, is there a terrible quid pro quo for the Voting Rights Act, the Warren Court, the Civil Rights Act, etc., etc.

We know now that Johnson, the Ur political president, certainly took the thought seriously. Democrats and Republicans alike embraced general containment. We fought a hot war in Korea. Ike threatened nukes. The Soviets were a real global threat. After the 1962 Cuban humiliation they embarked upon the largest military escalation in human history.

What's Obama's excuse? He's doubled down on COIN with Petraeus' appointment (oblique elevation) today. We dump $100 billion a month into Afghanistan. With no credible scenario for success (however defined) by July 2011. By the way, that's another $1.1 trillion from the date of this writing alone. Who thinks Obama politically survives a pullout right before the 2012 funny season? Even a wholly cynical 'decent interval' deal with the Taliban wouldn't work in this day and age.

Obama's smart enough to know his domestic opponents are in the nihilist militant masses. His Afghan policy won't buy him a single vote on financial reform. Or jobless benefits extensions. He doesn't face Johnson's glacial constraints. Nor is he in the same league as the Nixon/Kissinger pairing (for good and ill). Obama chose to make the Afghanistan war his folly. Twice.

One must take him at his word. McChrystal's faux pas gave him an opportunity to recalibrate. To face unpleasant truths. He chose to download the Petraeus COIN app again. Which makes Obama the biggest American strategic problem of all.

[Cain]

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/06/the-night-beat-obama-borrows-the-military-back/58635/

Beginning in the early afternoon, a cadre of military and civilian soldiers loyal to Gen. Stanley McChrystal began to spread rumors throughout the capital city: that ground commanders in Afghanistan were threatening to resign ... that the CIA's chief of station in Kabul had stepped down ... that the commander of the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), William McRaven, was irate and wanted to step down ... that commanders of the "special mission units" like McRaven's former subordinates at DevGru (SEAL Team Six) would refuse taskings from the National Command Authority ... that buried secrets were about to be exposed, like who actually leaked the McChrystal Afghanistan review to Bob Woodward.

[Doktor Howl]

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/06/the-night-beat-obama-borrows-the-military-back/58635/

Beginning in the early afternoon, a cadre of military and civilian soldiers loyal to Gen. Stanley McChrystal began to spread rumors throughout the capital city: that ground commanders in Afghanistan were threatening to resign ... that the CIA's chief of station in Kabul had stepped down ... that the commander of the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), William McRaven, was irate and wanted to step down ... that commanders of the "special mission units" like McRaven's former subordinates at DevGru (SEAL Team Six) would refuse taskings from the National Command Authority ... that buried secrets were about to be exposed, like who actually leaked the McChrystal Afghanistan review to Bob Woodward.

Ho ho!

If this is true, Obama's going to have to land on the military contingent of this crowd like a ton of bricks.

[Shibboleet The Annihilator]

Daily reminder: running death squads and allowing torture in Iraq is a-OK.  Badmouthing the boss, grounds for dismissal.

McChrystal wanted out. There's no way he would've let that go on in front of a fucking Rolling Stones reporter if he didn't want it to. He knew exactly what would happen. He's a lot of things, but he's not stupid.

[Cain]

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/06/the-night-beat-obama-borrows-the-military-back/58635/

Beginning in the early afternoon, a cadre of military and civilian soldiers loyal to Gen. Stanley McChrystal began to spread rumors throughout the capital city: that ground commanders in Afghanistan were threatening to resign ... that the CIA's chief of station in Kabul had stepped down ... that the commander of the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), William McRaven, was irate and wanted to step down ... that commanders of the "special mission units" like McRaven's former subordinates at DevGru (SEAL Team Six) would refuse taskings from the National Command Authority ... that buried secrets were about to be exposed, like who actually leaked the McChrystal Afghanistan review to Bob Woodward.

Ho ho!

If this is true, Obama's going to have to land on the military contingent of this crowd like a ton of bricks.

Reckon this is in a similar vein?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/16/world/asia/16petraeus.html?_r=1&hp

KABUL, Afghanistan — Gen. David H. Petraeus, the commander of American and NATO forces here, began his campaign Sunday to convince an increasingly skeptical public that the American-led coalition can still succeed, saying he had not come to Afghanistan to preside over a "graceful exit."

General Petraeus, who took over last month after Gen. Stanley McChrystal was fired by President Obama, said he believed he would be given the time and material necessary to prevail here. He expressed that confidence despite the fact that nearly every phase of the war is going badly — and despite the fact that the American public has turned against it.

"The president didn't send me over here to seek a graceful exit," the general said from his office at NATO headquarters in downtown Kabul. "My marching orders are to do all that is humanly possible to help us achieve our objectives."

General Petraeus' public remarks, his first since taking over leadership here, highlight the extraordinary difficulties, both military and political, that loom in the coming months. American soldiers and Marines are dying at a faster rate than at any time since 2001. The Afghan in whom America has placed its hopes, President Hamid Karzai, continues to preside over one of the most corrupt governments in the world.

And perhaps most important, President Obama has promised to begin drawing down American forces by July 2011. The president's deadline — which included no troop numbers — has spawned confusion among allies and enemies alike, with some concluding that the United States, after nine years of war, is intending to leave.

President Obama's deadline has ignited a debate inside the American government itself, with military commanders preparing to ask the White House to keep the withdrawals to a minimum. In the past, General Petraeus has stated publicly his agreement with the deadline, but on "Meet the Press" on Sunday he appeared to leave open the possibility that he could recommend against any withdrawal at that point.