Obama and the General

Our men and women in our military in Afghanistan deserve better then what they are getting out of President Obama and the Democrats. As we can all see now, the Democrats defending the war in Afghanistan was a fraud. It was only to show they were pro-military to get elected. Now that the liberals have taken charge, the military are being systematically thrown under the bus.

We would like to thank General McChrystal for highlighting how Obama and his Administration are continuing to vote 'present' daily without making a decision.

The General is standing up for his troops which are already fighting with one hand tied behind their back with the ridiculous Rules of Engagement (ROE) issued by this Administration. The ROE allows the Terrorists to use cities and civilians to hide behind so our soldiers cannot go after them for fear of hurting civilians but they can fire at our soldiers. Whoever thought up that ridiculous ROE needs to sent to Afghanistan and be out on patrol with our troops to see what real life is under the Obama Administration ROE.

Afghan civilians want a more offensive pursuit of the terrorists as we highlighted in an article over the weekend something that is lost on this Administration. Just who is this Administration listening to on Afghanistan as it is obviously not the Commanders in the field.

Obama and the General
The White House finds a four-star scapegoat for its Afghan jitters
Oct 7, 2009

Democrats have found someone worth fighting in Afghanistan. His name is Stan McChrystal.

The other night, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi went after the commander of U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan, "with all due respect," for supposedly disrespecting the chain of command. Around the Congressional Democratic Caucus, we're told Members refer to General McChrystal as "General MacArthur," after the commander in Korea sacked by Harry Truman.

White House aides have fanned these flames with recent leaks to the media that "officials are challenging" his assessment asking for more troops. In the last two days, the White House National Security Adviser and the Secretary of Defense have both suggested that the general should keep his mouth shut. President Obama called him in Friday for a talking-to on the tarmac at Copenhagen airport.

Though a decorated Army four-star officer, the General's introduction to Beltway warfare is proving to be brutal. To be fair, Gen. McChrystal couldn't know that his Commander in Chief would go wobbly so soon on his commitment to him as well as to his own Afghan strategy when he was tapped for the job in AprilWe're told by people who know him that Gen. McChrystal "feels terrible" and "had no intention whatsoever of trying to lobby and influence" the Administration. His sense of bewilderment makes perfect sense anywhere but in the political battlefield of Washington. He was, after all, following orders.

(snip)

Gen. McChrystal's liberal critics also have very short memories. In 2003, Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki clashed with his superiors by saying many more troops were needed to pacify Iraq. He became a Democratic hero and is now Mr. Obama's Veterans Secretary. In this case, Gen. McChrystal has become a political target merely for taking at face value Mr. Obama's order to fight the war properly. His superiors, the Central Commander David Petraeus and Adm. Fallon, back him, but can hardly be said to question civil control of the military.
In an interview with Newsweek, Gen. McChrystal said he wouldn't resign if the President rejects his request for more troops. If he were really trying to dictate policy, he'd have given a different answer. But we don't think Gen. McChrystal should stay to implement a Biden war plan either. No commander in uniform should ask his soldiers to die for a strategy he doesn't think is winnable—or for a President who lets his advisers and party blame a general for their own lack of political nerve.

Excerpt: See Wall Street Journal for Full Article