McChrystal Praises Obama, Strategy Review

By
Tuesday, December 01, 2009 at 7:55 pm

So much for the “dithering” critique. Here is a statement just released by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, commander of U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan, expressing full support and confidence in President Obama and the weeks-long strategy review.

“The Afghanistan-Pakistan review led by the President has provided me with a clear military mission and the resources to accomplish our task. The clarity, commitment and resolve outlined in the President’s address
are critical steps toward bringing security to Afghanistan and eliminating terrorist safe havens that threaten regional and global security.

“The NATO International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) objective is equally clear: We will work toward improved security for Afghanistan and the transfer of responsibility to Afghan security forces as rapidly as conditions allow. In the meantime, our Afghan partners need the support of Coalition forces while we grow and develop the capacity of the Afghan army and police. That will be the main focus of our campaign in the months ahead.

“The 42 other nations of the Coalition will benefit from a strengthened U.S. commitment, as success in Afghanistan must be an international, integrated civil-military effort – from our security and training capacity to the governance and economic development assistance that sustains long-term stability. The concerted commitment of the
international community will prevail in bringing real change to Afghanistan — a secure and stable environment that allows for effective governance, improved economic opportunity and the freedom of every Afghan to choose how they live.

“We face many challenges in Afghanistan, but our efforts are sustained by one unassailable reality: neither the Afghan people nor the international community want Afghanistan to remain a sanctuary for terror and violence. The coalition is encouraged by President Obama’s commitment and we remain resolute to empowering the Afghan people to reject the insurgency and build their own future.”

If the GOP really thought it could drive a wedge between McChrystal and Obama or use the general as a cudgel against his commander in chief, this ought to provide an end to such illusions.

Follow Spencer Ackerman on Twitter


Comments

13 Comments

Tweets that mention McChrystal Praises Obama, Strategy Review « The Washington Independent -- Topsy.com
Pingback posted December 1, 2009 @ 7:59 pm

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by attackerman and Doug Mataconis, WashIndependent. WashIndependent said: McChrystal Praises Obama, Strategy Review http://bit.ly/4K0Hm9 [...]


Balloon Juice » Blog Archive » I Honestly Don’t Understand
Pingback posted December 1, 2009 @ 10:20 pm

[...] some on the other side of the aisle are mad, but not those on the right. McChrystal made a request, Obama gave him everything he wanted, and the troops are going to be there faster than he even [...]


Jules Crittenden » Obama’s War
Pingback posted December 1, 2009 @ 11:31 pm

[...]  Spencer Ackerman at the Washington Independent crows: So much for the “dithering” critique. Here is a statement just released by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, commander of U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan, expressing full support and confidence in President Obama and the weeks-long strategy review. “The Afghanistan-Pakistan review led by the President has provided me with a clear military mission and the resources to accomplish our task. The clarity, commitment and resolve outlined in the President’s address are critical steps toward bringing security to Afghanistan and eliminating terrorist safe havens that threaten regional and global security. [...]


McChrystal Praises Obama, Strategy Review « The Washington Independent « Work4Real | Blogs search
Pingback posted December 2, 2009 @ 3:02 am

[...] So much for the “dithering” critique. Here is a statement just released by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, commander of U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan, expressing full support and confidence in President Obama and the weeks-long strategy … <more> [...]


McChrystal Praises Obama, Strategy Review « The Washington Independent : PlanetTalk.net - Learn the truth , no more lies
Pingback posted December 2, 2009 @ 5:54 am

[...] Read more:  McChrystal Praises Obama, Strategy Review « The Washington Independent [...]


The Strata-Sphere » Pure Conservatives Break From America
Pingback posted December 2, 2009 @ 7:44 am

[...] just take it from me, follow the lead of General McChrystal who knows what this means better than all the armchair generals out there: The Afghanistan-Pakistan [...]


Market Update - Obama at West Point | Investors 411
Pingback posted December 2, 2009 @ 9:22 am

[...] The generals who dictated this strategy are extremely happy. McChrystal “The Afghanistan-Pakistan review led by the President has provided me with a clear military mission and the resources to accomplish our task.” LINK [...]


Francey
Comment posted December 2, 2009 @ 10:41 am

I support President Obama's decision and decry all these naysayers. The President cannot win with public opinion, it seems, no matter which way he chooses. So he chooses what is best to keep our country safe. We accelerate and return to Afghanistan where we should have been applying our force in the first place, not Iraq. This will strategically place us closer to the screaming loud ticking of the timebomb in Pakistan.
I say Godspeed, Mr. President.
It is time for McCain and other Republicans to finally realize the election is over, they lost by the way, and let President Obama do his job, please!


uberVU - social comments
Trackback posted December 3, 2009 @ 12:20 am

Social comments and analytics for this post…

This post was mentioned on Twitter by attackerman: RT @TWI_news: McChrystal Praises Obama, Strategy Review http://bit.ly/4K0Hm9...


danielet
Comment posted December 6, 2009 @ 11:25 pm

Before declaring that McChrystal's strategy will proceed untouched, let's consider the alleged report to Obama that the WashPost was kind enough to provide us.
http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics…
In it vague hot-button pressing words are strung in sentences built around them– NO strategy is apparent, just a lot of tactics that might work here or there not but there or here. Obama was out-checkered by our assassin-in-chief SPECIALOPS, what we now call our sharpshooter assassins. It is hard to guess which of his peanut gallery of civilian “military experts” who never heard a gun go off was the wordsmith of which of the sections, but one sees no cogent strategy, only the familiar words of certain plump chickenhawk who insists that we must get used to accepting a lot more casualties on our way to “victory”; a term that is never defined in such a way that you might triangulate and see whether today or tomorrow we are closer or further from it. Our “privatized” Pentagon pays hard dollars for
experts to de-concretize English so that no general is ever held accountable. Instead we are told– ever since the Bush retort to the Iraq Study Group’s conclusions– that YES WE ARE LOSING ***BUT*** WE CAN ***STILL*** WIN, only if we accept the NEW way, surging into it with more mom and dad soldiers… of course, ever ready to accept making for even more widows and orphans on the homefront.

I am an old man who when I came here as a young man had the same sense of hopelessness about America, then a nation of people drugging themselves with TV ad illusions that all is well, and if not, all will soon be well through spending more. By the way, that has been the mantra I heard repeated ever since Eisenhower warned us on his way out to be weary of the military-industrial complex. But I must say that at UC Berkley in 1960s I developed a unique sense OF HOPE THAT AMERICA IS BACK ON ITS WAY UP when a Communist cabal form NYC led by Betina Aptheker won the FSM student revolution. I am an anti-Communist refugee from the Red Bloc and so it wasn't that they were Communists what raised my hopes but rather that these Communists DIDN’T call for Red Revolution but for MEANINGFUL DIALOGUE and responsible debate instead. Today, I see academia surrendering to the Liliputhean intellect of think-tank Wash DC “expertise”– the “this is it” people who expound
but never feel the need to argue their case. Why should they? GONE are the days of the TEACH-INS, when we anti-Communists were always given an equal opportunity to face the New Left in debate at teach-ins, imposing on them the MEANINGFUL DIALOGUE that Betina and her Reds acquired for us. Instead, we have old ex-Trotskyites training a second generation of NEOCONS by the old Leninist concept acquired from their old master: POLARIZE TO MOBILIZE. The Pentagon copied these think-tank-ers, creating seemingly academic institutions, chairs and institutes to feign academic standards. But in fact, it all is only– AS I EXPERIENCED IN THE OLD RED WORLD– merely “THIS IS IT” nonsense MONOLOGUE like McChrystal’s report to Obama. Americans suffer from the “ain't my kid going to war” disconnect syndrome so why should the Establishment make its case in anything but empty rhetoric? Afterall, MEANINGFUL DIALOGUE demands that we accept even less illusory certainty and
might have to take more Viagra to feel like men in our old age or more Ambien to sleep dead-silent at night. McChrystal is the first to know that a Congress that can be bought by banks, health insurers and weapons manufacturers surely can be bought off by hot-button jingoism: WE ARE LOSING ***BUT*** WE CAN ***STILL*** WIN. Americans like fourth quarter comebacks and the mythmaker of the Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman deception to cover-up friendly fire snafus can always come up wit this formula in colorful PowerPoints to impress the sleepy Congressmen with no skin in the game.


danielet
Comment posted December 7, 2009 @ 4:25 am

Before declaring that McChrystal's strategy will proceed untouched, let's consider the alleged report to Obama that the WashPost was kind enough to provide us.
http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics…
In it vague hot-button pressing words are strung in sentences built around them– NO strategy is apparent, just a lot of tactics that might work here or there not but there or here. Obama was out-checkered by our assassin-in-chief SPECIALOPS, what we now call our sharpshooter assassins. It is hard to guess which of his peanut gallery of civilian “military experts” who never heard a gun go off was the wordsmith of which of the sections, but one sees no cogent strategy, only the familiar words of certain plump chickenhawk who insists that we must get used to accepting a lot more casualties on our way to “victory”; a term that is never defined in such a way that you might triangulate and see whether today or tomorrow we are closer or further from it. Our “privatized” Pentagon pays hard dollars for
experts to de-concretize English so that no general is ever held accountable. Instead we are told– ever since the Bush retort to the Iraq Study Group’s conclusions– that YES WE ARE LOSING ***BUT*** WE CAN ***STILL*** WIN, only if we accept the NEW way, surging into it with more mom and dad soldiers… of course, ever ready to accept making for even more widows and orphans on the homefront.

I am an old man who when I came here as a young man had the same sense of hopelessness about America, then a nation of people drugging themselves with TV ad illusions that all is well, and if not, all will soon be well through spending more. By the way, that has been the mantra I heard repeated ever since Eisenhower warned us on his way out to be weary of the military-industrial complex. But I must say that at UC Berkley in 1960s I developed a unique sense OF HOPE THAT AMERICA IS BACK ON ITS WAY UP when a Communist cabal form NYC led by Betina Aptheker won the FSM student revolution. I am an anti-Communist refugee from the Red Bloc and so it wasn't that they were Communists what raised my hopes but rather that these Communists DIDN’T call for Red Revolution but for MEANINGFUL DIALOGUE and responsible debate instead. Today, I see academia surrendering to the Liliputhean intellect of think-tank Wash DC “expertise”– the “this is it” people who expound
but never feel the need to argue their case. Why should they? GONE are the days of the TEACH-INS, when we anti-Communists were always given an equal opportunity to face the New Left in debate at teach-ins, imposing on them the MEANINGFUL DIALOGUE that Betina and her Reds acquired for us. Instead, we have old ex-Trotskyites training a second generation of NEOCONS by the old Leninist concept acquired from their old master: POLARIZE TO MOBILIZE. The Pentagon copied these think-tank-ers, creating seemingly academic institutions, chairs and institutes to feign academic standards. But in fact, it all is only– AS I EXPERIENCED IN THE OLD RED WORLD– merely “THIS IS IT” nonsense MONOLOGUE like McChrystal’s report to Obama. Americans suffer from the “ain't my kid going to war” disconnect syndrome so why should the Establishment make its case in anything but empty rhetoric? Afterall, MEANINGFUL DIALOGUE demands that we accept even less illusory certainty and
might have to take more Viagra to feel like men in our old age or more Ambien to sleep dead-silent at night. McChrystal is the first to know that a Congress that can be bought by banks, health insurers and weapons manufacturers surely can be bought off by hot-button jingoism: WE ARE LOSING ***BUT*** WE CAN ***STILL*** WIN. Americans like fourth quarter comebacks and the mythmaker of the Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman deception to cover-up friendly fire snafus can always come up wit this formula in colorful PowerPoints to impress the sleepy Congressmen with no skin in the game.


No bark dog collar
Comment posted February 19, 2011 @ 9:33 am

Thanks for the post. This keeps me informed about the topic.


3052442
Comment posted September 7, 2011 @ 12:59 pm

3052442 beers on the wall. sck was here


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.