Sabine - Do not forget about the 3 trillion plus in minerals they are planning to mine in Afganistan. The fight for control over those mineral rights are a big thing right now.

In an article in the newspaper last week, Karzai and the Talaban are in negotiations over these mineral rights.

This is becoming another Vietnam. All we want is there natural resources. Politicians and big business do not give a damn about the people there.

Rufus

Asshole jury.....

A jury says the city of Philadelphia cannot evict a local Boy Scouts chapter from a city-owned building for refusing to admit gays.

linkyloo

As a veteran IT IS NOT a sham or smoke and mirrors. McChrystal should be court-martialed for insubordination and busted down to Major and forcibly retired at Major pay. His aides who were part of that should be busted down to 1st or 2nd Lieutenant, but can stay in the Army.....good luck getting promoted for them anyway. The lack of leadership shown once again by McChrystal (and now his aides) is appalling and he has no business being on active duty. My understanding is there was alcohol involved in all this.

I would not argue about oil, opium base and rare earth minerals in Afghanistan being what's behind the curtain. Except it's not really behind the curtain........the info has been out there for years and years.....

This was like Vietnam from the get-go. I'm not sure if you think Nam was about natural resouces.........it was not. Nam was about those godless commie bastards coming to get us which was fueled by Senator Joe McCarthy and his unrelenting fear that the commies had infiltrated our government....sound familiar???

I would agree that multinational corporations don't give a shit about anything other than maximizing profits. I do think there are some politicians who do care.........Senator Bernie Sanders (D-VT) being the first who comes to my mind. Rep Alan Grayson is another. Rep Barbara Lee is another. Rep Sheila Jackson. There are honest and decent politicians.

It MAY be a media distraction but the McChrystal thing is far from a sham. The man subverted the chain of command. Ultimately, every flag officer (generals and admirals) serve at the pleasure of the Defense Secretary. It is a cornerstone of our military that soldiers answer to the civilian leadership not the other way around. Not only did McChrystal subvert the authority of the President with his comments this is not the first time he has done so. He has, at least two other times in the last 18 months, stated that he either disagreed with the policy OR stated policy himself!

Now, here on BFP that may not mean much. In most academic and policy circles that probably means even less. But to a 24 year old soldier, serving his third or fourth overseas tour in 6 years, standing post in some forsaken part of Afghanistan it matters quite a deal that the chain of command is intact. We ask our soldiers to go and do horrible and unthinkable things. Horrible, unthinkable things that 99% of us will never even work up the ovaries to volunteer to do! They are trained to do a job that every sane person hopes they will never have to do. However, when they DO have to do that job--horrible as it might be--they will do so believing that their orders are legitimate and follow a clear chain of command. That chain of command starts at the POTUS and continues down through the SecDef and then through the flag officers and so on.

Now, I will admit I was not a general. I wasn't an officer, I was a lowly sergeant. However, my job was not to make national policy. It wasn't the job of my commanding officer to make national policy. It wasn't the job of HIS commanding officer to do so either and on up the chain. Policy is set by the civilians and soldiers carry out the policy. That is the way it works in every liberal democracy and it is why, whatever else has happened, we have never had any serious danger of falling into a military dictatorship. McChrystal's job is to define doctrine and strategy in pursuit of whatever policy the civilian leadership has defined. If the policy is ill-considered, it is his duty, as a flag officer, to tell the civilian leadership "with all due respect, this is probably a really, really bad idea". It is *not* his job to end-run around the civilian leadership, go to the press and say that he is not onboard the policy as defined.

What's more what he did was galactically stupid. If you or I talk to some reporter from Rolling Stone it's probably not safe to assume that it's off the record. If, however, you are a four-star general, commander of a major operation of the U.S. military, ANY conversation with ANY reporter should be assumed to be on-the-record and your responses should reflect that. This guy got sloppy and started shooting his mouth off.

As far as the hidden interests--being aware of those issues (which I am) is not mutually exclusive to understanding that McChrystal stepped WAY out of line. He would have cashiered his adjunct or any other member of his staff if THEY had, for instance, given an interview to Stars and Stripes where they had done the same because it would subvert his command.

The facts you mention--and I don't dispute any of them--will still obtain whether McChrystal kept his job or Petraeus steps in or someone else. We have no legitimate national interest in Afghanistan at this point and should adjust our policy accordingly.

Cheers
Aj

Thank you, Toughy. It's almost axiomatic that Afghanistan is where empires go to die--it broke the Red Army and eventually the Soviet Union. It gave the British Army a moment of pause and now it is giving the American military that same moment of pause. Yes, there's lots of resources there and that certainly has every mining company from here to Johannesburg salivating at the prospects. My problem is that there is no longer any *strategic* interest in Afghanistan.

Yes, it's right at the crux of two nuclear armed states one of which is seriously unstable--but, quite honestly, I see that as being more India or China's problem than the United States'.

Cheers
Aj

Absolute insubordination! It appears that McCrystal is a very heavy drinker (past military records show this). Now, that is scary to me..... the guy was in charge and most likely an alcoholic?

It will be interesting to see what Obama does at this point. You know, I have to say that he has had so damn much serious stuff to deal with right out of the gate! I, oh, so want him to have better advisors. Who the hell can keep up with all of this!

This is an area where faulty policy has gone for years. Dreadgeek brings up much of the issues in her post.

This might be true if you actually believe that McChrystal is not part of all the lies, coverups, and scandals in our military, government and media. You really think there is some authentic, functioning military strata that isn't corrupt? You don't believe that he is another willing sacrifice @ the altar of deceit? Or, that he was operating in a fish bowl? Sure, one could argue that the comments were in poor judgment, but he was actually being honest about the inept leadership in Washington.

And guess what? The timing of the release of the Rolling Stone article was also a PR stunt. Bear in mind how convenient it is for Rolling Stone that the inflammatory material comes from people who don’t have names. Reporters and writers place words into the mouths of unnamed sources because people who aren’t identified rarely complain of being misquoted.

This business today is worse than a dog chasing its tail. It’s more like a dog chasing its tail after another dog chewed it off; and it’s all just in order to save face and buy some time. That’s when the military becomes a PR machine, and nobody knows who to believe any longer. Remember, all wars are waged for domination and control of resources. I think we've all come to that obvious conclusion. But the bottom line is that McChrystal is waist deep in a propaganda campaign right alongside his boss. I mean, gosh. Just look how the controversy developed in the first place: at Rolling Stone magazine for God’s sakes. Could it get more obvious? Really. We don't see how easily we are being played?

Why does the McChrystal-Tillman connection keep getting ignored?

He COULD be part of the lies, coverup and deceit and ALSO have broken the chain of command and subverted the authority of the CIC. Those two things are not mutually exclusive. And yes, I DO think that there is a functioning military strata because without it people die. I don't know about your military experience although I would be interested in hearing about it, but GOOD officers and GOOD NCOs have, as their primary mission, keeping their people alive. The comments WERE in poor judgement and they DID box the White House in by stating a policy that was in contradiction with the policy as stated by the civilian leadership. Generals do not make policy, they carry it out. Strategy and military doctrine are not policy, they are the instruments by which the policy is made manifest. What McChrystal did wasn't about doctrine or about strategy it was about policy.

Except McChrystal is named and quoted. Isn't it possible that Rolling Stone realized that they had lightning in a bottle and scooped EVERYONE on this? Isn't it possible that Rolling Stone got this article out because they knew it would sell papers? Hasn't Rolling Stone done real journalism in the past?

Firstly, not all wars are waged by both parties for domination and control of resources. Are you going to seriously tell me that the U.S. involvement in World War II would *not* have occurred if not for control or domination? Really? Did Germany and Japan start a war for control and domination, yes. However, Japan attacked US--we didn't attack Japan. What's more, Germany attacked the rest of Western Europe. Britain didn't attack Germany and neither did France they were attacked and they responded (in France's case quite ineffectually). I'm sorry but this idea that war is this simple phenomena carried out for simplistic reasons ignores the reality of warfare AND of geopolitics.

There is such a thing as legitimate national interest and every nation--not just my nation, not just nations allied to my nation but every single nation on the planet is justly entitled to pursue its own national interest. If they do so with a single-minded focus that may or may not be unfortunate but it is still legitimate. If we are going to admit that, for instance, Pakistan has a legitimate national interest in, say, defending themselves if they are attacked and India has a legitimate national interest in defending themselves if attacked, then I am not going to deny the United States the right to pursue its national interest. Now, does the US have a legitimate national interest in the region in play? Perhaps, perhaps not. I don't think we do although I can see ONE argument that would say otherwise.

That argument is this. India and Pakistan have fought three wars in 60 years. Both India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons. Pakistan is currently unstable and it is not beyond the realm of possibility that that nation could fall under the control of the Taliban. Now, if I were India's defense minister and I watched Islamabad fall under Taliban control I would be SORELY tempted to move troops to the border, put my forces on high alert and if the Pakistani's did something that looked at all threatening let loose the fateful lightning. I'm not advocating the use of nuclear weapons here--I want to make that clear. I AM advocating looking at geopolitics from the point of view of people whose day-to-day job it is to make these decisions.

I don't know why you believe that McChrystal being involved in a cover-up is mutually exclusive to his being relieved of command with just cause. Do you really believe that if his second-in-command had gone to Stars and Stripes and had gone off on the kind of rant that McChrystal did that this Colonel would still have that rank by the end of the day? No way! If his adjunct had done the same thing, McChrystal would have busted him back down to butter-bar before anyone could throw a salute--and that's if he was lucky!

Can you explain why it is mutually exclusive? Why is it that either McChrystal has clean hands (in which case it is possible that he was relieved of command for insubordination and subverting of the CIC) or he is knee-deep in a coverup (in which case there was no good cause to relieve him of command)? I don't see these things as mutually exclusive--but I was just enlisted, perhaps you can explain it to me?

Cheers
Aj

In the latest of a long line of things that conservatives do that bug me to no end, I'm deeply frustrated by their dismissive attitude toward serious journalism simply because of the source. "at Rolling Stone magazine for God’s sakes". Seriously? Some of the contributors to Rolling Stone have done some kick ass reporting, actual researched and thorough investigative reporting. Which is more than one can say for a lot of the MSM these days. If you disagree with the facts as presented, then argue the facts. But don't dismiss the whole thing simply because you don't approve of the publication.

Thanks, this entire paragraph gave me a good laugh, which I needed. There's just no end to the entertainment value of right wing paranoid conspiracy. Too bad that some folks take it seriously.

Nam started out as a Commie battle and eneded up a drug trafficing bonanza.
why do you think all those people OD'ed on smack. cause for the time we were in Nam, we were getting the good sh*t and people were taking too much at once thinking it was the usual crappy cut to hell horse.

it isn't talked about much, but a lot of the reason we are in Afganistan has to do with the Heroin. it is ironic that we had the War on Drugs while one hand of our government was dealing drugs for weapons and control.

i think one of the biggest trouble getting any drugs leagalzed is that too many people are making too much money on them. what they fail to realize is that they could make twice as much if it was taxed and regulated.
:canoworms:

It's funny that people are acting like Rolling Stone is some overgrown college newspaper with cache because it's been around for a long time. Just for giggles, I searched to see who--if anyone of note outside of Hunter S. Thompson--has ever written for Rolling Stone. Here are some of the more heavyweight ones:

Joe Klein -- Currently on the Council on Foreign Relations and a Guggenheim Fellow

Timothy Ferris -- Science writer (in fact, I'm currently reading his latest work "The Science of Liberty). Emeritus Professor at UC Berkeley (yay Cal Bears!)

Matt Taibbi -- Writer/Journalist. Most recently he wrote an exhaustive expose of Goldman Sachs

P.J. O'Rourke -- Writer and journalist


Does Rolling Stone have the same gravitas as, say, The Economist or Foreign Affairs? No, it doesn't. But that doesn't mean that RS is a fly-by-night samizdat being desktopped out of a garage by a group of kids who write articles in between bong hits.

Cheers
Aj

Firing flag officers isn't something Obama dreamed up
 

Since I expect that the *next* meme we'll see propagated is that flag officers are *never* relieved and that it has happened, maybe, a few times in our history and since that meme is manifestly untrue, I thought I would just go ahead and cut this myth off before it can get going here.

Thomas Ricks has an excellent article on today's OpEd page of the NY Times talking about the history of firing officers who screw up. Link

Since you have to register to read the page (registration is free) I thought I would paste in a few specific paragraphs which are particularly germane here:

FOR most of our nation’s history, the armed services have had a strong and worthy tradition of firing generals who get out of line. So for most of our presidents there would have been no question about whether to oust Gen. Stanley McChrystal for making public his differences with the White House on policy in Afghanistan. If President Obama had not fired General McChrystal, it would have been like President Truman keeping on Douglas MacArthur after his insubordination during the Korean War.

In the longer term, the Army has to return to its tradition of getting rid of leaders who are failing. The Navy has shown more fortitude; in the first two months of this year alone it fired six commanders of ships and installations.

Back in World War II, the Army had no qualms about letting officers go; at least 16 of the 155 generals who commanded divisions in combat during the war were relieved while in combat. George Marshall, the nation’s top general, felt that a willingness to fire subordinates was a requirement of leadership. He once described Gen. Hap Arnold, chief of the Army Air Forces, as a fine man, but one who “didn’t have the nerve to get rid of men not worth a damn.”

The old system may seem harsh in today’s light, and certainly some men were treated unfairly. But keep in mind that job losses were dwarfed by combat losses: In the summer of 1944, 15 of the 20 battalion and regimental commanders in the 82nd Airborne were either killed or wounded. In World War II, a front-line officer either succeeded, became a casualty or was relieved within a few months — or in some cases, within days.

The tradition of swift relief provided two benefits that we have lost in today’s Army: It punished failure and it gave an opportunity to younger, more energetic officers who were better equipped to adapt to the quickening pace of the war. When George Marshall heard of a major who really was doing a general’s work, he stepped in to make the man a brigadier general overnight. Under this audacious system, a generation of brilliant young commanders emerged, men like James Gavin, an innovator in airborne warfare who became the Army’s youngest three-star general.

The meme that is going to emerge in the next week is that Obama's firing of McChrystal is this once-in-a-lifetime event with not the least bit of historical precedent---don't believe it because it simply is not true.

Cheers
Aj

Vietnam wasn't about resources?

Herbert Hoover, later to become President of the United States did a study that showed that one of the world's largest oil fields ran along the coast of the South China Sea right off French Indo-China, now known as Vietnam.

We were in Vietnam to protect Standard Oil's assets— McCarthy's notions did a very good job of distracting folks from that reality.

so...........
 

is it safe to assume that all wars are fought over money, money from drugs, money from oil, money from money???????????:pirate-steer:

War, always about money, greed and power.

Wars are fought for one of two reasons, and quite often a combination of both: A) resources (money, land, food, water, minerals, etc.), or B) religion. Even though Shrub seems to have done it because Sadam picked on his daddy and it was a good way to funnel lots of taxpayer dollars to his buddies at Haliburton, etc., that still falls under "resources". Governments don't decide to spend their money and kill their citizens for the fuck of it, they do it because they want something.