[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Sabine Gallais

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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