SIGN UP - IT'S FREE!

National Debt Clock


A million seconds pass in 12 days.
A billion seconds pass in 31 years.
A trillion seconds pass in 31,688 years!

Eurabia Watch


Family Security Matters has started a new feature, called Eurabia Watch, which will warn Americans that what happens in Europe with political correctness and Islamism will soon be on its way to America. What do you think?







View results


Sign Up for FSM Updates!

HOME > PUBLICATIONS > The General and the Community Organizer

June 28, 2010

The General and the Community Organizer

Paul Hollrah

Print This
  Comments (15)

Channel-surfing from ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN through MSNBC and Fox News, the inside-the-beltway pundits had a field day trying to get inside the heads of Barack Obama, Joe Biden, General Stanley McChrystal, and McChrystal’s top aides. The one thing common to all of the analyses, by the most famous and highly-paid talking heads in the Western World, was that they are all wrong… dead wrong. What is certain is that they all owe General McChrystal and his senior aides an apology for assuming that they are lame-brained numbskulls.
 
The facts of the McChrystal case are not in dispute. General McChrystal and his senior officers allowed a reporter for Rolling Stone Magazine, Michael Hastings, to have almost unprecedented access during an extended stay in Paris. The extended stay was due, in part, to an excess of atmospheric ash from Iceland’s Eyjafjallajokull volcano, keeping the McChrystal party grounded for days. 
 
In an interview with CNN, Hastings reported that he had a tape recorder in his hand most of the time and that McChrystal was “very aware” that his comments would find their way into print. He said, “McChrystal and his people set no ground rules for their conversations, although they did ask that some parts of their conversations were off the record.” Hastings subsequently published a lengthy profile of General McChrystal on June 22, titled, The Runaway General.
 
As Hastings wrote in his profile, McChrystal thought that Obama looked “uncomfortable and intimidated” by the roomful of military brass during their first meeting.  Of their second meeting, an advisor to McChrystal quoted the general as saying that it was “a 10-minute photo op.”  He went on to say, “Obama clearly didn’t know anything about (McChrystal), who he was.  Here’s the guy who’s going to run his f_ _ _ing war, but he didn’t seem very engaged.  The Boss was pretty disappointed.”
As General McChrystal flew from Afghanistan to Washington to face Obama in the Oval Office, the almost unanimous opinion of the talking heads was that the comments made by McChrystal and his staff were off the cuff and inadvertent. But to believe that is to totally ignore who these men are. 
 
General McChrystal and his top officers are not simple-minded, knuckle-dragging brutes. To the contrary, they are intelligent, thoughtful, highly educated, patriots… graduates of West Point and other fine universities… who are dedicated to duty, honor, and country. To think that such men would be so careless as to speak unflatteringly of Obama, Biden, and other top administration figures, in the presence of a reporter for a notoriously left wing publication, defies logic… at the very least. To think that men who are trained to be careful and deliberate in everything they do, could do something so careless and so unguarded is simply beyond comprehension. 
 
I would argue that McChrystal and his aides knew exactly what they were doing. 
 
From the day that he became the handpicked “spear carrier” for Obama’s unique brand of warfare… playing at being Commander in Chief while playing to his far left constituency… McChrystal’s life had been one of constant frustration. After telling Obama exactly how many troops he needed to carry out his mission, Obama dithered for months before deciding to give him just half the troops he requested. McChrystal could not have been happy about that.
 
The Obama team insisted on new Rules of Engagement designed to reduce collateral damage (civilian casualties).  Obama’s ROE required that U.S. troops must be able to see the enemy with weapon in hand before they were allowed to return fire. One videotape circulated on the Internet showed a platoon of Marines pinned down by enemy sniper fire. But since the enemy was firing from some distance behind the open window of a building, the Marines could not actually see the weapon being fired. Although they were taking deadly fire, they were prohibited by the ROE from putting small arms fire or an RPG through the window opening. 
 
Under Obama’s politically correct ROE, our soldiers and Marines were required to fight with one hand tied behind their backs.  McChrystal could not have been happy about that.
 
A strict new interrogation policy, dictated by Attorney General Eric Holder, required that prisoners must be delivered to an Interrogation Center within twenty-four hours of being captured or or be released. A great deal of actionable intelligence was lost as a result and battle-hardened enemy fighters were returned to the field to kill Americans. McChrystal must have found that to be incomprehensible.
 
But the greatest insult to our troops in the field, and to the officers who lead them, may be a new battlefield medal designed by the Obama team. It is called the Courageous Restraint Medal and is awarded to soldiers and Marines who demonstrate uncommon restrain in combat by not firing their weapons even when they feel threatened by the enemy. Would we be surprised to learn that the preponderance of these medals were awarded posthumously?  McChrystal must have found that to be an insanity. 
 
I suggest that, having his best military judgments subjected to the White House political sieve for nearly a year and a half, McChrystal decided that he’d had enough. And when he announced to his senior staff that he was prepared to retire they decided to push back… to make the most of a bad situation. It was clear that, if McChrystal were to simply take off his uniform and walk away, his retirement would be page-twenty news for a day or two before the mainstream media and the American people forgot all about him. 
 
They had to make the most of his retirement because it provided a one-time opportunity to show the American people, as well as our enemies and our allies, that the man who claims the title of Commander in Chief of the U.S. military does not command the respect of our men and women in uniform. To make the most of that opportunity they had to choose their messenger very carefully. 
  
They knew that, by openly showing their disrespect for Obama in front of just any newsman, they may not attract the attention they desired. Like any astute observer of the MSM, they knew that most reporters would turn on their own mothers if it meant a good story. But they could not take a chance that a mainstream media reporter might suffer a rare pang of conscience when confronted with the prospect of ruining the careers of some of the most senior officers in the War on Terror. They had to fix the odds as much as possible in their favor so they chose to use Michael Hastings and Rolling Stone Magazine.
 
During the long hours that General McChrystal was in the air between Kabul and Washington, Obama knew that he had just two choices… both bad. He could declare McChrystal to be an irreplaceable asset in the war effort, give him a public reprimand, and send him back to Kabul. Or he could fire McChrystal, sending a clear message that, at least in his own mind, he was the Commander in Chief.
 
In the former case, he was certain to appear weak and ineffectual… a man not totally in charge. In the latter case, he might at least win a few rave reviews from the Kook-Ade drinkers in the mainstream media. He chose the latter of the two options. 
 
But what is now lost in all of the hand-wringing and speculation is the fact that McChrystal and his people have succeeded in doing exactly what they set out to do. They wanted to plant the seed in the minds of the American people that Obama is not up to the task of being Commander in Chief and that he does not command the respect of the men and women of the uniformed services… from the newest Private E-1 up to the top four-star generals and admirals.
 
That seed is now firmly planted and it cannot be unplanted. 
 
From this day forward, no one will have to tell the American people that Stanley McChrystal is a true warrior, a man’s man, and that Barack Obama is nothing more than a… community organizer. Well done, General!  
 
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributor Paul Hollrah is a Senior Fellow at the Lincoln Heritage Institute.

Reader Comments: Submit Your Comment (15) | Sign Up for FSM Updates!

Print This
  Comments (15)

This makes more sense than anything I've read so far about the General and the Com.O.

posted by: glee
Monday, June 28, 2010 at 10:09 AM

General McChrystal (is) not simple-minded, knuckle-dragging brutes. To the contrary, they are intelligent, thoughtful, highly educated, patriots… graduates of West Point and other fine universities… who are dedicated to duty, honor, and country

I wonder! McChrystal has admitted supporting and voting for Obama. Maybe he was expecting appointment to Joint Chiefs of Staff. If he is telling the truth about that, perhaps he & staff were revealing frustration that support & votes for Obama did not get the reward they were expecting. Perhaps, as this article suggests, McChrystal & staff were "throwing themselves on the sword" to save America.

posted by: davnkatz
Monday, June 28, 2010 at 10:26 AM

It is about time some of our military officers who know what they are doing,have been doing an outstand job of leading their troops to mutiple victories, and have dedicated their lives to defending our freedoms show just how ineffective our present "Commander in Chief" is and how dangerous his leadership is to our troops and our country!

posted by: Richard Clingman
Wednesday, June 30, 2010 at 03:22 PM

Thank you Thank you about your analysis of the General I totally agree with it. It dovetails with my gut feelings about the General.
I hope your analysis gets more coverage just so the American People can exactly see who Obama really is.

posted by: Dominic Camillone
Thursday, July 1, 2010 at 05:16 AM

I have mixed feelings about this. When the story first broke, I was able to read the entire piece on the Rolling Stone web site. My take was the RS author was given free access to the McChrystal inner circle for several weeks. This was a big mistake in my opinion. The irony is that McChrystal is a liberal Democrat politically and voted for Obama. He is a true believer. This may be why he was selected to command the troops in Afghanistan. Naturally, McChrystal is responsibility for all remarks, on or off the record that his staff makes.


I believe that this mission is seriously flawed from the top. The ROE are pure politically correctness and will get many good GIs killed. The surge worked in Iraq because the population is educated. Over 75% are literate and 65% live in cities. Contrast with Afghanistan where 26% are literate and only 23% live in cities. Iraq has a pretty good infrastructure, although war damaged, but these Iraqis have something to live for. The velocity with which information spreads in Iraq is fast. They sell each other on the benefits of having a normal life. Patraes in Afghanistan has none of this to work with. These aren’t people with which one can reason. It is a primitive society and will require decades of lives, blood, money and tenacity. Will Americans be willing? I think not. So many other powers have failed in Afghanistan over the centuries. Obama will not survive this politically. The loss of McChrystal changes little. After all, Patraes was his boss.



This seems to define a political quagmire. We can’t leave and we probably can’t win. The president hasn’t even defined win.



The Bush strategy was to remain dominant in the cities and harass and kill the Taliban as the situation allowed. Not a great strategy, but one that over time would have improved things marginally. We’ve had a military presence in South Korea for 57 years. We have been in Germany for 65 years. We may have to be in Afghanistan for 100 years or longer. I fear that our European allies have totally lost all interest in this issue.



posted by: Joe Cascarelli
Thursday, July 1, 2010 at 10:56 AM

There has never been a Courageous Restraint Medal. The idea came from a statement that someone made stating that our troops showed 'courageous restraint' in not firing back in situations that could cause collateral damage.

posted by: A Soldier
Thursday, July 1, 2010 at 12:10 AM

After pondering the situation for a few days...and it took me that long to 'get it'...I had come up with exactly the same conclusion as you. This is perhaps the more heroic thing this man and his staff have ever done. Thank you for publishing this.

posted by: Barbara
Thursday, July 1, 2010 at 09:52 PM

This is a staggeringly irresponsible article, filled with willful mistakes, falsehoods and ending with pure conspiracy fiction.
The author is certainly not a soldier (let alone officer) or he would recognize the gravity of GEN McCrystal's transgression, and the damage it would cause to good order and discipline. When he realized it, he quickly took the appropriate action and the President did the same. Both men put country ahead of their personal ideology- much more than I can say for the author or many of the commenters. This 4th of July, think about how you can positively affect this nation, rather than tearing down our institutions like respect for the chain of command and civilian control of the military.

posted by: Another Solder
Friday, July 2, 2010 at 03:24 AM

Can anybody say "psychological warfare" by the General and his staff.

posted by: Hugh
Friday, July 2, 2010 at 09:39 PM

Military may soon start awarding medals for … “courageous restraint”5:33 pm on May 7, 2010 by Allahpundit
Make sure to leave room on your jacket for a Purple Heart too, since winning one of these will almost certainly increase your odds of winning one of those.
“The idea is being reviewed at Headquarters ISAF,” Sholtis said. “The idea is consistent with our approach. Our young men and women display remarkable courage every day, including situations where they refrain from using lethal force, even at risk to themselves, in order to prevent possible harm to civilians. … That restraint is an act of discipline and courage not much different than those seen in combat actions.”
[S]ome soldiers say rewarding “restraint” while risking their own lives is a troubling concept…
A U.S. Marine captain who has served in Iraq, said that he understands the intentions of the award but believes “it’s just a bad idea.” He said, “They teach us not to second-guess our decisions in dangerous situations. When people second-guess themselves they can be putting lives at risk.”…
[O]ther soldiers saw the medal proposal as a reinforcement of troubling rules of engagement. “Unfortunately, we are being reduced to a police force,” said another U.S. soldier. “There are troops that never leave Bagram or Kandahar airfield. … Maybe if they left us all on base and never sent us out to confront the enemy, we could all be honored [for] valor.”
Follow the link for a legal advisor to the Green Berets slamming the idea as a concession to critics who claim U.S. troops don’t follow the rules of war already. Two things here. First, how’s The One supposed to sell the idea of “courageous restraint” among the infantry when his use of drones is trending precisely the opposite way? I’m not knocking him for that — as I’ve noted many times, he’s liquidated a lot of bad guys over the past year — but when the LA Times is reporting that drone operators don’t even need to know the full identities of their targets before firing on them, a “courageous restraint” medal for soldiers on the ground seems rather nuanced. (Also nuanced? Obama cracking jokes about drone attacks.) Second, what exactly would a display of “courageous restraint” look like? Not firing back at Taliban gunmen because civilians are caught in the crossfire? Declining to drop a JDAM on a safe house because women might be inside? I can’t help thinking that this whole idea boils down to the military searching for ways to propagandize more effectively among Afghans. Shouldn’t that be State’s job?
Update: I should make clear, this isn’t Obama’s idea. It originated with a British general. Whether the U.S. will adopt it is what’s now being considered.


posted by: army wife
Friday, July 2, 2010 at 10:24 PM

I say "McChrystal for Pres 2012" !!!!! Seriously, Obama is an a-clown, and the line about him playing 'at' the role of president while pandering 'to' the progressive left could not have been more accurate!

posted by: Ray Holley
Friday, July 2, 2010 at 10:52 PM

This is a spat between two liberals. Obama won. Petraeus replaces McCrystal, the troops and America won !!

posted by: Bruce O'H.
Saturday, July 3, 2010 at 08:28 PM

This is for "A soldier", and others that don't think that a "Courageous Restraint" medal isn't being kicked around by the Powers that be!

NATO Pushes ‘Courageous Restraint’ for Troops
May 04, 2010
Associated Press

http://www.military.com/news/article/nato-pushes-courageous-restraint-for-troops.html

To Another Soldier, I can't figure out what you are getting at with your comment. Basically, McChrystal made a mistake by allowing this left-leaning reporter "to just hang around for a month". As a soldier haven't you said something about your superiors (Obama, what a joke) when you didn't agree with some of their decisions. Obama and the rest of his stooges are a joke. McChrystal said he voted for Obama, I could say I voted for Obama, only the individual that cast the vote knows. What is McChrystal supposed to say, "I voted for John McCain or I voted for Ron Paul". You people need to use your heads. I wouldn't want to work for Obama if he didn't value my judgement. 94 days before he gave McChrystal a portion of the troops he requested (and in that time 121 troops died). For such a spontaneous individual that Obama that is in a hurry to get things passed in Congress, he sure is patient in Afghanistan AND the Gulf of Mexico!
Obama suggested that McChrystal made irresponsible comments, well maybe McChrystal should have suggested a "beer summit" to make everyone feel better!

posted by: wrightfromtexas
Tuesday, July 6, 2010 at 02:31 PM

I agree with your summation regarding the General and the community organizer. We have a total of 4 children and one grandchild, two of whom are on active duty, one retired and are very proud of all of our military. My comment is this: as soon as I heard what had happened to the General I thought, someone needs to get this man to run for President, if he so desired, because I think that much of the country would vote for him, he appears to hold the sentiments of many of the people of this country in regards to our commander and his cadre. Thanks. Toni

posted by: Toni Oukrop
Friday, July 9, 2010 at 02:53 PM

[url=http://mature-porn.ru/]зрелые попки порно видео
[/url]
порно фото модели в возрасте

[url=http://comunidad.terra.es/blogs/ladivina/archive/2007/03/14/Sexo-en-Chamberi-y-La-Divina.aspx]порно видео зрелых мам
[/url]
[url=http://rightcoast.typepad.com/rightcoast/2010/03/manure-pools-cause-giant-gas-bubbles-tom-smith-.html?cid=6a00d8341bf6e253ef01543209718b970c#comments]бесплатно смотреть порно зрелых девушек
[/url]

posted by: groownnourl
Saturday, April 30, 2011 at 05:50 AM