General Stanley McChrystal might get fired

[wagon]

By the way, he was just fired about an hour ago.

[Effluo]

Nuh uh.. he can't be fired anymore, he already quit!

[zoobernut]

Nuh uh.. he can't be fired anymore, he already quit!

Good if he quit then the government won't have to give him unemployment.

[Effluo]

Good if he quit then the government won't have to give him unemployment.

Who needs unemployment when you can have retirement? BHO can keep his unemployment

[Zoolander]

Interesting angle that I didn't think about: http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapc...ex.html?hpt=T1

McChrystal arrived in Afghanistan last summer as the top NATO commander -- but if Washington is mad at the general, his friends in Afghanistan seem to be unaffected.

Many among the local population in Kabul say that McChrystal revamped the forgotten war, putting it on a different path and instilling a counter-insurgency strategy (COIN) in an attempt to regain the trust of the Afghan people.

He instilled a new hope, they argue, for those Afghans who actually backed the war effort, also angering the Taliban -- which ramped up their PR -- in the battle for hearts and minds.

President Hamid Karzai has vocally expressed his support for General McChrystal and called him the "best" commander for the war in Afghanistan, according to his spokesman Waheed Omar.

Although tbh, I'm not sure I care what Karzai thinks or wants. I might even be inclined to prefer whatever he doesn't want, but idk quite enough details atm.

Either way, as you guys said, Petraeus was the obvious choice. I do think reducing civilian casualties is a must, idc if it is frustrating to soldiers. That is one clear dichotomy between soldiers and civilians, they just don't seem to get that killing innocent civilians undermines everything they are trying to do and has to be avoided at all cost. The notion of "collateral damage" and that it is in any way acceptable is mind blowing and incredibly short-sighted. Killing civilians will only create more terrorists, promote anti-western sentiment and give more power to the taliban and AQ. Sure there may be legitimate excuses and reasons for it, but in the end it just doesn't matter. No one gives a fuck if you felt threatened, all they care about is that the end result is you blew away a van full of innocent civilians.

[Weeks]

McChrystal wanted unlimited time and money to win the hearts of Afghanistan. There is quite frankly nothing in Afghanistan to make it worth our time or our money, so Obama is trying to figure a way to get the military out without the country completely collapsing and making the US look worse. The Taliban is going to take the country back eventually, and it's not a big deal because we can just shake the bird cage if they become a haven for international terrorism.

[FNH]

Transparency is making the public aware of policies and the governmental process along with access to information about it

Page 3 of the interview caught my attention for that.

There is quite frankly nothing in Afghanistan to make it worth our time or our money,.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jun...erals-20100615

which this article is understating the amount, many other reports I've heard on the radio have said $3 trillion.

[Cephius]

With the way you put it, it sounds like there might be more civilian casualties now.

Not really.. (again it would help if you read the article, it's actually quite interesting)

McChrystal had the right idea that civilian casualties had to be avoided at all costs. He knew that for every innocent resident killed, more terrorists would be born. So he came up with rules of engagement designed to minimize civilian casualties. Except, after these rules passed through the chain of command, they became so fucked up that the soldiers on the ground are almost incapable of defending themselves. In short, McChrystal had the right idea but didn't follow through enough with it. The article has a story about how a US soldier died because his squad wasn't given clearance to invade a clearly abandoned set of buildings to rescue him.

Hopefully Petreaus irons all this shit out.

[Neosutra]

Petraeus is a safe move for Obama, he's not going to catch any criticism for putting the most highly decorated general back into the field.

And yeah, I'm sure the soliders on the ground won't mind not having to fill out 20 forms and request permission to fire before engaging a target that is clearly hostile

This, fucking this.

Hated that crap. "Dont point your guns at trucks rapidly approaching your convo, it sends the wrong message".

Like who the FUCK drives really fast towards US gun trucks without being either retarded (needs to die) or Terrorist (needs to die painfully).

[Kuya]

I'm sure the locals will understand that retards need to die.

[Neosutra]

I'm sure the locals will understand that retards need to die.

Yes, yes they do. They need to understand if you point your shit van at an armed convoy and charge at it full speed, you're going to get shot.

And you can talk with them, even they know that's retarded and people that do it deserve what they get. They arent all dumbfuck back woods rejects, they have their darwin award winners as well.

[Weeks]

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jun...erals-20100615

which this article is understating the amount, many other reports I've heard on the radio have said $3 trillion.

So if we spend enough time and money winning the hearts of minds of Afghans that they allow us to plunder 100% of their mineral wealth, we might walk away with the amount of money we've already spent in what is only the opening stages of this strategy?

Afghanistan is the asshole of the earth. There is nothing there for us, and the only reason to stick around at this point is to save face.

[Cephius]

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jun...erals-20100615

which this article is understating the amount, many other reports I've heard on the radio have said $3 trillion.

rofl seriously, this isn't command and conquer, you don't get to take the resources just because you have a military presence there. It doesn't work like that.

[FNH]

So if we spend enough time and money winning the hearts of minds of Afghans that they allow us to plunder 100% of their mineral wealth, we might walk away with the amount of money we've already spent in what is only the opening stages of this strategy?

Afghanistan is the asshole of the earth. There is nothing there for us, and the only reason to stick around at this point is to save face.

Why not break even instead of in the hole, hell we had a war for oil.

[Rhinox]

Are you Serious?

[Kuya]

Yes, yes they do. They need to understand if you point your shit van at an armed convoy and charge at it full speed, you're going to get shot.

And you can talk with them, even they know that's retarded and people that do it deserve what they get. They arent all dumbfuck back woods rejects, they have their darwin award winners as well.

KABUL, Afghanistan — American troops raked a large passenger bus with gunfire near Kandahar on Monday morning, killing and wounding civilians, and igniting angry anti-American demonstrations in a city where winning over Afghan support is pivotal to the war effort.

The shooting, which killed as many as five civilians and wounded 18, occurred on the eve of the most important offensive of the war. In coming weeks thousands of American, NATO and Afghan troops are expected to try to take control of the Kandahar region, the spiritual home of the Taliban.

It was the latest case in which NATO or American forces fired on and killed civilians near a checkpoint or military convoy because they were perceived to have come too close or to be approaching too fast.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/13/wo.../13afghan.html

WHOOPS

[Pabst]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/13/wo.../13afghan.html

WHOOPS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing woops?

[Kuya]

The point of that post was...?

[Zoolander]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing woops?

gtfo with that shit, learn how to properly debate something. Throwing out a terrorist attack carried out by Al Qaeda against military personnel ten years ago is retarded and nowhere near relevant.


That gunning down of the bus is exactly the kind of stuff that undermines everything trying to be done. Now obviously its not a black and white situation though, as the use of IEDs and all of the other guerrilla tactics used in this conflict have created immense difficulty in identifying threats while remaining safe...but god damnit everything can be ruined with stuff like that. I still believe that at the heart of it is this term "terrorist" that has come to represent anything that is not "us" and has oversimplified everything. Its the new communist.

[Pabst]

gtfo with that shit, learn how to properly debate something. Throwing out a terrorist attack carried out by Al Qaeda against military personnel ten years ago is retarded and nowhere near relevant.

The U.S. Navy has reconsidered their rules of engagement in response to this attack.

Don't think it was just the navy that changed their rules of engagement. I think this relates pretty damn well to vehicles getting close to military personal.