Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
May 24, 2012, 02:37:19 AM
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
News: Registration requires "verification" before you are allowed to post.  Be sure to check your "spam" folder to make sure that you receive the verification link.  The e-mail should come from "Onnidan Fan Forum" with the return address -> staff@onnidan.com.

+-
+  Onnidan Fan Forum
|-+  Forum
| |-+  Discussion
| | |-+  Politics
| | | |-+  m&g, u, y and Twin Please comment On Pat Buchanan's "Obama vs. The U.S. Army
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Last Go Down Print
Author Topic: m&g, u, y and Twin Please comment On Pat Buchanan's "Obama vs. The U.S. Army  (Read 464 times)
oldsport
Assistant GM
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14652


View Profile
« on: June 24, 2010, 08:54:57 AM »

Obama vs. the U.S. Army

June 23, 2010

© 2010 

In confiding to Rolling Stone their unflattering opinions of the military acumen of Barack Obama, Joe Biden, National Security Adviser Gen. James Jones, Dick Holbrooke and Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, Gen. Stanley McChrystal and his staff were guilty of colossal stupidity.

And President Obama had cause to cashier them. Yet his decision to fire McChrystal may prove both unwise and costly.

For McChrystal, unlike Gen. MacArthur, never challenged the war policy – he is carrying it out – and Barack Obama is no Harry Truman.

Moreover, the war strategy Obama is pursuing is the McChrystal Plan, devised by the general and being implemented by the general in Marja and Kandahar, perhaps the decisive campaign of the war.

Should that plan now fail, full responsibility falls on Obama.

He has made the Afghan war his war in a way it never was before.

If the McChrystal strategy fails, critics will charge Obama with causing the defeat by firing the best fighting general in the Army out of pique over some officers-club remarks that bruised the egos of West Wing warriors.

And though those remarks never should have appeared in print, they may well reflect the sentiments of not a few soldiers and Marine officers on third and fourth tours of duty in the Afghan theater.

Had Obama, instead of firing McChrystal, told him to shut up, can the interviews and go back to fighting the war until the December review of strategy, he could have shown those soldiers he is a bigger man than they or McChrystal's team give him credit for.

And if success in Afghanistan is the highest goal, how does it help to fire the best fighting general? Do you relieve Gen. Patton during combat because he vents his prejudices or opinions?

This city may draw the parallel, but the Obama-McChrystal clash does not remotely rise to the historic level of the collision between MacArthur and Truman.

Truman had dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, ordered the airlift that broke the Berlin blockade, and produced the Marshall Plan and NATO. He had won election in his own right with a legendary comeback in 1948.

Obama has nothing like Truman's credibility as a war leader.

And MacArthur was the most famous U.S. soldier since Gen. Grant. No. 1 at West Point, he was a legendary commander in France in 1918, leading troops out of the trenches with a swagger stick.

Driven out of the Philippines in 1942, he had declared, "I shall return," and led the liberation of the islands in 1944. He conducted the famous island-hopping campaign up the archipelagos of the South Pacific and took Japan's surrender on the battleship Missouri in Tokyo Bay.

As military proconsul, he presided over the reconstruction of Japan, wrote her constitution and converted her into an ally.

When North Korea invaded the South and drove the U.S. Army into the Pusan perimeter, MacArthur landed Marines far behind enemy lines at Inchon in a flanking maneuver that destroyed the North Korean army and will be studied at military academies for centuries to come.

In late 1950, MacArthur was stunned by the intervention in Korea of the armies of Mao Zedong, lately victorious in China's four-year civil war.

MacArthur's clash with Truman was not over something so trivial as a gossipy article in Rolling Stone. MacArthur's hands had been tied by Truman.

He was not allowed to bomb the Yalu bridges over which Chinese troops were pouring into Korea. He was not allowed to bomb Chinese troop concentrations and munitions dumps in Manchuria. He was not allowed to use Chiang Kai-shek's armies on Taiwan. He was not allowed hot pursuit of enemy aircraft into Chinese or Russian airspace.
     


MacArthur was being restricted to fighting the war Mao wanted to fight, a war of attrition against the world's most populous nation, and largest army, while China was allowed to remain a privileged sanctuary, off-limits to U.S. bombers like those that smashed Germany and Japan.

In his address to Congress, after his firing by Truman, MacArthur put it this way: "'Why,' my soldiers asked of me, 'surrender military advantages to an enemy in the field?' I could not answer."

MacArthur's letter to Rep. Joe Martin, in response to a letter from the GOP leader, was indeed a challenge to Truman's policy of avoiding any risk of a clash with Russia, even if it meant U.S. soldiers would pay the price of Truman's timidity.

Events would prove MacArthur right.

Truman's restrictions would ensure a "no-win war" for two more years that would cost tens of thousands more American lives, and Harry would be sent packing with the lowest rating of any president in history.

Gen. Eisenhower would take office, two years after MacArthur's firing, and threaten the exact escalation MacArthur envisioned, ending the Korean War in six months.

Obama and his party may be celebrating his cashiering of Gen. McChrystal as a macho moment, but by firing the fighting general, for his foolish remarks, Obama has deepened the gulf between his party and the U.S. military.

 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pat Buchanan was twice a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination and the Reform Party's candidate in 2000. He is also a founder and editor of The American Conservative. Now a political analyst for MSNBC and a syndicated columnist, he served three presidents in the White House, was a founding panelist of three national TV shows, and is the author of seven books.


http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=170193
Logged
uchighlander
Assistant GM
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4646


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: June 24, 2010, 09:10:54 AM »

I agree with Newt. However, I think Obama's ego is so fragile that he had to fire him no matter what.....no reconciling.....just get even. Obama could have been the bigger man by just chewing him out ...then sending him back to the front. What I find interesting is the replacement. Is this the same general that was mocked and made fun of by the Democrats? Why I believe it is. Strange. GO VIKINGS!!!
Logged
oldsport
Assistant GM
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14652


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: June 24, 2010, 09:16:31 AM »

I agree with Newt. However, I think Obama's ego is so fragile that he had to fire him no matter what.....no reconciling.....just get even. Obama could have been the bigger man by just chewing him out ...then sending him back to the front. What I find interesting is the replacement. Is this the same general that was mocked and made fun of by the Democrats? Why I believe it is. Strange. GO VIKINGS!!!

You're on the mark. I found the choice of Gen. Petraeus poetic justice for these bums who disparaged this honorable man during the Iraq War.
Logged
Ken
Assistant GM
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8897


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: June 24, 2010, 09:17:16 AM »

That is the same Pat Buchanan that got a military deferment during Vietnam? Most of those guys do become military experts later in life.

"The graves are filled with indispensable men."
              Charles DeGaulle
Logged
oldsport
Assistant GM
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14652


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: June 24, 2010, 09:39:48 AM »

That is the same Pat Buchanan that got a military deferment during Vietnam? Most of those guys do become military experts later in life.

"The graves are filled with indispensable men."
              Charles DeGaulle

There are many men who did not serve in the military who are astute analyst of the military and political interface. Pat Buchanan is excellent in this area. His dealings with the Washington political and military establishment make him credible source to render this type analysis.
Logged
soflorattler
Assistant GM
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10306



View Profile WWW
« Reply #5 on: June 24, 2010, 10:28:18 AM »


There are many men who did not serve in the military who are astute analyst of the military and political interface.

Like Bill Clinton, right?


 Grin
Logged

oldsport
Assistant GM
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14652


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: June 24, 2010, 10:37:27 AM »


There are many men who did not serve in the military who are astute analyst of the military and political interface.

Like Bill Clinton, right?


 Grin

Pat Buchanan was not Commander in Chief.
Logged
DaBassman
Guest
« Reply #7 on: June 24, 2010, 10:43:19 AM »

I agree with Newt. However, I think Obama's ego is so fragile that he had to fire him no matter what.....no reconciling.....just get even. Obama could have been the bigger man by just chewing him out ...then sending him back to the front. What I find interesting is the replacement. Is this the same general that was mocked and made fun of by the Democrats? Why I believe it is. Strange. GO VIKINGS!!!

Your dislike for Obama has clouded your view of the bigger picture.  You said you were in the military, if I may ask officer or enlisted?  This behavior while on active duty can in my IMHO permeate throughout the ranks.

Additionally this was not his first time.  You say it was Obama's ego, but what do you think would have happen if McChystal found out one of his BG's or Colonels had done the same thing.  I tell you what would have happened,  he would have relieved him of command, therefore the punishment he received was appropriate.
Logged
oldsport
Assistant GM
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14652


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: June 24, 2010, 10:46:54 AM »

I agree with Newt. However, I think Obama's ego is so fragile that he had to fire him no matter what.....no reconciling.....just get even. Obama could have been the bigger man by just chewing him out ...then sending him back to the front. What I find interesting is the replacement. Is this the same general that was mocked and made fun of by the Democrats? Why I believe it is. Strange. GO VIKINGS!!!

Your dislike for Obama has clouded your view of the bigger picture.  You said you were in the military, if I may ask officer or enlisted?  This behavior while on active duty can in my IMHO permeate throughout the ranks.

Additionally this was not his first time.  You say it was Obama's ego, but what do you think would have happen if McChystal found out one of his BG's or Colonels had done the same thing.  I tell you what would have happened,  he would have relieved him of command, therefore the punishment he received was appropriate.


Do I dislike Obama? Yes and everything he stands for.
Logged
DaBassman
Guest
« Reply #9 on: June 24, 2010, 10:49:51 AM »

I agree with Newt. However, I think Obama's ego is so fragile that he had to fire him no matter what.....no reconciling.....just get even. Obama could have been the bigger man by just chewing him out ...then sending him back to the front. What I find interesting is the replacement. Is this the same general that was mocked and made fun of by the Democrats? Why I believe it is. Strange. GO VIKINGS!!!

Your dislike for Obama has clouded your view of the bigger picture.  You said you were in the military, if I may ask officer or enlisted?  This behavior while on active duty can in my IMHO permeate throughout the ranks.

Additionally this was not his first time.  You say it was Obama's ego, but what do you think would have happen if McChystal found out one of his BG's or Colonels had done the same thing.  I tell you what would have happened,  he would have relieved him of command, therefore the punishment he received was appropriate.


Do I dislike Obama? Yes and everything he stands for.

Do you also dislike the constitution and support military disobedience toward civilian control?
Logged
Twin Que ASU
Assistant GM
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1719



View Profile WWW
« Reply #10 on: June 24, 2010, 10:55:58 AM »

Unfortunately because of my current position, I decline to make personal comments reference this topic.
Logged

Friendship is Essential to the Soul
An HBCU Fan!!!
Ken
Assistant GM
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8897


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: June 24, 2010, 11:03:20 AM »

I guess with BHO, OS would just trash the constitution and UCMJ until a new President take office--sort of Soviet style.  Funny how we become the things we hate the most.
Logged
soflorattler
Assistant GM
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10306



View Profile WWW
« Reply #12 on: June 24, 2010, 11:07:17 AM »

  Funny how we they become the things we they hate the most.
Logged

Cholly
Assistant GM
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21594


Support our Vets! Go To http://www.gotyour6.org/


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: June 24, 2010, 11:41:42 AM »

I agree with Newt. However, I think Obama's ego is so fragile that he had to fire him no matter what.....no reconciling.....just get even. Obama could have been the bigger man by just chewing him out ...then sending him back to the front. What I find interesting is the replacement. Is this the same general that was mocked and made fun of by the Democrats? Why I believe it is. Strange. GO VIKINGS!!!

Your dislike for Obama has clouded your view of the bigger picture.  You said you were in the military, if I may ask officer or enlisted?

QUE, os spent 17 years as an O-3. He was active duty for 21 years and only got THREE promotions, the last as he was seperating. This in spite of being a two tour Vietnam combat vet.

Now you understand why. shrug
Logged



Does THIS look like the face of someone who was in the fight of his life? REALLY?
oldsport
Assistant GM
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14652


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: June 24, 2010, 01:11:51 PM »

Unfortunately because of my current position, I decline to make personal comments reference this topic.

Understand. Working for the government? What branch or agency? Name agency (Transportation. Education...Commerce..Homeland Security etc.) ( DOD, Army, Navy, Air Force...)?
« Last Edit: June 24, 2010, 01:14:52 PM by oldsport » Logged
Pages: [1] 2 Last Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Tip the Owl

News

HBCUFanNation Store - Custom Sportswear, Merchandise & Apparel including T-Shirts, Sweatshirts, Jerseys & more

Powered by EzPortal


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!