Charlie Rose

robdverity  06/25/2010 05:07 PM Report

In the era of political mkt-place venality, civilian control is not concerned with tactics (Yalu or otherwise), but more strategically - war itself - preferably preemptive (since Vietnam) but deliberatively declared if must.

The MI oligarchies - led by well positioned contributions - would literally demand O's head on a platter - and get it imo. They're stronger than most realize. They employ important constituents constituents. Look who they are: General Electric, Boeing, Northrup-Grumman, yadda yadda. Here's the driver; contract amounts for 2010:

January: $8,107,922,646

February: $11,540,170,777

March: $13,677,787,653

April: $20,284,801,491

May: $25,567,713,470

About $78 trillion in five months. No way a culture that tolerates financial and human exploitation as easily as the financial fiasco and our extant wars demonstrate, will allow some upstart - president notwithstanding - end a trillions dollar per month gravy train.

Obama was personally purchased by Robert Rubin and Larry Summers during his campaign, so he knows first hand how easy it is to be turned. He has to know he can not unilaterally do any thing brash - like declaring an Af-Pak victory and "turn-out-the-lights" as he puts it. So he has to "ease" into it. "Begin" to pullout.

Ahh, but take heart my jingos. The aforementioned MI-pigs-at-the-trough will quietly let O know he's overreaching.

Long-term McChrystal wins. Patreus, the US and their keepers the (civilian) MI oligarches will lose - as measured by a net gain in enmity and enemies upon our final departure whenever that is. But will profit for a moral hazard.

VENALITY > STATESMANSHIP!!

REMant  06/25/2010 02:19 PM Report

Altho this has an odor of political correctness about it in the president talking about respect and so forth, I think the reason why he was dismissed, and why the argument was given about civilian control of the military was that Obama had in mind MacArthur and although the general did not cross the Yalu, he kept making noises in that direction. And this was viewed as the second offense. As I said yesterday and earlier I think this compromise was made for political reasons, a poor decision that unnecessarily risked lives. I can see where the president may have felt betrayed if there were an understanding, and if so McChrystal has to share the blame both for asking for or accepting fewer troops than he needed and for then for continuing to complain about it. But the decision lay with the commander-in-chief, and I think a bigger man could have handled this differently. Of course, no one is likely to question the call, because it would mean jeopardize future influence, and I think the president can expect to see a lot more sycophancy around him as a result. Nor do I think this flap is going to just go away, and I notice everyone on that side has been quick to speak about "not missing a beat." As to the general's future, I would suppose he already has offers from all the conservative think tanks and probably some military colleges, as well as the RNC.

I didn't mention yesterday that I suspect the reporter and his RS editors had quite different views of how to play this, and that we have the latter to thank for the prominence of the inflammatory parts, which almost seem to have been inserted afterwards, and came in the first few days of his time with McChrystal and his staff. This could have been surmised as well from Bates' attitude here. The general cast of the story, however, is supportive and I assume this to have been Hastings' perspective, who has also told the press that he was shocked by the response. There is a good interview here: http://www.newsweek.com/2010/06/22/rolling-stone-author-discusses-general-mcchrystal-interview.html

robdverity  06/25/2010 01:04 PM Report

Stanley doubtless sensed a lost cause and orchestrated a (plausible?) way out. He well could be right. I would like to posit that Obama agrees - thus the withdrawal date.

The US war machine is more formidable than any one person or president. The MI oligarches our mothers and Ike warned us about. In my wishful thinking re Obama's acuity, the withdrawal date is a red herring foil to get around the calls for his impeachment should he do the RIGHT thing and declare an HONORABLE defeat (not an oxymoron), apologize and leave with promises of continuing aid for at least five years more.

Put that in your flag waving jingoism. Then count the dead under each option. Never mind the budget gains.