Pride and Indecision

"Barack Obama furious at General Stanley McChrystal speech on Afghanistan" is the title of an article by Alex Spillius appearing in todays UK Telegraph. Translation: General McCrystal is not willing to go (quietly at least) under Obama's bus and The One is not HAPPY. Ofcourse, this is the kind of thing that is likely to happen when you put a pathological narcissist from Chicago in the White House.

In the article Spillius writes that: "According to sources close to the adiministration, Gen McChrystal shocked and angered presidential advisers with the bluntness of a speech given in London last week." Spillius goes on to quote an adviser to the administration as saying: "People aren't sure whether McChrystal is being naïve or an upstart. To my mind he doesn't seem ready for this Washington hard-ball and is just speaking his mind too plainly." Well this writer could go off in all kinds of different directions just simply in response to that last piece of breathtaking hypocrisy. But I feel the need to stay on course here. And besides, there is a whole lot more projection where that came from.

So after reading this article, given the very short nature of the encounter and having seen our paper-thin skinned president in action for over 8 months, one can only conclude that the main motivation for this meeting was Obama's displeasure with the General's public comments. Ofcourse, I could be wrong and it could be just another one of those whacky wingnut theories. Like the one that says that conservatives AREN'T racist. Well I'll let you be the judge. But honestly, if it looks like a tyrant, and smells like a tyrant, it probably...............

When I first heard that the meeting was only 25 minutes long, I thought to myself, that's all this guy can spare for the General that is leading our troops on the ground in a terrifically important conflict in the war against radical Islam (from this writer's perspective war against radical Islam is putting it as politically correct as possible, but that is a discussion for another time). A war against people that would like to see all of us infidels dead (and yes, that includes you lefties). But as is so often the case with our fearless leader, I was not so shocked to find out that his actions were actually more distressing than I had first suspected.

So Obama is miffed that General McCrystal will not tell him what he wants to hear. That he won't endorse the plan that is least politically painful for the president. Or to put it more colorfully, that the he won't prostrate his body upon the scapegoat alter. Offering himself as a sacrifice to all that is good and Obama.

One thing is for certain, despite this guys obvious ineptness, in the four or God help us eight or more years that he is president/king he will have at least perfected the art of the blame game. Not to mention becoming very adept at eviscerating straw men.

You'd think, given the attitude of the White House portrayed by Spillius in this article, that General McCrystal directly questioned the Presidents manhood and challenged him to a cage match. Chris Wallace isn't kidding. These people take EVERYTHING personally. And in this case it's a war where our men and women are fighting and dying.

If the man who has the preeminent responsibility to advise the president on these matters (a man put there by Obama himself) is wrong and the president has a better idea as to how to achieve success in Afghanistan (he doesn't seem to like the word victory), than he needs to go that direction NOW. That is your job. You are Commander in Chief. You outrank General McCrystal. Remove General McCrystal and get on with it.

On the other hand, if the President believes that the discussion about how best to proceed in Afghanistan is pointless, because he believes that we WON'T likely achieve success there no matter what we do, than he needs to GET OUR TROOPS OUT. General McCrystal's sole concern is how to successfully complete the mission he has been given. That mission does not entail figuring out what the political costs of different courses of action are to the President, and advising him to take the least painful course. He has a military advisory role, NOT a political advisory role. Now sure, if the General believes that we CANNOT achieve success in Afghanistan, then that is something he should advise the president on (ofcourse getting face time seems to be rather difficult). But there is no reason to believe that General McCrystal does not fully believe that they can achieve success given the resources he is asking for. Crying about the fact that a General is trying to get you to make an important decision that you should have made by now, is simply bizarre coming from the President of the United States.

The one thing that is certain in all this, is that the current path we are on is not a good one. But given the Presidents proclivity for indecision and his overwhelming instinct to first and foremost save his ass, he will likely vote present. That is, until some glorious path that allows for his complete salvation in this matter avails itself.