Religious Fire

Talk about false equivalencies.



I'm not entirely sure what the caller's point ( if in fact he had one to begin with ) was regarding communications between members of the American military on active duty and "media", but it came off as yet another example of "be quite unless you are going to tell me something I actually want to hear".

And comparing Petraeus' valid concerns that the actions of the ironically named The Dove World Church would hamper efforts in Afghanistan to McCrystal's nurturing of an atmosphere of insubordination towards the Obama administration have nothing in common.

UPDATE

The Hill reports that NATO Sec. Gen. Rasmussen sides with Petraeus on this one:

NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen on Tuesday said he “strongly” condemns the planned burning of Qurans on Sept. 11 by a small Florida church.

Rasmussen said such actions could have a “negative impact" on the security of the NATO troops fighting in Afghanistan.

Terry Jones, the pastor of the 50-member Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville, Fla., has said he will burn copies of the Quran, Islam’s holy book, to mark the anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

“I think it’s a disrespectful action and in general I really urge people to respect other people’s faith and behave respectfully,” Rasmussen told reporters in Washington, ahead of a meeting with President Obama. “I think such actions are in a strong contradiction of all the values we stand for and fight for.”

And while The Constitution allows for freedom of speech, assembly, and religion, there is one thing that fringe conservative zealots like Terry Jones are all to eager to ignore is that those freedoms don't come without potential consequences.

Right From The Jump

You know conservatives around the country were just itching to say this if Obama fired McCrystal.



And had he let McCrystal stay, there would likely had been talk of Obama not being able to control his commanders, thereby being unable to lead in a time of war. These people are really that predictable, I assure you.

I'm just waiting for the new conservative talking-point about how this is also seen as Obama's fault as it was him at appointed McCrystal to his position - meaning he's not very good at picking the right person for the job. Perhaps that a bit of a stretch, but conservatives are becoming more and more creative with ways to blame Obama for virtually everything.

I for one think that this showed true leadership on Obama's part. He removed a person that apparently wasn't taking his job all that seriously and took corrective action and put in place a man that could get the job done. However, Petraeus doesn't come without some problems for some within the liberal community - conservatives are already crowing about his new role in Afghanistan and are revamping the "victory in Iraq" nonsense.

As Commander In Chief, Obama did his job and did it well. We need military leaders who aren't going to let partisanship invade their job duties when they are representing this country.

Pointless Blame

Here’s a brief comment on what I’ve been seeing on multiple conservative websites and from several conservatives on Twitter.

The argument from many within the conservative movement is that it’s actually Obama’s fault that General McCrystal acted in an insubordinate fashion. This is such a childish stand-point to take up. It’s precisely the excuse someone would make when they refuse to accept responsibility for their own actions – which is a hallmark of the conservative movement the past 18 months.

Not only is this a clear example of conservatives inability to hold General McCrystal accountable for his own words, it’s a resurgence of the “dithering” talking point originally put forth by Dick Cheney. And as we all found out, it was actually the Bush administration that had been sitting on their hand for months on end when it came to implementation of more troops and a more specific plan in Afghanistan.

But let’s follow this “it’s Obama’s fault” logic on through. At what point does a member of the Armed Forces gain the right to opening and forcefully question their superiors without fear or recourse? I’d like to see a Private openly criticize his chain of command and not have to face the full wrath of his superiors. Would they be relegated to Limbaugh’s “phony soldiers” list?

The reality behind conservatives willingness to gloss over McCrystal’s unblushing insubordination is that they can’t been seen holding our military servicemen accountable if it means that the Obama administration is seen as correct in their actions. If the modern conservative movement put even a fraction of the energy that they invested in the hatred and the desire to see Obama and his administration fail into actively helping their country, we would all be much better off.

Back to this notion that Obama made McCrystal say all these things certainly doesn’t paint a very good portrait of the General at all. A man in his position has likely faced multiple challenges and has the resolve to not only hold their tongue when it is required, but to serve in his position with honor and dignity. No one is expecting everyone in the military to agree 100% with the mission they are tasked with, but if your approach is to win the “hearts and minds” of those you are attempting gain an alliance with, it doesn’t lend a great deal of confidence in your cause if you are openly besmirching your President.

The Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, has terminated service members for offenses much less severe than what Stanley McCrystal is guilty of. This notion that Obama and Gates can’t remove McCrystal from duty because they “need” him is beyond preposterous. To me, and many others, it sounds like McCrystal cares much about his status in the American armed forces, since he sees his Commander in Chief as someone to be mocked. What do you think that tells the Afghans?

Insubordinate And Disrepecting Chain Of Command

I've been in a rather lengthy exchange with a person on Twitter that goes by the name @melsite1 regarding General Stanley McCrystal's blatant insubordination. To wit, Mr. Melsite1 thinks that I'm misusing the definition of the word "insubordinate". To that end, I clearly stated that he is completely and utterly full of it.

After all, just ask CPAC blogger hero Ed Morrissey who boldly used the tagline of a blog post today to highlight McCrystal's actions as insubordinate.

From The Washington Post on down to The Freepers, the reality of what McCrystal did is being reported.

However, there are those that claim that McCrystal's insubordination is excusable, since it was all Obama's fault

The real trouble is that Obama never resolved the dispute within his administration over Afghanistan strategy. With the backing of Gates and the Pentagon’s top generals, McChrystal sought to apply to Afghanistan the counterinsurgency approach that succeeded over the last three years in Iraq, an option requiring the deployment of tens of thousands more troops. Biden opposed sending most of the reinforcements and argued for a “counterterrorism plus” strategy centered on preventing al-Qaeda from establishing another refuge.

In the end, Obama adopted what is beginning to look like a bad compromise. He approved most of the additional troops that McChrystal sought, but attached the July, 2011 deadline for beginning withdrawals. Since then both sides have been arguing their cases, in private and in public, to the press and to members of Congress.

McChrystal may be at fault for expressing his frustrations to Rolling Stone. He is not at fault for the lack of coherence in the Afghan campaign or the continued feuding over strategy. That is Obama’s responsibility.

Ah, the "dithering" talking point resurfaces. I'll get more into that later.

In the end, the reality of the word "insubordinate" depends largely on the situation at hand and who is involved. Clearly, McCrystal is guilty and should either resign or be fired immediately. I'm of the opinion, though he had to tow the Bush line that "the surge worked" in Iraq, that Petraeus could easily step into Gen. McCrystal's shoes and at least get things marginally squared away in Afghanistan before the scheduled draw-down next summer.

Make no mistake about it, we started losing in Afghanistan the moment that W. got us into a family vendetta in Iraq, and it hasn't improved since. Not only that, but Sec. Of Defense Robert Gates has sacked members of the military for lesser offenses than what McCrystal finds himself embroiled in. So if there isn't some serious restructuring going on in the next few weeks, I'm really going to be disappointed in this administration. Not from the standpoint of the conflict in Afghanistan, but of their desire to bridge the gap between Republicans and Democrats. That just needs to end so we can get the real heavy lifting taken care of.

McCrystal should be out - no question. After all, if he's got such a low opinion of the Obama administration, I'm sure that Fox"News" would gladly hire him on as a military strategist. Isn't Ollie around retirement age? After all, they do love military men that hate Barack Obama.

Just sayin.