Well at least Private First Class Pautsch agrees with me...

When will the West go back to fighting wars to win?

For everyone's information re. Kathy's comment:
http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/89-81477.aspx

(That I had to Google myself and didn't recognize offhand.)

Afstan is yesterday's bad news. We need a new enemy/conflict to become embroiled in to divert public/media attention from the dismal pool of inept gangsters running things in the belt line.

Onward to Iran! To War, To war! They're hiding Bin Laden and they have nukes aimed at us!! A new 'threat' to be extinguished will billions of borrowed monopoly money.

“Patrol only in areas that you are reasonably certain that you will not have to defend yourselves with lethal force,”

Vietnamistan in the making; tactics designed for the front pages, instead of winning.

Ken,

They did when they overthrew the Taliban. The problem has been the nation building since then.

The problem came when they let off the gas after the Taliban was overthrown. The Taliban were allowed to reorganize, the indegenous security infrastructure was too slow to be established and the civilian wins were too slow to be put in place.

The West will fight wars to win when:

a) The "enemy" is properly identified

b) The term "win" is properly defined

c) The West is ready to do to the enemy what the enemy is ready to do to the West and then go one step further...

If he is saying these things in front of his subordinates and encouraging them in it, fire his butt, right freaking now.

On it's face it is gross insubordination and totally unacceptable for anyone in uniform in a any western military.

it was a failure from the start. the USSR couldn't win, why would we?

our kids die for vermin who will never have a concept of property rights and freedom of speech.

...is "spreading democracy" worth it? hunh? hunh?

...may the gods preserve us from neocon f;)ckheads.

This war has been a farce from the get-go. Pakistan was never an ally. They were a safe harbour for bin Laden and Al-Qaida. The US have sent them $2-3 billion a year in military aid, since 2002, which is used more often against them, then for them.

W was out right lying when he said in ‘01 "you're with us or with the terrorists." Pakistan was double dealing, and he knew it, but he needed to show the public he was doing something about 9-11.

A decade later the charade continues. Not sure how we can get out either, without disaster.

After 70 days of waiting for something on Afghanistan, The Big O met with his general:

“It was a 10-minute photo op,” the general’s adviser says.“Obama clearly didn?t know anything about him, who he was… he didn’t seem very engaged.“The boss was pretty disappointed,” says the adviser.

But, once the general criticizes The Big O, he's called in for significant face to face time.

Like Canada's Parliament, the WH is setting up for a failure which will have wasted soldiers lives:

"working with a three-quarters surge with a deadline ..."

http://www.julescrittenden.com/2010/06/22/advanced-petard-hoistmanship/

On it's face it is gross insubordination and totally unacceptable for anyone in uniform in a any western military.
~AtlanticJim

Our Generals have to take orders and direction from McChrystal.
This sort of thing is bad for our troop morale.

...is "spreading democracy" worth it?

Afghanistan is an Islamic Republic.
Democracy doesn't mean spit without proper, evenly applied, laws and an unbiased judiciary.
The last election there was a bad joke.
(not that the last election in the U.S. wasn't a bad joke, corrupt as it was)

Additionally, Afghans have more property rights and freedom of speech in than we have in Canada.
It's just that they don't have freedom of religion and never will as long as Afghanistan is an Islamic Republic.

Oz,

I agree with your list, but "The West" doesnt engage in that unless the populace supports it. Right now I dont think the populace would back a government that does this.

Post 9/11 it worked, because it was justified. Iraq fed off that feeling idirectly, and the Iraqi invasion was quite an acompishment. However, long wars of nation building etc just dont work for us, at least not without political leadership that will take the heat or isnt vulnerable on the issue.

I have agreed in principal from the beginning this is the right thing to do, in practice, get the hell out, now. When the politicians become Generals, as happened in Nam, our guys in the field suffer first and the most.

With the Americans as your main ally and more interested in home politics than winning a war, again, get out. I love the USA but they have proven to be an unreliable ally, it's time to leave.

shel says "it was a failure from the start. the USSR couldn't win, why would we?"

A "brilliant" strategist, are you, shel? The truth is that the war in Afghanistan could be won relatively easily if not for the gutless sitting in Washington who don't seem to have the stones to do what it takes to actually WIN. Just like the Vietnam War....the US could have won that, but for central command from Washington that wouldn't or couldn't respond quickly enough to front line commanders....and of course, all the political BS that went on.

As Sun Tzu said "Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win."

Cjunk........Generals are uniquely fitted to, instantly, accurately evaluate empty suits.

shel
The fall of the Berlin Wall and collapse of the USSR...must have been a crushing disappointment in your life.

The recurring problem is this utopian notion of nation building. 3rd world countries are not like advanced societies such as Germany, Italy and Japan.....it requires centuries rather than decades to social-engineer them.

It is an evolution...
Where you find the scycle you introduce the scythe.....then the cradle.....then the reaper, and so on.....driving in a SP combine is doomed to failure.

However, long wars of nation building etc just dont work for us, at least not without political leadership that will take the heat or isnt vulnerable on the issue.
~Stephen

War should never be about nation building.
Wars are supposed to be about destroying threats and making examples.

One of the first rules of irregular warfare is that you don't rebuild until the insurgents have been severed from their popular support and soundly defeated.
If you rebuild while the conflict is ongoing, the insurgents simply destroy your new infrustructure projects and degrade the security situation which then demonstrates to the populace the government's inability to govern and provide a secure state of stability.

The government then loses credibility with the population as easily as burned down a school, poisoning a well, blowing up a bridge, or losing a judge or bureaucrat to assassination.

Oz 11:23am

I respect your opinion but I think so far nobody has a solution for successfully putting down a popular insurgency. Western countries never win foreign guerrilla wars.

"so far nobody has a solution for successfully putting down a popular insurgency. Western countries never win foreign guerrilla wars.
~brick60

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malayan_Emergency

There are many good books outlining the successful tactics that defeat insurgencies.
Every single rule for success has been broken in Afghanistan.

brick60: There is no popular insurgency in Afghanistan .... ZERO; where do you get your info from? Afghans, even in the South, are massively supportive of ISAF ... only in the most isolated and Taliban threatened communities do the insurgents have support.

Oz,

Agreed all out wars are for that. COIN is another matter, is it war? Is it not a war? A taxonomic question but important to recognize when you are in COIN.

I agree that with your point re seperating the population from the insurgents....but isnt this what they are trying to do now, get an area, hold it, then build and defend while expanding the area.

As for our participation. I am happy to support, i would be happy to return, but it is time for a rotation out for to rebuild and retask. And quite frankly, I think there are other things about to boil over, so I dont think the canadian Military will be short of missions. I certianly think COngo is a just a self abuse mission driven by foreign affairs...stay away from it.

No OZ, the west will win once it finally recognizes that the rules of war have changed and the rules of engagement need to change with it. I think the Canadian approach in '06 was about right. "Hi, we're going to be here tomorrow and if you're here - you're the enemy and you will die, no exceptions."

McCrystal has lost confidence in his commander-in-chief.

If anybody's surprised, let us know why.

A very good study on defeating insurgencies (COIN) by the Rand Corporation:

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2010/RAND_MG965.sum.pdf

Inconsistent support for a government by Western nations usually presages defeat by that government.

Conversley, pressure must be brought to bear on governments who support the insurgents to withdraw their outside support.
Pakistan must cease to be a supplier, sanctuary, and trainer of the insurgents that then infiltrate into Afghanistan.

A credible threat of war on Pakistan would probably be the only solution.
That doesn't mean we have to threaten Pakistan.
We only have to stop restraining India.

Ken (Kulak) at 10:22 AM: "When will the West go back to fighting wars to win?"

Well, in Canada, see Right Honourable Terry Tory @ 11:40 AM in the previous thread.

SUN News!! Bring. It. On.

C'mon ... the military needs SOMEPLACE to try out their stuff.

Oz:

Malaysia: That was a successful campaign by the British, but it was a lot easier that the rebels were minority ethnic Chinese, not majority Malay.

CJunk:

Zero popular support for the Taliban? BS. Who are the guys fighting us then? I hear the people hate Karzai's people more than the Taliban.... The Afghans are duplicitous anyway. They'll be on the ISAF side as long as it's convenient. It's not real loyalty.

but isnt this what they are trying to do now, get an area, hold it, then build and defend while expanding the area.

You don't plant trees in a firebreak while fighting the fire at the same time.
It provides new fuel in the path of the fire and imperils the lives of the firefighters and tree planters.
The firebreak keeps the fire isolated from the healthy forrest.
You plant new trees after the fire is out in the entire burn zone.

Meanwhile, Pakistan is the arsonist.
They were one of only 3 nations that recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.
All 3 of those governments are probably still supporting the Taliban in one way or another.

When KSM had kidnapped Daniel Perl, one of his kidnap demands was that the U.S. expedite the F-16s that they had halted shipment on to Pakistan.
A strange demand considering that Pakistan, as a U.S. Ally would use those new fighter bombers to strike at the Taliban/ al Qaeda if Pakistan was serious in their opposition to them.

It's true that Malaysia was easier because they used profiling, but it is an example of a successful counter-insurgency.

The link I provide at 12:00 PM is a study of 89 examples.

Oz,

What you mention is in service of the strategy of sealing the border, important to do. There are a number of ways to do it, troops internally, co-operation from the Pak's. Co-operation can be won or coerced.

Ideally the Pak's get brought on board cooperatively, at the end of the day the need to recognize it as in their interest. The issue there is they have seen Afghanistan as needed for startegic depth versus India, or at least prevention of afghanistan falling into the Indian orbit which would really put Pakistan in a strategic pickle.

One theory goes, that if you could convince the Pak's that India wasnt interested in war then they would see less interest in having a captive Afghanistan. As I said its a theory. Unfortunatley, Pakistan is animated by both good old fashioned self interest and, unfortuantley, by some elements of Islamic supremacy or Islamic victimhood. The latter makes it very difficult to convince that significant minority that India really has no interest in war.

All this means that sealing the border, is going to be difficult. But I am not convinced that threatening the Pak's more is going to do it, the threat needs to be credible and the US is in no state or position to do that.

All of this completely ignores what Afghani's want, and I dont know if they reallyu get much of a say, as they seem to be the playthings of the powers in the area, China, India, Iran and Pakistan.

OZ:

I will read your link. Thank you.

I absolutely think we should stay in afstan.

I also think that Michael Yon's reporting that the general is not well thought of by the troops is accurate and that he needs to be replaced by someone of patraeus' ability ASAP.

Having the POTUS rescind the exit date and demand much more from the rest of NATO should happen too.

We are there for the right reasons and it is a conflict that can be won. We just haven't got the right leadership and mandate in place currently to do the job.

I've said all along that you don't go to war unless you are going to do everything in your power to win. Didn't Viet Nam teach us anything? Tying the hands of your troops and your generals, backing Islamist leaders and making the place safe and profitable for the Taliban's return isn't a good reason to be in Afghanistan. Pull all western troops out, give ten days warning and then nuke the fooking place and be done with it. They can all live in the mountains of Pakistan and plan for the Islamic takeover from their caves.

The original Hearts and Minds run by Lyautey in Morocco, was ferocious.
Quote "An area not occupied until sure it can be held. Withdrawal rightly seen as retreat and defeat and encouraging the enemy.
Dissidents defend their areas and oppose occupation, their villages and land are occupied, looted and often burnt. A search made for grain, all found is confiscated. Dissident fugitives pursued by patrols and their flocks raided. Lowland pastures and arable denied to dissidents, often their flocks starve in the mountains the first winter. Posts established to prevent dissidents using their fields, those who try are shot. Women doing so are arrested and traded back for weapons, old women and young women at the same time. Dissident areas are blockaded, people crossing line either way have their goods confiscated."
Did it work? Yup, for thirty years. Will the Yanks do it? No!

Oz at 10:36 AM: "The West is ready to do to the enemy what the enemy is ready to do to the West and then go one step further..."
============
Oh, but OZ. That would make us no better than them. /sarc

Our Liberal Man From Nuance, Canada's Father of Afghanistan Mission, the one with the feathers in his mouff, has a few words of free advice for Gen. O-CIG:

"A role in global security could keep the G8 relevant

Bill Graham, Canada’s former foreign affairs and defense minister, suggested a future course for the Group of Eight Tuesday."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/g8-g20/blog-global-view/a-role-in-global-security-could-keep-the-g8-relevant/article1604702/

(H/T PET Cemetery)

Why don't we just pretend that our enemies in Afghanistan are all Germans and Japanese?

We had absolutely no problem whatsoever launching multiple "Thousand Plane" bombing raids on German cities,killing millions of men,women and children.

We had absolutely no qualms about dropping 2 Atomic Bombs on Japanese cities and in the blink of an eye killing hundreds of thousands of men,women and children.

To paraphrase a line from Mel Brooks "Blazing Saddles":Why are we fighting this war like a bunch of "Kansas City Faggots"?

Shel @ 10:41 AM: "the USSR couldn't win, why would we?"
====================
You need only look at what was happening inside the Soviet Union to know why they "couldn't win". The Soviet regime was on the verge of collapse. There was no support for the communist system, let alone the war. It was Mikhail Gorbachev who withdrew the troops and it was only two years later that the USSR fell apart.

Perhaps you were still in diapers when that happened, but the Soviets couldn't even put bread and milk on the shelves of their grocery shelves. You should crack open a history book once in a while.

"December 25, 1991, Gorbachev resigned as president of the USSR, declaring the office extinct and ceding all the powers still vested in it to the president of Russia: Yeltsin".

Credit for that goes to President Ronald Reagan, may he rest in peace.

In a normal situation, if a military commander publicly voiced his comments about the commander-in-chief, then, he would rightfully be fired.

But this isn't a normal situation. Obama is a malignant president. He has no interest in or knowledge of terrorism; indeed he denies its existence. He has no knowledge of or interest in Afghanistan and Pakistan's role in Islamic terrorism. Remember, he took months before he even met with the military generals, and spent only about half an hour with them - and he took three months to reply to their request for more troops.

In this situation, I think that McChrystal's comments, leaked as they were, were valid reactions to the absence of a government leadership in this situation.

If Obama fires him, it's a sign of Obama's narcissism and weakness. But notice how many officials are dropping away from Obama. And how Obama, more and more, plays golf and appears in his office only from time to time.

War is hell. (period) Mr. G is right about WW11, them or us with broad strokes. It is hard to sharpshoot when everyone knows your position. ROE are for children's soccer games and generals live and breathe 20 to 0 scores. Politicians and clerics start this sh%t, then go golf and pray. I say frag the speechifiers and preachers, and leave the generals and their privates alone.

"Western countries never win foreign guerrilla wars." Did not the Brits win in Malaysia by fighting the reds by using their same tactics?

Oz @ 10:36 All three.

Stephen @ 11:12 said "Right now I don't think the populace would back a government that does this." And this is why WW II cost 50 million lives and it could have been stopped when Hitler marched into the Saar for possibly a few thousand lives.

there are too many Neville Chamberlains around again and the populace gets sucked in by false promises.

shel is a good example of this or it is a hard core communist.

Afghanistan has always been a trouble spot and I believe it will be so later on. What can and should be done is the destruction of the Taliban. Monsters who throw acid in girls' faces are not fit to live (there! I said it!). Everything else is cultural and political and stuff for the Afghanis to figure out themselves.
Just my thoughts.

Oz @ 10:36 All three.
~Ken (Kulak)

Yes, Ken, I meant all 3.
It wasn't a multiple choice quiz.
Feel free to add "d to z" and beyond.
Those were the most obvious points to me.

Something else:
Afghanistan happened to be where the 9/11 terrorists trained but they could just as easily have been trained in Pakistan, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, or Kosovo, etc.

The Pashtun Taliban government didn't give up Osama bin Laden when given an ultimatum because "they were the Taliban".
They resisted our demands because the Pashtunwali tradition, which the majority of Afghans practice, forbids giving up Muslims to infidels and demands that a host must protect a guest he has extended welcome to under all circumstances.

Those traditions will still exist when the Taliban is no more.
Having our troops continue occupation of Afghanistan will not change the traditions that led us to invade in the first place because "the Taliban was refusing to give up bin Laden".

Who here thinking we're there to "build the Afghan nation" wants our troops to leave Afghanistan if Osama bin Ladin was captured tomorrow?
After all, we didn't give a fig about Afghanistan before 9/11, did we?
Should we invade Indonesia or Sudan or Saudi Arabia to forcefully ween them from their Islamic barbarism next?

brick60: "Who are the guys fighting us then?"

Virtually all large operations and especially violent actions against civilians are run by Pakistan based operatives, and many of those are foreign to even Pakistan. Bomb planting is done mostly by peasants who get paid to do it and are often given no choice but to receive payment and do the task. Thousands of these "bomb planters" have been killed.

All polls conducted by NGOs and UN organizations show very strong support among Afghans for ISAF and a hate of the Taliban. I've spoken directly to enough soldiers who have been there to get independant confirmation. Furthermore, virtually all locally based Afghan organizations are requesting we stay ... especially since their members will be butchered if ISAF pulls out.

Villages that do not have 24/7 protection are terrorized by Talbian cells, and they are just trying to survive. Hence the surge, which is primarily set up to separate the villagers from the Taliban; not kill every Taliban ... an impossible task.

The biggest problem by far, is that with an end-date, locals know that there is a good chance the Taliban will be back in control of the South by 2012/13 ... so many are hedging their survival bets by appearing to stay neutral. They have to contend with the likes of Obama, and the Canadian Parliament, and NATO ... which are not willing to offer longterm protection.

What most people ignore, is that Afghan police, soldiers, and civilians are perishing in huge numbers at the hands of the Taliban, and they are perishing because they are fighting back. Police in particular have been killed by the boat load. It's not as if there isn't active support and work being done by Afghans, but there is no way they can do it alone against the foreign backed Jihadists and money of the drug cartels.

Canadians in particular are popular with Afghan villagers, but Canadian forces until recently couldn't stay in the countryside to protect them, so every night the thugs would come back in. To show overt support for any ISAF effort is to shorten one's life ... yet despite this, hundreds of thousands of Afghans are supporting, overtly, our guys.

Frankly though, any Afghan who has a brain won't support us, what with Canada's exit in 2011, Obama's draw down of 2011, and NATO draw downs, it's amazing any Afghan supports us.

Well, I have read the article in question. I have read through the comments here. Frankly, I do not believe one word of the article. It does not have the ring of truth to it. But it DOES have the ring of a set up. And, Rolling Stone magazine?
Come on. Whether Stanley McChrystal authorized this or not, and I do not believe he did, it does afford him another face to face with Bamby.
IF McChrystal is not fired, I would be surprised, yet it might be the catalyst to bring the troops home from Afghanistan and possibly Iraq ( Petraus fainting in front of Congress is particularly troubling) because when it comes right down to it, before it is all over US troops are going to be sorely needed on home soil.

Obama is a shameful Commander and Chief, as he spends his time pandering and submitting to Global Jihadi World leaders his men are dying whilst he edicts stupid ROEs that will get the troops killed. Is he purposely trying to get American Service men killed, or is he really that incompetant that he sends the troops out to patrol with no ammo in the chamber?

Either Obama wants to lose, or he's nuts, or both.

Get our boys out of there now!!!!
How can you fight a war with the leading commander who's on the other side?
Obama said he would stand by Muslims & its the only promise he's kept.
JMO

Obama is neither stupid nor incompetent. The sad fact is he and his gang of Marxist thugs are out to destroy capitalism and the USA. Just listen to the words he has spoken. He doesn't like anything about the US or its history or constitution. He apologises for it all over the world. He is in power to fundamentally change America. In order to accomplish that he needs to destroy it and rebuilt it into a socialist Utopia where social justice and collective rights rule the day. I understand many will see that as being crazy or over the top. But how else could anyone explain it? This is a disaster but it's no accident. All this in a year and a half. They've barely got started. Wait till he's finished.

All ISAF troops should be withdrawn starting yesterday. It's the foreign troops on 'native soil' that keeps the insurgency inflamed. How do you think N.Americans would react if the Saudis posted troops here to ensure that their vast economic interests in N.America were protected? It would likely create an 'insurgency' just like the Afghans and the Iraqis have done. 9/11 was brilliantly engineered to goad the US into putting troops on Islamic soil, thus giving OBL and his buddies the rationale they needed to whip up the insurgency. So far we've done little more than play into their hands. Get all foreign troops out ASAP and let the Indians, Pakistanis Afghans, and Chinese sort it out without foreign meddling. The cost of the US military has become an albatross around the neck of the US economy and it will only continue to drag the economy to it's knees.

Many of the commentators here are absolutely right that we can't win so long as we fight wars in an altruistic 'kid-glove' manner replete with restrictive ROEs and nation building (please look up "Just War Theory" on Ayn Rand Institute. I might add that importing the war on drugs into Afghanistan was absolutely retarded. I'm going to go ahead and pre-empt the "OBAMA IS COMmmie-nazi-islamist11" stuff by pointing out that all of these terrible policies were put in place by W, particularly his dumb Democracy Agenda.

McChrystal has tendered his resignation, whether or not O will accept it is another story.

Off of Drudge:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyharnden/100044536/breaking-general-stanley-mcchrystal-tenders-his-resignation/

*O'narcissist leader: "“angry, you would know it if you saw it”".

"Narcissistic injury inevitably leads to narcissistic rage and to a terrifying display of unbridled aggression."

"When these flimsy attempts to patch a tattered personal mythology fail - the narcissist is injured. Narcissistic injury inevitably leads to narcissistic rage and to a terrifying display of unbridled aggression. The pent-up frustration and hurt translate into devaluation. That which was previously idealized - is now discarded with contempt and hatred.

This primitive defense mechanism is called "splitting". To the narcissist, things and people are either entirely bad (evil) or entirely good. He projects onto others his own shortcomings and negative emotions, thus becoming a totally good object. A narcissistic leader is likely to justify the butchering of his own people by claiming that they intended to kill him, undo the revolution, devastate the economy, or the country, etc."

O'tick ... tick ... tick ...

...-

"...now that he has summoned General McChrystal to the White House, Eyjafjallajokull may not go down as the year’s biggest eruption as the U.S. President – described by his press secretary as “angry, you would know it if you saw it” – prepares to unleash his fury in person."

"Mr. Obama’s blood surely boiled at Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s praise of the U.S. military chief."

"Volcanic Obama set to erupt on McChrystal"

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/volcanic-obama-set-to-erupt-on-mcchrystal/article1614013/

...-

O'narcissist:

http://www.globalpolitician.com/25109-barack-obama-elections

""""McChrystal has tendered his resignation, whether or not O will accept it is another story."""

glacierman, I read that also, and feel that McChrystal has set Ozero up. As O can no longer fire McC, only accept or reject the offer, and this becomes a lose-lose situation for the O

It's amusing to see the endless rantings of those who focus all their fear, confusion and frustration on the POTUS because of their inability to grasp the big picture of how the US govt actually works. The same thing happened during the Bush regime with a different group of raving crazies. The POTUS is nothing more than a 'flack catcher', an effective distraction that keeps people from asking the important questions about what goes on behind the Oval Office. The US govt is run by career bureaucrats that keep advancing through the system regardless of who gets elected to Congress or the POTUS. The American sheeple have been scammed for decades by the expert bureaucrats of the military-industrial oligarchy that actually runs the US govt. So just keep railing against the POTUS, regardless of who it is, it's just part of the game you've been suckered into playing. You might as well be shouting up the asswhole of a dead horse for all the good it does beyond the false sense of self satisfaction created.

It’s like this:

If you decide to go to war, if you decide that winning is not your goal, go home.
Read campaigns of Alexander, you get the idea what to do when your idea is to win.
Now, don’t go about a different time, different place. The time is different, the place is the same.
You see you do a battle, before the enemy knows what hit them; you hit them again, relentlessly until they get the idea that there is nowhere to hide.
Some might know the story of a battle somewhere in today’s Turkey that Alexander just won. Standing with his general Parmenio on a hill overlooking a plain, seeing Darius and his army on the run he asked Parmenio if they should go after Persians. Parmenio said “if I was Alexander I would not”, Alexander tapped Parmenio on his shoulder and said “If I was Parmenio I would not either”. With that Alexander immediately led his army after Darius.

Today, the events in Afghanistan can hardly be described as a war. There is some pow pow here and pow pow there though it is rather isolated. There are too many limits on what the soldiers can do. The politicians are running the war and they of course think of their place in history books not so much about fighting a war they decided to enter.
Think of the technology behind the western armies, think of the other guys living in middle ages. The Afghanis have one thing going for them, they are home and are defending their way of life, whatever you may think of it.

You can’t institute democracy or any of the isms in a place where they don’t live by the same rules. It is a natural process to get to the state of democracy; you cannot force it, that itself would be undemocratic.
Look at their president, went to all kind of fine schools learned about democracy, learned all kinds of good stuff, went back home and is just as corrupt as those that stayed home, never went to school.

General McChristal is history. Would be surprised if not.
Whatever you may think of the current occupant of the White House, it matters not.
In the hierarchy of command the president is on top, all others do what he says even if no one has respect for him. If you have a beef, you better think how you go about speaking your mind; it can be done though it is difficult.
However good a general might be McChristal is irrelevant in this case. The White House occupant has to fire him. As bad as this may sound, if the general is not fired, that would be another blunder for the occupant.

If you git caught, you are toast. End of story.

The only rule to remember when dealing with the Taliban is that there are no rules. This is war, and you can't rebuild until the Taliban is no longer a factor. Let's get our priorities straight.

General McChrystal has very cleverly painted Obama into a corner. He made blunt, candid, truthful comments which he knew would earn a Presidential rebuke, and then tendered his resignation. If Obama accepts the resignation then General McChrystal is free to speak openly in criticism of the Afghan clusterf*ck; if Obama refuses to accept the resignation then he's tacitly accepting that General McChrystal's criticism is correct. General McChrystal wins either way.

General McChrystal has very cleverly painted Obama into a corner. He made blunt, candid, truthful comments which he knew would earn a presidential rebuke, and then tendered his resignation. If Obama accepts the resignation then General McChrystal is free to speak openly in criticism of the Afghan clusterphuck; if Obama refuses to accept the resignation then he's tacitly accepting that General McChrystal's criticism is correct. General McChrystal wins either way.

I hear from Mark Levin that the O admin took potshots at McChrystal and his staff and other in the military via articles in left leaning rags a month ago. That article from Rolling Stone stinks to high heaven. Not one thing in it can be attributed directly to McChrystal, only innuendo by 'some of his staff'. This is a put up job and they are going to make McChrystal the fall guy. I have no doubt of it. Obama is losing in Afghanistan because he refuses what is needed to win it. He should be impeached and the sooner the better. Much sooner, before we are all living under Sharia Law. After all Obama wouldn't want to deny his 'Muslim roots'. Everything he has touched he has ruined. From health care to the financial institutions to the gulf to Afghanistan, it is all a mess of the first order and the stink is unbearable. And so McChrystal is going to wear this. I hope that if he does resign or Obama fires him, as Mark Levin suggests: That he then tells us what is REALLY going on.

Shocking...McChrystal is crystal clear and correct.

A mature US government would simply state that like anyone, he is entitled to have a personal opinion.

A wise US government would simply state "lower your voice and get the job done."

A wise US government would provide clear stratedgy instructions.

MsChrystal is frustrated with muddled mixed messages from a confused US government.

Too bad, but this caveman head chopping Muslem cancer must be chopped off at the knees before Iranian Shia clerics and Pakistani two-faced traitors inspire 400 million fence-sitting Muslims to join their cause.

Untreated, the cancer WILL spread. Putin quit because Communism fell apart. Remember?