Thread: "Who Betrays Us?"

>
>
> The American Thinker
>
> June 29, 2010
>
> Who Betrays Us?
> by G. Murphy Donovan
>
> Crystal is not glass. Strike crystal and it rings like a bell. When it
> breaks, crystal makes a special noise, a sound like the end of music. The
> other day, we heard the end of a special elegy, the 24 notes of taps, when
> General Stanley McChrystal furled his flag.
>
> McChrystal was no ordinary infantryman; he chose the road not taken. Rangers
> are a unique fraternity where only extraordinary warriors thrive. Those who
> rise to the top in any calling often walk a fine line between genius and
> eccentricity, and soldiers are no exception. General McChrystal crossed the
> line more than once, but he never stepped on a land mine until Rolling Stone
> magazine came to do a "profile" at HQ Afghanistan.
>
> The agent of McChrystal's demise was an effete freelancer who looks and
> sounds like a prep school refugee. Michael Hastings was on special
> assignment for a magazine whose usual fare is sex, drugs, and rock & roll.
> Yet, like Hugh Hefner's Playboy, Jann Wenner's Rolling Stone has cultural
> pretensions. Those affectations were on full display in the McChrystal
> issue. Lady Gaga [sic] graces the cover; equipped with a bullet brassiere on
> full auto. Ms. Gaga is a performance artist whose cultural niche is defined
> by Madonna groupies.
>
> Like Hefner, Wenner panders to a young and, by their own definition, hip
> demographic of readers under 30 years of age; both publishers might
> charitably be described as priapic geriatrics at 84 and 64 years of age,
> respectively. Like all purveyors of progressive culture, Wenner has trouble
> separating value and vulgarity. And to no one's surprise, he consistently
> carries water for the left -- as a Clintonista or, more recently, as an
> Obama contributor.
>
> From any perspective, we have to assume that General McChrystal and/or his
> staff was aware of these things and the risks of having of an antiwar zealot
> in their midst. The key question to be answered is: Who was using whom?
>
> After Afghanistan, a maverick like McChrystal wasn't going to be selected
> for a political job like Army Chief of Staff. Hard to picture McChrystal,
> like the incumbent George Casey, making the rounds of the Sunday gab shows
> reminding citizens that the feelings of Muslims are more important than the
> safety of soldiers massacred at Ft. Hood, Texas. And surely McChrystal
> wasn't a candidate to follow Mike Mullen into the political swamp at the
> JCS. On the Pentagon's E Ring, Mullen is better known for social issues,
> like gay rights for sailors, than he is for war-fighting. There were no
> stars in McChrystal's future, either; he already had his four.
>
> McChrystal is a country music fan, so no doubt he's familiar with
> Kristofferson's iconic line: "Freedom's just another word for nothing left
> to lose." When McChrystal let the fox into the Afghan hen house, he knew
> which huevos were in play.
>
> Before the Rolling Stone controversy, the friction between the "White House
> wimps" and the military brass was the worst-kept secret in Washington. Yet
> the rift, from the beginning, was cultivated by the president -- and what
> can be described only as a cabal of divisive beltway toadies. From the
> start, Obama ignored the field commander, refused to define the enemy or
> describe the end game -- or explain to the American public why Afghanistan
> "is a war of necessity." The party line had three "soft" features: don't use
> the word "war," don't mention Islam, and restrict descriptions of the bad
> guys to either Taliban or al-Qaeda.
>
> Shortly after the election, Obama put on his long pants and fired the
> previous ISAF commander in Afghanistan -- and then dithered for months over
> troop deployments. Since then, the White House has been driving on a
> learner's permit. In the past year and a half, the commander in chief has
> met the tactical commander on few occasions; McChrystal, in contrast, has
> met with Hamid Karzai, face to face, over fifty times during the same
> period. If McChrystal claims Obama is "disengaged" only on the subject of
> war, the general is being generous.
>
> The hapless Senate majority leader, Harry Reid (D-NV), told America that the
> Iraq "war is lost" just before the last American election. A newly elected
> vice president followed up with very public carping at General McChrystal's
> expense. If there were ever a toady who should be cashiered for loose lips,
> it's Joe Biden (hereafter known as Joe "Bite Me" to troops in the field).
> Biden doesn't just put his foot in his mouth; he doesn't bother to remove
> his shoes after he steps in something. Biden's advice on Iraq was to
> subdivide it -- i.e., into three new states [sic] -- as if the U.N. didn't
> have enough dysfunctional members.
>
> "Team" Obama was augmented by Richard Holbrooke and Karl Eikenberry early
> on, both sent to Kabul, presumably, to make sure McChrystal walked the "soft
> power" walk. Unfortunately, neither Holbroke nor Eikenberry plays well with
> other adults.
>
> Holbrooke's function in South Asia is as a dark swan. He doesn't seem to get
> along with anyone but himself. In the foggy world of diplomacy, androgyny,
> and cookie-pushing, Holbrooke stands out. He is supposed to be a special
> envoy, but his specialties might be limited to arrogance and petulance.
> Holbrooke, former Clintonista and incumbent Karzai-basher, doesn't play well
> with third-world leaders or allied military officers.
>
> And Eikenberry's performance isn't too far removed from Holbrooke's. Soon
> after arriving in Kabul, Ambassador Eikenberry started to "back-channel"
> McChrystal, (i.e., send critical, uncomplimentary reports back to
> Washington). Indeed, Eikenberry's pique seems to have been tweaked because a
> Brit, and not Eikenberry, was appointed "viceroy" -- a slight he seems to
> lay at the feet of a Karzai/McChrystal conspiracy. Eikenberry was miscast in
> Rolling Stone as a martinet "stuck in 1985"; the year may be closer to 1895,
> and the Eikenberry character could have come straight out of "Gilbert and
> Sullivan."
>
> On the U.N. side of Kabul, the blue helmets were having a civil war of their
> own. Norway's Kai Eide and his American deputy, Peter Galbraith, had a
> transnational shootout over the legitimacy of Hamid Karzai's election in
> 2009. Galbraith got fired, Karzai got a second term, and Eide took the
> Quisling special back to Scandinavia. Eide was and remains an ardent fan of
> accommodation with the Taliban.
>
> These "team" players were supplemented by a gaggle of second-guessers back
> in Washington, with the president's national security advisor, Jim Jones, on
> point. Jones' most recent contribution to the clueless sweeps was a "greedy
> Jew" joke spliced into a speech that was supposed to underline American
> support of Israel. After eighteen months in office, the Commander in Chief
> has traveled to several Arab, Turkish, and Muslim capitals, yet never to
> Israel. Mr. Obama's Islamic globetrotting sends a message consistent with
> Jones' taste in jokes. From the beginning, the former Marine commandant,
> like Joe Biden, also made loud noises that undermined or contradicted
> McChrystal's strategy at the front.
>
> So what's a soldier to do when a president hand-picks him to lead the charge
> in combat and then allows lower-echelon cockroaches to eat his lunch?
> McChrystal did what any good guerrilla fighter would do: He let another
> insect carry a poison pill back to a dysfunctional nest. Indeed, General
> McChrystal performed one final service for his country: He used a press
> nitwit to expose a confederacy of national security dunces using the
> prescribed "soft" tactics -- things like toxic ridicule.
>
> The clincher in all of this is Hillary; she comes off like the Cheshire cat,
> grinning from ear to ear while the Oval Office tries to put lipstick on
> another pig. Clinton has kept her distance: "Give him [McChrystal] what he
> wants," says she. If and when the Obama national security crowd
> self-destructs, Hilary can say "I told you so," pick up the pieces, and do a
> pantssuit rendition of what Bobby Kennedy did to Lyndon Johnson in 1968.
>
> Any idea that McChrystal was insubordinate or threatened civilian authority
> is bravo sierra, as they say in the barracks. The general simply raised the
> blinds and let in some light. He even helped the young president to grow up
> a bit. On the day Obama let his field commander go, the president used the
> word "war" to describe the Afghan conflict. That's progress! Obama then
> appointed a third field commander in eighteen months; demoting the CENTCOM
> commander to replace McChrystal in Kabul.
>
> And yes, the new guy is the old David Petraeus, who, when serving in Iraq
> under George Bush, was vilified by the left, including then-Senator Obama,
> as a liar and traitor. Indeed, the same news outlets that published those
> scurrilous George Soros ads now celebrate the Petraeus choice as "inspired."
> General "Betray Us" under a Republican has morphed into General "Save Us"
> under a Democrat. So much for politics stopping at the water's edge.
>
> So what's the plan now? It appears the exit strategy for Iraq and
> Afghanistan is on schedule (according to Joe Bite Me) and Petraeus will be
> the happy face of at least one success, even if it belongs to the previous
> administration. Yet the president is still hostage to a campaign slogan,
> that "war of necessity." Unfortunately, the Oval Office position is already
> flanked left and right. The incumbent does not want to carry any war, of
> choice or necessity, into the next presidential cycle. And the Cheshire cat
> just grins and waits.
>
> All of this highlights the distinction between politics Chicago-style and
> principled soldiering McChrystal-style. Given a choice between sacrifice and
> survival, which road do men of character take? McChrystal has answered that
> question: He fell on his sword. Obama will get back to us in thirteen
> months.
>
> Stanley McChrystal may have furled his flag, but let's hope he has not
> spiked his guns. In or out of Iraq and Afghanistan, the threat whose name we
> dare not speak will get worse before it gets better. When it does, real
> soldiers will need to strap on their irons again. Keep your powder dry,
> Stan.
>
> The author is a Vietnam veteran with 25 years of military service. He also
> writes at G. Murphy Donovan and Agnotology in Journalism.
> 68 Comments on "Who Betrays Us?"



Kathyet

Excellent editorial piece, can you provide the link?

here is 1 link I found



http://ljpkjsah.wordpress.com/2010/07/0 ... etrays-us/


here is the other one

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2543508/posts

Kathyet

Maybe Obama "is" the anti-christ.

Truth is we still do not know if he was born of any woman, as the anti-christ will not be born of a woman (born of water) - the archangel Michael will throw satan down on earth when it happens.

Originally Posted by GR

Maybe Obama "is" the anti-christ.

Truth is we still do not know if he was born of any woman, as the anti-christ will not be born of a woman (born of water) - the archangel Michael will throw satan down on earth when it happens.

GR,
I had to do a quick chuckle when I read your reply, because the same thought of the anti-christ not being born of a woman (remember the movie The Omen?) actually popped into my mind just a couple of days ago out of the blue - though I was thinking of how cold and emotionless obama seems most of the time.

I don't know about obama being the anti-christ (much has been speculated on this subject over the years) but the man gave me the creeps from the moment I first started seeing him on tv a few years ago. And I'm firm in my personal belief that he not a "good" man.