-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Gen. Stanley McChrystal: on the job market soon ... ???
- Thread starter A4sForever
- Start date
Let the record show that Flash was wrong.
I can live with being right 99% of the time.
Silly question. Patraeus of course.
It could end up reasonably well, if Petraeus gets personally involved (at least for awhile), Eikenberry and Holbrooke get replaced with people that support the program, and the President uses this as an excuse to remove the deadline. I'm not sure that he is willing to stand up to the left third of the Democratic party, though.
That hasn't been the practice since the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq started, each with their own CG's, and I would be a bit surprised to see that change. Even with Iraq winding down Lt Gen Austin will take over and receive a fourth star just to command US Forces-Iraq.
I wonder if SecState is having a willing suspension of disbelief that President Obama put Petraeus in charge of Afghanistan.
Yeah no kiddin' !!
Back to the books Eddie. CENTCOM is NOT a "major command". That is used in Air Force to describe their MAJCOMs, which are general officer commands under a Combatant Command, which is what I think you meant to say.
Note: In the Navy a Major Command is an O-6 level command following O-5 Command. Typical Major Commands are bases or Carrier Air Wings or even Program Offices in NAVAIR.
Interesting observations by VDH:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTMyZWI5NmYzYmIxZmZlYWM5Y2JiYjRlZmQwYzRjYWU=
The closing paragraph:
It is one of ironies of our present warped climate that Petraeus will face far less criticism from the media and politicians than during 2007–8 (there will be no more “General Betray Us” ads or “suspension of disbelief” ridicule), because his success this time will reflect well on Obama rather than George Bush. It is a further irony that Obama is surging with Petraeus despite not long ago declaring that such a strategy and such a commander were failures in Iraq. And it is an even further irony that he is now rightly calling for “common purpose” when — again not long ago, at a critical juncture in Iraq — Obama himself, for partisan purposes on the campaign trail, had no interest in the common purpose of military success in Iraq.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTMyZWI5NmYzYmIxZmZlYWM5Y2JiYjRlZmQwYzRjYWU=
The closing paragraph:
It is one of ironies of our present warped climate that Petraeus will face far less criticism from the media and politicians than during 2007–8 (there will be no more “General Betray Us” ads or “suspension of disbelief” ridicule), because his success this time will reflect well on Obama rather than George Bush. It is a further irony that Obama is surging with Petraeus despite not long ago declaring that such a strategy and such a commander were failures in Iraq. And it is an even further irony that he is now rightly calling for “common purpose” when — again not long ago, at a critical juncture in Iraq — Obama himself, for partisan purposes on the campaign trail, had no interest in the common purpose of military success in Iraq.
Clux4
Banned
Really? There are people that respect the President in today's military. Their voices are drowned by those that like to listen to themselves.
It is not as if Obama was looking to fire McChrystal all along.
I don't think the President is having a power play. Why should he? It is simple; I am in charge motherfu....
How long before someone asks the president, vice president, and sec state to account for these earlier comments?
That's probably spot on.