General Petraeus undermining the Commander in Chief?

[ChrisFromNJ]

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=45640

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If any of this is true, Petraeus needs to be relieved of his duties immediately and tried for mutiny. Know your role, General. You don't call the shots anymore like you did when the puppet W was in charge.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Assuming that the leaks behind this story are accurate, we have a general who is trying to advance what he considers to be good policy while at the same time presenting a way to do it without causing Obama to renege on a campaign promise.  Hardly out of line in and of itself.

The only problem would be if we have active duty officers trying to generate outside political support.  Assuming that the "network of senior military officers" actually exists and isn't just a figment of left-wing conspiracy nits, I expect they are retired officers, not active duty.

[ChrisFromNJ]

Assuming that the leaks behind this story are accurate, we have a general who is trying to advance what he considers to be good policy while at the same time presenting a way to do it without causing Obama to renege on a campaign promise.  Hardly out of line in and of itself.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This sounds like something entirely different to me. It sounds like somebody who is not happy with his orders.

[Stampever]

Petraeus is trying to do his job of protecting our nation while administrating two wars.  His job isn't to agree with the President, and if that means he needs to pool more military personnel to provide the President with more information and to have him reconsider what would be a militaristically bad policy decision, then he needs to do so.  After all, you don't want a President that makes up his own mind and then stays the course, even if it is a wrong policy, right?

[Nixon in '80]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This story is simply fluff and agenda, and this quote wraps both up perfectly.

[Eraserhead]

I've never liked Petraeus anyway. Just figure out a way to get rid of him. Maybe he can become a football referee or something.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Assuming that the leaks behind this story are accurate, we have a general who is trying to advance what he considers to be good policy while at the same time presenting a way to do it without causing Obama to renege on a campaign promise.  Hardly out of line in and of itself.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This sounds like something entirely different to me. It sounds like somebody who is not happy with his orders.

Sounds like a staffer with an ax to grind against the military for not being willing to simply give up in Iraq just because Democrats were certain the surge would be a total failure.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

General Betray us hates America.

[dead0man]

Here comes the revolution!

[Reaganfan]

I think the problem is, the Military's goal is always to "win". Not to "leave" or "withdraw" but to achieve "VICTORY". It's hard when the Commander of the United States Armed Forces is someone who doesn't want "victory".

[dead0man]

With what happened in Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq I and Lebanon can you blame us?

[Landslide Lyndon]

I think the problem is, the Military's goal is always to "win". Not to "leave" or "withdraw" but to achieve "VICTORY". It's hard when the Commander of the United States Armed Forces is someone who doesn't want "victory".

It would help of course if the Generals could define Victory.
Because if by victory they mean a stable, western-style democracy, then good luck with that.

[Meeker]

I think the problem is, the Military's goal is always to "win". Not to "leave" or "withdraw" but to achieve "VICTORY". It's hard when the Commander of the United States Armed Forces is someone who doesn't want "victory".

The military's "goal" is whatever the Commander-in-Chief wants it to be. If the military has any other goals then we have a serious problem.

[Reaganfan]

I think the problem is, the Military's goal is always to "win". Not to "leave" or "withdraw" but to achieve "VICTORY". It's hard when the Commander of the United States Armed Forces is someone who doesn't want "victory".

The military's "goal" is whatever the Commander-in-Chief wants it to be. If the military has any other goals then we have a serious problem.

Oh, I fully understand that.

[Meeker]

I think the problem is, the Military's goal is always to "win". Not to "leave" or "withdraw" but to achieve "VICTORY". It's hard when the Commander of the United States Armed Forces is someone who doesn't want "victory".

The military's "goal" is whatever the Commander-in-Chief wants it to be. If the military has any other goals then we have a serious problem.

Oh, I fully understand that.

Your previous comment seems to indicate otherwise...

[ChrisFromNJ]

I think the problem is, the Military's goal is always to "win". Not to "leave" or "withdraw" but to achieve "VICTORY". It's hard when the Commander of the United States Armed Forces is someone who doesn't want "victory".

The military's "goal" is whatever the Commander-in-Chief wants it to be. If the military has any other goals then we have a serious problem.

Oh, I fully understand that.

I don't think you do. You made it sound like the military's goal should differ from the commander in chief's goal. That is not the case.

[dead0man]

I think we all agree that at the end of the day, all decisions on when to use the military or not rest in the hands of Obama and his staff.  I also think (and I'm assuming Mike does too) that Obama should at least hear his Generals out.  It's not particularly clear if he did that or not.  If he did, then good, that's all we can ask.  If he had his mind made up already and it didn't matter what they told him, then that's a problem.

(Not that I wouldn't be a little leery of Generals that were big Bush supporters if I were Obama.  I don't know if he needs to be or not, but I can certainly understand if he is.)

[paul718]

If any of this is true, Petraeus needs to be relieved of his duties immediately and tried for mutiny. Know your role, General. You don't call the shots anymore like you did when the puppet W was in charge.

You want Petraeus removed for being "visibly angry"?  Presidents and Generals have always banged heads, and to a much larger degree than this.  Wasn't Bush the one who dismissed Generals who didn't agree with him?  You want Obama to follow that practice? 

[Reaganfan]

I just saw an "Army Strong" commercial...and they say "destroy the enemy" and "will not accept defeat."

It is a fact, that Obama wants to "talk to the enemy" and "wants withdrawl" before 100% victory...which is defeat.

[Brittain33]

I just saw an "Army Strong" commercial...and they say "destroy the enemy" and "will not accept defeat."

The key word there is "commercial." They write those commercials to appeal to people who are basically you--young men who will consider the military for a career.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I just saw an "Army Strong" commercial...and they say "destroy the enemy" and "will not accept defeat."

The key word there is "commercial." They write those commercials to appeal to people who are basically you--young men who will consider the military for a career.

You appear to be saying that adverts are often dishonest.

[paul718]

You appear to be saying that adverts are often dishonest.

You appear to be saying that "adverts" is an acceptable abbreviation for "advertisements". 

[Filuwaúrdjan]

You appear to be saying that adverts are often dishonest.

You appear to be saying that "adverts" is an acceptable abbreviation for "advertisements". 

Indeed I am, indeed I am.

[Brittain33]

I just saw an "Army Strong" commercial...and they say "destroy the enemy" and "will not accept defeat."

The key word there is "commercial." They write those commercials to appeal to people who are basically you--young men who will consider the military for a career.

You appear to be saying that adverts are often dishonest.

Someone had to take the Captain Obvious crown from that guy who keeps quoting other people's posts without comment.

[Eraserhead]

I just saw an "Army Strong" commercial...and they say "destroy the enemy" and "will not accept defeat."

It is a fact, that Obama wants to "talk to the enemy" and "wants withdrawl" before 100% victory...which is defeat.

And we know that these commercials are based in reality, of course.