Michael Collins on Obama vs. Celebrity Generals: "Obama is maneuvering brilliantly"

At APJ Online:Obama has both the public and Gates on his side. It's time for Celebrity Generals Petraeus and Odierno to STFU and get back in the chain of command.

Me too.

They were never anything more than Bush/Cheney YES MEN. They are typically U.S. military academy suck-asses who kiss ass all the way to the top, because that's how it's done in the military. The competent generals were fired by Bush and replaced with these power mad assholes.

I look forward to the day when President Obama cans their asses, with no freakin' Freedom Medal either.

In corporate America it's called "leaving to pursue opportunities elsewhere" or at least that
was what it was called.

How is the president going to run foreign policy if a general has veto power over foreign wars
and deployments?

This was calculated, particularly the Election Day crack in Fox News. It deserves what it got -
a thrashing in the TimesOnline as a warning and more to come, I hope.

He has indeed indicated he'd like to be president, so that is what is motivating his every move. His political ambitions and his career. Not the welfare of the troops or the mission or the ability to carry out his superior's orders or anything. And if that's the case, if he's truly "in business" for himself, then he should be removed. Insubordination should not be tolerated. Obama's the Commander-in-Chief. He's THE BOSS. He's petraeus's BOSS. It's NOT the other way around.

:hi:

What are these characters up to? It's Congress that has war making powers, the president who has taken them (all presidents since Truman), and the people who have some control since they get to vote in selecting them. But who votes on generals?

think about it.

"And what's the game-plan, then, men? What's the grand strategy to beat 'em and get out asap?"

"Er... er.... er... Let's think about this some more. Give us more time, will you, Mr President?"

"Well, bear in mind, won't you, how many dollars (specify in round figures) these wars, the objects of which seem unclear to you, are costing the American people, each day. Treading water indefinitely is not an option. We have to arrive at some shore, some time. And to do that will take focus and movement. Do I make myself clear? Thank you. That will be all for the present"

It's elegant and witty.

My hats off to johnfunk. Anyone of the "funk" clan has to be honored!

And how about this reprise of this excellent thread;)

on about expecting a strategic plan from you! Ever been had?

How dare you presume to give unsolicited advice to your Commander-in-Chief? And insistently, too boot!

Now march up and down on the spot until I come back. At the double! I'm going to the john. Left, right, left, right, left, right.... Then I shall consult Mr Collins as to an appropriate punishment for you: "keel-hauling or the lash?"

That's incredible. Long and very worth the read.

I actually wrote one around 1100 words this month.

This is fascinating stuff. I didn't know about the sparring over time between Obama and Petrasus. But what about that Nov. 4, 2008 remark by Petraeus - to Fox News!

As I said,


Can Gen. Petraeus and Gen. Odierno count?
Image: pursuethepassion cc


(See this thread too;) Not as cool as johnfunk's but working on it http://tinyurl.com/bt6l4d

Truman busted MacArthur.

Lincoln busted McClellan.

There's a precedent for the President here.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/02/generals-seek-to-reverse_n_163070.html

<snip>

WASHINGTON, Feb 2 (IPS) - CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus, supported by Defence Secretary Robert Gates, tried to convince President Barack Obama that he had to back down from his campaign pledge to withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 16 months at an Oval Office meeting Jan. 21.

But Obama informed Gates, Petraeus and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen that he wasn't convinced and that he wanted Gates and the military leaders to come back quickly with a detailed 16-month plan, according to two sources who have talked with participants in the meeting.

Obama's decision to override Petraeus's recommendation has not ended the conflict between the president and senior military officers over troop withdrawal, however. There are indications that Petraeus and his allies in the military and the Pentagon, including Gen. Ray Odierno, now the top commander in Iraq, have already begun to try to pressure Obama to change his withdrawal policy.

A network of senior military officers is also reported to be preparing to support Petraeus and Odierno by mobilising public opinion against Obama's decision.

Petraeus was visibly unhappy when he left the Oval Office, according to one of the sources. A White House staffer present at the meeting was quoted by the source as saying, "Petraeus made the mistake of thinking he was still dealing with George Bush instead of with Barack Obama."

-------

I'll grant that insubordination is a strong term, but surely you'd agree that having the CENTCOM commander openly try to suborn the Commander-in-Chief's authority is cause for concern?

Should senior military officers be "preparing to support Petraeus and Odierno by mobilising public opinion against Obama's decision."?

If you disagree or have a beef with my post, why don't you tell me what it is?

Now, may I ask you once more:

Should senior military officers be "preparing to support Petraeus and Odierno by mobilising public opinion against Obama's decision."?

It's quite difficult to have a dialog with you, because you won't elaborate at all, and you refuse to answer questions.

That said, I see the situation with Gen. Petraeus as a big problem for the President; a general who chooses to disobey the Commander-in-Chief.

Lincoln fired McClellan.

Truman fired MacArthur.

Obama can, and should, fire Petraeus.

Good night, Dave.

According to a source, he had a meeting in which he attempted to change the Presidents mind. According to a source, he was unsuccessful and left looking unhappy. He has made no public comment about this meeting and apparently is doing as Obama wishes. I'm not trying to be difficult, I don't see how anything that was reported by the anonymous source in this article could possibly be construed as insubordination. That's why I asked you specifically to what you were referring.
Good night I hope you sleep well. As soon as my painkillers kick in I hope to also.

David

You, presumably, construe this to indicate that he statd his case, and left.

The impression most of us, however, is that he argued his "case" insistently. That would have constituted insubordination, although a brusque dismissal would have been the appropriate respnse from Obama, imo.

Presumably, he didn't barge in, but asked for an interview. Did he specify what he wished to discuss? Perhaps "insubordination" is too strongly legalistic, but "presumption" certainly seems to fit the bill. It sounds like a replay of Patton and Eisenhower. Although, however farcical Patton's assessment of the situation vis-a-vis trying to muscle out the Russians, at least he could claim to envisage a resolution, however risibly misconceived.

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=45720

That's more than a private disagreement. It's a public disagreement and THEN it is misleading
about Obama's position.

Obama did respond - TimesOnline - and it was clear that he was not happy.

Generals don't do PR unless they want to be tagged as running their own show. Petraeus wasn't elected
to anything. It's a bad deal for all involved, especially the public and, more importantly, the soldiers stuck in that Hell hole.

Well see how it turns out.

It was clearly rank insubordination of a major and despicably devious order.

Got to laugh at the idea of a Republican presidential candidate in 2012, though! Now, we know for sure, Petraeus is a loser!

Palin & Petraeus -

Showing America the new age of gender equality
where the domination starts at the top!

The primaries would be great, particularly the debates.

Titanic egos;)

Then refuse to state why he and Gates are there. Then try to tell the President how it's going to be. I simply don't believe that our President would have put up with that. If that had been the case he would already be retired and Obama would have named someone to take his place. That goes for Gates also.

David

did not smack of insubordination - at best! If the report of Obama's anonymous aide is true, they've been putting it about that he wanted three possible scenarios, when he only ever asked them for his, what, 16 month deadline?

If true - and personally I doubt anyone in his position could profit from lying in the matter - that amounts to insubordination of a scandalous order. But then scandalous behaviour has always been the Neocons' life-blood. A journalist here came up with the sarcastic phrase, "military-industrial-nation-building complex".

My argument was the behavior in the cited article couldn't be called insubordination. Clearly the actions that other people have mentioned after that could be. So you'll have to be more specific.

David

He presumed that the next President would be interested in his strategic "take", and would state it insistently, in any case. Policies of state are not his province at.all. He's a battlefield commander. Period. Unless and until his opinion on the wider issue of the war's rationale was put to him.

That is insubordination, at least in spirit. So why did you doubt that he would be as good(bad) as his word? But I take your point about my missing the timing of the posts re the latter.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/02/generals-seek-...

<snip>

WASHINGTON, Feb 2 (IPS) - CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus, supported by Defence Secretary Robert Gates, tried to convince President Barack Obama that he had to back down from his campaign pledge to withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 16 months at an Oval Office meeting Jan. 21.

But Obama informed Gates, Petraeus and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen that he wasn't convinced and that he wanted Gates and the military leaders to come back quickly with a detailed 16-month plan, according to two sources who have talked with participants in the meeting.

Obama's decision to override Petraeus's recommendation has not ended the conflict between the president and senior military officers over troop withdrawal, however. There are indications that Petraeus and his allies in the military and the Pentagon, including Gen. Ray Odierno, now the top commander in Iraq, have already begun to try to pressure Obama to change his withdrawal policy.

A network of senior military officers is also reported to be preparing to support Petraeus and Odierno by mobilising public opinion against Obama's decision.

Petraeus was visibly unhappy when he left the Oval Office, according to one of the sources. A White House staffer present at the meeting was quoted by the source as saying, "Petraeus made the mistake of thinking he was still dealing with George Bush instead of with Barack Obama."


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

It was this specific article to which I argued that I couldn't find insubordination within the comments in the article.

David

On Election Day Petraeus said no matter who is president, we need to be in Iraq at current levels for
a good time. See my link to Fox News of 11/4/2009. After Obama was inaugurated, the campaign started
up and a private meeting became public, where Petraeus and his Iraq commandeer pressed Obama to abandon announced policy - a timed withdrawal.

How did the meeting become public - it was leaked to the press - by Petrraeus.

insubordination
One entry found.

Main Entry:
in·sub·or·di·nate Listen to the pronunciation of insubordinate
Pronunciation:
\ˌin(t)-sə-ˈbȯr-də-nət, -ˈbȯrd-nət\
Function:
adjective
Date:
circa 1828

: disobedient to authority
Websters

(clearly the leak of his meeting and the details is an act of disobedience to authorith, the president by making private business public.

Or toward the Commander in Chief

See details about MacArthur being fired by Truman. MacArthur wanted to fight on in radical ways in
Korea. He was very public about this. It was viewed as a defiance of authority and he was fired
by Truman, who asserted the civil authority over the military.

POLITICO http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=45720

POLITICS-US: Petraeus Leaked Misleading Story on Pullout Plans
Analysis by Gareth Porter*

Gen. David Petraeus with then-Senator Barack Obama after his arrival Jul. 21, 2008 at Baghdad International Airport.

Credit:U.S. DoD/Staff Sgt. Lorie Jewell

WASHINGTON, Feb 9 (IPS) - The political maneuvering between President Barack Obama and his top field commanders over withdrawal from Iraq has taken a sudden new turn with the leak by CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus - and a firm denial by a White House official - of an account of the Jan. 21 White House meeting suggesting that Obama had requested three different combat troop withdrawal plans with their respective associated risks, including one of 23 months.

The Petraeus account, reported by McClatchy newspapers Feb. 5 and then by the Associated Press the following day, appears to indicate that Obama is moving away from the 16-month plan he had vowed during the campaign to implement if elected. But on closer examination, it doesn't necessarily refer to any action by Obama or to anything that happened at the Jan. 21 meeting.

The real story of the leak by Petraeus is that the most powerful figure in the U.S. military has tried to shape the media coverage of Obama and combat troop withdrawal from Iraq to advance his policy agenda - and, very likely, his personal political interests as well.

This writer became aware of Petraeus's effort to influence the coverage of Obama's unfolding policy on troop withdrawal when a military source close to the general, who insisted on anonymity, offered the Petraeus account on Feb. 4. The military officer was responding to the IPS story 'Generals Seek to Reverse Obama Withdrawal Decision' published two days earlier .

Leaking a misleading story to the press misdirects the public and foreign powers as to Obama's intentions. This is willful undermining of a Commander in Chief - what would you call that?

Thanks for bringing it to my attention. You'll notice it wasn't in the thread to which I responded.

David

I'm surprised that a challenge like this came up so quickly.

It's always helpful to learn how to count and some have not. I'd say that Obama has handled this
with great skill and is in a position to exert some huge leverage with the "bipartisan" approach.
These right wingers are coming across as push and disrespectful, which is rarely a good thing.

Even MacArthur at the height of his popularity lost out when he challenged Truman.

As Roseanna used to say, "It's always something!"

To paraphrase one of the greatest lines EVER:

"General, if you're not using the army at the moment, I should like to borrow it."

Isn't that the truth. Lincoln never liked the guy but he was stuck. They he chased him off
and won the war. Of course, McClellan ran against Lincoln and got beat again.

Thanks for that!

:kick:

:kick:

:bounce: if you can. :evilgrin: