Adios McCrystal

[Wonderment]

May the departure of McCrystal mark the beginning of the end of Obama's surge in Afghanistan. It's time to reevaluate the whole mission, call off the drones in the region, dump Karzai and get out.

On the other hand, debacles like this often make warlords dig in their heels.

Thoughts?

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

May the departure of McCrystal mark the beginning of the end of Obama's surge in Afghanistan. It's time to reevaluate the whole mission, call off the drones in the region, dump Karzai and get out.

On the other hand, debacles like this often make warlords dig in their heels.

Thoughts?

I hadn't heard about this, so thanks for the heads up.

For those in a similar boat, here is a news story from Dexter Filkins. [Update: this link now points to what appears to be an updated report. Two different reporters now have the byline, and Filkins is credited as a contributor in the footnote. Developing ..., to coin a term.]

Also, here is a short, interesting post from Jon Taplin, which came up first when I Googled departure of McCrystal. (Possible skewing in these search results should be noted, as I am reminded that our General Stanley A. spells his last name McChrystal.)

More news links here, using the latter spelling. Here is the current top Google News result from Fox.

[Added] I probably should have said "news" links, as it appears that almost everything returned at this point is pure speculation or at best, reaction quotes to the news that McChrystal had been summoned to the White House.

[Added2] Here is the Rolling Stone article that apparently started the kerfuffle.

[Wonderment]

Sorry about the spelling error on the general's surname.

I will be shocked if Obama doesn't fire him tomorrow.

In hindsight, Obama should have dumped him a year ago when McCh tried to play commander in chief by ranting about how the war would be lost without a surge.

In any case, what will be interesting is how the Repubs. play this and, for progressives, how can McChrystal's departure help the peace movement.

My sense is that it doesn't really help progressives because McCh will be seen as an ultra-hawk who challenged the administration's "humanitarian" rules for zapping civilians and its unwillingness to "get the job done" (whatever on Earth that could mean).

If McCh is turned into a right-wing folk hero it hurts (paradoxically) both Obama and the peace movement. Obama loses because he looks like a wimp, and the peace movement loses because the right will claim that warrior McCh knows more than civilian Obama i.e, we need less concern about civilians, more troops and more firepower.

Unfortunately, Obama may be susceptible to that line of lunacy and sink deeper into the Afghan quagmire. I don't see how this gives him any de-escalation opportunities.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

Sorry about the spelling error on the general's surname.

No prob. I didn't realize it was one until after Google Did you mean ...ed me.

I will be shocked if Obama doesn't fire him tomorrow.

You mean, you would like him to, and you will be annoyed if he doesn't, I think. As far as I can tell, McChrystal himself did not go that out of bounds (although the suggestion that his attitude is less than optimal is clear), and Obama is also known for not getting that excited about transient things. I expect that if McChrystal is able to be convincing, face to face, that he is basically on the same page as Obama, and clearly gets who is the Commander-in-Chief and who is (supposed to be) taking orders from the Commander-in-Chief, Obama will wave it off.

NB: this has nothing to do with my views about McChrystal, which aren't that well-formed, but which do skew a little towards the feeling that he might not be the best person for his current role. And it is also true that I think we should be concentrating on wrapping up the major parts of our occupation in Afghanistan, in accordance with the schedule Obama gave, what, a year or so ago.

In hindsight, Obama should have dumped him a year ago when McCh tried to play commander in chief by ranting about how the war would be lost without a surge.

Possibly, but Obama does always talk about how he wants to hear from well-informed people who don't always agree with him, so it's easy to see that as an example of Obama walking the walk.

In any case, what will be interesting is how the Repubs. play this and, for progressives, how can McChrystal's departure help the peace movement.

I suspect it will be interesting only for the comedy, concerning the Republicans. This is going to be like the Joe Barton Kinsley-gaffe -- the noisemakers on the right are likely to oscillate wildly among a few contradictory talking points. (I hope!)

As for the peace effort, well, yeah, I hope, too. But I am not going to bet on it at this point.

My sense is that it doesn't really help progressives because McCh will be seen as an ultra-hawk who challenged the administration's "humanitarian" rules for zapping civilians and its unwillingness to "get the job done" (whatever on Earth that could mean).

If McCh is turned into a right-wing folk hero it hurts (paradoxically) both Obama and the peace movement. Obama loses because he looks like a wimp, and the peace movement loses because the right will claim that warrior McCh knows more than civilian Obama i.e, we need less concern about civilians, more troops and more firepower.

The perennial dilemma for Democratic presidents since Vietnam at least, isn't it?

Unfortunately, Obama may be susceptible to that line of lunacy and sink deeper into the Afghan quagmire. I don't see how this gives him any de-escalation opportunities.

I don't think Obama is susceptible to lines of lunacy, although I acknowledge he sometimes makes political calculations that cause him to do things other than I would prefer.

As for the de-escalation, I dunno if I agree with you. Seems to me this could be seen as a completely separate thing. Once it gets off the top of the news cycle, I mean. As I mentioned above, I'm counting on Obama to stick to the timetable he laid out a while ago, when the only issue on the table is "What are we going to do, and for how long are we going to try that?" So, he has cover for a draw-down, if he needs it, in that he can point to this promise he already made.

Ultimately, it seems like too many things are up in the air, so it's really hard for me to do any kind of analysis of the McChrystal situation and give reasoned predictions. It's mostly just gut feelings at the moment. And, in any case, it'll all be moot soon enough.

[Wonderment]

You mean, you would like him to, and you will be annoyed if he doesn't, I think.

No, I mean my political intuition tells me he's a goner. But we'll see. I may be eating crow come the morrow.

I mostly agree with the rest of your post. You're right that the McChrystal affaire (like the e?) should be decoupled from the Big Questions of the war.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

No, I mean my political intuition tells me he's a goner. But we'll see. I may be eating crow come the morrow.

Hmmm. Okay. My intuition bets against intuition.

I mostly agree with the rest of your post. You're right that the McChrystal affaire (like the e?) should be decoupled from the Big Questions of the war.

It'd be nice if this didn't remain THE story for too much longer, too. Might as well wish for the moon, though, I suppose.

[Wonderment]

It'd be nice if this didn't remain THE story for too much longer, too. Might as well wish for the moon, though, I suppose.

Well, fired or not, the story tomorrow will be about Obama, not McChrystal. Nobody is wondering how McChrystal will handle Obama.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

Well, fired or not, the story tomorrow will be about Obama, not McChrystal. Nobody is wondering how McChrystal will handle Obama.

Yep, true dat. We should create two bingo cards, one for fired, and one for not fired, and have the squares be the predicted responses.

For example, on the Not Fired card, one square could be "MoDo writes a column with multiple uses of Obambi."

The Fired card will have to be at least 10 x 10, if not 30 x 30, though, because just thinking of everything the wingnuts will howl in this case is causing my brain to issue a Low Virtual Memory warning.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

Yep, true dat. We should create two bingo cards, one for fired, and one for not fired, and have the squares be the predicted responses.

For example, on the Not Fired card, one square could be "MoDo writes a column with multiple uses of Obambi."

Something I still wouldn't bet against. However, before he gets Not Fired, this column by MoDo is actually pretty good.

[listener]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

Something I still wouldn't bet against. However, before he gets Not Fired, this column by MoDo is actually pretty good.

Much as I usually despise the Queen of Snark, I must admit that Ms. Dowd (MoDo? Must we JLo and A-Rod everyone?) makes some good points in this column. And I also must admit that she does have a towel-snapping way with words.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by listener

(MoDo? Must we JLo and A-Rod everyone?)

Blame K-Fed!

Or maybe, as I am more inclined to do, credit K-Fed, because it is my sense that once he gave himself this moniker, the fad started dying quickly. The existing names are still used, but I don't hear new ones being coined very often.

BTW, "MoDo" is years old; e.g., WaPo 11/2005, NRO 6/2003, McMegan 6/2002 (or a co-blogger), BartCop 2/2002, ... that last looks to be near the beginning of the spreading of the term, as far as a quick Google shows.

It's also in common enough use that it merits an entry on the Wikipedia disambiguation page.

Perhaps if you spent less time reading Beowulf ...

[listener]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

Blame K-Fed!

Or maybe, as I am more inclined to do, credit K-Fed, because it is my sense that once he gave himself this moniker, the fad started dying quickly. The existing names are still used, but I don't hear new ones being coined very often.

BTW, "MoDo" is years old; e.g., WaPo 11/2005, NRO 6/2003, McMegan 6/2002 (or a co-blogger), BartCop 2/2002, ... that last looks to be near the beginning of the spreading of the term, as far as a quick Google shows.

Well, B-Kay, you have done it again -- once more you have sent this old fart scurrying to the Google machine, this time to find out who the f*ck "K-Fed" is (and my life is so much the richer for having done so!).

And in the spirit of this thread, perhaps I can propose a neo neologism: "StanMac" (oh, never mind, that one's already taken).

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by listener

Well, B-Kay, you have done it again -- once more you have sent this old fart scurrying to the Google machine, this time to find out who the f*ck "K-Fed" is (and my life is so much the richer for having done so!).

Heh. Sorry about that. I imagine that you could feel 100 brain cells dying with every word you read.

[pampl]

Wow, mea culpa. I didn't expect Obama to view McChrystal's actions as negatively as he must have.

Thoughts:
*I wonder if this means the return of the Obama-as-tyrant meme and the waning of the Obambi meme.
*This has got to be one of the most influential RS articles ever.

edit: and as long we're making abominations out of names, let me point out how easy it is to spell "D-Pet"

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by pampl

Wow, mea culpa. I didn't expect Obama to view McChrystal's actions as negatively as he must have.

Thoughts:
*I wonder if this means the return of the Obama-as-tyrant meme and the waning of the Obambi meme.

And, of course, PROOF THAT OBAMA HATES THE TROOPS AND WANTS THE MUSLINS TO WIN.

edit: and as long we're making abominations out of names, let me point out how easy it is to spell "D-Pet"

But it's so easy to spell Betray-us.

(*ducks*)

[Wonderment]

I think this is a short-term win for Obama. The authoritarian Republican mindset will find much to like in a guy who decapitates an uppity general with one quick stroke of his sword. Merits a footbally slap on the ass from Dick Cheney types. Plus, they love Petraeus, the replacement. The extreme right will find something to whine about, but since they worship exercises in raw male power, it will be difficult.

The criticism will come over the war strategy, not the firing per se.

[TwinSwords]

Originally Posted by pampl

*I wonder if this means the return of the Obama-as-tyrant meme

That meme never left.

Originally Posted by pampl

and the waning of the Obambi meme.

I read the comments on one of the wingnut blogs earlier, and the foaming at the mouth was centered around the idea that Obama can be tough on America's fighting men and women, but not Iran or North Korea or any of America's enemies. (And in fact, that's a meme Republicans have been cultivating since Obama took office.)

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by pampl

*I wonder if this means the return of the Obama-as-tyrant meme and the waning of the Obambi meme.

Originally Posted by TwinSwords

That meme never left.

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

And, of course, PROOF THAT OBAMA HATES THE TROOPS AND WANTS THE MUSLINS TO WIN.

From the Wonkette liveblog:

1:33 PM — Haha on MSNBC all these anchors — Andrea Mitchell, Chris Matthews, etc. — are talking openly about the end of America, broken political process, Gulf oil disaster, losing wars everywhere, can’t even keep military commanders in line, president can’t do anything.

Damn the liberal media and how much they are in the tank for Obama!!!1!

==========

[Added] Also from the W lb:

1:47 PM — Obama’s standing up for civilian command of the military … is this … a coup? A civilian coup?! (Probably, according to Free Republic.)

[pampl]

Originally Posted by TwinSwords

That meme never left.

Really? Maybe it's my fault for avoiding the worst of the right wing sites, but I got the impression it was gone during the Right's pre-emptive victory lap over Scott Brown and the death of ObamaCare

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by pampl

Really? Maybe it's my fault for avoiding the worst of the right wing sites, but I got the impression it was gone during the Right's pre-emptive victory lap over Scott Brown and the death of ObamaCare

One could hardly say "fault." Unless you're being paid to do it, tracking Greater Wingnuttia is more a matter of morbid curiosity than anything else.

However, Twin is right. The wingnuts never let up on the Obama-as-tyrant thing. It can be as trivial a matter as the First Lady doing a photo op to promote children eating healthier and exercising. This is immediately portrayed and echoed repeatedly as Stalin times Kim Jong-Il, to the power of Hitler.

[TwinSwords]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

This is immediately portrayed and echoed repeatedly as Stalin times Kim Jong-Il, to the power of Hitler.

ROFL. Indeed. And in fact, one of the comments I read this very day, in line with what I said to Pampl, was that "progressives only like to make war on their own people, like Stalin and Mao and Kim Jong-Il." So, you nailed it: Obama goes easy on America's real enemies (because he is one), while destroying the lives of Real Men like McChrystal.

This is going to be another festival of insane contradictions like we're seeing with the BP catastrophe: they know it's wrong to publicly defend BP, but they just can't help themselves.

[listener]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

Stalin times Kim Jong-Il, to the power of Hitler.

Originally Posted by TwinSwords

ROFL.

I, too, enjoyed the advanced mathematics seminar.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

One could hardly say "fault." Unless you're being paid to do it, tracking Greater Wingnuttia is more a matter of morbid curiosity than anything else.

However, Twin is right. The wingnuts never let up on the Obama-as-tyrant thing. It can be as trivial a matter as the First Lady doing a photo op to promote children eating healthier and exercising. This is immediately portrayed and echoed repeatedly as Stalin times Kim Jong-Il, to the power of Hitler.

A small illustration: the three most recent posts from Teh Sadlys that are in my feed reader right now are shorters that address articles with the following headlines.

1. Obama’s Radical Agenda Revealed
2. Is U.S. Now On Slippery Slope To Tyranny?
3. The Obama disaster machine: unfortunate coincidences or malevolently premeditated?

The first three words of the second article:

When Adolf Hitler…

[listener]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

A small illustration: the three most recent posts from Teh Sadlys that are in my feed reader right now are shorters that address articles with the following headlines.

1. Obama’s Radical Agenda Revealed
2. Is U.S. Now On Slippery Slope To Tyranny?
3. The Obama disaster machine: unfortunate coincidences or malevolently premeditated?

The first three words of the second article:

When Adolf Hitler…

And to think that all of this could have been avoided if only his Kenyan birth certificate had not read "Barack Hussein Schicklgruber"...

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

One could hardly say "fault." Unless you're being paid to do it, tracking Greater Wingnuttia is more a matter of morbid curiosity than anything else.

However, Twin is right. The wingnuts never let up on the Obama-as-tyrant thing. It can be as trivial a matter as the First Lady doing a photo op to promote children eating healthier and exercising. This is immediately portrayed and echoed repeatedly as Stalin times Kim Jong-Il, to the power of Hitler.

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

A small illustration: the three most recent posts from Teh Sadlys that are in my feed reader right now are shorters that address articles with the following headlines.

1. Obama’s Radical Agenda Revealed
2. Is U.S. Now On Slippery Slope To Tyranny?
3. The Obama disaster machine: unfortunate coincidences or malevolently premeditated?

The first three words of the second article:

By the way, the above was not nut-picking by Teh Sadlys. At least one of them, the second, has been repeatedly cited as an authority by some of our right-leaning commenters.

Or, maybe it was nut-picking, and the real explanation is that the nuts have taken over the Republican Party.

Jim Newell reports, you decide: "Congressman Reads 'BP Escrow Fund = Hitler' Column on House Floor."

==========

P.S. Dave Weigel asserts:

I'm in the Senate right now, where there is no appetite -- really, none -- for criticizing the BP fund. The gap between conservative intellectual leadership and Republican politicians on this issue is as wide as we've ever seen it during the Obama era.

... which tempts me (okay, I'll succumb) to link to this other recent thing about Weigel, but I suppose I could be charitable and let it go with a tsk-tsk to Dave: the Senate is not the same thing as the House.

No, two: saying "conservative intellectuals" is a BP (batting practice, not that other thing) fastball right down the middle of any snarker's wheelhouse, but even apart from that, to extend the label to this clown is bordering on "liberal fascism"-level language destruction. (Or maybe Weigel is making a very subtle slam about the right, along the lines of if this is the best the so-called conservative intelligentsia can come up with ...? (In that case, he will be writing another apology blog post tomorrow. (He probably will be anyway, as soon as some wingnut accuses him of intending to make this slam.)))

==========

P.P.S. Rep. Louis Gohmert (R - Texas) ...



is NOT RACIST!!!1!

(pic. source)

[SkepticDoc]

the article via Michael Moore:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mu...unaway-general

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

A small illustration: the three most recent posts from Teh Sadlys that are in my feed reader right now are shorters that address articles with the following headlines.

1. Obama’s Radical Agenda Revealed
2. Is U.S. Now On Slippery Slope To Tyranny?
3. The Obama disaster machine: unfortunate coincidences or malevolently premeditated?

The first three words of the second article:

An additional reaction to #2, from Scott Lemieux of LGM:

Obviously, you expect some shift in conceptions of executive power based on partisan shifts in control of the White House. But for apologists for arbitrary executive torture to suddenly discover creeping Hitlerism in fairly ordinary voluntary legal agreements really is a bit much.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

No prob. I didn't realize it was one until after Google Did you mean ...ed me.

Another reason not to feel bad (or at least alone), from Wonkette's liveblog of the big firing:

1:23 PM — General Patreus, damn will have to add him to spell check again, he is now the commander in Afghanistan. David Petraeus.

[pampl]

I don't think McChrystal will be dumped. He's viewed as too valuable to the war in Afghanistan, and that Rolling Stone article didn't attribute any very bad quotations to him. He's going to be forced to dump some of his staffers, though. It's sort of amazing how far you can rise in the military hierarchy without having the slightest clue about what you can say in front of a reporter.

[Wonderment]

The article will also remind people that McChrystal has a long rap sheet that includes the Pat Tillman lies and torture in the Bush years.

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

The article will also remind people that McChrystal has a long rap sheet that includes the Pat Tillman lies and torture in the Bush years.

The Tillman thing is what should have gotten him fired.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by AemJeff

The Tillman thing is what should have gotten him fired.

Forgot about that part. Yeah, to the extent that I understand his role in that, I agree.

[listener]

I've been following this conversation with interest, and I appreciate the thoughtfulness and circumspection of all participants.

Though I don't think I can add anything original to the conversation, I did come across this piece of speculation which I found thought provoking (though, as both Wonderman & Brendel have acknowledged, may be moot by some time tomorrow):

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908...63298#37863298

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by listener

... as both Wonderman & Brendel have acknowledged, ...

Have you been dipping into the Beowulf again?

[listener]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

Have you been dipping into the Beowulf again?

Yes, I confess to being monstrously guilty as charged.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by listener

Yes, I confess to being monstrously guilty as charged.

You're a better man than I. Still haven't made it through that one. Not even close.

On the video you linked to: Thanks. That was helpful for me in providing context and reminding me of details I probably should have retained.

Minor gripe (and not your fault, obvs.): If I were Dictator of Teevee, I would have cut the part with all the clips of past news shows talking about the past people Gates has fired. The summary with the scrolling list that Rachel gave conveyed all the information in what felt like 1/100th the time. Plus, I wouldn't have had to listen to those newsreaders talking in that edge-of-hysteria tone of voice they all seem to affect. Man, that drives me batty.

[listener]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

You're a better man than I. Still haven't made it through that one. Not even close.

On the video you linked to: Thanks. That was helpful for me in providing context and reminding me of details I probably should have retained.

Minor gripe (and not your fault, obvs.): If I were Dictator of Teevee, I would have cut the part with all the clips of past news shows talking about the past people Gates has fired. The summary with the scrolling list that Rachel gave conveyed all the information in what felt like 1/100th the time. Plus, I wouldn't have had to listen to those newsreaders talking in that edge-of-hysteria tone of voice they all seem to affect. Man, that drives me batty.

In all honesty, the closest I've come to Beowulf is being in the same library where it sits. So if I am a better man than you (to which I make no claim), it would have to be for other reasons.

As to the edge-of-hysteria tone, I sympathize with your reaction. But keep in mind that without it, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert would probably be out of business by now.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by listener

In all honesty, the closest I've come to Beowulf is being in the same library where it sits. So if I am a better man than you (to which I make no claim), it would have to be for other reasons.

It's conceivable there are some.

As to the edge-of-hysteria tone, I sympathize with your reaction. But keep in mind that without it, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert would probably be out of business by now.

Eh, much as like those two guys, it's kind of like asking me to be thankful that there is cancer, because I once met these really nice oncologists.

[listener]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

Eh, much as like those two guys, it's kind of like asking me to be thankful that there is cancer, because I once met these really nice oncologists.

I understand. When I wrote that, I was just thinking of this Lenny Bruce quote:

People should be taught what is, not what should be. All my humor is based on destruction and despair. If the world were tranquil, without disease and violence, I'd be standing in the breadline, right back of J Edgar Hoover.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by listener

I understand. When I wrote that, I was just thinking of this Lenny Bruce quote:

Yes. I should have been more explicit that I consider the likelihood that teevee news will ever be non-annoying to me smaller than the likelihood that we'll completely get rid of cancer. So, given reality, I sure am grateful for Jon and Stephen and crews, not to mention a bunch of my favorite bloggers. Laugh, because it hurts too much to cry.