Dismiss Dismiss Victorious General Shout Nipple-fed Intellectuals

By Con George-Kotzabasis

The unsated gratification of nipple-fed intellectuals, like Steve Clemons and Dan Kervick, is to replace the savvy and the strong with their own brand of weakness. This has happened to UN Ambassador John Bolton and is now happening to General Stanley McChrystal. The successful general who had killed thousands of insurgents and al-Qaeda fanatics and their leader Zarkawi in Iraq by his Special Forces operations which was the major contributing factor to the success of the Surge that had turned an American defeat into an American victory, is to be swept out by the anti-war animus of all the dilettantes of strategy and military affairs for his so called insubordination to his civilian superiors.

What McChrystal has done other than, according to his aides, express his disappointment about Obama and Holbrooke, and one of his aides saying that Jim Jones, the National Security advisor, is a clown? And is it surprising that McChrystal in describing a Pentagon meeting in which among a coruscating constellation of generals of strength, tenacity, and success, Obama with his inexperience and weak character was found to be “uncomfortable and intimidated?” And why McChrystal cannot express his view about the timorous Ambassador Eikenberry, who opposed the sending of more troops to Afghanistn and who is more concerned according to McChrystal to cover “his flanks for the history books” than in winning the war and McChrystal saying about him, “Now if we fail, they can say, I told you so.”

In what way in all of the above was McChrystal in breach of his subordination to his Commander in Chief Obama? Is criticism by the military of some members of an inept and incompetent administration reason to dismiss a general who has the knowhow, tenacity, and great potential to win the war in Afghanistan as he has done in Iraq? Only goofy and malevolently biased people against the military would place criticism toward members of the administration as of primal importance over military victory.

But the nipple-fed intellectuals scenting the moods of their kindred spirit in the White House have achieved their goal.


4 Comments (+add yours?)

  1. mike
    Jul 05, 2010 @ 15:28:53

    The firing is a diversion from the real issues of the war. Read the Stone article closely, and you’ll reach the following conclusions: An occupation props up a puppet regime that the Afghanis don’t want, kills enough civilians to drive others to reciprocate the hostility, creates terrorists in semi-stable Pakistan, and corrodes the psyche of the young Americans fighting a war that the American people disapprove of and that cannot be won.

    And our concern should settle on this event of Hastings revealing one General’s disdain for the civilian administration? This is laughable.


  2. kotzabasis
    Jul 07, 2010 @ 16:53:39

    Mike thanks for your comment.

    You are responding with a rather fatalistic argument. First not all occupations, even if you define the presence of U.S. forces as an occupation, which is not, prop up “puppet regimes,” think of Iraq. Secondly, under McChrystal civilian casualties were reduced substantially which the General had made it an essential aspect of his counterinsurgency program. Thirdly, what “creates terrorists” is the apparent success that terrorist actions have in the eyes of their perpetrators. Once one turns off this tap of success one also dries up the recruiting of terrorists. And this depends on the success of the counterinsurgency against the jihadists, as Iraq has shown. Lastly, what “corrodes the psyche…” is the uncertainty of Obama’s strategy about the goals of the war in Afghanistan and the president’s implication that the war cannot be won since he loathes setting up any goals that could only be achieved by victory. One has to be reminded that wars are not won by pessimists but only by optimists and the troops on the ground are fully aware of this principle. So why on earth should they continue their sacrifices for a defeat? This is in stark contrast to Bush’s determination, according to Bob Woodward, to win the war in Iraq by supporting unequivocally with prudency and mettle the Surge, despite vehement opposition by the media and by some luminaries in military strategy–even among some members of his own administration–against it.

    The “General’s disdain” was not “for the civilian administration,” but on the contrary a disdain against a strategy that was fundamentally contradictory. One the one hand, Obama was increasing the troops on the ground and on the other he was calling for their withdrawal in one and a half year’s time. What conscientious and competent General would deploy his troops on the foreground of war on a fallible strategy without criticizing it? It was this comical strategy of a timorous and incompetent Commander-in-Chief that was “laughable.”


  3. mike
    Jul 09, 2010 @ 14:05:13

    Hi there. The real argument for me is the one that the Afghanis don’t want foreign troops there. How can any conversation about the war ignore that? Even if US forces somehow “win”, it is wrong to be there. I grew up with very English parents (I’m basically Canadian now). My childhood was filled with proud stories of how “we” used to rule the world, blah, blah. It all seems so silly now (the patriotism), and criminal (the militarism). The McChrystal-Obama spat? We shouldn’t be too concerned about disagreements in the King’s court. I’m sure years from now (maybe sooner) the history books will just place this US military expedition in the context of an empire flexing its muscles. Yes, I know 911 happened. Perpetrated by Saudis.

    BTW, the surge in Iraq is a myth. At the height of the surge there were fewer US troops in Iraq than during the initial invasion. Iraq settled down when the insurgents were paid not to fight. Pallets of money were flown to Iraq.


  4. kotzabasis
    Jul 09, 2010 @ 19:01:48

    Hi Mike
    The better question is, in my opinion, how many Afghanis want the U.S. out and how many of them want the Taliban back in? That is where the “real argument’ lies. The fact is that there is a substantial number of Afghanis that can survive only by the presence of foreign troops at this particular political and military juncture of the country.

    To consider that this “flexing of its muscles” is for “empire” and not an ‘aggressive’ pre-emptive attack against an irreconcilable deadly foe is to be stuck in the rut of conventional leftist unimaginative thinking.

    The Surge was not quantitative but qualitative. It was completely a new strategy that used the means of war imaginatively and remorselessly against the insurgents as well as baiting the latter with monetary incentives to switch sides or disarm. In war one has to use all means at one’s disposal creatively to subdue an enemy. In the toppling of the Taliban on November 2001, the CIA saturated the Northern Alliance with caches of money, military equipment, and intelligence that defeated the Taliban within forty days without any American troops fighting on the ground.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: