BS: US General McChrystall sacked for being honest

Subject: RE: BS: US General McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Emma B
Date: 28 Jun 10 - 06:33 AM

A view from Pakistan

"Fall of a strategy!"

Article by Air Cdre Khalid Iqbal regional security analyst & a former PAF Assistant Chief of Air Staff

Subject: RE: BS: US General McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Jun 10 - 12:07 AM

If he tells you to do it, you do it. You may ask for clarification or raise questions about your orders, but if the president says, "Just do what I told you," then you do it. There's no reasoned debate. You do what you're told. If you don't or if you carry it out grudgingly, expect to be replaced with the proper ass-chewing coming somewhere before that.

Not so, in the UK Forces, the order must first be considered lawful, if you refuse to obey on those grounds, you will face the consequences of your your actions but will be given every opportunity to argue your case. I know that to be the case as I did exactly that on two occasions and won both times.

Subject: RE: BS: US General McChrystall sacked for being ho
From: Charley Noble
Date: 27 Jun 10 - 02:49 PM

I guess today's political cartoon was incorrect.

But, yes, I realized that the general was merely relieved of his command and sent back to the States.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: US General McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 27 Jun 10 - 12:14 PM

Charley Noble, the General was removed from a given assignment, NOT fired from the Army. He was not court-martialed. He was not reduced in rank.

He is still a general at the same level as before, still receiving the same pay, with the same retirement benefits. If he should take retirement, he's still a general at that rank, and can be recalled by the Army if they find him needed.

Now, it just may be that his future assignments may be affected.
Those interested will just have to wait and see what jobs he's given.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: US General McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Jun 10 - 11:54 AM

his new job flipping hamburgs at McDonald's.

If only it were true...

Subject: RE: BS: US General McChrystall sacked for being ho
From: Charley Noble
Date: 27 Jun 10 - 11:30 AM

Obama cleaned house after General McChrystall and his staff had their "come as you are" party. It's not a pleasant job to do but someone has to do it.

Hope General McChrystall enjoys his new job flipping hamburgs at McDonald's.

Cheerily,
Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: US General McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: olddude
Date: 27 Jun 10 - 09:26 AM

John McCain on meet the press this morning "Obama did the right thing absolutely" he went on to say exactly what others here said about the chain of command and following orders.

and in regard to what someone wrote. it is the brits right to comment!!
there kids are dying also over there

Subject: RE: BS: US General McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Jun 10 - 04:17 AM

Sorry, I was a bit late in responding

Genie: "GfS, you're straying more than a bit from the thread topic, but even at that, you've got some facts wrong and you're putting an unwarranted slant on most of the others......."

I read your 'rebuttals'..only a naive Obama-ite groupie, could stretch the obvious into your politically intellectual pretzel.

If he wants to remain in office, along with the House and Senate, it would only be by force!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: US General McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: TheSnail
Date: 26 Jun 10 - 10:20 PM

Up to a point, Josep, you are right. All the troops in Afghanistan are volunteers as far as I know and they have signed up to obey orders and kill and be killed accordongly.

The comment from Wesley S I was responding to was

If he's a Brit why is he sticking his nose in our affairs?

which seems to suggest that nobody outside the USA has the right to an opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 26 Jun 10 - 03:58 PM

//It IS our business. McCrystal was sacked as NATO commander. The NATO forces include soldiers from Germany, Canada, The Netherlands and France. Read the article. //

No, it is not your business. Obama was within his right to do what he did and any other president would have done the same under those circumstances.

//Try telling the relatives of the 300+ British dead and 40+ French dead that it is not their affair. (Not to mention the many more injured, maimed and traumatised.)//

Hey, relatives of the 300+ British dead and 40+ French dead--it is not your business. Americans have died there too and it's not the business of their relatives either. I can't think for the life of me why it should be. The job of a NATO soldier is to carry out the orders of whoever his or her senior is and if that person gets replaced then they get replaced. You don't keep someone there who isn't doing a professional job because of what the relatives of dead soldiers are going to think. Frankly, who cares what they think?

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: GUEST,Josep
Date: 26 Jun 10 - 03:35 PM

McChrystal was fired for insubordination. In the American military chain of command (which EVERY American military man is expected to follow), the president is at the very tip-top. You do what he says and you always show him the proper respect. If you do not, you will be replaced. "Reasoned debate" has no place in the chain of command--you do what you're told and you keep your opinions about it to yourself.

When I served, my chain of command was rigid. If you had a problem, you took it to your immediate senior, not to his senior. If you jump that chain, stand by for a severe ass-chewing. You could, in fact, get brought up for non-judicial punishment for doing it. The chain of command MUST be followed. The president is at the top of that chain. If he tells you to do it, you do it. You may ask for clarification or raise questions about your orders, but if the president says, "Just do what I told you," then you do it. There's no reasoned debate. You do what you're told. If you don't or if you carry it out grudgingly, expect to be replaced with the proper ass-chewing coming somewhere before that.

That's how it is when you are in the military. Don't like it, too bad. You don't get a say and there is no reasoned debate. You either carry your orders out in a timely, professional manner or you get shown the door. McChrystal had it coming. Just because he was honest doens't make him immune to be being disciplined. It doesn't mean anything at all. You do what you're told or you're gone. It's that simple.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 Jun 10 - 02:13 PM

You may have noticed there was more than WHAM involved in Vietnam.

Ya think, Simple? However you only mentioned WHAM, and that's what the comment related to - what you posted.

I guess you didn't notice that.

If you want to discuss other Vietnam stratgies, by all means put 'em out there.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Donuel
Date: 26 Jun 10 - 01:52 PM

The minerals were first documented in 1967 and then again in 2007.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Arkie
Date: 26 Jun 10 - 01:33 PM

Minerals in Afghanistan certainly does not solve any problems but it does raise the stakes. For war lords, Taliban, China, USA, and who knows who else. In part to control the wealth, but in part to keep someone else from profiting from it. I would doubt the average citizen will seen any benefit or if they do it will take generations for it to trickle down.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 26 Jun 10 - 12:46 PM

sacked for being honest? ... I heard on BEEB Radio 4 this morning

Gen David Petraeus was also said to sleep little, run a lot, work all the time.
I once joked with Gen Petraeus that he had to spend more time in Afghanistan because he was being outdone in the image stakes by the other hard-charging general.
He laughed: "I know about Stan's one meal a day," he said. "He eats one meal a day, all day long."

hhmmm me thinks... some myth making has been going on by McChrystal and he streteched truth about his one meal a day claim. Is that honest?

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: artbrooks
Date: 26 Jun 10 - 11:54 AM

If, and it is a big if, there are extractable quantities of precious and industrial metals in Afghanistan, any profits will end up in the hands of the oligarchs and the Taliban (another breed of oligarchs). The farmers and the US and US companies will make about as much off of it as they did off of Iraqi oil - nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Jun 10 - 11:14 AM

Are we going to try to make the farmers miners?   I've also heard mention of mineral wealth in Afghanistan.    But that does not solve the problem.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Arkie
Date: 26 Jun 10 - 11:11 AM

Is there in truth the stories that trillions of dollars worth of precious metals including lithium have been discovered in Afghanistan?

Saudi Arabia of Lithium

War for Minerals

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Donuel
Date: 26 Jun 10 - 10:37 AM

Well I a guess I am not sure of their final destination, all I know is what I see and it seemed they eventually headed east which is where both Andrews and Dover are from my location.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Jun 10 - 10:36 AM

"WHAM worked a treat..."    You may have noticed there was more than WHAM involved in Vietnam.   But then again perhaps you didn't notice a thing.

And you might want to consider that in war there is always more than WHAM. And that's one of the main problems Petraeus has in Afghanistan now.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Jun 10 - 10:19 AM

I thought that the dead soldiers were flown into Dover AFB, Donuel which I believe is in Delaware??? No???

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Donuel
Date: 26 Jun 10 - 10:15 AM

I am again seeing the enormous military cargo planes that fly the dead soldiers home from overseas. They fly their honor route around the capitol and then a larger circle around the capitol before landing at Andrews. They fly low and slow just above the helicopter ceiling. The sound is unique and strong so that it is easy to look up and see them in time.

Back in 2003 and 2004 the flights were so numerous that I saw them doing the honor circles in convoys. With 48 dead so far this month I expect to see more of these honor flights in weeks to come.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Donuel
Date: 26 Jun 10 - 09:40 AM

I believed he should have been sacked for deliberately fabricating the whole Pat Tilman friendly fire lie many years ago.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 Jun 10 - 09:39 AM

...it seems clear that McChrystal did have the right idea:   as in the old Vietnam slogan, WHAM (win hearts and minds).


The "right idea"? Oh yeah, WHAM sure worked a treat in Viet Nam, didn't it?

But the Viet Nam anology for the idiocy in Afghanistan is spot on.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: GUEST,Riginslinger
Date: 26 Jun 10 - 08:54 AM

I wondered about that too, Ron. One of the things that came to mind was, McChrystal was generally in charge, so the other NATO troops came under his oversight as well. Given the circumstances, the president had to recall Stanley; by putting Petraeus in there he would enjoy the continued trust of the other parties. I wouldn't be surprised to see Petraeus handing the ball of to someone else over the course of time.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 Jun 10 - 11:16 PM

My question is why Petraeus took the job.   OK, the President asked him to, no doubt.

But I'm sure Petraeus is fully aware that Afghanistan is not only the graveyard of empire, but very likely also the graveyard of reputation.

Does he just like a challenge, or does he really think the Iraq strategy can be used in Afghanistan?

Among the many problems is the fact that now that the Taliban have swallowed whatever Islamic principles against drug use they may have had, and now are perfectly willing to accept opium production, the West has to come up with a more profitable cash crop than opium poppies in order to win over Afghan farmers.   

Good luck.

From reading the "Spiegel" interview with McChrystal cited above, it seems clear that McChrystal did have the right idea:   as in the old Vietnam slogan, WHAM (win hearts and minds).

But there will never be a nice neat "surrender" by the Taliban.   And counterinsurgency is well-known to be a messy business--especially when WHAM conflicts with keeping your own soldiers alive.

It seems like a huge gamble for Petraeus, who now has a sterling reputation--which could easily be tarnished.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: olddude
Date: 25 Jun 10 - 10:21 PM

There has been many soldiers who disagree with their commander and chief and what they do is ... turn in their resignation. You see in the military you are taught from day 1 .. you obey orders, you don't question them you follow them .. His duty was to the commander and chief ... he had the right to ask for a private meeting and voice his opinion if the commander and chief allowed or he could resign but one thing you don't do is go to the press. That would get a grunt soldier court marshalled and he as a general knew it ... He took the oath , he knew what the job was and what he had to do ... that is follow his orders .. he was duty bound ... the military is NOT a Democracy ...

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 Jun 10 - 05:10 PM

Saying that McChrystall was this straight shooting team player is not at all accurate...

Not only that - its utter bullshit, too.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Jun 10 - 04:15 PM

Me thinks that the revisionism is allready underway by "the usual suspect", T-Bird... McChrystall, if I understand it correctly, went to meet with Obama with resignation in hand... Now if he didn't think he had done anything wrong then why would he do that??? I mean, let's get real here... Saying that McChrystall was this straight shooting team player is not at all accurate...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: mousethief
Date: 25 Jun 10 - 03:43 PM

Hate to point out the obvious Don but that is closing the stable door after the horse has bolted, the comments having been made, would still have been appeared in print - TRUE??

Once it appeared in print, did he sack the person? Well, no. Horse out of the barn or no, that shows his intent more than anything. If he had spoken out strongly against such subordination, and knocked some heads together, he probably would still be in command.

Hi there, just thought I'd pop in and see how things were going..

But not take part in the conversation you started. You are a troll.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: catspaw49
Date: 25 Jun 10 - 02:26 PM

Play nicely, children.

Okay Art.....Just for you......because I came along too late to toss in a comment on the welcome back thread where you actually gave me a really good belly laugh!

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 25 Jun 10 - 01:54 PM

""Hate to point out the obvious Don but that is closing the stable door after the horse has bolted, the comments having been made, would still have been appeared in print - TRUE??

By the bye do you know for certain that the remarks made to the reporter from RS Magazine by McChrystal's Aides were made in the presence of McChrystal?""

NOT TRUE!

There is plenty of evidence that McChrystal took a pretty laisser faire attitude to his subordinates' behaviour over an extended period prior to the RS hack coming on the scene.

If you take your head out of its current position where the sun don't shine, you might see it.

Good order and discipline wasn't as high on the General's agenda as it should have been.

Bottom line?.. in the old British Army, he would have been dishonourably discharged.

He's damn lucky to be simply relieved, and should now keep his head down and get on with his job.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: artbrooks
Date: 25 Jun 10 - 01:50 PM

Play nicely, children.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: catspaw49
Date: 25 Jun 10 - 11:25 AM

My Ol Man was no fool......and my Mom was simply into foreplay. They went for both My condolences to both of your parents whatever species they might be................


Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Jun 10 - 10:46 AM

By jumping all over the first subordinate to make such comments.

Hate to point out the obvious Don but that is closing the stable door after the horse has bolted, the comments having been made, would still have been appeared in print - TRUE??

By the bye do you know for certain that the remarks made to the reporter from RS Magazine by McChrystal's Aides were made in the presence of McChrystal?

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Jun 10 - 10:22 AM

Check back on your family records and see if your parents had any children that lived.


Spaw

Great pity Spaw that your dad didn't settle for the blow-job offered by your mother on the night you were conceived.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Jun 10 - 10:20 AM

As to the other issue of it being an American issue. Well, Afganistan is global but the US president sacking a US soldier is US business.

Pity the reality was that US General Stanley McChrystal's appointment was to a NATO Command, not a US one. Pure bloody arrogance on the part of Obama to sack the man without first consulting his NATO Partners particularly considering the timing and a forthcoming operation in Kandahar. Of course one way to solve that if that is how Obama wants to play it is that we all draw stumps, come home and let him get on with it.

In his press conference announcing the replacement of General McChrystal it is very clear that Barack Obama has the mission statements of ISAF and US-OEF mixed up. If the aims are as Barack Obama mentioned then all countries contributing to ISAF should leave Afghanistan immediately as what General Petraeus will be ordering them to do falls outwith their remit.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Jun 10 - 08:29 AM

Paco Barmy is a Brit, Wesley. You know how they are.

I know it has been addressed already and I do understand it is ironic but I would like to add a bit. Look back on Barmy's postings. He is a millionaire of some sort. He owns and runs a thriving business. He pays more tax in a month than most people earn. I thought Walter Mitty was an American, played in the film by a Ukranian Jewish immigrant. How can he be a Brit as well? :-)

As to the other issue of it being an American issue. Well, Afganistan is global but the US president sacking a US soldier is US business. About which Barmy has as much knowledge as he does of economics.

DeG

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 25 Jun 10 - 06:12 AM

""To question the madness of Vietnam was seen as "bravery"

To point out the madness of our present involvment in Afghanistan a "crime"?

Thousands being killed on both sides for absolutely nothing.
We are desperate to withdraw, but held back by the need to salve political egos.""

BLOODY AMAZING! I AGREE WITH AKE!.........

The proper place for the British Army is here in Britain, guarding our territory, not chasing wild geese all over the world on the pretext of fighting terrorists, who are probably half a continent away from where we are fighting.

The whole concept of enclosing a totally different culture in a veneer of what we like to call democracy (it isn't!...See Ancient Greek History for the real thing), is fatally flawed and ridiculous.

"Mind our own business and let them get on with theirs", is the way I deal with my neighbours, and it generally works well.

Maybe nations should try it.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 25 Jun 10 - 06:02 AM

""And McChrystal could prevent that reporter from writing what he had obtained from others how exactly Don T?""

By jumping all over the first subordinate to make such comments.

Seems he sat back, smiled, and let it go on, even on occasions joining in.

The opposite of what a military commander should do. Can you say "Conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline" as staed in the military manuals of most modern countries.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being insubordinate
From: Genie
Date: 25 Jun 10 - 02:32 AM

@ Uncle Dave O
[[Uncle_DaveO

Nobody said McChrystal made "disparaging remarks" about he Secretary of Defense, but he did say some pretty contemptuous things about the Commander-In-Chief, the VP, a US ambassador, and others.

Whether he said "seemed" or not, the issue really is spouting off to a known reporter about his quarrels with the President, etc.   And Biden, as VP, is specifically one of the people mentioned in the UMCJ Section 888, Article 88.

You don't think referring to the VP's job as a "non-job" as vice-president is an expression of contempt? That is expressing contempt both for the current VP and for the office itself. The UCMJ apparently considers that position to be a bit more important than that.

It may not be clear to you, just from reading the Rolling Stone article, that McChrystal was clearly insubordinate.   But, again, he is not being court-martialed or stripped of his rank. The Commander-In-Chief can change the assignments of Generals without needing to prove a court-martialable offense. And I suspect that Obama is privy to a lot more information on McChrystal than you or I know about based on the RS article.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Jun 10 - 02:24 AM

To question the madness of Vietnam was seen as "bravery"

To point out the madness of our present involvment in Afghanistan a "crime"?

Thousands being killed on both sides for absolutely nothing.
We are desperate to withdraw, but held back by the need to salve political egos.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Genie
Date: 25 Jun 10 - 02:21 AM

So right, 'Spaw. And, BTW, Dubya pretty much did the same thing to Gen. Cinzecki (sp?) when that General expressed - and not in a contemptuous manner - disagreement with Dubya's planned strategy for the "war" in Iraq.

@ Teribus [... My objection relates to the usual suspects on this forum and their usual knee-jerk reactions calling for Courts Martial; Loss of Pension; etc; etc. When in reality there is absolutely no fuckin' case to answer.

...

Previously McChrystal was perfectly within his remit to state where and how he thought the Vice-President of the United States proposed policies and strategies to be wrong, that is all part and parcel of his job. Respect is a two-way street ...]]
Respect is not a "two-way street" when it comes to the military chain of command. The UCMJ says publicly expressing contempt for the US Vice President (among others) is a court-martiallable offense; it doesn't prohibit the VP from badmouthing a General.

Anyway, McChrystal is neither being court-martialed nor "fired" from the military.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: catspaw49
Date: 25 Jun 10 - 12:56 AM

None of that matters in the least. The President believed McChrystal was acting in a manner which was not in line with policy and the administration.......just like Truman and MacArthur. Obama did what he thought was right and replaced him.

Is that so hard to understand? What is the big deal here? There are many well qualified to replace him and an excellent man was chosen to do so.

Before rambling on about whether Obama was right to do so:
1) Remember he had the authority to do so as well as what he felt was the justification. I note McCain thinks the same.
2) Check back on your family records and see if your parents had any children that lived.


Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Jun 10 - 12:14 AM

Even if you are right, he had an obligation, as does any commander, to put a stop to that kind of insubordination

You mean like sacking the person responsible for the remarks from his job Don T? Because that is what McChrystal did.

It doesn't matter what he thought of the administration, he didn't have the right to allow it to be ridiculed in a media rag.

And McChrystal could prevent that reporter from writing what he had obtained from others how exactly Don T?

Fact is that none of the remarks are directly attributable to McChrystal, however reading contributions to this thread people are talking as though they were made by McChrystal - they weren't.

As for Afghanistan it is not an American War; it is not a NATO War. ALL foreign forces, and they come from some 43 countries, are present under duly authorised United Nations Mandates. Afghanistan is a United Nations intervention involving two specifically created organisations UNAMA and ISAF.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: robomatic
Date: 24 Jun 10 - 10:46 PM

Looks to me like appropriate decision making on the part of President Obama. Done in an appropriate manner to the man's face after adequate provocation.

Let's hope Petraeous is up to the tasks.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Emma B
Date: 24 Jun 10 - 08:50 PM

Bobert, back on December 18, 2008 The Huffington Post reported that

"As each day brings bleaker news for Afghanistan - last week's research from the International Council on Security and Development suggesting that the Taliban have a permanent presence in 72% of Afghanistan, for example - the possibility of talking with the Taliban seems to be gaining support as an essential step out of the quagmire.

In September, a leaked memo quoted UK Ambassador Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles - "The current situation is bad. The security situation is getting worse. So is corruption and the Government has lost all trust. Our public statements should not delude us over the fact that the insurrection, while incapable of winning a military victory, nevertheless has the capacity to make life increasingly difficult, including in the capital."

The American strategy "is doomed to fail" the memo quotes Cowper-Coles as saying, (The UK foreign office has questioned whether the memo correctly presents Cowper-Coles views)."


McChrystal's sacking was preceded by the de facto resignation of the UK's special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan an outspoken, Arabic and Pashto speaking, Oxford-educated diplomat with a track record in Central Asia and the Middle East, often at loggerheads with McChrystal, and US special envoy Richard Holbrooke.

As I posted on 24 Jun 10 - 07:08 AM

'Britain's special envoy to Afghanistan, known for his scepticism about the western war effort and his support for peace talks with the Taliban, has stepped down just a month before a critical international conference in Kabul.

Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles has taken "extended leave", a spokesman for the British high commission in Islamabad said on Monday

Cowper-Coles, who also had Pakistan in his remit as special envoy, clashed in recent months with senior Nato and US officials over his insistence that the military-driven counter-insurgency effort was headed for failure, and that talks with the Taliban should be prioritised'

Cowper-Coles described as "a casualty of Afghan policy war appears to have been caught in the crossfire of diverging approaches.

'Ironically, perhaps, his view that a negotiated peace is unavoidable is privately shared by most, if not all, of the European Nato countries with troops in Afghanistan.
The British diplomat will take no pleasure if and when he is proven right. But that looks like the most probable outcome.'

Simon Tisdall 21 june

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Jun 10 - 08:20 PM

Hey, folks... This is a purdy fu*ked up war we got goin'... But I stay torn between just gettin' the heck out or not... Seems to me that at some point maybe the "allies" could engage the Taliban in some talks and see if things could be worked out...

(But, Bobert... We don't negotiate with terrorists...)

Yeah, but to alot of folks we are the terrorists... I mean, like Afgan farmers lookin' up and seein' drones fly overhead and wonderin' if someone got it wrong and the thing is going to blow me up???

I donno...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Emma B
Date: 24 Jun 10 - 07:37 PM

"General Stanley McChrystal, the former American commander of Nato in Afghanistan, highlighted civilian deaths as a key reason why Afghans joined the insurgency and why Nato risked losing the nine year war."


Just listening to the breaking news here in the UK that -

" Payments to relatives of civilians killed in error by British forces in Afghanistan have trebled in the past year according to military records obtained by Channel 4 News.
The stark figures which shed light on 105 Afghan civilian deaths in the past year are revealed in records of compensation payouts by the Ministry of Defence.....

The figures released to Channel 4 News under the freedom of information act show that the MoD paid compensation to relatives of at least 105 Afghan civilians killed by British forces in error last year.

That was three times the number compensated in 2008.

MoD payments

The documents - which often do not give any details or provide rationale for the payouts - also show $875 (£584) was paid out last year to the family of a nine year old girl shot in the head.

$950 (£634) was paid for the death of a 10-year-old boy.

In one case the Ministry of Defence also paid out $300 (£200) for a lost mobile phone.

It is unclear how full a picture these figures give of the deaths caused in error by British forces, but the rise in number year on year of those paid compensation is marked."

Channel 4 report

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: TheSnail
Date: 24 Jun 10 - 06:49 PM

Sory Don. I've just rather got my wild up at the suggestion that the war in Afghanistan is a purely internal US affair and nobody else has any business sticking their noses in.