America's Top Commander Exposes Obama Administration Incompetence; Walks It Back

[PanzerJaeger]

Yes, I invented that reading of "play the ball not the man," and I did it all on my own. My sole reason was to confound you. Curses! Foiled again! "Play the ball, not the man" has nothing to do with ad hominem attacks or the personalization of debate; it really means that you can never question another poster's sources. How did you find me out?

I don't understand how you cannot see that the term can be applied to your attacking the author of the editorial instead of his points.

And now I'm questioning your understanding of what a "source" is. I wasn't sourcing anything with that editorial. If I had cited it as proof of X, Y, or Z, then yes, noting that it is opinion-oriented would have been appropriate. However, attacking an editorial, clearly posted as such, for bias is a little bit like attacking the NRA for being pro-gun rights. That is, it is excruciatingly obvious.

If the entire rambling essay is naught more than an "interesting opinion," why are you going on about it, then?

I'm not. I have barely mentioned anything about it in this whole exchange.

As I have said, what I am surprised about is that a member who constantly posts opinionated, and occassionally sketchy, blog entries to back up his opinions launched such a scathing attack on an editorial that I posted - which wasn't even in support of any particular point. I would say it was the pot calling the kettle black, but my "kettle" didn't even rise to the level of your "pot".

At last! Something resembling substance! Wheeeeee!

And your parroting of Andrew Sullivan that started this exchange was literally full of substance!

First of all, please substantiate Obama's "campaign to discredit [Khazai]." By all accounts, President Khazai has been at turns ineffective, unpopular, corrupt and duplicitous. As I understand it, based on nothing more than reading, the civilian government in Afghanistan is the single biggest weakness in our COIN strategy. Correct me if you've heard differently.

I am referring to the very public row the two leaders had a few months back. Please don't confuse my words as a defense of Karzai. I agree that he is all of those things and probably more, but he is also the president's chosen partner in the country. The one thing that could be worse to our war effort than a good relationship with Karzai is a bad one.

Given this, how crucial is McChrystal's relationship with Karzai? What was he accomplishing with the President that another commander, with the initials D.P., cannot?

Considering the high context, tribal nature of Afghani politics, I would say it was pretty important. D.P. may be a hero in America, but that may or may not translate to Karzai's administration. Regardless, building a relationship will take time and effort, which is time and effort that could and should be focused elsewhere during this critical stage in the war.

Again, every intelligent analyst I have read on the subject agrees that the civilian government is our #1 weakness in Afghanistan. Not the generals, not the money, not the diplomats, not Obama, not the previous administration, not troop morale, not the various strategies, and so on and so forth. The lack of a legitimate, effective civilian partner is the insoluble imponderable.

Again, I agree. Apparently, though, the White House has decided that he is our only option, so I cannot see how destroying a good relationship between him and our top commander in the field can be seen as anything other than a negative. secretary Gates seems to agree.

You seem to believe that there is some sort of clear path to victory. You demonstrate this belief by consistently claiming that President 44 is deviating from it. So it is not in any way out of order to ask, "Tell us, P.J., what is this path to victory, and what does your notion of victory look like?" Bonus points if you can construct your answer in terms that require less than five decades.

Ahh, Lemur's classic "solve Afghanistan in a discussion board post or you're not allowed to criticize my prez!!"

Well, I can tell you that my solution would involve giving my top commander the troops he requests and not imposing an arbitrary timeline on him based on my own reelection campaign.