groups

What are your feeling on this? Should Gen McChrystal be fired? I say yes...

view link

I would say that our entire military structure needs to be revamped. I think there are to many Generals with theological conflicts, running wars. That, in my opinion is a conflict of interest that clouds the objective. Should General McChrystal be fired? I really can't say because I'm not sure his replacement would be any better. I think the issue in Afghanistan has no military answers.

I got the feeling the other day from what Gates said that he's about had it with the leaks. I consider what McChrystal did insubordination! He needs to remember that his boss is the President!

It's like the right wing thinks it, rather than the president controls the military. I'm still reeling over the officers that passed out Bibles and were trying to convert Muslims in the midst of a war zone!

** It's like the right wing thinks it, rather than the president controls the military. **

I'm one of those people who isn't sure that they don't. I used to be a military spouse. The military message is "We'll do the thinking for you." Career military types have never been on the list of people I would date or that I choose to socialize with. My family members that are or have been military have an extremely narrow mind-set that is Conservative in nature.

I'm sure there are a few member of the Armed Services that are liberal, progressive people. I doubt that they re-enlist when there are jobs in the private sector.

From Gawker:

Whoops, Pentagon's Realistic Afghan Price Tag Leaks

The Pentagon is mad at the White House because the White House insists on giving an accurate prediction of the cost of troop escalation in Afghanistan.

See, the White House budget office calculated that adding 40,000 troops would cost $40 billion a year. The Pentagon, amusingly, decided to calculate the cost per-troop, instead of a big yearly lump sum, and also their estimate was precisely half what the White House predicted.

But, whoops, one of those Pentagon memos, where they hide the "truth" about things, leaked to the LA Times.

"But in a memo early this month, obtained by The Times' Washington bureau, the Pentagon's own comptroller produced an estimate that broke with the customary Defense formula and did include construction and equipment.

That memo said the yearly cost of a 40,000-troop increase would be $30 billion to $35 billion — at least $750,000 a person. An increase of 20,000 would cost $20 billion to $25 billion annually, it said — a per-soldier cost equal to or greater than the White House estimate."

As we all know, a bill providing health care to Americans must be deficit neutral. And even if it is deficit neutral and in fact it cuts the deficit, overall, you are still allowed to not support it because, like Joe Lieberman and David Broder, you just feel, in your heart, like it will probably add to the deficit. Those gut feelings are what make those men such admired and respected centrists. And we can only imagine that Lieberman, and Ben Nelson, and the Maine Senators, and Blance Lincoln, will all refuse to condone any troop increase in Afghanistan unless it is completely paid for and deficit-neutral, just like Iraq was, which is why they kept voting for that. Etc. (Oh, look, it's David Obey, a real-life Democrat, making the same point and threatening the riches with scary taxes.)

view link