General Petraeus: “This Is Not The Move I Recommended.”

Even the generally butt kissing sycophantic Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen, who was appointed by President Obama, has admitted that this may not be the wisest move the President could have made from a military perspective:

Admiral Mullen said: “President Obama’s decisions were “more aggressive and incur more risk than I was originally prepared to accept.” For Admiral Mullen to disagree publically with the President is astounding. He has the reputation of being one of those “Perfumed Princes” who hangs in the rear with the gear sucking up all of the credit while his troops suck up all of the danger within the battle space of a bayonette, as described by COL David Hackworth, USA, Retired (deceased)

As if to make my case that Admiral Mullen is a political leader, as opposed to a military one, Representative Randy Forbes, (R-VA) offered the following observation when Admiral Mullen refused to discuss what he and other military leaders recommended to the President on the draw down, the current fighting season and the following one:

“It just astounds me that when we had “don’t ask don’t tell,” you were willing to come before a committee unsolicited and say, “I’m willing to state my personal opinion, and this is what I think it should be,” but yet when we’re talking about potential risk to the troops that this committee has to make, which is our number one concern, that you’re not willing to say what those individual commanders were willing to say or — or your personal recommendations.”

Forbes was referring to Mullen’s now infamous statement to Congress in support of the President and his far left base that repealing the law that bans homosexuals from serving openly in the military is “the right thing to do.” I happen to agree with Admiral Mullen’s assessment that allowing gays to serve openly is the right thing to do; but my agreement comes from principle – not from a want to please my boss.

Read more: here

“There is no jumping ship here. Quite the contrary, we will have at our disposal the great bulk of the surge forces throughout this — and most of the next — fighting season.” The original plan was to use the surge forces in the south to dominate Taliban fighters in the Northeast throughout the full next fighting season.”

“Let me be candid, however,” Mullen said. “No commander ever wants to sacrifice fighting power in the middle of a war. And no decision to demand that sacrifice is without risk.”

General Petraeus speaking on President Obama’s decision to be more aggressive in troop withdrawal:

“That is understandable in the sense that there are broader considerations beyond those of a military commander, the fact is there has never been a commander in military history” who got everything he wanted, the general added. Noting that he agreed with Admiral Mullen that the risks associated with the faster drawdown “are at the margin.”

Perhaps the President’s looming nomination for General Petraeus to step up to the become the new CIA Director is part of those “broader considerations beyond those of a military commander”. I hope not. I’ve always held General Petraeus in high esteem; especially after then Senator Hillary R. Clinton (D-NY) accused him of a “willful suspension of disbelief”. Perhaps, my initial assessment of him as a true, gutsy military leader was incorrect. I sincerely hope not because this decision, if it stands, is going to cost more American lives by forcing our brave war fighters to do more with less causing them to take chances that they otherwise would have avoided. We will have more dead and wounded as a result, more shattered families, and more Gold Star mothers and wives.

Now, listen to the opinion of a retired Army General widely respected throughout the military community. His stature is on par with General Petraeus’. I value this opinion because he has nothing to gain or to lose as a result of agreeing or disagreeing with the Commander-In-Chief.

In the diplomatic realm, Secretary of State Clinton took the following perspective:

In a separate hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said she agrees 100 percent with Obama’s plan, which she said took into account widely divergent views among his national security team and “pressing” domestic needs. What domestic needs are so pressing that we can simply walk away from Afghanistan with the job unfinished and treat our war dead and the grotesque trauma suffered by thousands of our war wounded as if they were no more than columns in an accountant’s ledger?

Let’s get both pro and con perspectives and you decide if this move is politically (to cut costs) or militarily (to win and gain security) motivated:

Let’s hear from the family members directly regarding the long-term view on Afghanistan. After viewing the video and listening to the parents of a Medal of Honor recipient who hold views on Afghanistan that go back long before their child even entered the military and ask yourself if this draw down is keeping faith with this family and our heroic war fighter. Have we reached the point where we can find no spending cuts by the President and Congress outside of supporting this war effort through to the end? Is risking this war and nullifying the many sacrifices our heroes have made worth finding money to fund programs such as “cash for clunkers”, quantitative easing 1 and 2 (and now, possibly QE 3). Is allowing recipients of bailout money to go on without fully paying back their debt to the taxpayers worth the risk? Will we be better of having saved the automobile unions than we will be if we beat the Taliban into submission and give Afghanistan a chance to stand up on their own and move into the 21^st century?

Without your voice, the Congress and the President will do as they please. Do you think you can find something worthwhile to say?