Author Information

Connecticut Man1
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 24 weeks ago
Joined: 11/14/2007

Find out more about ePluribus Media.

Trending on ePluribus Media

Home | Blogs | Connecticut Man1's blog

McChrystal's Insubordination And The Afghanistan Racket

You can read all about what is clearly a case insubordination that can and should be punished to the full extent of the UCMJ.. Yep, McChrystal apologized but that does not excuse the behavior. And some are sending out statements of support. NATO probably does not want to risk instability... Even Afghanistan's President Karzai has voiced continued support for McChrystal.

Afghanistan's president believes that U.S. Gen. Stanley McChrystal is the "best commander" of the nearly 9-year-old war and hopes that President Barack Obama doesn't decide to replace him, the Afghan leader's spokesman said Tuesday.

But in Karzai's case? There may be more profitable reasons for him to back his war daddy:

Gen. Stanley McChrystal “was ordered back to Washington” today “after a magazine article portrayed him and his staff as openly contemptuous of some senior members of the Obama administration.” McChrystal is expected to appear at the White House tomorrow to answer for his interview that appears in an upcoming Rolling Stone article.

“The U.S. military is funding a massive protection racket in Afghanistan, indirectly paying tens of millions of dollars to warlords, corrupt public officials and the Taliban to ensure safe passage of its supply convoys throughout the country,” says a new congressional report. The report says the security arrangements “violate laws on the use of private contractors, as well as Defense Department regulations.”

Ten$ of million$ of rea$on$ for Karzai to want to keep the entiire corrupt team intact, on the ground and doing what they do best in Afghanistan.

And removing any doubt that these days, more than ever... War is a Racket.

A racket is an illegal business, usually run as part of organized crime. Engaging in a racket is called racketeering.

Several forms of racket exist. The best-known is the protection racket, in which criminals demand money from businesses in exchange for the service of "protection" against crimes that the racketeers themselves instigate if unpaid (see extortion).

Tens of millions of dollars to the Taliban and, meanwhile back in the USA, politicians are letting untold numbers of Americans slip through the cracks as they lose their unemployment? And we are are dumping billions into what are clearly unwinable wars, to boot.

Not only does Obama need to crush McChrystal for so many more reasons than just insubordination... He needs to cut off the entire warmongers set from any places of power and bring our soldiers back home.

America just can't afford their extravagant war crimes anymore.

[update] A couple of things, starting with Yves at Naked Capitlism, while commenting on the new charges of corruption n Afghanistan, mentions an article that drives home the point of this post:

As we pointed out in an earlier post, the sudden touting of the presence of a lotta minerals in Afghanistan (which it turns out was not news, except maybe to the chump American public) appeared to be an effort to bolster a military campaign that is going not at all well. We cited our sometimes guest poster Richard Kline, who pointed to an unintentionally damning piece in the Christian Science Monitor and provided this take:

Here are a few points in takeaway, directly from statements of joes in the 12th infantry a few miles outside Kandahar.

1) They absolutely do _not_ control the countryside.

2) The Taliban engage them—when they want to, where they want to, as they want to—not the other way around.

3) The occupiers are engaged in an attritional contest where everywhere they go is now mined and they lose a steady, bloody drip of casualties anytime they move.

4) The Taliban have received heavy reinforcements from outside the region which the occupiers are unable in any meaningful way to interdict.

5) The Taliban can, and do, kill anyone who cooperates in any remote way with the occupation, and neither the occupation nor its regime can do anything about this whatsoever.

6) The operational objective of this particular unit was, in effect, to ‘inconvenience the manueverability’ of the Taliban units.

7) The operational objective of their regional command (in Kandahar) was ‘to control the big cities so that they (the Taliban) would have to come to terms with us.’

And keep in mind, this is all taking place at the height of The Surge II in the region with maximum deployment of assets declared as the primary objective of the present occupation campaigning season.

There is a word for this configuration of conditions: defeat. This is why Stan McChrystal is re-polishing his shiny balls: he and his are completely immobilized, have lost any operational initiative that they may have had, can’t do a damn thing about it, and are now trying to keep the large population centers hostage to some kind of settlement. This looks highly like the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, minus the saturation bombing but with far more boots on the ground. This looks amazingly like the Indochina dumb-a-thon; even the kind of rhetoric used by the guys in the article I mention would be entirely in place, trying to paint a picture of failure as one where the occupation is ‘in control and on plan’ by milspeak fuzziness and omission, much of it the unintentional result of what is left when candor is excluded.

The problem, as Kline pointed out later in comments, is that the US has chosen not to understand the nature of this engagement

And while there are unconfirmed reports of McChrytal having offered up his resignation, Firedoglake asks if it is time to fire the Afghanistan war, never mind McChrystal.

They both need to get fired, IMHO, and they can take Petraeus and a bunch of other idiots with them.

0
Your rating: None

Comments

Bullshit

 

 

You've obviously not read the Rolling Stone article nose-to-tail, if you had you'd have realized the selective editing in both the article and the NYT leading to the misplaced 'indictment' of McChrystal. At the very end both conclude there are no major *policy* differences between the Pentagon, White House, and Theater Commander. What enmity exists in ample quantities - according to both articles - is primarily between McChrystal, Eikenberry, and Biden over the conduct of the conflict.

 

I'll give you this much:  you and the rest of the contributors on this site are vastly increasing the number of people returning to trusted sources in print.  Thankfully as that process continues, places like this will simply dry up and fly away.  Simple as a click to 'delete'.

Your rating: None

I'll take this comment with the same grain of salt


as I did when you unloaded on me for blaming the banksters for bribing local community politicians considering the news of their fraud against cities and countries being pursued around the world at the same time.

Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Doesn't seem to matter who or what policy any of them were directing their words at. The miltary regularly briefs all soldiers on that policy. And I've written about this shit before... We talked politics often and often negatively about politicians and policies when it is just soldiers around. We didn't like Clinton and we didn't like Bush... And we absolutely hated Rummsfeld.

But you are not aloud to talk shit like that with reporters or civilians around when you are a soldier. Not on duty, not off duty. Not at all.

And I don't need a source to figure that out just looking at the statements about various people, from the Sec Def to politicians to many others in their chain of command.

Even McChrystal did not deny what everyone is saying. He apologized because he knows he fucked up big time.

And since you are calling BS, again... Question for you: Do you blame the "earth biscuits" for BP's disaster, like Palin did?

The County was absolutely not 'forced' to borrow obscene sums, and if you'd have drilled down in the article you'd have found that out. But what the fuck, Wall Street bankers are so much more of an easy target than tree-huggers who call in the EPA lawyers. I'll give you the fact that JP Morgan never saw a local dipshit they didn't like - especially one so utterly corrupt and stupid as to sell granny for dimes - but the blame lies evenly across the spectrum of lunacy that begins and ends with the Earth Biscuit crew.

Seems to me you are quite capable of slinging BS, yourself and when it suits you. Considering your blaming the environmentalists was based on this statement in the article:

If you want to get all Glenn Beck about it, you could lay the blame for this entire mess at the feet of weepy, tree-hugging environmentalists

This may seem a harsh comment. But no less harsh than the one's you have unleashed on me at times and for reasons unknown. "Can you hear me now?"

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

Syndicate