APPALLING - AT 10:41 P.M. ET:  We continue to follow, with increasing dismay, the remarkable campaign being waged by people in the Obama regime against General Stanley McChrystal, our commander in Afghanistan.  The Telegraph of London has the best report on this.  It doesn't matter whether one agrees or disagrees with McChrystal's views.  The fact is that the commander in chief has been out to lunch, and dinner, and snacks, while American men have been dying.  We get the feeling that McChrystal, hand picked by the Obama White House, is being set up to be scapegoated.  Given the great practice that Obama has in throwing people under the bus, we won't be surprised.  From The Telegraph:

According to sources close to the administration, Gen McChrystal shocked and angered presidential advisers with the bluntness of a speech given in London last week.

Oh really?  I heard it.  It wasn't blunt at all.  He was, as we've reported, stating what already was known about his views. 

An adviser to the administration said: "People aren't sure whether McChrystal is being naïve or an upstart. To my mind he doesn't seem ready for this Washington hard-ball and is just speaking his mind too plainly."

I wasn't aware that Washington hardball was what Stanley McChrystal is about.  I'd thought he was one of the nation's leading experts in counterinsurgency.  I guess when you learn your politics in Chicago, where the election of the city clerk is more important than the election of the president of the United States, there might be some confusion as to what's important.

Gen McChrystal delivered a report on Afghanistan requested by the president on Aug 31, but Mr Obama held only his second "principals meeting" on the issue last week.

He will hold at least one more this week, but a decision on how far to follow Gen McChrystal's recommendation to send 40,000 more US troops will not be made for several weeks.

A military expert said: "They still have a working relationship but all in all it's not great for now."

And, of course, to this touchy-feely crowd in the White House, "relationship" is what it's all about.  Great leaders can get along with tough-minded subordinates, and even welcomes them if they're good.  Not-so-great leaders can't.  Obama can't. 

As a divide opened up between the military and the White House, senior military figures began criticising the White House for failing to tackle the issue more quickly.

They made no secret of their view that without the vast ground force recommended by Gen McChrystal, the Afghan mission could end in failure and a return to power of the Taliban. 

Obama has certainly won the respect of the military, hasn't he?

Obviously, we have civilian control of the military, and military men aren't always right.  Lincoln went through a bunch of generals before getting to Grant.  Truman fired MacArthur.  But both Lincoln and Truman devoted themselves to national defense.  Obama seems to see it as a sideshow.

The administration is also being led around by Iran, which made some tiny concessions on its nuclear program, letting the usual appeasers announce a new day in our relationships with the mullah/thugs.  There is no such day.  Itan hasn't conceded anything significant, and won't.

The leaked comments on McChrystal seemed rougher than the comments about Iran, which should tell you something about the mentality of this new White House crowd.

October 4, 2009