General McChrystal on 60 minutes talked to Obama once in 70 days

Obama doesn't like dealing with situations that deny him validation, that are not "narcissistic supply".

This is one very important fact that validates my interpretation of Obama.

Be disappointed idol worshipers. Be very disappointed.

Remember, too, he was the one that wanted to get up into those hills of Pakistan as well.

Increasingly these type of  comments are off the issue and in the ether. Other than your generic and rather  extreme disapproval and unsubstantiated theories as to his motivation, Roy/Queenie, do you have anything to actually add value to the debate on Afghanistan? Not your theories on his psyche, I mean as ACTUALLY pertains to Afghanistan?

A lot of clicks on a comment but no real backers. Sounds like they deal with things "hands-off", just as Obama does for fear of looking bad.

This story is not about Afghanistan. It is about Obama's sense of how to play his role in Afghanistan.

So, no, increasingly these type of comments are right on the mark, as more evidence of the "real" Obama presents itself to the world.

And, that leaves the true believers in a difficult place of having to admit to error. It is just as F. Scott Fitzgerald said: intelligence is the capacity to hold opposing views in your own mind at the same time.

Lacking the resource to critically assess their vaunted leader by holding two views in their mind, both pro- and con-, and risking social apostasy by actually allowing meaningful criticism of their "Fearless Leader",  they change the subject.

We can debate Afghanistan all we want. I am not really qualified to make such an assessment, but when CowPoke, who has combat experience, thinks that a commander in Afghanistan should be talking more than once every 70 days with his commander-in-chief, I know that that criticism rings true.

This is exactly what legitimately concerned, even frightened the anti-Obama crowd about this untested, and even immature man who is now our president.

I will tell you that Obama should be talking to his principal commanders at least once a week. Maybe more often.

Comparing the two presidents, Bush and Obama, we see some similarities in their respective subjectivity and capacity for illusion.

We all remember "Mission Accomplished". Then the real war, a war of insurgency in Iraq, began.

Rumsfeld wasn't prepared for that. Bush wasn't prepared to replace him. We had to virtually experience something close to defeat for Bush to "get it" and trash Rumsfeld and put in Gates and go with General Patreus' surge, which Hillary and Obama both said wouldn't work.

Neither has admitted to being wrong, by the way, and such errors of vanity and narcissism are never really "by the way".

So, Obama comes into office and shocks us all by re-appointing Gates as Secretary of Defense, but doesn't admit to O'Reilly in the interview that Obama did with O'Reilly that Obama was wrong about the surge.

That is the kind of man who occupies the White House now. That is the response of a narcissist.

The narcissist will make critical errors when confronted by a need to change and a need to admit to error because he cannot sacrifice his self-image. No, that is holy territory.

F*** yourself will be the reply to that one, crude and rude, or a simple ignoring of the demand, a negation of the humanity and dignity of the questioner and the right of citizens to have transparency and accountability.

I find myself agreeing more and more with the thoughts of Rory Stewart. he believes, our mission objectives in Afghanistan are totally impractical. He advocates stepping down to a force in the 10-20K range (special forces primarily) to keep Al Qaeda infiltration limited. I agree with him that trying to create a US type democracy is beyond our reach, and that it would need an Afghan Jefferson figure to arise internally. Our efforts won't drive change in any real sense.He also argues that you cannot have a moral imperative in a mission to do what cannot be done  and that we need to realize this. As he has walked the length of Afghanistan by himself and is ex-British services I find his comments very credible.

The other stuff about the Obama narcissism thematic...I won't comment on - it is supposition and of no practical value to debate.

Have you been to a war college? Do you have a meaningful way to evaluate strategy and tactics?

If not, then discussing various strategies to save the Afghanistan war is supposition on the part of Monday morning quarterbacks.

Well, when a boss undergoes a review, his hands-off attitude, lack of returning calls, haughty demeanor, lack of vision (!!!) on how to solve pressing issues, gets noted.

Gee, do you think that the top people in his administration only talk to him less than once every two months?

Obama just got an "F" on his review as Commander-in-Chief. He will get more, but I wouldn't completely rule out a turnaround. I just wouldn't bet on it.

The news story that started this thread is about Obama's hands-off relationship with his commander in Afghanistan.

Do you think that the commander feels optimism being treated that way? Feels as if his view of the war is a priority? Feels as if he is being properly regarded? That Obama cares about the men and women fighting in Afghanistan as much as that commander does?

I know that Afghanistan is a border war, the bane of any empire, the limit on the projection of force. I learned that reading Edward Luttwak's book on the Roman army and the strategy of the empire and the structure, tactical and political, of that army.

I learned why Rome couldn't expand into Germany....why it was more difficult to rule Palestine directly instead of through a client king such as Herod.

But, I don't know the parameters of the process here.

To win the war, I would legalize heroin in the US as a prescription drug, killing the market, the black market profits and destroying the economic basis of the Taliban's capacity to fight.

And, I would talk to the commanders every other day, at least, if not more.

I think Afghanistan is a lost cause. Obama does not seem to have a hold of the military angle of things happening there.

What about the troops? How many are going to die, for what cause?

Good debate Roy and rng.  Thank you for your comments on this.  lalith thans very much for your comments.

ACP: Thanks for the story and comments it elicited. Military personnel often get the it end of the stick. But the fact that President Obama has only spoken to his top general in Afghanistan once in 70 days is unbelievable!

Afghanistan is essentially Obama's war. Indeed,  throughout his campaign he let the world  know that Afghanistan is where the real enemy is--not in Iraq. I can understand now why General McChrystal has to go on national TV--it's the only way that he can  gain  an audience with his commander in chief! This is a crying shame and it's extremely disheartening. I give General McChrystal much credit for putting up with what essentially amounts to an insult in my opinion. Gen. McChrystal  must be one tough and disciplined soldier to put up with this kind of crap!  I guess all the grunts know about this now--what a morale booster . . .huh?

I guess when the General said, he would tell Obamarama if Afghanistan was a lost cause, the General was making his feelings clear, McChrystal Clear!

By not talking with Gen McChrystal, Obama can later excuse his inaction by saying that he wasn't told how bad the situation in Afghanistan really was.BTW,  I used a portion of your article in my post<a href="plancksconstant.org/blog1/2009/10/the_difference_between_afghan_and_american_women.html">The Difference Between Afghan and American Women</a>