WHEN PENGUINS FLEW AND WATER BURNED This is the true memoir of one US Air Force navigator’s journey from the schoolhouses of Air Training Command to the nuclear alerts of the Cold War to combat in a 35-year-old anachronism called the B-52. It is a first-hand account of life during the last days of Strategic Air Command, the early days of Air Combat Command and the ensuing military drawdown of the 1990s. From peacetime training exercises across the globe to combat operations in Desert Storm, Jim Clonts takes the reader inside the cockpit where life and death are seconds apart. Often comical, sometimes heart-pounding, other times tragic, WHEN PENGUINS FLEW AND WATER BURNED takes you into the world of military aviation, a crucible where warriors learn the true nature of character, conscience and mortality.

Friends of Liberty VOL 59
by Jim Clonts, 2010

07/01/2010

The Resignation/Firing of General Stanley McChrystal

My take on the McChrystal controversy:

There has been speculation that the conflict created by McChrystal and his staffers' comments was intentional. Some believe the General was falling on his sword to bring his dissatisfaction with the President to the attention of the American Public. Others believe he may be setting himself up as a future political candidate. There is one thing to keep in mind: this guy was Obama's choice for commander in Afghanistan. That should say something right there. General officers at the three and four star level are at heart political animals. Warrior generals rarely rise to this level anymore. I know McChrystal was Special Ops and is considered a warrior general, however, there are stories floating around the media that are depicting his politics as more liberal in nature than conservative.

While he and his staffers were bashing Obama and Biden, they also gave Hillary Clinton high marks for understanding the mission and giving them the support they needed. He bashes Obama and praises Clinton? Now therein might lie a strategy. Can anyone say General Wesley Clark, another closet Democrat and Bill Clinton's choice for the Balkins Conflict?

This is not to say McChrystal is evil or corrupt. He may very well take issue with Obama and his handling of the war. His motivations may very well revolve around the safety of his troops and the success of the mission. If the current strategy, troop levels and rules of engagement are mandated by the Administration and he feels his hands are tied in a losing proposition, this whole thing have been intentional.

He might also see a future with Hillary Clinton that goes far beyond his prospects with Obama. The irony here is that Obama put McChrysal in the perfect position in which to undermine Obama, publicly decry him as incompetent and in the same breath sing the praises of a potential Democrat rival in 2012. I wonder if Hillary Clinton recommended McChrystal to Obama?

If McChrystal is just a closet liberal who thinks Obama's incompetent, that might explain why he felt at ease and let his guard down with the liberals at Rolling Stone. If this is a strategy to get in bed with Hillary (pardon the visual image this might conjure), then it may have been a master stroke.

We also need to keep in mind that just because a man serves thirty years as a military officer, fights wars, risks life and limb and defends this nation does not mean he is a conservative. I think secretly many general officers tend to be, not so much liberal, as Pro-Big government. Let's face it, although our military is there to defend the Constitution, they do live in an artificial socialist utopia. I found myself falling into this trap when I was an officer. When you depend on the Government for everything, and the Government mostly delivers, you can easily start to believe in the whole concept of that Big Government has the answers to the nation's problems. The military socialist utopia works simply because it is a well-funded microcosm of American Society. The nation can support a couple million people living this way, especially when their mission is to protect us. However, I think it is easy for high-ranking general officers, routinely interacting with congressmen, presidents, the Washington media, etc. to fall into the Big Government Camp. McChrystal may be in that camp, but simply wants a different leader.

Dry Powder Alert: "Isn't it delicious that Obama's own choice for commander turns against him and is replaced by George Bush's choice, a man the Mainstream Media called General Betray Us a few short years ago, but is now hailed as a "Obama's brilliant choice."

Biden said the strategy would fail. Hillary Clinton said "one has to suspend disbelief" when listening to General Petraeus' evaluation of the surge. Obama said Petraeus' surge strategy would fail and then when he had to admit it succeeded he insisted he still would not have authorized it had he been president.

More Dry Powder: Obama is hailed in the Media as "taking charge" when he fires a general officer and orders a sniper to kill three Somali teenagers, but when he dithered for three months trying to figure out what to do in Afghanistan there was no criticism. The descriptions of "taking charge" or "acting like the commander in chief" is never applied to actual military operations and certainly not military victory---victory being something he has said he feels uncomfortable with.

Another View from a Friend of Liberty:

Dear Friends of Liberty, pardon me while I spew some more venom at this White House (WH),

While I do not condone Gen McChrystal's remarks or action, I can certainly understand it...both as a retired military officer & as a citizen with a conservative bias. Yes, the word on the streets of Afghanistan is, the troops do not think we can win this war due to the White House restrictions on targets & tactics. No army ever won a battle, much less a war without believing in itself!

What am I talking about? Consider this common scenario replayed 15 times a day in Afghanistan. A patrol is pinned down by a sniper in a village. The Lieutenant is fairly certain of what building the fire is coming from, but not what window or how many are in there, or if some are non-combatant civilians. Still he calls for an airstrike to end his predicament. Permission denied! HQ can't authorize the strike without verification of the targets and that all collateral damage will not inflict civilian casualties. The Lt is left to his own recognizance. Not a pretty picture. Not inspiring our men to trust in their leadership.

Sound a bit like Viet Nam to the older guys? You bet. The only difference is a July 2011 pullout date and the enemy knows how to wait it out. Yet, the troops know it won't be a complete pullout (another Obama campaign promise broken that will surely infuriate his party Leftists all the more). Some troops will come home to shouts of Democratic Party proclaimed Victory! While a dwindling remainder in Afghanistan take up the slack against an enemy emboldened to strike more often and more boldly than before. It will also be an Al Qaida-esque, Taliban victory over the battlefield and in the media. In 2011, this will be the only war with two winners: One the Obama WH, desperate to declare anything a success amidst a sinking economy, environmental woes, increasing spending, and falling approval numbers. The other winner, the Taliban, joining forces with the Pakistani Al Qaida as they control the media spin, and occupy the battlefield in the vacuum of the retreating US forces.

In fact, I dare to predict Obama will be the first sitting Democrat president not to win his own party's nomination for a second term -- his poll numbers will be that low. Meanwhile, Hillary will surge ahead with DNC support, unfettered and un-blamed for the spat between McChrystal, the WH, and our Afghan ambassador who poo-pooed McChrystal's counter-insurgency plan from the get go. Hmmm, don't our US ambassadors work for the Sec of State under the auspices of "Foreign Affairs?" Not much media coverage of Hillary in this mess. Coincidence? I think not!

Anyway, back to the original question: Should McChrystal have kept his mouth shut around the Rolling Stone reporter? Absolutely. Didn't he know the media is essentially an enemy fifth column in our military camp? Probably. Did the majority of the hostile quotes come from McChrystal, or his staff? His staff. Does that excuse him? No. Did he care? No, probably not.

McChrystal is a Special Forces general and Spec Ops guys have a confidence, swagger, and outspoken nature, at least at the staff level, that you don't always see in other staff officers. I mean that in a respectful way. They don't waste time gilding the lily when it comes to battlefield tactics & talk. It's "gimme the poop on this situation report and let's take action before the enemy knows what, who, & where we are." They are good and they know it. No one else can do what they do, nor should they. Yet, they are able to call the King naked every day and still perform their job. They are that good. Only people in their circles would understand that. Obviously a reporter for the Rolling Stone wouldn't, and it was the perfect opportunity for a hit piece -- hit as in personal attack.

McChrystal is not the first general to miscalculate the press, and won't be the last. Bad judgment on his part. In fact, some conservative talk shows said McChrystal admitted voting for Obama -- talk about your bad judgment -- who does he think he is? Wesley Clark?

Anyway, the UCMJ (not the Constitution) is strict about spouting off against your superiors - don't do it, and this is why. He is lucky the WH let him retire with some dignity. Obama was so busy looking for a "butt to kick" in the Gulf, he could easily have done so to McChrystal, but wise advisers probably knew it would not lift the WH approval numbers.

The Dems (and especially VP Joe "bite me" Biden) laughed at Petraeus' counter-insurgency plan & surge for Iraq about 3 years ago, but today are hailing him as the returning Caesar, ready to depart on another military mission to save Rome. And for that reason, I don't see any big changes in strategy, such as a shift from counter-insurgency to counter-terrorism. As long as the body count is not too high and the media continues to ignore Afghanistan, the Democrats will have their Victory (on paper anyway, thanks to the media), and they'll have a boost in the polls a year before the elections. Now, if they can just divert attention away from the Gulf, the economy, the deficit, Blagojevich...

Too bad Obama won't be able to cash in on it.

Jimbo in Abilene, TX

Welcome to: JimClonts.Com E-mail: b52radar@jimclonts.com