Obama and the Left are simply angered because they can’t find any top military leaders who are of the opinion that weakness wins wars or believe that retreat equals victory. Again, the White House approved McChrystal’s speech, and he has a right to offer professional opinion in answer to questions that do not violate OPSEC–and so he did. If Obama and the Dems don’t like it, they should try actually DOING something instead of just running their mouths.

The military needs more leaders willing to tell it like it is and stand up for the men they lead. The number of NCOs and Officers in the military who believe their rank carries an obligation to speak out on behalf of the men they lead–no matter the consequences–when they know something needs redress, fixing or is flat out wrong has been dwindling for decades.

While it is indeed acceptable and preferred for advice to come up the military chain of command, there’s something called an “open-door policy” that many civilians are apparently not familiar with. That aside, many officers give policy speeches, present ideas, and offer analysis in the realm of their profession…writing papers, giving speeches and so on.

Obama was probably just worried he wouldn’t get his Nobel prize for doing nothing if McChrystal’s speech forced him to give in to common sense and actually do something.

Mom of Troops – we are with you and hope that General McChrystal continues bringing the needed attention! God Bless all the troops.

Mackubin Thomas Owens is an American military historian and conservative political figure. He is currently the Associate Dean of Academics for Electives and Directed Research and Professor of Strategy and Force Planning for the Naval War College, as well as a contributing editor to National Review.

Owens served as an infantry platoon commander from 1968-1969 in Vietnam during the Vietnam War, during which he was injured twice, and awarded the Silver Star. He retired from the Marine Corps Reserve as a colonel in 1994.

It is obvious why the Gen. did what he had to do, as his mission to protect my children and this nation is more important than a chain of command, that should be deviated from as it was with Bush and his top commanders in the field.

Perhaps Mr. Owens should go fight side by side, with my two sons, in Afghanistan. I am quite sure he would sing a different tune.

Come to think of it, isn’t it interesting to note that the ones who are there (in Afghanistan), or have been there FIGHTING for this nation, are the ones who support the troops and McChrystal, while the ones who are “Analyzing” the data and yelling how he should use “the chain of command”, are doing so from the confines of a safe and secure office?

Why don’t you tell my sons, and families of those who have died for this Country, that their commander should just “shut up and solute” a man who has never worn the uniform of the U.S. Military!

“As much as I may agree with Gen. Stanley McChrystal when it comes to Afghanistan, I must say that my old friend Jim Jones was correct when he told CNN’s John King that “it is better for military advice to come up through the chain of command.””

and then later in Mr. Owens’ post:
“The cornerstone of U.S. civil-military relations is simple and straightforward: The uniformed military is expected to provide its best advice to civil authorities, who alone are responsible for policy. While reasonable people can disagree over the wisdom of military action against Iran or any other adversary, the decision to take such action lies with civilian authorities, not with a military commander.”

And lastly (from Mr. Owens):
“But the American tradition of civil-military relations requires that they not engage in public debate over matters of foreign policy, including the decision to go to war. Moreover, once a policy decision is made, soldiers are obligated to carry it out to the best of their ability, whether their advice is heeded or not.”

Geez, it sounds like Mr. Owens and Mr. Robinson are on the same page here.

— Mackubin Thomas Owens is a professor at the Naval War College and editor of Orbis, the journal of the Foreign Policy Research Institute.

He is an ineffective leader. He lacks the ability to perform the risk analysis that should be applied to every decision he makes. He is driven by feelings and his “moral obligation” to convert this country from the land of “equal opportunity” to the land of “equal” with no regard to real world impact.

Our men are dying in Afghanistan while he and his advisers evaluate the political impact of complying with the General’s request. Kudos to Gen. Stanley McChrystal for taking a stand!

I am also curious to know if our objective in Afghanistan is still not necessarily to win.

This is exactly what happens when an uneducated public elects a liberal with no business or military leadership experience. The worst is yet to come.

P.S. Eugene Robinson needs to take a little trip to Afghanistan so that he can develop a basic understanding of that which he speaks.