Generals are too political
Given the recent announcement that the U.S. and its allies are going to start a new offensive in June in Kandahar, I have but one question: Whose side is Gen. Stanley McChrystal on?
If McChrystal is doing this because of pressure from the White House, then he no longer deserves to hold the current rank he holds, since he is placing thousands of American lives at greater risk for political reasons.
Who would tell the world and our enemies when and where we are going to attack? The only thing that seems to be missing is the units involved, the mode of transportation and the time the offensive will begin.
Imagine, if you will, McChrystal on Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower’s staff in 1944 and him telling the world that Allied forces were going to attack Fortress Europe on June 6, 1944, and what the casualties would have been like on Omaha, Utah, Sword, etc., [as a result] on that day in history.
Add to that the asinine rules of engagement being imposed on the warfighters. President Lyndon B. Johnson did that during the 1960s in Vietnam and look at how that turned out: 58,000-plus were killed and hundreds of thousands wounded, and for what? So that LBJ could claim he didn’t want to inflict too many civilian casualties. All that did then was make the U.S. look and act weak.
There was a time in America’s history when our warfighters fought to win a war, not to a stalemate. Sadly, politics enter into day-to-day operations and general officers who are supposed to ensure our warfighters fight to win have become political generals more concerned with getting the next promotion than caring about the men and women under their command.
Tech. Sgt. Steven Lodahl (retired)Helena, Mont.