Afghan Paralysis Update

There is an interesting White house spin starting to develop in the press in regard to Afghanistan in the last few days. What really peaked my curiosity was this excerpt from a U.K. times article;

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

It is true that Generals usually don’t go public to this extant, And the General is clearly frustrated by the Presidents paralysis, but I find it nearly impossible to believe any General with Mc Chrystal’s credentials would be unfamiliar in the ways of Washington, he may not like it, but I’m sure he knows the game. Which leads me to question why administration officials would describe him as an upstart. An upstart in what regard? Are they speaking of political aspirations? Then I found an article in the New York Times that mentioned Petreaus being marginalized by Obama during strategy sessions because the White house feels he has Presidential ambitions. The White house seems to be painting these generals as political opponents, I have a feeling this will become a trend in the press as this situation develops.

My prediction, Obama will not send more troops to Afghanistan. Although he will not take this position publicly he will use administration operatives in the press to make the case that he rejected the recommendations of these Generals because Mc Crystal and Petreaus are politically motivated. I do hope I’m wrong about this.

Anthony D Dolpies