Marine Corp General: Obama "giving our enemy sustenance" (UPDATED)

I call it aiding and abetting… but he’s been doing that since his election:

The top U.S. Marine general said President Barack Obama’s announced July 2011 deadline to start withdrawing troops from Afghanistan had given “sustenance” to the Taliban.

“We know the president was talking to several audiences at the same time when he made his comments on July 2011,” Gen. James Conway told reporters on Tuesday. “In some ways, we think right now it’s probably giving our enemy sustenance….In fact, we’ve intercepted communications that say, ‘Hey, you know, we only have to hold out for so long.’”

I don’t see how our troops can be holding any confidence in the Commander-in-Chief… and Conway seems to be confirming it for us.

Complete weakness.  And the Marines are calling him on it.

UPDATE: Inexplicably, the original article has been taken down.  WSJ has replaced it with this however the gist of the General’s remarks remain intact.  With thanks to Alan.

Shortlink:

Posted by on August 24, 2010.
Filed under Afghanistan, Military.
I blog more regularly at my own place where plain thoughts are delivered roughly. My about page gives you more on who I am.

You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
Up to 90% off top rated local fun!
  • GarandFan

    Evidently Conway doesn’t plan on retiring quietly.

  • LeBron Steinman

    Giving the enemy the date your going to bug out.Always a brilliant strategy. “General” 0bama.

  • Nine Fourteen

    On the brightside Barry Cordoba has a new demographic of voters to sign up. And with Holder on the job, he doesn’t have to worry about any fraud taking place.

  • Sigmonde

    Our troops are dying while their commander-in-chief dithers and fails to lead.

  • Nine Fourteen

    Instead of the “surge” we can call it “the Cordoba maneuver”.

    Good one mr. ears.

  • irongrampa

    Shit.

    I smell Vietnam redux.

  • http://doublenickelfarm.blogspot.com jennifer

    As the mom of an incredible young man serving in Afghanistan, may God have mercy on them all, as it seems like our government is leaving in the cold so to speak.

    I am assured that we still have men and women of character such as the Bush’s when they greeted the troops arriving home. I cannot think about the consequences of Obama’s actions as it is too heavy of an emotional burden to carry. I can only rest in my faith and the complete confidence I have in my son and those he serves with. In fact, thanks to my son and those who serve we are all so fortunate that we can and SHOULD do everything possible come November to cease this atrocious progressive group that has taken our nation hostage.

    Oh and son if you are reading this-as I sent you the list of blogs to read- we all love you! mom

  • Upset Old Guy

    The General is going to take a hit for that statement, just like General McChrystal did. Now why do you suppose active duty Generals are speaking out like this?

  • Nine Fourteen

    In fairness to Barry, he has not done one thing right from day one.

  • GarandFan

    Conway is on his way out. His term is almost up. Serving as Commandant of the Corps is followed by retirement.

    Conway knows Barry can’t hurt him. So Jug Ears is going to hear some “truth to power” that the Pentagon Palace Princes don’t want to utter.

  • Grace

    “Now why do you suppose active duty Generals are speaking out like this?”

    Answer:
    Because they (like us) “are mad as hell and they’re (we’re) not going to take it anymore!”

  • Upset Old Guy

    jennifer, your son’s service is very much appreciated.

    One of the military’s finest attributes is how everyone has someone else’s back. That’s exactly what General Conway was doing for his troops on Tuesday. Tweedle Dumb and Tweedle Dumber in Washington, currently busy screwing up everyone else’s life, can’t do anything to change that fact about military service.

  • Eric

    Now why do you suppose active duty Generals are speaking out like this?

    Because they will be treated like brave patriots by the media just like General Eric Shinseki.

  • Dane

    No link.

    Googling – not found.

    Farce?

    Phony?

  • Upset Old Guy

    Phony, Dane. As in, you are a phony. You only pretend to be human. Go back to lurking under your bridge.

  • GarandFan

    Hey ya go Dane – but no rush, the WSJ pulled the page:

    http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/08/24/conway-us-withdrawal-deadline-boosts-taliban-in-afghan-war/

    Guess this is more of the MSM “if we don’t report it, it didn’t happen”.

  • Dane

    The Wall Street Journal is owned by Murdoch – the same News Corp that owns Fox News.

    “Guess this is more of the MSM “if we don’t report it, it didn’t happen”.”

    Yep, that sounds like Fox News to me. Phony and Unbalanced.

  • ODA315

    Well Dane you best turn the dial back to CBS where you can watch Katie with the six other people.

  • Nine Fourteen

    The only thing phony and unbalanced around here is you Dane.

  • WildWillie

    irongrampa has it right. I would like to see the troops taken out as quickly as possible. The reason being now that we have a liberal in the White House, the military will be used for political purposes. I do not want another Vietnam where another liberal killed thousands while checking his poll numbers. Bring them home. They do not have a leader in the White House anymore.

    Before any of you liberals start your “we support the troops” nonsense, remember I saw the liberals behavior in the 60-70′s and that demonstrated clearly how much the left hates the military. ww

  • Roy

    Who wants to be the last man to die for another rookie mistake?

  • Sky Captain

    Dane CERTAINLY knows “phony and unbalanced”. He does exhibit that a lot.

    Searching Bing (by someone who knows how) provides the following:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/24/huffpost-hill-august-24th_n_693240.html

    Embedded within is a link that provides:
    http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/08/24/conway-us-withdrawal-deadline-boosts-taliban-in-afghan-war-2/

    Dane, now that your “Farce? Phony?” comment is debunked, how about addressing the article?
    Or are you gonna go “phony and unbalanced” on us again?

  • Nine Fourteen

    My son will get to partake in dethroning Barry in the 2012 unselection ceremonies. His first chance to vote and man is it a doozy.

    As willie says above. I saw the lefts example of a real hero. John Kerry. It was not pretty then and its just as ugly now.

  • Roy

    My son will get to partake in dethroning Barry in the 2012 unselection ceremonies. His first chance to vote and man is it a doozy.

    My first chance was to dethrone Carter. Funny how history repeats.

  • Alan
  • Gmac

    Surprised by the Generals comments? No…
    The military can pick up on if someone is a leader or a follower.

    ‘The Won’ isn’t a leader inasmuch as the title of his office say’s “Commander in Chief” and they know it. Now they, or one of them, is expressing their dissatisfaction.

    “I smell Vietnam redux.”

    No, much worse IG, much, much worse…
    The Democrats didn’t destroy the US when they cut military funding to South Vietnamese government, just that country. This time they’re taking out two, possibly three countries before they’re done.

  • Zelsdorf Ragshaft III

    Doesn’t Obama ride in Marine One when he leaves the White House? Not a good idea to piss off the Marines.

  • http://doublenickelfarm.blogspot.com jennifer

    Thank you Upset old guy!

  • Jim Addison

    “…giving our enemy sustenance…”

    It is almost as if he thinks Obama is on OUR side . . .

  • just bob

    As Gen McChrystal was leaving the oval office Obama stated “I bet your one of those people who would like to piss on my grave” to which the Gen replied “no sir I promised that once I left the service I would never stand in line again”.

  • Weegie

    As soon as Obama announced his “surge then withdraw” strategy, I could have told you it was a losing proposition in the long term.

    The surge part was simply an attempt to bolster his image as a leader.

    The withdraw timetable was to ingratiate himself with the left.

    It was quite obviously a strategy born of political cynicism, in order to minimize political fallout. It was not designed to win the war, ever. Even more amazingly, it took 6 months of dithering for him to come up with this bad policy.

  • T. Benton

    I think our CIC by announcing to the world that we’ll withdraw from the area very soon sends a message to insurgents to just sit back, relax, and wait. Soon the big U.S. Military will be out of the way and these insurgent groups can then slaughter the people. I know our boys & girls want to come home. Been there & done it. As a Army Ranger and as a Diplomatic Security Agent with the U.S. State Dept.
    But by telling your opponent your “Game Plan” is just damn stupid!! But then President Obama I sometimes think is against the U.S. anyway. What better way to hurt the U.S. than to attack us from within our own Presidency.

  • T. Benton

    It really seems everything Obama does is the opposite of supporting our country & troops. But if we don’t bring our troops home with a liberal now having power. let me correct that. The president isn’t a liberal. More a communist or socialist. Either way, our boys & girls are screwed with him in power. So yeah… They need to come home regardless now…

  • snapfish

    Hi all,

    libertarian leaning lefty here, coming with peaceful intentions and hoping for straight answers to the questions posed below, not because I’m trying to hack anyone off, but instead because it seems that many of my basic assumptions are different (some diametrically) from my interpretation of the consensus here.

    For the record, I supported military action against the Taliban, since they were providing aid and comfort to our attackers. I did not see how a full-scale invasion would serve US interests, but trusted that US authorities had good reason for proceeding as they did.

    I was not convinced by the assertions that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the US because it had WMDs and/or that Saddam’s regime supported or collaborated with Al Qaeda. I completely agreed that Saddam was a brute, but did not consider that justification for invading. I was, however, willing to give President Bush the benefit of the doubt, as I trusted that he was holding back the bulk of the evidence against Saddam’s regime to protect intelligence methods and sources.

    I think it’s also fair to say that any President would have felt enormous pressure to strike back against our attackers, and would have failed the country had he not immediately taken the battle to them. Similarly, it’s easy now to play Monday-morning quarterback, but I believe the decisions taken during the weeks and months following 9/11 were the result of patriotic people doing the best they could under the circumstances to prevent future attacks on American soil and to punish our attackers.

    What I would like to know is whether you believe that:

    1. the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were justified?

    2. those invasions were well-planned and well-executed?

    3. those invasions were winnable? If so, what would victory look like?

    4. the political/military situation Obama inherited in either country was “good” or “winnable”?

    All of the above may be purely academic now, but I am curious about how you believe the current situation developed.

    Going forward, my questions are:

    5. What course should President Obama take in Irag? Afghanistan? Do you think staying there can or will accomplish anything worthwhile?

    6. Is President Obama’s performance on the two conflicts, broadly speaking, worse than that of President Bush? What evidence supports your conclusion?

    7. Is the criticism of Obama’s Iraq/Afghanistan policies by military leaders somehow more serious than some military leaders’ criticism of President Bush and his policies?

    8. Why is it apparently acceptable to maintain that popular or media criticism of one President is harmful or verged on treason, while criticism of his duly elected successor is instead praiseworthy or patriotic?

    9. Is it realistic to think the US is being made more safe by continuing these wars? Isn’t Al Qaeda making propaganda hay out civilian casualties and of our apparent inability to achieve a military victory?

    10. If the US should not withdraw before achieving victory, what conditions would have to be met or to exist to satisfy you that we actually had won?

    Thank you.

  • http://wizbangblog.com Jay Tea

    snapfish, here are a few answers for you:

    1) yes.
    2) Yes.
    3) Yes.
    4) Maybe.

    Longer form:
    1) Read the Authorizations For the Use of Military Force as passed by Congress. It was all spelled out there, for anyone with a shred of honesty and literacy.

    2) Yes. They achieved their goals — the overthrow of the existing governments — with a minimum of friendly casualties and destruction to the nation’s infrastructure.

    3) See above. The purpose of the invasion was the overthrow of the governments, and both succeded wildly.

    4) I don’t believe either were lost causes. However, I worry Obama has the capacity to “win” either.

    The rest… I’ve answered them all, at length, before. I don’t feel like repeating myself that much.

    J.

  • snapfish

    Jay Tea,

    thanks for your response.

    I get that you think your opinions are correct — they are, after all, your opinions.

    I’m disappointed, though, by your response sounding to me as if

    –your opinions, being correct, are The Truth; and that
    –any issues not covered by the above are covered by you not wanting to talk about them?

    Also, I liked your very literal reading of #2. I completely agree that the invasions generally went well; maybe I’m at fault for not being more clear by saying something like

    “2. those invasions were well-planned and that ensuing political and military operations were well-executed?”

    So to respond to you as a person who seems to regard himself as a person with at least a “shred of honesty and literacy” while seeming to imply that those who disagree with you have neither, why did you bother responding?

    My impression is that you and most of the others on this site are mostly interested in talking to each other about how loathesome lefties are, crying about how comedians and the “Eastern Liberal Elite” mock you, and how you (unlike them) are principled and honorable. When I post questions like those you mostly did not answer, or when I ask for an explanation of what principled basis underlies your various tenets, I get virtually nothing.

    To be fair, that nothing has included no invective; I sincerely appreciate that. Further, I don’t at all believe that Righties are monolithic or that Tea Party folks are by definition racists, idiots or anything else other than citizens who don’t like what they think is happening.

    I fail to understand, however, how you have reached the conclusion that these wars, particularly the one in Iraq, have been anything other than very harmful to our country.

    You may believe that they prevented other Al Qaeda actions that would have severely damaged us. I can’t rule out that possibility, but I also can’t rule out the possibility that had we not invaded Iraq Cuba would have been so emboldened that they would have invaded us. Maybe N Korea as well, although I think Dear Leader is such a whack job that they literally may do anything on his most recent whim.

    Anyhow, as I see it, President Obama inherited a mess and that there are only difficult choices available to him in deciding how to resolve it. Given that the war was started during the Bush administration, which prosecuted for seven years or so, it seems unfair of you to conclude that Obama is a disaster by not achieving what you expect him to in a far shorter period.

    I’m not saying I think he’s worked miracles, but if the wars were such a brilliant success why weren’t they tied up with a bow well before the Bush administration left power?

  • http://wizbangblog.com Jay Tea

    Dane, I was so dismissive for several reasons. For one, I’ve been answering those questions for about five years. I am TIRED of repeating my answers.

    Second, when those questions are brought up, it’s usually as an attempt to get me wrapped up in refighting old arguments, and not thinking about the here and now.

    Third, those questions are, by and large, moot. Rehashing them won’t change a damned thing.

    Other than that, I have no problems with the topic.

    J.

  • Jake

    @snapfish – You’re new here. You may want to know a few ground rules:

    1. Democrats, and really anyone who doesn’t adhere to a strict Republican talking point platform is an evil, stupid person.

    2. Obama is the devil, ushering in the rapture.

    3. GWB was a god. Perhaps the best president in the history of the country.

    4. If you disagree with anything blogged here, you’re stupid.

    5. Guns rule. Every problem we face could be solved by simply killing one of three options:

    * Anyone with brown skin
    * A Democrat
    * A Muslim

    6. Providing reasoned debate, honest questions, and anything worthy of interesting discussion will be roundly dismissed, made fun of, and names will be called.

    7. The Constitution is god, unless it allows for things that people here don’t like, then it should be reinterpreted or changed.

    Do I sound jaded? Stick around a while, you’ll feel it too. Just wait for the “you’re an idiot!” comments your valid comments illicit.

  • http://wizbangblog.com Jay Tea

    Sheesh, Jake. I just got finished repeating for the umpteenth time that I’m an agnostic, and you’re STILL saying I’m part of some religious conspiracy. I don’t acknowledge God as God or the devil as the devil; why in hell (so to speak) would I try to associate either Bush or Obama with either?

    snapfish, I wouldn’t recommend taking Jake’s word for anything. I’ll admit I wasn’t overly welcoming, but I thought I was actually less than rude.

    Jake, I’ll be glad to fulfill one of your “warnings” for you. For displaying such astonishing stupidity in your comment, you really are an idiot.

    J.

  • http://www.transformersactionfigures.com Sam

    He should be court-martialed for giving aid and comfort to the enemy with his insubordination.

  • Elizabeth Anderson

    Gen Conway can say it. However, Afghanistan must make the choice between the Taliban who fight corruption and are members of the largest tribal in Afghanistan or a corrupt government who either seems incapable or unwilling to fighting corruption or caring. Given the choice and fighting corruption is important to Afghans, who do you think will win regardless of how long the US stays?