Buh-bye, Stanley McChrystal

casseia's picture

Not sure what covert political machinations this implies. Please commence speculation below.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
gretavo's picture

ok, pulling this out of my...

...magic 8 ball. First, I find it amusing that McChrystal's team was so loose lipped around a reporter from, of all places, Rolling Stone. Did they think that this "lib'ral rag" wasn't going to print every last stupid thing they said and make them look at least as stupid as they apparently are? Apparently they weren't too worried about that happening--they probably just thought it was nice that SOMEONE--ANYONE actually cared enough about their ridiculous "mission" to talk to them. And they probably felt cocky, knowing how bad the situation there is and how anyone else stupid enough to take the job should they be fired would regret it and probably do even worse than they are doing.

Then again maybe this was all set up as a way of changing the guard there with a nice safe excuse (oops, just a gaffe by a very frank general) instead of giving the real reason--that this "mission" is one huge mess of lawlessness and corruption that is running the risk of getting out of control My Lai style.

I don't think it has anything to do with the recent hype about Afghanistan's mineral wealth--that to me has more to do with laying a credible backdrop for LIHOP 2.0, New LIHOP, or whatever we decide to call it when it comes out.

juandelacruz's picture

Petraeus is replacing

Petraeus is replacing McChrystal. My thoughts:
- Petraeus is likely not taking any stand against the Zionist traitors in the US Gov. (otherwise he will be replaced himself)
- McChrystal may have sacrificed his career for Petraeus to take command (perhaps it was Obama who had his hands tied about promoting Petreus and needed a good prodding)
- There may be truth that Petraeus is being groomed to be a future GOP presidential candidate, that is if he succeeds in improving the situation in Afghanistan or avoid the image of it getting worse on his watch - does he have a chance?

Chris's picture

Technically its a demotion

Technically its a demotion for Petraeus. Its possible Obama may be pulling some Machiavellian scheme to take him out of the running for Prez in 2012 by keeping him tied down in Afghanistan(I know Obama etc. said troops start drawing down in 2011. Does anyone believe that?).

As far as standing up to Israels negative influence, I find the so called evidence that hes done that flimsy and I don't expect him to in the future. Plus now his focus is more narrow anyway. Its like was said before, he has to know at the very least that 9/11 was not "al qaeda" so the fact that hes still there playing good soldier says it all about him. 9/11 is a litmus test.

 

kate of the kiosk's picture

McChrystal was cocky and critical

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/205940-Shocking-Admission-on-Killing-Civilians-by-Top-US-General-Almost-Completely-Ignored-by-Corporate-Media

and may have admitted to US Military war crimes...a no-no. He was supposedly trying to reduce the number of shootings of unarmed citizens.

I know he and his aides mocked Biden and HOlbrooke, but what about the other zionist...Emanuel?

what did he think of him?

gretavo's picture

hm I totally forgot about the poppies...

maybe the hype about the mineral wealth is to distract from the drug wealth? who the hell can say with any certainty just what is going on there? was Pat Tillman killed because he foolishly let it become known that he disapproved of what he saw (whatever that may have been) and was going to spill what he knew as soon as he was decommissioned?

juandelacruz's picture

It is hard to know for sure

It is hard to know for sure at this point. What we do know for sure is the Army repeatedly lied about how he died, they kept on changing the story. Suggestions that his killing was intentional due to the bullet pattern also leads one to think that this was not an accident. The close pattern shots to the head was never denied officially as far as I know. The part about why he was killed, your guess is as good as anyones.

Chris's picture

I tend to think Tillman was

I tend to think Tillman was killed simply for political purposes. The available physical and circumstantial evidence suggests it was intentional plus look at the timing-the wars were not going well and debate about Iraq was still all over the MSM. Imagine a (semi-famous)guy previously painted as a war hero and used as a propaganda tool coming home and being anti-war and anti-Bush. He was killed about 6 months before the 2004 election. Phony "Bin Laden" tapes also came out as we remember. The zio-infested war team that was the Bush administration pulled out all the stops, from assassinations to Ohio election "issues" and all the other shit in between.

juandelacruz's picture

I think that way too, but I

I think that way too, but I am really speculating with very little basis on it. This is a very isolated case in that we have no prior history to rely on unlike say Zionist false flags which has a repeating pattern.

A one off assassination can have any possible motives. Though your guess is perhaps the best with what info is public.

kate of the kiosk's picture

McChrystal

might have been good..who knows.

 

 

 

 

Chris's picture

The guy was the head of an

The guy was the head of an assassination squad(who knows how many innocent people he got away with killing), covered up the murder of Pat Tillman for political purposes and basically forced Obamas hand(the coward Obama could have said no but after McChrystal gave his little public speech in London calling for 30,000 more troops it made it all the more difficult for him to) on the troop increase in Afghanistan. Not a good guy imho.

juandelacruz's picture

I do not get this. If he

I do not get this. If he thinks that the US is committing war crimes, why not resign from the services, refuse to participate in further war crimes, and advocate an immediate pullout of troops.

Valuing career over your conscience for murder. What is that? Too little, too late.

gretavo's picture

Mining Opportunity Or Political Ploy?

It's not exactly what the article says, but I think it's possible that this is a bit of sabotage designed to turn everyone in the region against the U.S. by supporting the case that the U.S.'s interest in Afghanistan is as a brute resource grab. As a result, when Afghanistan stabilizes (when the U.S. is kicked out and/or finds it untenable to maintain its presence there) China, India, and other countries seen as outside of the U.S. sphere of influence (including, through these proxies, Israel) will be laying down the "carpet of gold" there. There are most likely people in the U.S., in the media and government, who are working behind the scenes to sell America out. By all accounts, China is financially well heeled and has brighter future prospects than the U.S. Americans--especially those being tricked into becoming monsters, are being played for chumps. We will bear the costs of the sick, maimed, and dead soldiers AND reap the animosity we have and will have sown among those peoples on whom we will have inflicted even worse damage. I suppose in a way Americans have had this coming to them, and the Chinese are as deserving as any other people of a better standard of living--which from what I hear from experts who are fequently there, is skyrocketing.

Afghanistan's Mineral Wealth: A Mining Opportunity Or Political Ploy?
Resource Investing News
06/16/10 - 01:45 AM EDT
By Michael Montgomery—Exclusive to Moly Investing News

New reports of Afghanistan's vast mineral wealth have been flooding media outlets around the world. A study conducted by the US Geological Survey in coordination with the Department of Defense has put the total mineral wealth of Afghanistan at over $1 trillion. Large deposits of copper and molybdenum have been known to exist for quite some time. The Chinese were awarded a contract on the Aynak copper mine in Logar Province, after a reported $30 million bribe to the Minister of Mines. American officials accused the minister of accepting the bribe, and he has since been replaced. The survey also reports large deposits of cobalt, gold and most importantly lithium.

“An internal Pentagon memo, for example, states that Afghanistan could become the 'Saudi Arabia of lithium,' a key raw material in the manufacture of batteries for laptops and BlackBerrys,” according to James Risen of The New York Times.

The reports show the Ghazni province to have reserves of lithium with the size to compete with Bolivia, which holds half of the world's reserves. Lithium is incredibly important for the world economy as renewable energy sources become a reality, and the use of handheld electronics explodes at an exponential rate.

The political realities of the war torn nation and the timing of the release of the reports have to be considered.

Firstly, the infrastructure of Afghanistan is abysmal. For any mineral wealth to be extracted in an economically viable manner, many large scale projects would have to take place. Railways, roads and processing plants would all have to be created at a cost of billions of dollars. Very few companies would sink so much money into projects in a country where the political stability is so weak, especially when the xenophobia to western power and dominance is so high. The risk may far outweigh the rewards unless true political stability can be achieved quickly in Afghanistan, a position even the most optimistic analyst would not commit to.

“BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto… the world's largest miners — have no intention of moving into Afghanistan because the risk is far greater than the reward. It would cost $5 billion or more to develop a large copper, iron ore or gold mine in Afghanistan and potentially a further $5 billion to build the necessary infrastructure… No company will risk that sort of money in a country where the Government does not control all the territory and contract law is far from solid,” reports David Robertson, for The Times.

Just Afghanistan's inability to manufacture cement stands in the way of any mining operation. “Afghanistan has the lowest cement production in the world at 2kg per capita; in neighboring Pakistan it is 92kg per capita and in the UK it is 200kg per capita," according to a journal article in Industrial Minerals. Currently, there are four cement plants in the works, but they will only account for half of the needs of the country. Afghanistan currently imports most of its cement from Iran and Pakistan.

The inability of the country to meet the most basic needs of large scale mining operations is still very far off. The $1 trillion dollar mineral wealth may seem large enough for the American military to stay in the country as an advantage over Chinese firms. However, with the massive investments needed to extract minerals, the profitability of the operations would be greatly diminished.

Secondly, the timing of the release of the reports, considering the knowledge of the minerals goes back to the Soviet era, seems politically motivated. America's political fortitude towards staying the course in Afghanistan is wearing thin. Calls for removal of troops are coming from all sides of the political spectrum, as the war just eclipsed Vietnam as the longest war in American history.

“I am deeply concerned about our campaign in Afghanistan," said McCain, who supported Obama's plan of sending 30,000 additional U.S. forces announced in December. "Many of the key trends seem to be heading in a bad direction, perhaps even signaling a mounting crisis," stated John McCain, as reported by Phil Stewart, for Reuters.

The release of The Pentagon memo's to New York Times reporter James Risen just days before the Afghanistan hearings is being questioned by many as a political ploy to stay the course in Afghanistan; a reward for a war that has cost trillions of dollars with very little to show for the massive efforts.

The Obama administration's strategy is to slowly draw down troops starting in July 2011 with Afghan forces increasingly taking over security detail. This approach is being attacked by conservatives as unrealistic. John McCain has been quoted saying, "It's time for the president to state unequivocally that we will stay in Afghanistan until we succeed." The potential for vast mineral wealth may be just another excuse to stay the course, while not taking into account the massive improvements need to actually mine in the country.

While the reports of $1 trillion in minerals in Afghanistan are politically sexy, and may represent a lucrative mining center in the future, any hopes for profits in the short term from the country are wishful thinking at best. With the region's and the country's distrust of western business and political interests, the US government and multi-national mining companies should be leery of stoking any sentiment of western hegemony, and the ‘stealing' of Afghanistan's mineral wealth. To do so would strengthen the Taliban's legitimacy and threaten the future security of the nation, only delaying future mining projects. Basically, these reports, and the ability to profit off the mineral deposits should be taken with a grain of salt.

Original article on Moly Investing News

juandelacruz's picture

This reminds me of my

This reminds me of my speculation in another thread that the US is being run to the ground on purpose.

The US is being forced to take positions that are clearly not sustainable in the medium and long term - both economically and politically. The republicans and democrats are both so guilty of crimes against its own citizenry that when the truth finally seeps in to the majority consciousness, both parties will lose credibility in absolute terms. It almost seems like you are being driven into a revolution.

The gang of the red shield has no loyalties to the states that it exploits. A drop in value of US assets is an opportunity for them to consolidate control rather than a loss in wealth which they already have in abundance. I will not be surprised if they are in bed with the Chinese or whoever is anointed to take the lead after the fall of the US.

Annoymouse's picture

> The US is being forced to

> The US is being forced to take positions that are clearly not sustainable

That's been going on for the last 65 years, except there's no evidence that anyone "forced" the USA into an unsustainable lifestyle.

gretavo's picture

most Americans...

don't actually have an unsustainable lifestyle. the unsustainable lifestyle is limited to some top percent of Americans that I wouldn't venture to guess on. of course I'm not including as part of Americans' lifestyle their implicit support for a huge globe-spanning military apparatus...

Annoymouse's picture

The derailing of public

The derailing of public transit in favor of private automobiles is just one of many features of life fervently embraced by a majority of US citizens and which is indeed unsustainable. Never mind whether the fossil fuel or abiotic oil theory is true or false. It is an unsustainable pattern.

Keenan's picture

True, the automobile-centered tranaportation system...

in which every adult human would have their own private automobile is not sustainable, particularly when replicated on a worldwide scale. Today, there are already over 900 millions automobiles in use worldwide, and we are already coming up against resource limits. There simply is not enough resources for every one of the 3 billion plus adults in the world to acquire their own automobile, and not enough space or resources for the 3 billion plus automobiles to drive around on the surface of the earth. This is a fact that the automobile commercial interests deny, but which is easily provable.

In order to come up with a sustainable global personal resource use level that would be equal between every human being, the AVERAGE American would have to drastically cut back on their high consumption life style, their level of fossil fuel consumption and level of meat consumption. There is a direct link between the high level of consumptive life-style of the average American, and the impoverishment and starvation of billions of the world's people on the other side of the planet. I can provide data and sources for this assertion if anybody disagrees with this.

juandelacruz's picture

Maybe I was not clear enough

I did not see everyday Joe asking to go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq before 9-11. But 9-11, the Neocons and the MSM fooled them and took them there. Since a minority was responsible for the deception and consequent actions, I consider the situation forced on the whole USA.

The 2 wars are costing the USA a very significant sum of dollars, right at the time that the US economy is no longer as strong or competitive as it used to. Those dollar costs are not sustainable, and the economy can tank even further than what was already experienced with the mortgage crisis. When I said unsustainable, I was referring to the economy in general and not the lifestyle decisions of ordinary Americans.

On the political side, both parties are so invested in the deception post 9-11 that if ever everyone finds out, both parties will be chased out as criminals. But who is in a position to assume leadership when every third political party has been so completely marginalized by the big two parties.

I hope this conveyed my ideas better, and perhaps you can react to this instead.