Wizdom
25-06-10, 22:50
'Obama fired McChrystal to rid 2012 rival'
Fri, 25 Jun 2010 11:38:05 GMT
Font size :
Former US senator Mike Gravel speaks to Press TV about the story behind General 'Petraeus.'
The following is a rush transcript of Press TV's interview with former US Senator and presidential candidate Mike Gravel on the controversy surrounding the commander of US and NATO forces in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanly McChrystal.
Press TV:How damaging has this whole episode been for the US-led mission in Afghanistan?
Gravel: I do not think [it has been] damaging at all. You have to keep in mind that the strategy for Afghanistan was developed by General [David] Petraeus, who was the commander of McChrystal. Now, McChrystal was merely the thug, I use the word 'thug' advisably because the reputation with McChrystal is of course the secret special ops, which were a lot of assassination teams.
So, McChrystal was merely the henchman that was bringing about the strategy. But, there is an unusual benefit that occurs politically that I don't think is appreciated by anybody on the scene. That is that Petraeus was looked upon as a possible presidential candidate on the Republican side, opposing [US President Barack] Obama when he runs for re-election.
Now, Petraeus was distanced from Afghanistan, and so, very cleverly, President Obama has demoted Petraeus and put him in charge of Afghanistan. So, if a failure takes place as I presume it will by 2012, the failure will be owned as much by Petraeus negating his ability to be a viable presidential candidate and will benefit Obama.
Press TV: The father of the counter-insurgency strategy is Petraeus himself, whoever it is, if it is coming out of the Pentagon, White house; from the public into the media, everyone is backing this counter insurgency strategy. They are saying it is going to work. But what is it saying behind the scenes?
Of course, there was that leak document from [US ambassador to Afghanistan, Karl] Eikenberry, and McChrystal said that he was very upset about that, that he felt betrayed. Behind the scenes, how much unity is there on this coin strategy?
Gravel: Well there was no unity at all because McChrystal was a bowl in a china shop. This is not McChrystal's strategy; this is Petraeus' strategy that was being implemented by a lesser person -- which is McChrystal.
Now that McChrystal is out of the way, and keep in mind, McChrystal is very close to President Hamid Karzai, and so I am sure that the attitude that is put out in the media in Afghanistan is that, oh well we loved McChrystal, he was fine. But keep in mind that McChrystal's strategy was that of assassination or bribery, and you had your choice, and that strategy was developed by Petraeus in Iraq, and it carried over into Afghanistan. And so I think you are going to see no change at all from a military point of view, but you will see a much improved diplomatic strategy; because; Petraeus is a very gifted diplomat; much more than he is a soldier.
Press TV: A part of this counterinsurgency or this coined strategy is having that dual approach, working with the community as well as having, this military aspect to it. In your point of view, how can this be assessed?
Because we have to point out as well that we have just seen the bloodiest day for NATO soldiers since the war began, so on those figures people would ask 'are we actually wining this?'
Gravel: Of course we are not winning this, and there is no way we can win it. The strategy that they have put forward is that they are going to try to bribe the various, tribal leaders, and those that they can't bribe, they will kill. This is interesting that the view from Kabul is not very realistic as to what has happened. Those casualties are a product of McChrystal's implementation of the Petraeus strategy -- which is not going to change.
And now what we see is that there is all kinds of corruption that has gone on with American contractors in Afghanistan. This is going to follow the pattern of Afghanistan, [the pattern] of history. And that is that empires have really lost everything when they tried to conquer Afghanistan. And that is what we are trying to do.
Keep in mind, it is not a security operation, it is a conquering operation, and it won't work at all.
RBK/MMN
Fri, 25 Jun 2010 11:38:05 GMT
Font size :
Former US senator Mike Gravel speaks to Press TV about the story behind General 'Petraeus.'
The following is a rush transcript of Press TV's interview with former US Senator and presidential candidate Mike Gravel on the controversy surrounding the commander of US and NATO forces in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanly McChrystal.
Press TV:How damaging has this whole episode been for the US-led mission in Afghanistan?
Gravel: I do not think [it has been] damaging at all. You have to keep in mind that the strategy for Afghanistan was developed by General [David] Petraeus, who was the commander of McChrystal. Now, McChrystal was merely the thug, I use the word 'thug' advisably because the reputation with McChrystal is of course the secret special ops, which were a lot of assassination teams.
So, McChrystal was merely the henchman that was bringing about the strategy. But, there is an unusual benefit that occurs politically that I don't think is appreciated by anybody on the scene. That is that Petraeus was looked upon as a possible presidential candidate on the Republican side, opposing [US President Barack] Obama when he runs for re-election.
Now, Petraeus was distanced from Afghanistan, and so, very cleverly, President Obama has demoted Petraeus and put him in charge of Afghanistan. So, if a failure takes place as I presume it will by 2012, the failure will be owned as much by Petraeus negating his ability to be a viable presidential candidate and will benefit Obama.
Press TV: The father of the counter-insurgency strategy is Petraeus himself, whoever it is, if it is coming out of the Pentagon, White house; from the public into the media, everyone is backing this counter insurgency strategy. They are saying it is going to work. But what is it saying behind the scenes?
Of course, there was that leak document from [US ambassador to Afghanistan, Karl] Eikenberry, and McChrystal said that he was very upset about that, that he felt betrayed. Behind the scenes, how much unity is there on this coin strategy?
Gravel: Well there was no unity at all because McChrystal was a bowl in a china shop. This is not McChrystal's strategy; this is Petraeus' strategy that was being implemented by a lesser person -- which is McChrystal.
Now that McChrystal is out of the way, and keep in mind, McChrystal is very close to President Hamid Karzai, and so I am sure that the attitude that is put out in the media in Afghanistan is that, oh well we loved McChrystal, he was fine. But keep in mind that McChrystal's strategy was that of assassination or bribery, and you had your choice, and that strategy was developed by Petraeus in Iraq, and it carried over into Afghanistan. And so I think you are going to see no change at all from a military point of view, but you will see a much improved diplomatic strategy; because; Petraeus is a very gifted diplomat; much more than he is a soldier.
Press TV: A part of this counterinsurgency or this coined strategy is having that dual approach, working with the community as well as having, this military aspect to it. In your point of view, how can this be assessed?
Because we have to point out as well that we have just seen the bloodiest day for NATO soldiers since the war began, so on those figures people would ask 'are we actually wining this?'
Gravel: Of course we are not winning this, and there is no way we can win it. The strategy that they have put forward is that they are going to try to bribe the various, tribal leaders, and those that they can't bribe, they will kill. This is interesting that the view from Kabul is not very realistic as to what has happened. Those casualties are a product of McChrystal's implementation of the Petraeus strategy -- which is not going to change.
And now what we see is that there is all kinds of corruption that has gone on with American contractors in Afghanistan. This is going to follow the pattern of Afghanistan, [the pattern] of history. And that is that empires have really lost everything when they tried to conquer Afghanistan. And that is what we are trying to do.
Keep in mind, it is not a security operation, it is a conquering operation, and it won't work at all.
RBK/MMN