War and Negotiations
A comment on current events, and a history quiz:
First, General McChrystal should not have said what he said in this Rolling Stones piece. Period. Some of his criticism seems valid, but not coming from him. The man, I think, will be fired, and if so, it will be a decision of President Obama's that I will agree with. As admirable as General McChrystal is, the rule he broke is unpardonable. Interestingly, even the LA Times seems supportive of McChrystal, and so is Hamid Karzai.
Add on: Stanley McChrystal is an extraordinary man with a reputation of being mercilessly blunt and extremely capable. The Rolling Stone article is quite interesting. This is, perhaps, a way to depart his command that will be one for the history books. But I have to wonder: Once he's gone (and his removal seems to have been the reporter's intent) what will General McChrystal have to say when he no longer has to be circumspect?
But now the quiz: In the 60s, a US president negotiated with France to help them out some years after France got itself in trouble in the Vietnam War. Was the president a Republican or Democrat?
He was a Republican. The first Republican president, in fact: Abraham Lincoln. The Vietnam War began in 1858, when Napoleon III invaded Vietnam and established a French presence there, which eventually became the colony of French Indochina.
The negotiations between France and the US did not produce a US involvement-and at the time, we had our hands full with the Civil War.
France was pursuing its own imperial aspirations in the Americas including the installation of an Emperor in Mexico, Emperor Maximilian I, which Lincoln fiercely opposed. Napoleon III seemed intent on causing Mexico to supply the Confederates during the Civil War, as he didn't want to take on Lincoln directly. (After the Civil War, the US helped Mexico regain its independence and Maximilian I was executed in 1867.)
A hundred years later, France would have better luck getting the US involved in Vietnam.
===|==============/ Level Head
First, General McChrystal should not have said what he said in this Rolling Stones piece. Period. Some of his criticism seems valid, but not coming from him. The man, I think, will be fired, and if so, it will be a decision of President Obama's that I will agree with. As admirable as General McChrystal is, the rule he broke is unpardonable. Interestingly, even the LA Times seems supportive of McChrystal, and so is Hamid Karzai.
Add on: Stanley McChrystal is an extraordinary man with a reputation of being mercilessly blunt and extremely capable. The Rolling Stone article is quite interesting. This is, perhaps, a way to depart his command that will be one for the history books. But I have to wonder: Once he's gone (and his removal seems to have been the reporter's intent) what will General McChrystal have to say when he no longer has to be circumspect?
But now the quiz: In the 60s, a US president negotiated with France to help them out some years after France got itself in trouble in the Vietnam War. Was the president a Republican or Democrat?
He was a Republican. The first Republican president, in fact: Abraham Lincoln. The Vietnam War began in 1858, when Napoleon III invaded Vietnam and established a French presence there, which eventually became the colony of French Indochina.
The negotiations between France and the US did not produce a US involvement-and at the time, we had our hands full with the Civil War.
France was pursuing its own imperial aspirations in the Americas including the installation of an Emperor in Mexico, Emperor Maximilian I, which Lincoln fiercely opposed. Napoleon III seemed intent on causing Mexico to supply the Confederates during the Civil War, as he didn't want to take on Lincoln directly. (After the Civil War, the US helped Mexico regain its independence and Maximilian I was executed in 1867.)
A hundred years later, France would have better luck getting the US involved in Vietnam.
===|==============/ Level Head