""I don't know how you put somebody in, who is as 'cracker jack' as General McChrystal who gives the president very solid recommendations and not take those recommendations"

Let's all take a little look back in history. IN WWI all the heads of state deferred to their generals and we know how well that worked out. Every step of the way all they needed were more bodies to shove into the meat grinder.

And let's be honest here, it's high time to send Feinstein out to pasture.

Please run for governor, DiFi, your state needs you.

Hasn't McChrystal had six months with more troops and a new strategy to show some results?

Looks like it is yet again time for another letter to my Senator. For Feinstein, her statement is a bigger commentary on her opinion of Obama who, in her mind, did not show enough deference to her in the early months of his administration in her role on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. As Senators have taken the low road of self interest, be it personal aggrandizement or money, it is increasingly clear that is the norm rather than the exception. Can we please have Bernie Sanders!!!! Grayson can come run for Senate in California too. Like many of her colleagues, age does not predict wisdom. Not many people in California are looking for longer, bigger occupations of other countries. It’s pretty clear to me she has a bit of a hard-on for Obama, not to mention her statements are foolish regardless of who is the Commander in Chief.

Of course, the dirty little secret is that Feinstein's husband is a military contractor. Nope, no conflict of interest there at all.

Actually, I don't think Feinstein's comment is all that unreasonable. Look at what she said:

"I don't know how you put somebody in, who is as 'cracker jack' as General McChrystal who gives the president very solid recommendations and not take those recommendations if you are not going to pull out...If you do not want to take the recommendations then you put your people in such jeopardy."

It sounds to me like she's saying "if you charge a commander with a mission and he says it will take X troops, you have to either give him at least X number of troops *or get out," because muddling through with fewer troops than your objective requires puts the troops that are there at a higher risk." The relevant qualifier is "if you're not going to pull out."

When I assembed diploma frames, I recommended we be given lint-free cloth to wipe the frames down with. I was refused. Instead I had to spend an extra minute or two disassembling the frame and blowing out lint with the air compressor.

When I was a reporter, I recommended we use a WYSIWYG text editor instead of Xywrite. I was refused. Instead, I learned an ancient peace of technology which was free and very stable.

When I was a social worker, I recommended we have fewer clients so we could actually had time to help instead of just enough time to fill out paperwork. I was refused. So I quit.

Maybe Feinstein's had different jobs than me, but in my humble experience, people higher up decide what resources you have to do your job.

I think the first question out of the box every time Feinstein expresses an opinion on any defense related matter is how her husband's company would benefit as a result of what she just recommended.

Once we get that over with (and, any way, if she knew it were coming she might show up less) then we can assess her statements for what it's worth, and it isn't usually worth much.

California, why can't you get rid of Feinstein? My God, her stronghold is Northern California -- surely the Bay Area can support someone more liberal from Southern California? Please, Please?

There will be no decision on troop levels until the Afghan elections are settled.

If Karzi is allowed to steal the election in the heavy handed method he is using, then the number one requirement of counterinsurgency is not in place: there will be no legitimate, effective government to chose above the insurgents.

Going to step two of supplying sufficient troops to secure area for the legitimate, effective government can not possibly work.

Going to step 2 before step 1 is certain failure [cf. Iraq].

Feinstein should be made to assemble Ikea furniture until the lesson "Step 1 THEN Step2" is pounded into her head.

Frankenfeinstein = ladder climbing, ass-kissing moron. That's all I have to say about her other than the old standard: what do Frankenfeinstein and the Boston Bruins have in common? Yes, next time Grandma is up for election she can kiss her stupid ass goodbye.

Feinstein makes these demands as a military/industrial complex whore - her husband, >i>she, makes money off War. A War Whore. Who needs to be shown the door.

How dare that uppity half-breed interfere with military/industrial complex profits!?

i'm sure makeup had a hell of a time covering the little stains of blood dribbling out of each side of DiFi's mouth, esp when she pronounced the inevitability of the 40,000 fresh troops headed to Af-Pak.

Anyone with any sense knows that the Afghan war is a horrible mistake gone worse and worse as time goes by. Only internal and regional negotiations can begin to settle down the area's inhabitants -- that and our withdrawal.

Don't forget McChrystal was the big boss at Abu Ghraib. He also went public with his 'demands' for more troops, which totally outside his chain-of-command. I don't know, but his actions sure are similar to the hawks. His judgment has been proven to be faulty.

The thing that really ticks me off is the right is screaming that we need to get Afghanistan w/o mentioning that Bush had it and let it go to fight Iraq. If it's so important, where were the hawks 5 years ago ? I think we should let it go and get out military out of harms way.

If presidents were always supposed to follow the military advice of their generals, the Army of the Potomac would still be entrenched on the Penninsula.

rea - omg. i got a civil war reference. finally, all that pbs pays off in a big way.

I bet money that Brien Jackson was never an active duty military officer! Politics weeds out the best of the officer corps. McChrystal may be a competent general, but that is yet to be proven.

Bush advocated for more and bigger war so its okay that he went "against his advisors." You can never go wrong in the Beltway with more and bigger war. Hell, the media didn't even report on that, instead choosing to parrot Bush's lines about "listening to the commanders" (even if they were commanders cherry-picked because they agreed with him) and oh yea, conferring sainthood upon David Petraeus.

That's the real problem here. The Beltway can't resist more war, bigger war, more slaughter, more troops so of course McChrystal is being touted as the BMOC that Obama needs to listen to because Presidents listen to the Generals. If this guy was out there saying we need to GTFO of Afghanistan his words would've been forgotten within 2 days.

Nice to see the only Republican successfully elected in San Francisco in the past 40 years once again showing her true colors. Always nice to be reminded why I only ever voted for her once, 40 years ago, when nobody knew the real Dianne.

Please, haven't we had enough of Feinstein? Her chubby little fingers were all over the torture memos. Vote her out!

Diane Feinstein has yet to see a war she doesn't like. This person is a conservative bully, and everything she utters should be ignored. It's like having Mitch McConnell in drag.

Joshua - An exception to your rule: The media is against a bigger war only when the THREAT of a bigger war would derail plans to start a war. Hence Shinseki's tarring & feathering.

Diane's a real testament to what lots of money can buy in America - in this case a Senate seat.

Too bad it can't buy half a brain.

"She added, 'If you do not want to take the recommendations then you put your people in such jeopardy.'"

So, Madam Senator, did JFK screw up when he didn't listen to his generals in 1962?

Obama needs to do whatever McChrystal wants, just as Truman did whatever MacAthur wanted. Oh, wait a minute. Never mind!

"...when George W. Bush approved the "surge" policy in Iraq, the president "was rejecting the advice of almost all his military advisors." I don't recall Feinstein raising much of a fuss at the time..."

You forget that Feinstein's husband is a defense contractor who stands to make millions from every US military escalation...and her history shows that is how she votes. Plus her committee shoves multiple contracts her husband's way. She has no more clue about what is going on in Afghanistan than she did with the Sunni uprising or the results of firing the Iraq army (which led to the insurgency and military gangs used as an excuse to bring on the "splurge" which brought her husband big profits). If we but waited a bit the surge would not have even been needed and there would have been a lot less ethnic cleansing and Iraqi displacement.

Get it straight "surge" goobers...1)the insurgency was a direct result of firing the (Sunni) Iraq army making them all unemployed and looking to make money to survive; 2)The Sunni awakening (or the rehiring of the Iraq army) led the way to defeat al Qaeda and the mercenary gangs siding with them and was beginning to unite Shiites and Sunnis.; 3)The "surge" which should be called the "splurge" came alongside the Sunni Awakening and really did more to increase violence than end it as they began bombing neighborhoods and did more ethnic cleansing than the Shiites could have wished for as well as walling off neighborhoods and displacing thousands of Iraqis with "overkill" which if we would have waited a bit longer after the Sunni awakening would not have been necessary at all...for that matter the entire insurgency would not have even occurred if Bremmer had not fired the Iraq army to begin with. The "surge" was a political face saver to cover up the mistakes...costly mistakes already made by the Bush administration. People like Feinstein profited greatly by every mistake made that led to increased military action and should have that finger pointed to here for then as well as now.
No matter how she tries to justify or rationalize it, that is her hypocrisy.

While we're there we should execute our strategy as well as can be done. Saying you can't find the Taliban (or al Qaeda) doesn't help.

I think the goal should be to destroy al Qaeda. It's difficult because they stay wrapped in the blanket of the Taliban. Even so, the specific military strategy or tactics to use could vary depending upon the region of the country, terrain, friendliness of the locals and so on. In any case, when we feel they're pretty well eliminated or cease to be dangerous we should leave. Recently it has been said there are no more than 100 in Afghanistan. Then to scare us I heard there were many in Pakistan. Somebody has to get precise information and use that.

Some others think we need to nation build. I don't see how that won't take 100 years and thus I don't favor that regardless of how many or few troops it would require.

The only reason I see for staying is to ensure the Taliban do not take over the government (if that's a valid goal) and to prevent any new terrorist training camps from springing up. It wouldn't take a huge number of troops to keep their eyes open and call in larger numbers if a problem arises.

What's more, Feinstein made it sound as if the president has to do what McChrystal wants because the president hired McChrystal to do the job. But that's flawed, too -- the president is the commander in chief. There's a clear chain of command here, and it's not Obama's job to follow orders.

Legally, that is correct. However, when Obama appointed McChrystal to the command he also announced that his administration had just completed a thorough review of Afghanistan strategy, and that McChrystal was the ideal general to carry it out. To say he can't accept McChrystal's request now because his administration has to carry out another thorough review of Afghanistan strategy makes Obama look like an airhead. The only thing that has changed is that McChrystal got a chance to look at the problems up close and evaluate how to carry out the previously agreed strategy.