First Prince Charles, and now,
Barack Obama made his first trip to Afghanistan as U.S. president on Sunday, delivering a rousing speech to troops and telling Afghan President Hamid Karzai that progress on fighting corruption should match military gains.Well done. Oh, and for the record because I brought it up with Prince Charles - it appears that for the US troops - even McChrystal was unarmed.
BARACK OBAMA
Air Force One landed in darkness at Bagram airfield north of the Afghan capital, and Obama was whisked by helicopter to Karzai's palace in Kabul, where he was greeted by the Afghan president and a band playing the U.S. national anthem.
"I want to send a strong message that the partnership between the United States and Afghanistan is going to continue. We have already seen progress with respect to the military campaign against extremism in the region," Obama told Karzai in front of reporters inside the palace.
"We also want to continue to make progress on ... good governance, rule of law, anti-corruption efforts -- all these things end up resulting in an Afghanistan that is more prosperous, more secure, independent," he added.
Karzai said he hoped "the partnership will continue in the future toward a stable, strong, peaceful Afghanistan that can sustain itself, that can move forward into the future."
Oddly, in this case I can understand the disarm order.
ReplyDeletehaving watched the video the troops don't look real enthusiastic
ReplyDeleteOldCavLt,
ReplyDeleteThen why not elaborate your understanding for everyone?
Why do I think the visit to the troops was obligatory?
ReplyDeleteThe troops are either tusted with arms, or they are not. The President's SS detail has far too much say in things, almost like they are the new Praetorians.
ReplyDeleteTo my mind, it speaks volumes that the CinC won;t meet with those entrusted to protect the Constitution unless they are disarmed. It's sort of like the way he feels about the entire nation.
When FDR reviewed the troops in North Africa just before the Casablanca Conference, the Secret Service insisted that all weapons must be unloaded...and the Secret Service carried sub-machine guns openly when escorting the President during his review. All of this annoyed George Patton to no end. So, that part of it is not just a recent thing.
ReplyDeleteHeh -- the SS didn't allow Sailors to have CELL PHONES during Cheney's halftime speech in Kitty Hawk's hangar back in '06.
ReplyDeleteOh......Tim....
ReplyDeleteSS rules likely apply to all POTUS visits, regardless of who is POTUS...(see Anthony's post above...) -- I recall reading same in a reputable history book somewhere. However, prattle on...
Gen. McChrystal does not go about armed. Nor does he wear body armor or a helmet. He does not want to appear theatening to the Afgans. Gen Petraeus did the same in Iraq. It goes without saying that both have a number of well armed bodyguards.
ReplyDeleteRegardless of what you think of SS, Mjr.Hassan icident shows there are possible threats within US military. And as I dont exactly am a fan of Obama, good job!
ReplyDeleteAlso OT, but I place it here: 2 suicide bombers in Moscow subway, dozens of dead. Not exactly a Putin fan here, but using such attacks on civilian population is atrocious and makes Putin only stronger with excuse to step up authoritarianism.
ReplyDeleteNoticed just a couple days ago that the Big O was uncharacteristically attentive to the AF1 folks...
ReplyDeleteUsually he nearly forgets to slew his obligatory salute...
So its a good thing I suppose.
Armed US troops.. A Commander in Chief should never be afraid to be in the presence of ARMED AMERICAN TROOPS.. we are after all the "ARMED FORCES"
ReplyDeleteJust had a chance to watch the video, and I'm surprised at how lukewarm his reception was. I assume Obama supporters were rounded up to attend. Was the audience instructed not to cheer too much? I'd be curious to know if any of you who were present at a Bush speech to the military were surpised at the reception that Obama got.
ReplyDeleteI wonder what the "disarmament radius" is?
ReplyDeleteWherever Obama goes in that area, SOMEBODY is armed somewhere.
<span><span>There are military folks armed ISO of this visit, along with all other POTUS visits to the combat zone -- but not the E5 grandmas and AF barely qualed that compose your typical BAF personnel. If somebody is going to have to shoot to protect the Pres, it should be someone who kills for a living and does it well... And those are the guys who are doing it. Just don't expect to see the shooters in any public photos.</span></span>
ReplyDeleteFirst thing I noticed was the corral the troops were fenced in. Nice.
ReplyDeleteCareful there, Steve.
ReplyDeleteMany agree he may not be what he portrayed himself to be during the campaign. But let's be careful of the rhetoric here. It's not that kind of blog here and Phib doesn't want the Secret Service on his front porch.
MrT.
ReplyDeleteThere could be reasons one might be concerned:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2009/11/06/army-fort-hood-gunman-custody-killed-injured-rampage/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/13/dad-says-army-broke-iraq-shooting-suspect/
Just sayin'
actually, no.
ReplyDeleteWhen GWB visited Iraq those who carried weapons as part of their daily duties remanded armed (though not loaded...which is the daily policy regardless of the VIP visit).
When Obama visited, all weapons were secured.