My take: The Runaway General | Rolling Stone Politics

Tom Usher wrote or added | Wow, I really hate Rolling Stone articles, but they get so much attention that in order to address the issues, one suffers through them. If writing the f-word over and over would win over hearts and minds to peace, Rolling Stone would be the Second Coming. Instead, it's the same old juvenile delinquent supposedly all grown up and ready to weigh in on geopolitics.

Well, let's get down to cases. Stanley McChrystal's Counterinsurgency Nation-Building has always been fatally flawed. I expressed exactly the same prophecy concerning Somalia where the Pentagon screwed up royally. The biggest mistake made was allowing the Pentagon to take the lead away from NGO's and the UN humanitarian efforts. Had the Pentagon remain subservient and strictly protective, eventually the humanitarian efforts would have paid off and the warlords would have come to terms.

What is wrong right now in Afghanistan is that the US has refused to sit down with the Taliban to work out differences to come to a mutually acceptable peace settlement. There is no doubt in my mind that the Taliban would come to what most sensible people would agree would constitute a reasonable arrangement, protecting all vital interests and securing greater general human and civil rights. This must be weighed against the huge loss of life, property, and money on all sides.

The way to peace is via peace, not war. Stanley McChrystal may be a mixed-bag who sincerely believes that even though he's doing the devil's work, he's doing ultimate good; but the people surrounding him did not join the military in the spirit that is required to bring about peace.

Perhaps McChrystal is confusing his position with General Douglas MacArthur's where MacArthur had already won the war and had a free hand in redesigning Japan's government. Perhaps McChrystal thinks that he can have his cake and eat it too. He can't.

Yesterday, I suggested that he's may be looking for a way out by getting fired. Whether he's looking for it or not, the slang use of the expression, "He's looking to get fired," still applies. He could be canned whether he wants it or not. I know what I'd do were I in the President's shoes; but then again, I'd have already solved the issues in Afghanistan. Wouldn't you?


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.