President Obama in Cophenhagen: The Meeting His Critics Missed

President Obama's trip to Copenhagen to support the Chicago Olympic bid has been pilloried by his critics who cite more pressing matters, such as the economy and war. What these critics have missed was that President Obama was in Copenhagen for exactly those two reasons: the economy and war.

The economy because Chicago could have used the jobs and war because of the meeting between President Obama and the General Stanley McChrystal, the officer in charge of the war in Afghanistan.

President Obama squeezed a 25-minute council of war into his Copenhagen visit yesterday, meeting General Stanley McChrystal aboard Air Force One before returning to Washington.The general was summoned to the airborne White House on the day it was announced that four more British and American servicemen had died in Afghanistan. He was on his way back to Kabul from London, where he made a powerful public pitch for more troops to be sent to the battlefields.

Until yesterday, General McChrystal had been in direct contact with Obama only twice since taking up his post as NATO commander in Kabul six months ago -- once via video link to the Oval Office and then as a participant in a major Afghanistan strategy meeting on Wednesday, again via videolink.

If you haven't heard about that meeting, it might have been because it didn't play into the howls from the president's critics over the Olympics. But with a hot war raging in Afghanistan against those who attacked us on 9/11, it could have been one of his most important meetings to take place in neutral territory since Roosevelt met with Churchill in the mid-Atlantic.

That may sound like exaggeration, but let's explore what the meeting was about. A few days before the president's turnabout in his decision to go to Copenhagen, General Stanley McChrystal, the senior officer in charge of the war in Afghanistan, gave a talk where he presented his case for more troops in Afghanistan against a plan put forth by Vice President Biden to focus specifically on counter-terrorism against al Qaeda.

President Obama and General McChrystal had not met face-to-face since McChrystal's appointment to head the NATO forces in Afghanistan earlier this year. For the president to go to Copenhagen to meet with McChrystal on his way back to Kabul after McChrystal's London speech is unlikely to be coincidence or an afterthought of a meeting called because he was there.

What was said between these two pivotal figures in history is unknown in full. It's not outside the realm of possibility the president made it clear to this vital general his feelings on the type of speech McChrystal gave in London. It is also not outside that realm that the general had the opportunity to put forth his concerns about the theater of war under his purview to his Commander in Chief without his chain of command influencing what he had to say.

Would President Obama's critics have shot off their accusations of neglect if the meeting with McCrystal had been offered as the main reason for the president's trip? Quite probably, since they have no shame about their constant political attacks.

But would it have been patriotic to do so under such a scenario? We're in a time of war and the hot war is in Afghanistan. The Commander-in-Chief met with his command rank officer in that theater. Why are his critics not supportive of such a meeting?

Would these critics have howled the same way if it were Roosevelt meeting with Eisenhower?
Would these critics have howled the same if it had been Truman meeting with MacArthur?
Would these critics have howled if it had been Johnson meeting with Westmoreland?
Would they have howled if it had been the first President Bush meeting with General Norman Schwartzkopf or the second President Bush meeting with General David Petraeus?

What is it about this president that makes these critics think support for a president in a time of war is any less required now?

Meeting with General McChrystal in Europe so as to not require the general to fly all the way back to America and farther away from the hot war of his responsibility was the responsible thing for the president to do and the respectful choice. We should applaud him.

Follow Janet Ritz on Twitter: www.twitter.com/janetritz

Comments

[randyjet]

Expecting GOPers to be rational is one of Obama's weak points. The whole poisoned atmosphere is mostly their doing.

[MekhongKurt]

Miss Ritz:

HOORAY FOR YOU, Ma'am.

As far as those "Pipsqueak Patriots" who want to cast POTUS as "the President of Chicago" and the U.S. O.C. as the "Chicago Olympic Committee" wan unpin their American flag lapel pins and drop them at the door, now that they'e shown their true colors, as you rightly point out.

Thousands of Americans lose out on work? So what! Bash Obama!!!

America loses out on the privilege of hosting the Olympics? So what! Bash Obama!!!

And consider the counterpoint which you didn't bring out: had the President not gone to Denmark, they would have painted him as a traitor to the entire country.

But the larger point over all that, over anything to do with the Olympics, is the President meeting his theater commander. mIn fact, I suppose that was the real reason for his trip; he has extremely capable advisors who certainly told him to reverse hmself under the cover of going to boost the Olympics would hurt him domestically, no matter what the outcome of the Olympics decision.

And you critics? Next time you want to accuse the President of not taking care of America, remember it was *you* who cheered that your fellow American citizens in Chicago lost out, that the city of Chicago and America lost out the honor of hosting the Olympics, that the rest of us Americans not from Chicago missed out boosting our own country -- here.

But of course.

Bash Obama!!!

Yeah, real "patriots."

[Dosadi]

Sedition is a term of law which refers to overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that is deemed by the legal authority as tending toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws. Seditious words in writing are seditious libel. A seditionist is one who engages in or promotes the interests of sedition.
Sedition is the stirring up of rebellion against the government in power. Treason is the violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or state, giving aid to enemies, or levying war against one's state. Sedition is encouraging one's fellow citizens to rebel against their state, whereas treason is actually betraying one's country by aiding and abetting another state. Sedition laws somewhat equate to terrorism and public order laws.

[Garybot]

...and if it had been President Bush, would you have been in there trying to smooth things over for him? Would you have said we should applaud him?

It was so nice of OB to give the General 25 minutes of time, wasn't it.

So do you think he might make a decision soon? Who knows?

And how did you like the 3 big planes going to Copenhagen and back? Any problem there if it had been Pres. Bush?

[JazzSax UT]

HuffPost's Pick

Yeah. Obama should rush right into a decision without thinking about it. That's what the Shrub did.

[Dosadi]

I like big planes. Zoom, Zoom, Zoom. Weeeee!

[AMERIKA]

I totally agree with you. The critics of the POTUS are anti American bigots.

[zezel]

All dissent must be crushed.

[JazzSax UT]

HuffPost's Pick

All "Intelligent" dissent must be crushed.

"13 year old" type name calling should be eliminated.

[BlueFloyd]

HuffPost's Pick

To answer the question in the penultimate paragraph....


the dude is black.

[JazzSax UT]

HuffPost's Pick

I was just about to post that BlueFloyd.

No matter how much people dance around that issue (i.e. Bill Clinton), with some critics, it's that simple.