WASHINGTON -- In the fall of 2009, as President Barack Obama and his relatively new national security team deliberated a troop surge in Afghanistan, someone leaked a secret internal report by the top general in charge of the war. The report, written by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, said the president, focused on finding a way to bring the war to a close, was thinking too small. To be effective, McChrystal believed, the surge had to be overwhelming.
The leak was interpreted inside the White House as a calculated move by the military brass to make a public case that would leave Obama "boxed in" to the strategy preferred by advocates of troop-heavy counterinsurgency, including McChrystal and then-Gen. David Petraeus, the regional commander.
"McChrystal: More Forces or 'Mission Failure,'" read the headline in Bob Woodward's article describing the leaked report.
"Obama and his White House aides fumed," wrote New York Times reporter David Sanger in his recent book on the administration's foreign policy. "If Obama chose another path, his opponents were now armed with the evidence that a young president, in his first major military decision, had overruled a commander who had warned of 'mission failure' if he didn't get a large infusion of new troops."
In the end, Obama met the generals near the middle, granting them a 40,000-person surge, but with a hard, three-year time limit, succeed or fail.
Three years later, with the troop surge over and the end of combat operations in Afghanistan nearing, the generals who once sought to box in Obama find themselves marginalized by scandal.
McChrystal lost his job in 2010 after a devastating Rolling Stone article caught him badmouthing the commander in chief. Petraeus, who retired last year to head the CIA, was felled last week after he admitted an affair with his biographer. (A third general, John Allen, who has led Obama's war in Afghanistan for the past year, was set to step down in the spring. He also has been implicated in the widening sex scandal.)
The sex scandal has created a public relations headache for the freshly reelected White House. But it also demonstrates a reversal in the balance of power between the president and the military he oversees.
Instead of the scandal causing a major upheaval in Obama's Afghanistan strategy, analysts said the removal of his spy chief and the possible disgraced exit of his Afghanistan commander is unlikely to change much in the president's hard-won plan.
"It's very unlikely that it's going to have a major impact," said Anthony Cordesman, a military expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "For one thing, this whole issue of what U.S. forces should be in Afghanistan, the level of forces, has now been debated for half-a-year. It was debated long before this incident."
The scandals may even reinforce Obama's public strength on military matters, experts said. Now, should the military brass seek to reverse course in Afghanistan or other hotspots with the kind of public pressure that proved so effective in 2009, their actions would carry far less weight.
"Substantively, it doesn't change much, but perhaps from a public relations standpoint it does," said Richard H. Kohn, a University of North Carolina expert on civilian-military relations. "It reminds the public that as successful and important and accomplished as these people are, they are still humans."
Indeed, by the time Allen took over in Afghanistan, U.S. course was largely set. The plan was to expedite the training of Afghan troops, and aim for a firm departure date in late-2014. Allen was who the president wanted to oversee it.
“John Allen is my man,” Obama once said, according to The Washington Post's Rajiv Chandrasekaran, a rare display of affection and endorsement after so many years of clashing with his Afghanistan commanders.
No evidence has emerged to directly link Allen to any improprieties, and the White House has continued to publicly support him.
Our 2024 Coverage Needs You
It's Another Trump-Biden Showdown — And We Need Your Help
The Future Of Democracy Is At Stake
Our 2024 Coverage Needs You
Your Loyalty Means The World To Us
As Americans head to the polls in 2024, the very future of our country is at stake. At HuffPost, we believe that a free press is critical to creating well-informed voters. That's why our journalism is free for everyone, even though other newsrooms retreat behind expensive paywalls.
Our journalists will continue to cover the twists and turns during this historic presidential election. With your help, we'll bring you hard-hitting investigations, well-researched analysis and timely takes you can't find elsewhere. Reporting in this current political climate is a responsibility we do not take lightly, and we thank you for your support.
Contribute as little as $2 to keep our news free for all.
Can't afford to donate? Support HuffPost by creating a free account and log in while you read.
The 2024 election is heating up, and women's rights, health care, voting rights, and the very future of democracy are all at stake. Donald Trump will face Joe Biden in the most consequential vote of our time. And HuffPost will be there, covering every twist and turn. America's future hangs in the balance. Would you consider contributing to support our journalism and keep it free for all during this critical season?
HuffPost believes news should be accessible to everyone, regardless of their ability to pay for it. We rely on readers like you to help fund our work. Any contribution you can make — even as little as $2 — goes directly toward supporting the impactful journalism that we will continue to produce this year. Thank you for being part of our story.
Can't afford to donate? Support HuffPost by creating a free account and log in while you read.
It's official: Donald Trump will face Joe Biden this fall in the presidential election. As we face the most consequential presidential election of our time, HuffPost is committed to bringing you up-to-date, accurate news about the 2024 race. While other outlets have retreated behind paywalls, you can trust our news will stay free.
But we can't do it without your help. Reader funding is one of the key ways we support our newsroom. Would you consider making a donation to help fund our news during this critical time? Your contributions are vital to supporting a free press.
Contribute as little as $2 to keep our journalism free and accessible to all.
Can't afford to donate? Support HuffPost by creating a free account and log in while you read.
As Americans head to the polls in 2024, the very future of our country is at stake. At HuffPost, we believe that a free press is critical to creating well-informed voters. That's why our journalism is free for everyone, even though other newsrooms retreat behind expensive paywalls.
Our journalists will continue to cover the twists and turns during this historic presidential election. With your help, we'll bring you hard-hitting investigations, well-researched analysis and timely takes you can't find elsewhere. Reporting in this current political climate is a responsibility we do not take lightly, and we thank you for your support.
Contribute as little as $2 to keep our news free for all.
Can't afford to donate? Support HuffPost by creating a free account and log in while you read.
Dear HuffPost Reader
Thank you for your past contribution to HuffPost. We are sincerely grateful for readers like you who help us ensure that we can keep our journalism free for everyone.
The stakes are high this year, and our 2024 coverage could use continued support. Would you consider becoming a regular HuffPost contributor?
Dear HuffPost Reader
Thank you for your past contribution to HuffPost. We are sincerely grateful for readers like you who help us ensure that we can keep our journalism free for everyone.
The stakes are high this year, and our 2024 coverage could use continued support. If circumstances have changed since you last contributed, we hope you'll consider contributing to HuffPost once more.
Support HuffPostAlready contributed? Log in to hide these messages.