In the debate about the internal White House debate on which way to go in Afghanistan, one piece has been seldom talked about - did General Stanley McChrystal hurt his own cause?
There is absolutely no doubt where McChrystal stands: He wants a massive influx of troops, to execute a counter-insurgency strategy, which includes securing the people, taking and holding of areas, and rooting out al Qaeda and the Taliban. The strategy would very much mirror what was done in Iraq. Now, leaving aside for the moment whether this strategy would work in Afghanistan, the way the General made his case may have done more harm to his opinion than good.
From his speech in England, to his interview with 60 Minutes, to the piece by Bob Woodward that detailed his fight, the General has been incredibly public, taking the debate out from closed doors. It's hard for me to criticize that in and of itself. After all, the many veterans I represent, and I, stood up for General Shinseki when he took his criticism public of the Bush/Rumsfeld strategy to invade Iraq. VoteVets.org gave voice to Generals Eaton and Batiste, who resigned from the military so they could speak out.
But therein lies the rub - from Generals MacArthur to Shinseki, history has taught us that trying to pressure your Commander in Chief from the outside almost never results in a change of opinion from the President. In fact, it breeds tension that could lose the debate, if not your job.
For all the criticism from the left and right about President Obama, no one can argue that, so far, he hasn't deferred to military leaders on most issues. From the early days of his administration when he approved a troop increase for Afghanistan, to his ordering a study rather than a quick repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, to keeping pictures of Abu Ghraib under wraps, the President has heeded the advice of military minds, and has been backed up by the most senior retired officer in his inner circle, General James L. Jones.
On this occasion, however, Jones' response to McChrystal has been telling. Jones hasn't taken the General's side, or gone out of his way to defend him. In fact, on CNN, Jones bluntly said of McChrystal's public stance, "It is better for military advice to come up through the chain of command."
Ouch.
If I had to make a gut call right now, I'd say McChrystal won't get what he was asking for, but more of a hybrid strategy that focuses mainly on counter-terrorism - quick strikes against al Qaeda and some Taliban, yet some more troops to help the Afghan Army in some areas, and train them. Coming from President Obama, who is notoriously non-confrontational, that compromise strategy would mark the first time he's really said "no" to the military to any real degree, and some of that may have to do with how McChrystal handled all of this. It basically puts McChrystal on warning that he doesn't call the shots.
During the campaign, the President made a constant point of saying he wanted vigorous debate within the White House, and wanted to be told when he may be wrong. All indications are that he's getting his wish. That the debate has spilled outside the confines of the situation room, however, might not be the change he was looking for, or something he'll stand for much longer.
Crossposted at VetVoice.com
Follow Jon Soltz on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jonsoltz
Stanley A. McChrystal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Barack Obama furious at General Stanley McChrystal speech on ...
Stan McChrystal: The New U.S. Commander in Afghanistan - TIME
McChrystal: More Forces or 'Mission Failure' - washingtonpost.com
It will be interesting to see which approach wins out - COIN? CT? Hybrid? COIN has two weaknesses as a campaign plan - larger numbers of troops and time. We've squandered too much time here already. I'm sure the debates are intense.
Still baffled as to calling COIN a strategy/grand strategy. COIN is to counter, well, an insurgency - a tactic in support of an end. That makes COIN, at most, a tactic/operational method.
A grand strategy would be something like the U.S.'s implementation of Alfred Thayer Mahan's thesis to develop its Navy to control the sea lanes to become a world power; the WWII Europe First/Pacific Second strategy; or the containment/deterence/MAD strategy against the USSR. COIN is too narrowly focused to rise to those levels. To see a lively discussion on this go to www.smallwarsjournal.com
The JCS has no operational command authority.
Shinseki and McChrystal don't stack up the same way. And in reality, they both said the same thing -- you need these assets to do this job if you want to do it. It's the policymaking decision on the president's part whether or not he wants to pursue Afghanistan, if the cost is worth the benefit and so forth and so on.
This isn't endorsing McChrystal, except that he's correct on the military strategy. The question Obama has to wrestle with is whether or not this war in Afghanistan is beneficial to the overall counterterror strategy.
Me? I don't think so. I think we need to reduce our military presence and let the Afghanis take over the reigns, similar to what's been going on with the Pakistanis -- much of the problem in Afghanistan is that the Pakistanis are pushing hard and doing well, and the Taliban isn't operating as freely there as in Afghanistan now. Yet, Afghanistan's government needs to have a stake in success here, which they never will if we continue to coddle them. We have to prod them into standing on their own, and increasing our presence there merenly adds to their dependency.
In case you missed it, GEN Shinseki, as the Army Cheif of Staff, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee on the eve of the Iraq operation. He was asked his opinion of the troop strength needed and gave an honest assessment that turned out to be true - that the operation was under resourced. This did not align with Sec Rumsfeld's viewpoint and Shinseki was soon thereafter no longer the Chief of Staff of the Army. Shinseki was not insubordinate nor critical. He offered his analysis as the Army's leader and paid a price, which I think is the point of Mr. Soltz's article.
Note that a top British General is currently doing his best to rip his government apart. But he waited to resign first, then maliciously appropriated his insider knowledge to attack his democracy. Sigh. Generals.
When the Leadership stomped on Shinseki they were stomping on the best and brightest of the Army and the Fighting Commands not the opinion of one general and the kiss ups around him.
McChrystal plainly states in the "leaked" report that a strategy must proceed any increase in resources to be successful. Sen Levin backs that assertion. The current accepted doctrine in right now is COIN. The POTUS had previously bought off on it in his campaign, by appointing McChrystal, sending 21,000 additional troops, and calling this a "war of necessity" and stating he would support it with the appropriate resources. BTW, CT was the approach used by the Bush administration. So arguing for it is sort of like a "back to the future" approach. It's espoused by the VEEP and a few others. The POTUS has sided with the COIN folks up to now. He seems to be carefully weighing all the options now given the results of the recent fraudulent elections in A'stan. That was a game changer. McChrystal is doing his job and awaiting his bosses' direction based on his recommendations in the "leaked" report. Plus, I am not sure why the guy above is knocking Levin. Levin is on the General's side and has pretty much recommended the same COIN approach with a primary focus on developing the Afghani National Security Forces (ANSF).
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/levin_afghanistan_troops_/2009/09/21/262859.html
For the record, I am deployed to A'stan and I do not agree with the General's approach. I freely offer my opinions and recommendations to my chain of command without any hesitation or fear of reprisal. I am not a COIN-danista.
And to that the sprinkling of CStreetCult/OnwardChristianSoldier paradigm that many of the upper eschelon were picked for and U have a mess for US.
Here's the perfect picture worth a thousand words:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1KvgtEnABY