President Obama did the right thing this week in firing General Stanley McChrystal. Allowing McChyrstal to remain in office after the Rolling Stone story in which McChrystal belittled members of the Obama administration would have allowed his rather outrageous insubordination to stand unchallenged. It also would have encouraged further insubordination in the military which can ultimately threaten the notion of civilian control of the military. Obama is the Commander in Chief; and he acted accordingly this week. Similarly, Obama's choice of General David Petraeus as the man to replace McChrystal is also politically a good one because Petraeus, the military man associated with whatever success we have had in Iraq in recent years, is well respected among most political elites and opinion makers.
Obama's actions were a necessary response to an immediate problem, but they also raise bigger questions about the future of the war in Afghanistan. The firing of McChrystal brought the effort in Afghanistan back into reasonably sharp focus. John McCain, for example, questioned the wisdom of Obama's withdrawal deadline of mid-2011. Criticisms like McCain's will likely grow stronger over the next twelve months as it becomes increasingly, and predictably, clear that the US will not meet its goals in Afghanistan before this time.
More notably several respected analysts including Tom Ricks have suggested that President Obama use this moment to clean house in Afghanistan, firing US Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry and Special Representative to the region Richard Holbrooke as well. The ostensible reason for this would be to give Petraeus the opportunity to choose his own team. However, a shakeup of this scope would be something of an admission that things aren't going as hoped in Afghanistan. Although this may be obvious, it is probably not an admission that Obama would want to make at this time. That the idea has been bandied about by some of the punditry, however, suggests that there is growing awareness of the problems we are facing in Afghanistan which cannot be easily ignored.
Obama spent much of 2009 seeking to determine an Afghanistan policy before deciding to send more troops. The latest round of events in Kabul and Washington demonstrate that policy is still not resolved. Regardless of whether or not Obama continues to change the leadership in Afghanistan, the sense that things are not going well there is not going to go away. The McChrystal firing provides Obama with an opportunity to revisit much of his Afghanistan policy. While radically changing course there because of McChrystal's interview with Rolling Stone would be a mistake, using this moment to lay the groundwork for a policy shift would be wise.
The central problem Obama faces in Afghanistan is the same one he faced when he made his speech at West Point in December, or for that matter, when he took office in January of 2009. It is difficult to get out of Afghanistan today, but it will be more difficult to get out tomorrow. Thus the decision to get out requires the foresight to understand the real likelihood of things getting worse not better, as well as the wisdom to take the political consequences for getting out now rather than postponing them until later when those consequences will be greater. Given that a decision to withdraw troops will lead many on the far right to deem Obama a quitter, appeaser, soft on terror or other ad hominem attacks, there is added pressure on Obama not to withdraw from Afghanistan.
By postponing that decision, however, Obama will only create a more difficult dilemma later. The chances of Petraus turning the war around to the point where it will be possible to begin substantially drawing down troops beginning in mid-2011 is quite small. The problems in Afghanistan are not the kind that can be solved simply by changing American military leadership. Moreover, if this were the case, then McChrystal should have been fired months ago and not simply as a response to his recent poor media judgment.
Thus, it is likely that as the withdrawal date approaches, Obama will be faced with the same tough decision about whether or not to withdraw troops from Afghanistan which he confronts now. However, by mid-2011, this decision will be more difficult because failure to honor his commitment will raise the ire of many who opposed the initial buildup. They will argue, not without cause, that not only has Obama pursued the wrong policy in Afghanistan, but that he has broken his promises regarding the war as well.
Firing McChrystal was a relatively easy decision for Obama. Had he not done it, his authority, and that of the entire civilian government, over the war effort would have been brought into question. Unfortunately, the other decisions the President faces regarding Afghanistan are not as easy, but postponing them will only make those decisions harder.
Follow Lincoln Mitchell on Twitter: www.twitter.com/LincolnMitchell
Robert Naiman: Speaker Pelosi, More War Funding Next Week Is No "Emergency"
The administration hopes to dodge questions about the war supplemental urgently being asked by Democratic leaders in the House by claiming that more funds are an exigent, "emergency" need. They're not.
Shannon Galpin: Hand in Hand in Afghanistan
Women will be the first casualties of any surrender in Afghanistan. I agree. Our work depends on the international forces not surrendering, not turning their backs on the women and children of Afghanistan.
Jason Salzman: If Norton Wants to Talk Military Strategy, Ask Her About Defense Cuts
Even with U.S. wars raging in Iraq and Afghanistan, I was surprised U.S. Senate candidate Jane Norton dropped the old Democrats-are-weak-on-defense bomb into the Colorado Senate campaign.
This is much more than a case of stupidity and a trip to the woodshed to punish it. This is a case of incredible lack of judgment and ignoring the military’s code of conduct. This general truly believes that he is running the country. This is on a par for hubris with Alexander Haig saying as much about himself when President Reagan had been shot. It is dangerous behavior. President Obama will pay the price if he ignores the facts on the ground. McChrystal had to go.
We’re crossing seas in search of dragons
And other beasts to slay
Come home, America
Time to discover our own way
Solving other people’s problems
Is an errand meant for fools
Come home, America
It ain’t our job to make the rules
Dropping drones on wedding parties
Ain’t the best way to make friends
Come home, America
We have better gifts to send
Puffy, pasty pundits send
Our youngsters off to die
Come home, America
Before our nation is bled dry
We’re blowing up other countries
Instead of fixing up our own
Come home, America
Time to cast away the stones
We have so much to offer
But we ain’t the world’s cop
Come home, America
This madness has to stop
Decline and dissolution
Don’t have to be our fate
Come home, America
I swear it’s not too late
The Taliban will clean out AQ just as likely that Vietman would resist the Chinese as well as they did the Japanese. We are indirectly financing the opposition with opium dealing and bribes to allow convoys of supplies through.
We have to let other people live their lives around the world as we go broke ourselves. The neocon mission has failed. It is no longer "if" or even "when."
No. It isn't. You simply start packing up and leaving. Any "difficulty" is ENTIRELY in the minds of those who do not REALLY want to get out. We can easily get out of any military situation, be it Iraq or Afghanistan: start packing up and leaving.
Looking back, we learned NOTHING from Vietnam. We have turned ourselves into stumbling, bumbling imperialists, lurching around the planet as though we're the world's police force. Be it geopolitics or realpolitik we've launched dubious wars big and small from the 80's on. What have we achieved? Nothing. We now outspend the rest of the planet combined on defense and quiver in fear of tiny terrorist cells that pose no strategic threat whatsoever.
In the post-millinneal world we haven't learned a vivid history lesson: stay out of Afghanistan. They have beaten several thousand years' worth of imperialists. Most recently the Soviet Union. What makes us think we're different? Sadly, America loves nothing as much as our bad ideas. Where Reagan should be lauded is his attempts at nuclear disarmament. Where he should be villified was his opportunistic neo-imperialism that has put us on the brink of self-destruction 30 years later.
Is it too late to end this dreadful policy?
The US wanted to play Globo-cop with all of its military toys. Raygun promoted militarism and conquests for oil and a class war against working people. It has all come to fruition. I am not the least bit surprised.
How many Vietnams does the US need to have? Eisenhower saw the dangers of allowing a ground war in Asian drain the country. JFK tried to stop the madness and to counter the Fed.
Since RFK, Sr, died, there have been no good prospects for peace.
In Afghanistan we will be passing out favors to warlords and drug dealers. We did payoffs in Iraq called the Sunni Awakening. Vietnam was frought with conflicts but nothing like the documentary movie "Iraq for Sale" by Robert Greenwald can open your eyes, nothing since the publication of the Pentagon papers which nobody actually read anyway because it's too long. The movie is playing on Russian Television.
"How many Vietnams does the US need to have?" Indeed, the question of the hour. In my teaching career I have come to recognize a triad of cognitive dysfunction that leads inevitably to groupthink: 1. ignorance; 2. arrogance; 3. intellectual laziness. Such is post-millennial America. The power of the stupidity triad blocks the recognition of past mistakes.
E.g., we "lost" Vietnam because we didn't nuke them or because the government didn't support the troops, etc. These myths persist even though at least 20 books give honest, objective reasons we could never win that stupid war. (My favorite is Our Vietnam by Longguth).
Now we are trapped in our own parochialism. We do not care to examine the history of Afghanistan and its feckless would-be conquerors. Nope. How dare we deny American "exceptionalism?" (Exceptional stupidity). We have turned our military into a meat-grinder for the working class and created the economic environment to keep up the rate of volunteers as no alternate jobs abound--except drug-dealing.
Moreover, our insatiable hunger for contraband drugs fuels our enemies in Afghanistan. Perhaps the way out of Afghanistan (and a good idea for other reasons) would be legalizing heroine for certified addicts. We would rid ourselves of two idiotic wars: Afghanistan and the War on Drugs.
(I also recommend Chalmers Johnson's trilogy on the implications of neo-imperialism).
http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2010/06/oilah-akbar-in-afghanistan.html
Yep, our troops simply haven't spent sufficient time considering what the opinion makers want prior to attempting to, like, stay alive.
I presume victory is now assured.
Thank goodness.
You wrote a very ordinary story: general gets fired, time to re-evaluate strategy? That is so done, it virtually writes itself. What you missed is far more interesting.
Prior to his current tour at CENTCOM, Gen Petraeus was Commander, MNF-I. Following his success and acceptance there, he was promoted to CENTCOM. With that promotion, his responsibilities increased by approximately 5X. He assumed responsibility for all facets of all military operations in the Central Command AOR. By all accounts, he has been extremely successful in his current assignment.
Here's what you missed: taking this job in Afghanistan is a significant step backwards for him, chain of command wise. Where, as CENTCOM, his chain of command went to the Chairman, JCS, then to SecDef, then the POTUS, he now answers to whoever will replace him at CENTCOM.
This creates a very interesting situation. Is the entire chain of command so beholden to Gen Petraeus that he now, as ground forces commander in Afghanistan, now speaks directly to POTUS? Does he (as I expect he will) show such professional restraint that he observes the chain of command through the officer who relieved him so he could comply with a request from POTUS? Where do the Chairman JCS and SecDef fit in this most unusual command relationship?
These are the truly interesting questions in this particular move. You believe a change in strategy in Afghanistan is desirable. That does not excuse you from having insight and vision.
The politicians have been putting unconscionable pressure on the military, since LBJ and Viet Nam at the very least, to make unrealistic commitments. I don't know all the details, but I do know that political expediency drives us to dates and force levels when those decisions should be made based on conditions.
This ain't Grade School people. You should live in Isreal. EVERYBODY SERVES IN THE MILITARY AND THEY DON'T CARE IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT.