How to Trap a President in a Losing War: Petraeus, McChrystal, and the Surgettes

Cross-posted with Tomdispatch.com.

Front and center in the debate over the Afghan War these days are General Stanley "Stan" McChrystal, Afghan war commander, whose "classified, pre-decisional" and devastating report -- almost eight years and at least $220 billion later, the war is a complete disaster -- was conveniently, not to say suspiciously, leaked to Bob Woodward of the Washington Post by we-know-not-who at a particularly embarrassing moment for Barack Obama; Admiral Michael "Mike" Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who has been increasingly vocal about a "deteriorating" war and the need for more American boots on the ground; and the president himself, who blitzed every TV show in sight last Sunday and Monday for his health reform program, but spent significant time expressing doubts about sending more American troops to Afghanistan. ("I'm not interested in just being in Afghanistan for the sake of being in Afghanistan... or sending a message that America is here for the duration.")

On the other hand, here's someone you haven't seen front and center for a while: General David Petraeus. He was, of course, George W. Bush's pick to lead the president's last-ditch effort in Iraq. He was the poster boy for Bush's military policies in his last two years. He was the highly praised architect and symbol of "the surge." He appeared repeatedly, his chest a mass of medals and ribbons, for heavily publicized, widely televised congressional testimony, complete with charts and graphs, that was meant, at least in part, for the American public. He was the man who, to use an image from that period which has recently resurfaced, managed to synchronize the American and Baghdad "clocks," pacifying for a time both the home and war fronts.

He never met a journalist, as far as we can tell, he didn't want to woo. (And he clearly won over the influential Tom Ricks, then of the Washington Post, who wrote The Gamble, a bestselling paean to him and his sub-commanders.) From the look of it, he's the most political general to come down the pike since, in 1951 in the midst of the Korean War, General Douglas MacArthur said his goodbyes to Congress after being cashiered by President Truman for insubordination -- for, in effect, wanting to run his own war and the foreign policy that went with it. It was Petraeus who brought Vietnam-era counterinsurgency doctrine (COIN) back from the crypt, overseeing the writing of a new Army counterinsurgency manual that would make it central to both the ongoing wars and what are already being referred to as the "next" ones.

Before he left office, Bush advanced his favorite general to the head of U.S. Central Command, which oversees the former president's Global War on Terror across the energy heartlands of the planet from Egypt to Pakistan. The command is, of course, especially focused on Bush's two full-scale wars: the Iraq War, now being pursued under Petraeus's former subordinate, General Ray Odierno, and the Afghan War, for which Petraeus seems to have personally handpicked a new commanding general, Stan McChrystal. From the military's dark side world of special ops and targeted assassinations, McChrystal had operated in Iraq and was also part of an Army promotion board headed by Petraeus that advanced the careers of officers committed to counterinsurgency. To install McChrystal in May, Obama abruptly sacked the then-Afghan war commander, General David McKiernan, in what was then considered, with some exaggeration, a new MacArthur moment.

On taking over, McChrystal, who had previously been a counterterrorism guy (and isn't about to give that up, either), swore fealty to counterinsurgency doctrine (that is, to Petraeus) by proclaiming that the American goal in Afghanistan must not be primarily to hunt down and kill Taliban insurgents, but to "protect the population." He also turned to a "team" of civilian experts, largely gathered from Washington think-tanks, a number of whom had been involved in planning out Petraeus's Iraq surge of 2007, to make an assessment of the state of the war and what needed to be done. Think of them as the Surgettes.

As in many official reassessments, the cast of characters essentially guaranteed the results before a single meeting was held. Based on past history and opinions, this team could only provide one Petraeus-approved answer to the war: more -- more troops, up to 40,000-45,000 of them, and other resources for an American counterinsurgency operation without end.

Hence, even if McChrystal's name is on it, the report slipped to Bob Woodward which just sandbagged the president has a distinctly Petraeusian shape to it. In a piece linked to Woodward's bombshell in the Washington Post, Rajiv Chandrasekaran and Karen DeYoung wrote of unnamed officials in Washington who claimed "the military has been trying to push Obama into a corner." The language in the coverage elsewhere has been similar.

There is, wrote DeYoung a day later, now a "rupture" between the military "pushing for an early decision to send more troops" and civilian policymakers "increasingly doubtful of an escalating nation-building effort." Nancy Youssef of McClatchy News wrote about how "mixed signals" from Washington were causing "increasing ire from U.S. commanders in Afghanistan"; a group of McClatchy reporters talked of military advocates of escalation feeling "frustration" over "White House dithering." David Sanger of the New York Times described "a split between an American military that says it needs more troops now and an American president clearly reluctant to leap into that abyss." "Impatient" is about the calmest word you'll see for the attitude of the military top command right now.

Buyer's Remorse, the Afghan War, and the President

In the midst of all this, between Admiral Mullen and General McChrystal is, it seems, a missing man. The most photogenic general in our recent history, the man who created the doctrine and oversees the war, the man who is now shaping the U.S. Army (and its future plans and career patterns), is somehow, at this crucial moment, out of the Washington spotlight. This last week General Petraeus was, in fact, in England, giving a speech and writing an article for the (London) Times laying out his basic "protect the population" version of counterinsurgency and praising our British allies by quoting one of their great imperial plunderers. ("If Cecil Rhodes was correct in his wonderful observation that 'being an Englishman is the greatest prize in the lottery of life,' and I'm inclined to think that he was, then the second greatest prize in the lottery of life must be to be a friend of an Englishman, and based on that, the more than 230,000 men and women in uniform who work with your country's finest day by day are very lucky indeed, as am I.")

Only at mid-week, with Washington aboil, did he arrive in the capital for a counterinsurgency conference at the National Press Club and quietly "endorse" "General McChrystal's assessment." Whatever the look of things, however, it's unlikely that Petraeus is actually on the sidelines at this moment of heightened tension. He is undoubtedly still The Man.

So much is, of course, happening just beyond the sightlines of those of us who are mere citizens of this country, which is why inference and guesswork are, unfortunately, the order of the day. Read any account in a major newspaper right now and it's guaranteed to be chock-a-block full of senior officials and top military officers who are never "authorized to speak," but nonetheless yak away from behind a scrim of anonymity. Petraeus may or may not be one of them, but the odds are reasonable that this is still a Petraeus Moment.

If so, Obama has only himself to blame. He took up Afghanistan ("the right war") in the presidential campaign as proof that, despite wanting to end the war in Iraq, he was tough. (Why is it that a Democratic candidate needs a war or threat of war to trash-talk about in order to prove his "strength," when doing so is obviously a sign of weakness?)

Once in office, Obama compounded the damage by doubling down his bet on the war. In March, he introduced a "comprehensive new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan" in his first significant public statement on the subject, which had expansion written all over it. He also agreed to send in 21,000 more troops (which, by the way, Petraeus reportedly convinced him to do). In August, in another sign of weakness masquerading as strength, before an unenthusiastic audience at a Veterans of Foreign Wars convention, he unnecessarily declared: "This is not a war of choice. This is a war of necessity." All of this he will now pay for at the hands of Petraeus, or if not him, then a coterie of military men behind the latest push for a new kind of Afghan War.

As it happens, this was never Obama's "war of necessity." It was always Petraeus's. And the new report from McChrystal and the Surgettes is undoubtedly Petraeus's progeny as well. It seems, in fact, cleverly put together to catch a cautious president, who wasn't cautious enough about his war of choice, in a potentially devastating trap. The military insistence on quick action on a troop decision sets up a devastating choice for the president: "Failure to provide adequate resources also risks a longer conflict, greater casualties, higher overall costs, and ultimately, a critical loss of political support. Any of these risks, in turn, are likely to result in mission failure." Go against your chosen general and the failure that follows is yours alone. (Unnamed figures supposedly close to McChrystal are already launching test balloons, passed on by others, suggesting that the general might resign in protest if the president doesn't deliver -- a possibility he has denied even considering.) On the other hand, offer him somewhere between 15,000 and 45,000 more American troops as well as other resources, and the failure that follows will still be yours.

It's a basic lose-lose proposition and, as journalist Eric Schmitt wrote in a New York Times assessment of the situation, "it will be very hard to say no to General McChrystal." No wonder the president and some of his men are dragging their feet and looking elsewhere. As one typically anonymous "defense analyst" quoted in the Los Angeles Times said, the administration is suffering "buyer's remorse for this war... They never really thought about what was required, and now they have sticker shock."

Admittedly, according to the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, 51% of Americans are against sending in more troops. (Who knows how they would react to a president who went on TV to announce that he had genuinely reconsidered?) Official Washington is another matter. For General Petraeus, who claims to have no political ambitions but is periodically mentioned as the Eisenhower of 2012, how potentially peachy to launch your campaign against the president who lost you the war.

A Petraeus Moment?

In the present context, the media language being used to describe this military-civilian conflict of wills -- frustration, impatience, split, rupture, ire -- may fall short of capturing the import of a moment which has been brewing, institutionally speaking, for a long time. There have been increasing numbers of generals' "revolts" of various sorts in our recent past. Of course, George W. Bush was insistent on turning planning over to his generals (though only when he liked them), something Barack Obama criticized him for during the election campaign. ("The job of the commander in chief is to listen to the best counsel available and to listen even to people you don't agree with and then ultimately you make the final decision and you take responsibility for those actions.")

Now, it looks as if we are about to have a civilian-military encounter of the first order in which Obama will indeed need to take responsibility for difficult actions (or the lack thereof). If a genuine clash heats up, expect more discussion of "MacArthur moments," but this will not be Truman versus MacArthur redux, and not just because Petraeus seems to be a subtler political player than MacArthur ever was.

Over the nearly six decades that separate us from Truman's great moment, the Pentagon has become a far more overwhelming institution. In Afghanistan, as in Washington, it has swallowed up much of what once was intelligence, as it is swallowing up much of what once was diplomacy. It is linked to one of the two businesses, the Pentagon-subsidized weapons industry, which has proven an American success story even in the worst of economic times (the other remains Hollywood). It now holds a far different position in a society that seems to feed on war.

It's one thing for the leaders of a country to say that war should be left to the generals when suddenly embroiled in conflict, quite another when that country is eternally in a state of war. In such a case, if you turn crucial war decisions over to the military, you functionally turn foreign policy over to them as well. All of this is made more complicated, because the cast of "civilians" theoretically pitted against the military right now includes Karl W. Eikenberry, a retired lieutenant general who is the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, Douglas Lute, a lieutenant general who is the president's special advisor on Afghanistan and Pakistan (dubbed the "war czar" when he held the same position in the Bush administration), and James Jones, a retired Marine Corps general, who is national security advisor, not to speak of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, a former director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

The question is: will an already heavily militarized foreign policy geared to endless global war be surrendered to the generals? Depending on what Obama does, the answer to that question may not be fully, or even largely, clarified this time around. He may quietly give way, or they may, or compromises may be reached behind the scenes. After all, careers and political futures are at stake.

But consider us warned. This is a question that is not likely to go away and that may determine what this country becomes.

We know what a MacArthur moment was; we may find out soon enough what a Petraeus moment is.

Tom Engelhardt, co-founder of the American Empire Project, runs the Nation Institute's TomDispatch.com. He is the author of The End of Victory Culture, a history of the Cold War and beyond, as well as of a novel, The Last Days of Publishing. He also edited The World According to TomDispatch: America in the New Age of Empire (Verso, 2008), an alternative history of the mad Bush years.

Copyright 2009 Tom Engelhardt

 

Comments

[scottpot]

Kudos to the corporate media for perpetuating the myth of Al-qaida and the Taliban posing a threat to America.If you blame Afghanistan for 9/11 you should also blame Germany where the hijackers lived and Florida where they learned to fly.Stabilizing Afghanistan will not immunize the world from terrorism so what is the point other than retaining America*s hawkish image .We are creating more terrorists than we can kill.

[tholin]

Whoa, whoa there HG, you missed the bend in our conservation and veered off into the 'social Darwinism' thicket. Do take care and avoid the creepy fellow travelers you'll encounter as you make your way back to the route of rational dialogue.

As for Afghanistan, specifics please; I'm inviting you to flesh out what it is that animates your disdainful impatience with the current President's review of strategy with some concrete details as to what you think he should be doing.

[hglindquist]

Huh, tholin? What makes you think you are the only other contributor to our conversation here? My comments are part of a broader context then simply responding to you. And if you reply in the same thread ... then maybe ... ;-)

Specifics? Obama basically said in his August 17th speech that he was "doubling down": "Obama compounded the damage by doubling down his bet on the war", to quote Tom Englehardt again.

Those are the facts on the ground.

What should the President be doing? Where should I begin? He should not have voted for the FISA law after promising not to. He should have hammered out the new rules for the financial services sector before giving them the money and losing his leverage. He should have kept single payer in the Health Care Reform debate to give leverage for the public option. He should not have neutered Governor Patterson of New York by asking him (through aides) to not run again. (He could have had the cajones to ask the Governor himself, one-on-one with no leaks unless the Governor wanted to stick it to himself.)

He could mean what he says in those great speeches of his. Or simply say what he really means, what he can support with action ... and if he keeps changing his mind ... that tells us something too ... don't you think? ... like maybe the Presidency shouldn't be his day job.

[huff reader]

I am in the either-or crowd, just as I was during Vietnam.

Either devote enough resources to win* (probably several hundred thousand more troops to take and occupy the country for an indefinite period (years), or leave. This means a national war footing, and major mobilization, probably. It takes a hell of a lot of people to take and occupy a hostile country. And Afghanistan is certainly hostile.

* "Win" means to establish a country that (a) is not hostile to US interests - could be neutral, and (b) does not harbor terrorists.

What are we doing there? If it is worth being there, then devote the resources to make it successful. If we are not willing to devote the resources, then get out.

My understanding is that our own military training doctrine argues for several hundred thousand troops to pacify a country the size/population of Afghanistan. Well, we're not even close, and I see no political or national will to get that close.

...so, we don't have the resources or the will. There there is Obama's answer.

As for the leaking generals, Obama should take a leak on them. They should be gone, immediately.

[hglindquist]

Commit the resources necessary to win or leave. I agree.

But Obama has no one but himself to blame for the mess created by his flipflopping after giving his August 17th speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars (no less) titled "Fulfilling America’s Responsibility to Those Who Serve" (no less) in which he clearly stated (no less):

"But we must never forget. This is not a war of choice. This is a war of necessity. Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans. So this is not only a war worth fighting. This is fundamental to the defense of our people."

That was last month (no less).

Any sliver of indecision after giving that strong of a statement DURING the process of review is so bad its embarrassing. Obama can no longer say anything without getting a "let's wait and see what he does" response from the other stakeholders in policy or process ... the very ones he needs to put together and then carry out policy and process.

Let me repeat myself, this is embarrassing! Obama clearly does not know how to lead at the highest level.

But he does give a good speech.

Should I laugh or cry?

[jcole]

If i was the president i would fire Petraeus and McChrystal in a heart beat, and i e-mailed the president and suggested that, when president Bush was the president Petraeus did just what Rumsfled told him and kept his mouth shut, i hope the president do what he think is right and, call all of them in and find out who leaked the story to the press, Admiral Mullen and general Petraeus and McChrystal would be gone, i know the republicans will have a field day but those are the risk i would take, Lincoln did it.

[tavote08]

It's ironic that for the past 8 years we never heard how terrible it was in Afgh. We never heard so many military personel speaking out against the Commander and Chief; and most ironically is if the U.S. hadn't supplied weapon to the Afgh. when Russia was at war with them we probably would even be having this assinine discussion.

Anyone who thinks they are going to back President Obama into a corner whether it's Hillary, Petratus, Lieberman, or McCain is sadly mistaken. When it is all said and done he will work with Biden, the only person I even trust when it comes to foreign policy to do what is best. Obama has a heart ,to spite being a politician, he is not going to let to many more of america's women and men needlessly die; and to spite his campaign rhetoric about this war I think it's safe to say he has no problem admitting when he is wrong, taking responsibility, and coming up with something that right.

Where were all the leaks, criticisms, and questions when Bush was lying us into the war in Iraq????

[kbee819]

The President and Congress should demand that both McChrystal and Petraeus support their position in a Congressional hearing. Televise it prime time and ask some pointed, tough, scrutinizing questions. Ask for a thorough explanation of the need for 500,000 troops over 5 years. Make them personally responsible for "a win" whatever that means. Let this be their quagmire.
Ultimately, we are all destined to die, so how do we choose to live?. In a state of fear and perpetual war or as a Country that wields it's military might wisely, legitimately and with discerning selectiveness. It is becoming more obvious that Peace is the biggest enemy of the Pentagon.

[Shaun Parker]

There is no way to make the Generals personally responsible for a win. They make recommendations to the Commander In Chief, who must make a decision on the best way to move forward. It is his responsibility win, lose, or draw as the leader of the armed forces.

[pedernales]

Protect what population? How many tribes are out there, who are they and what do they want? I've read that before the Soviets invaded they used to pay some of tribles not to rob and kill the tourists on Tuesdays and Thursdays. And Obama is no T.E. Lawrence, thats for sure. Look at what our generals at the Pentagon and all our war profiteers and private contractors just did to Iraq and the financial base of the United States. Obama can't even keep the insolvent banksters from taking billions in tax payer bonuses out of the pockets of ripped-off, desparate Americans. He's going to be the Napoleon to bring peace and development to Afghanistan? It would be a joke if it wasn't going to cost the lives and limbs of so many of our kids.

[wildedge]

It's not just McChrystal and Petraeus, it's Bush Cheney, the Christian Dominionits, and the whole military Industrial complex. Obama had better wake up to this or Afghanistan becomes 'Obama's War.'

[S1m0n]

This report should be read as McChrystal's failure insurance. He knows that this war is unwinnable, so he's making a demand he knows can't be filled, because this gives him the out to claim that we only lost because the president refused to give him the 2 million soldiers and the death ray he asked for.

[hglindquist]

Are you kidding me? While McChrystal was preparing his report, this is what Obama was saying (August 17): But we must never forget. This is not a war of choice. This is a war of necessity. Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans. So this is not only a war worth fighting. This is fundamental to the defense of our people."

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-engelhardt/how-to-trap-a-president-i_b_299042.html?show_comment_id=31601867#comment_31601867

Obama made this his own war and he has only himself to blame -- and explain -- when he once more does not do what he says he's going to do.

[jill2468]

Thank you for your post. I am glad to see that it was posted for people to read Obamas own words. Please keep up the thoughtful responses to these kind of articles.

[bilmardre]

President Obama's decision will be made based on what is best for this Country. He will not play games with the lives of our troops, like so many others seem so easily inclined to do.

[sloLes]

Embracing the war in Afghanistan, reminds me of Nixon turning Johnson's lost war in Vietnam into Nixon's war. It is being done with a combination of ignorance, arrogance, and insanity! And it will probably destroy Obama's government in the same way that the Vietnam War destroyed Johnson's. After eight years of failure, this country cannot handle four more years of losing another war.

[tavote08]

Don't count on it... Everyone keeps comparing Obama to all these past Presidents. I think he has proven through his election that he is his own man. Not a Lincoln, Kennedy, Regan, Clinton, Roosevelt, Johnson, or any other. His is OBAMA ,dealing with a country, a political system and a world unlike any other President has EVER seen. His presidency is plaqued with a combination of all these guys put together and then some.

DON'T COUNT HIM OUT!!!!

[WorldofTomorrow420]

Yeah, he'll give a speech.

[hglindquist]

"Obama has only himself to blame"

"Obama compounded the damage by doubling down his bet on the war"

The same can be said about the public option when Obama early on gave away the single payer hole card ... and the financial services companies that are too big to fail ...

Obama is showing and compounding his inexperience. We are now at a point (look at the way Netanyahu thumbed his nose at him) where nothing he says can be taken seriously ... think FISA as the turning point ... and everyone has to wait to see how far Obama waffles before they commit, and they more they hold their policy positions, the more Obama waffles ... what is THAT?

Think of the commanders on the ground who took Obama's August 17th speech to heart: "But we must never forget. This is not a war of choice. This is a war of necessity. Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans. So this is not only a war worth fighting. This is fundamental to the defense of our people."

I bet that was printed and handed out to the front line troops ... to boost morale? "The calvary is on the way, men. Dig in and hang on."

[jill2468]

The way that Obama is handling all of this is despicable. He is so far out of his league and playing with peoples lives, our Soldiers and that of the Afghan people. This is what happens when a person who has no more experience than he does is elected President. I truly think that he figured that the United States and indeed the World can be handled as one big Community. I fear that we will be to far gone by the time he leaves office in 3 years to be able to attract our Allies back and we will be in bed with every Rogue Nation.

[hglindquist]

It is a mess of Obama's own making.

He can't blame anyone but himself. Trying to say the outcome of the election in Afghanistan is the reason for reviewing policy there is a smokescreen IMHO ... unless he actually is dumb enough (naive enough?) to have thought it was going to be anything other than a Karzai victory. Hell, look at how GW won here in 2000, and JFK in 1960.

I bet the grunts' heads are spinning ... in August they get the message to go at it full throttle. In September it's hold on there, folks. That's whiplash to my way of thinking ...

[xlntcat]

Does Petraeus have eyes on the White House? Is he motivated by sound military strategy or by political ambitions? All of this is disturbing. Obama is commander-in-cheif and as such Petraeus supposedly works to carry out Obama's mission, not to formulate a mission that all by defies common sense. Afghanistan currently has no central government which is necessary to formulate anti-insurgenecy. Patraeus needs to step up and explain himself. Where is the Plan B? In what Universe do McChrystal's supposed threats of resignation not smell? Given the irresponsibility around a leak of McChrystal's report, perhaps that shouldn't be his choice. Maybe Patraeus should resign and start his campaign. It is hard to believe that either General has the nations best interest at heart.

[sherbug]

Oh, I couldn't agree more with this op-ed. When this story first broke the other day and the chorus that came out of the woodword all singing gotta go, gotta go, gotta go right now.

You have Condi Rice, John McCain, a Veterans Organization and a host of other Senators and Congressmen saying Obama could not refuse the General.

I said then, that they are trying to tie this Afghanistan rock around Obama's neck so that we can't win and he can't leave. I lamented the fact that he kept so many Bush loyalists around him, especially in the military. These guys are loyal to their Commander in Chief which is Bush.

This was a trap that Obama helped them set by trying to talk tough and prove it by sending more troops. Obama cannot send another 45,000 troops to die in Afghanistan. We have got to leave that place and save our own Country.

I hope Obama has the resolve to face the American people and say that he made a mistake in continuing this war in its present form. It would

[tavote08]

I was lamented too but it's never to late to ditch their a$$es; and he doesn't seem to have a problem taking responsibilty for his mistakes and admitting when he is wrong or has a change of heart because he has a heart...

[mcmchugh99]

I suspect that the real reason teh report was leaked is that the military does NOT want to get stuck in another quagmire war without popular support. They know that public opinion is already against the war in Afghanistan, and will soon be reduced to a minimum of hard core Republicans.

Of course, a few progressives like me support it and that will never change, since I have been in that part of the world and have seen the enemy first hand. I just disagree about the type of methods needed to win it.

[GKJames]

I wonder if you could elaborate on the possible reasons for the military's wanting to stay in Afghanistan. One would think that, after eight years, marginal progress, and a worn-out force, that senior military leaders would be of a mind with the civilian ones about getting out.

[mcmchugh99]

My guess is they don't want to get stuck holding the bag in a war that is unpopular and may not be politically sustainable--at least not for very long--without changing to a very low-intensity strategy.