McChrystal's Master-Stroke?
An interesting theory about Stanley McChrystal's motives and strategy -- and about what Obama may have lost by dismissing him -- popped up in the thread below my post yesterday, and I urged David Seaton to make the comment into a post of his own. He's done it, and I'd like to know what others think.
Seaton suggests that McChrystal -- furious at Obama's time-lines and under-commitment of troops and resources to what the general believes should be a massive counterinsurgency embedded in a total war -- wanted to be fired, so that blame for the inevitable defeat of the present effort would be placed on Obama and his civilian team's refusal to commit fully to win the war.
McChrystal could retire from the military after a decent interval and undertake a domestic insurgency of his own, with total commitment from Murdoch and the conservative message machine. Neo-cons will be back in the saddle of public discourse, riding hard. As Seaton notes, the "I want my country back" crowd will march in lockstep behind McChrystal, denouncing Obama's indecision, not the impossibility of the grand strategy itself.
Hence a Machiavellian question: Shouldn't Obama have refused McChrystal's resignation; made him eat humble pie in public by proclaiming his undying fealty to civilian control; and sent him back to Afghanistan? By firing McChrystal, hasn't Obama instead unleashed his own punishment for going into Afghanistan as LBJ did into Vietnam -- less out of conviction than out of a desire to cover his right flank at home? Isn't this another Greek tragedy, with McChrystal Obama's Nemesis?
Well, maybe. Obama's selection of Gen. David Petraeus as McChrystal's replacement has outflanked his critics on the right, at least for the moment. But you can see tragedy unfolding when you note how, soon after the Rolling Stone story broke, some neo-cons' initial "surge" on behalf of McChrystal collapsed into a very different, more sinister strategy by day's end.
Neo-cons hoped at first to save the architect of their grand strategy in Afghanistan; I mocked their doe-eyed raptures about nation-building there some months ago in Dissent. But the only story they really want to push now is about Obama's failure to commit us to the total war and total victory that they crave in all times and all places.
David Brooks, whose counterinsurgency raptures I cited in Dissent, hid this bent with a "more in sorrow than in anger" defense of McChrystal in Friday's Times. This typically amnesiac and dishonest column doesn't tell us that one of Brooks' only trips abroad as a Times columnist (in all his cheer-leading for the Iraq War, he never visited Iraq) was to Afghanistan last year, when he got the full McChrystal treatment. Now he casts McChrystal as a victim of a voracious "new media" culture that has made power-holders' private kvetches the public's business.
Awash in Beltway narcissism (see Andrew Sullivan's put-down of Brooks' coziness and Sullivan's defense of the Rolling Stone freelancer), Brooks tells us of a lost golden age of media restraint (apparently there was no Walter Winchell or McCarthyism), and he bypasses McChrystal's own past efforts to play the media against Obama. He gives us St. Stanley the Innocent, being eaten alive by newshounds.
Brooks' default position is the same as the neo-cons': to persuade us that it is 1938 or 1940, and that everywhere (Moscow, Baghdad, Tehran, the Pashtun) is Hitler's Berlin, and that every liberal Democrat is, sooner or later, a Neville Chamberlain, fatuously proclaiming "Peace in our time."
That's what Obama did last year, to hear neo-cons tell it, when he went to Cairo, Istanbul, and Moscow -- and even Berlin. Why didn't he just go to Munich? That's what they want to know. They recite -- in their sleep, in the shower, and online -- Winston Churchill's response in 1940 to a message from FDR bearing a Longfellow poem:
Sail on, O ship of state,
Sail on, O Union strong and great.
Humanity with all its fears,
With all the hopes of future years,
Is hanging breathless on thy fate!
Churchill read this poem on the air to Britons, who were hanging on his every word as the Nazi threat loomed. Then he said:
"What shall be my answer, in your name, to this great man? 'Give us the tools, and we will finish the job!'"
And what did the neo-conservative Commentary magazine's Peter Wehner write yesterday while trying to make the best of Obama's replacement of McChrystal with Petraeus? "Barack Obama better be all in," Wehner warned, meaning that the president had better scrap his time-lines and ramp up the war. " If given the tools, David Petraeus -- one more time -- can finish the job."
The echo of Churchill is no doubt deliberate, but is this 1940? Are the Muslim insurgents (against what, exactly?) really the Axis? There's a debate underway about that, but, knowing all the answers as they do, neo-cons were solidly behind McChrystal until yesterday and, in some cases, even a day after the Rolling Stone story raised serious questions about his commitment to civilian control of the military.
The first neo-con to rush forward in McChrystal's defense was Commentary's Jennifer Rubin, one of the many, always-on-message drones who never think a serious political thought because they're too busy lacing the line of the moment with just the right mix of solemn patriotism and tactical slime (I bold-face both below) to put "the line" across:
"Far from being evidence of McChrystal's insubordination, the [Rolling Stone] article actually says much more about the administration's mistakes in the course of a war to which they have committed so much American blood and treasure. If there is dissension in the ranks about some of the political and diplomatic blunders of the past year and a half, it speaks more to Obama's own failure to exert leadership than to McChrystal's faults."
Obama's leadership is a legitimate concern, whether you want total war or think that we shouldn't have tried counterinsurgency at all and that Obama was dragged into it only as LBJ was. But neo-cons already considered McChrystal a better national leader than Obama, so out came Rubin's unthinking, on-message reaction.
Similarly on-message was Washington Post neo-con editorial-page editor Fred Hiatt, whose page offered three reasons why McChrystal must not be fired: He had created the counterinsurgency strategy; he had good working relationships there; and now he'd outed the Obama administration's faults, which, of course, were more grievous than his own.
Rubin, clearly delighted to be singing in Hiatt's chorus, weighed in immediately with "a fourth reason" to keep McChrystal: "Obama needs to shed his peevish and self-absorbed persona,... and to dispel the growing perception that he's in over his head.... (And by the way, if McChrystal does quit, won't we hear a whole lot more from him about the civilian officials who've been making the military's job harder?) "
Who did Rubin think she was advising here, and to what end? It was getting a little embarrassing, especially when the Weekly Standard announced a Message Change, moving with its hero John McCain's statement to the effect that McChrystal must indeed be dismissed. The ostensible reason for this shift was loyalty to the republic's cardinal principle of civilian control. The real reason, as far as people like Rubin are concerned, is a desire to have a martyr who perhaps can help to heap the blame on Obama.
Rubin began to backtrack about keeping McChrystal in Afghanistan, but only in order to stay with the Message: "Obama's decision to accept Gen. Stanley McChyrstal's resignation was not unexpected. By bringing back Gen. David Petraeus, he assuages the concerns from supporters of the Afghanistan mission as to whether we are committed to victory. There are two more essential changes required," she continued: Since "McChrystal threw the curtain open on the dysfunctional and counterproductive civilian team in Afghanistan,... Richard Holbrooke and Karl Eikenberry should be canned.... Second, a wise reader likes to tell me, 'Generals should only talk to their troops.' What a fine idea."
Oops, not so wise or so fine: Rubin's Commentary online colleagues began to correct this and others of her butt-covering lurches, Max Boot informing her that, these days, generals actually need proactive public media strategies, not silence.
Finally, Peter Wehner weighed in "In Praise of Obama and Petraeus," as linked above. What had complicated the Message was that Obama chose Petraeus, hero of the Iraq surge. Now Obama's detractors have to drive a wedge between him and Petraeus by showing that Obama isn't giving him the tools to finish the job. Wehner's "praise" of Obama for appointing Petraeus will very soon be followed by his not-so-sorrowful despair at the president's failure to follow through.
It won't be very hard to carry this line, especially once McChrystal gives his first big, out-of-uniform speech at the American Enterprise Institute. Brace yourself for calls to escalate the war that'll make McCain's "Bomb, bomb, bomb/ Bomb bomb Iran" seem like the joke he only half-meant it to be.
This is no joke. It's either 1940, and the Axis is just across the channel, or it's 1914, and the neo-con revolver journalists are teaming up with generals, as their predecessors did then in Europe, to foment public enthusiasm for this war and one against Iran.
The problem, as Seaton suggests, is that the "I want my country back" crowd -- and, I would add, many of our would-be public intellectuals, from Paul Berman to the New York Times Book Review's increasingly creepy deputy editor Barry Gewen -- have become addled and angry enough to believe that it is 1940 and that that is how the world is, and how it must be, unless we gird up our loins and unleash the dogs of torture and war. For them, there is no other way, and now Obama has given them a new martyr and champion.
.
What goes around; comes around.
June 24, 2010 6:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is really just an addendum to my post:
In airing this "theory" about McChrystal wanting out (not just so that he can escape blame for a failing mission, but perhaps also to make sure that the blame attaches to the administration, not the Pentagon), I'm assuming only two things.
First, that the strategy in Afghanistan is going nowhere, not just because Cassandra-like, sensationalist news media say so, but because it's really going nowhere;
Second, that McChrystal, who drank the "soft power" kool-aid during his year at Harvard's Kennedy School, got grandly ambitious about it, and that he has been frustrated ever since, believing that Obama and his team (Biden, Eikenberry, Holbrook) have let him down by under-funding and stage-managing everything for domestic politics. So he has felt betrayed.
I don't say that he orchestrated his departure all that much; he may have lurched into his confrontation with Obama somewhat. But I suspect that it would have happened sooner or later, even if the Rolling Stone reporter had been a pushover and the volcano hadn't stranded McChrystal's staff with him for so long. McChrystal seems to have tried to outfox the civilian leadership via the media before.
So, no, I'm not thinking literally that there was a "master-stroke" on McChrystal's part but that he did feel betrayed and is bitter and that he has a mind of his own and some ambitions. And I'm assuming that neo-cons and the "I want my country back" crowd would love to use him in any way they can to discredit Obama.
I'm not suggesting that McChrystal will run for office whenever he actually leaves the military, only that he may want to speak his mind in some way that sticks. But maybe the ghost of Ollie North is haunting me; he did run for office, and, although he lost, he remained a cause celebre and champion of the abnormally disaffected. Perhaps McChrystal is too "liberal" for that, as some are claiming, but, after all he's been through, I'm less sanguine.
June 24, 2010 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lyndon Baines Obama does not want us to wake up.
quotes from Military Resistance 8F12
"The U.S. Is Literally Funding The Enemy, As Violence Escalates Daily In Afghanistan And More U.S. Soldiers And Marines Are Dying Than Ever Before"
"The Business Is War And The War Is Business And You've Got 'Warlord Inc.' Going On Over There"
"The More Money You Pour Into Counter-Insurgency Efforts, The More Money You Are Giving To The Enemy To Fight Against You"
"In Many Areas, That To Carry Out Any Reconstruction Projects Or U.S. Funded Counter-Insurgency Efforts Requires Large Payoffs To The Taliban"
"The fact that we have such dire times at home, we need money for schools and for health clinics and job creation and job training, and we're spending 2.16 billion dollars - a good part of which is going to criminals and warlords- that's shocking," Tierney said.
June 21, 2010 By Lara Logan, CBS
Billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars are fuelling corruption in Afghanistan and funding the insurgency, according to a six-month investigation by the House subcommittee on National Security and Foreign affairs.
The committee's chairman, Rep. John F. Tierney, D-Mass., told CBS News: "the business is war and the war is business and you've got 'Warlord Inc.' going on over there."
That would mean that the U.S. is literally funding the enemy, as violence escalates daily in Afghanistan and more U.S. soldiers and Marines are dying than ever before in this war.
It also means that while the U.S. has been publicly pointing fingers at the Afghan government and President Hamid Karzai for not cleaning up corruption in his government, in fact the U.S. is a huge part of the corruption problem - and until now, has done nothing about it or even acknowledged that fact.
The committee investigators focused on one contract - the Host Nation Trucking contract or HNT - that is worth $2.16 billion U.S. dollars and divided between just eight companies - three of them American, three from the Middle East and two from Afghanistan. Over six months, they conducted dozens of formal interviews, dozens more informal interviews and ploughed through more than 20,000 documents.
They discovered damning evidence of the complete lack of oversight from the U.S. military and other agencies at the sub-contractor level of those contracts - and anecdotal evidence from the eight contracting companies that payoffs were being made to the Taliban to keep the convoys on the roads.
But the reality of Afghanistan is that the Department of Defense has been following a policy endorsed by the U.S. government from the very beginning of this war: to use various warlords, criminals, corrupt powerbrokers etc where the U.S. deems it necessary.
From 2001, when the CIA carried in suitcases of cash to pay off tribal leaders, the U.S. strategy has included relying on "bad guys - as long as they are 'our' bad guys."
This is part of what made U.S. allegations of corruption in Afghanistan appear so hollow to many Afghan people. It is widely known and accepted amongst Afghans that Western aid money flooding into the country has created an alternative, more lucrative economy where it's rarely the "nice guys" who are coming out on top.
It's also widely known and accepted in many areas, that to carry out any reconstruction projects or U.S. funded counter-insurgency efforts requires large payoffs to the Taliban.
"The fact that we have such dire times at home, we need money for schools and for health clinics and job creation and job training, and we're spending 2.16 billion dollars - a good part of which is going to criminals and warlords- that's shocking," Tierney said.
More troubling, is what this means for the U.S. counter-insurgency effort. The implication of the report is that the more money you pour into counter-insurgency efforts, the more corrupt the society becomes and the more money you are giving to the enemy to fight against you.
Troops Invited:
Comments, arguments, articles, and letters from service men and women, and veterans, are especially welcome. Write to Box 126, 2576 Broadway, New York, N.Y. 10025-5657 or send email to contact@militarypro ject.org: Name, I.D., withheld unless you request publication. Same address to unsubscribe. Phone: 888.711.2550
IRAQ WAR REPORTS
"No One Has Been Able To Quell Mosul's Violence"
"American Combat Troops Patrol The Streets"
June 21, 2010 By TIMOTHY WILLIAMS, New York Times [Excerpts]
MOSUL, Iraq - Staff Col. Ismail Khalif Jasim, the top intelligence officer in Nineveh Province, was scrutinizing faces last week as he walked through what the police say is the most dangerous neighborhood in Iraq's most violent city.
The place is so risky that some of his colleagues apologetically offered reasons why they would be unable to accompany him there.
One major admitted he was simply too scared. He was forced, though, along with more than 200 other soldiers and police officers, to go to the neighborhood, Amil.
Iraqi security forces claim to control it. But in reality Amil is in the throes of another spate of killings, as the American military works to root out Islamist militants from the area before it reduces the number of its troops in Iraq to 50,000 from about 90,000 by the end of August.
Colonel Jasim's visit there was aimed at persuading groups of stone-faced residents to cooperate with the Iraqi Army - an entity almost universally loathed here for its unapologetically rough treatment of the area's people.
But, he suggested, the authorities were better than the insurgents holed up there.
No luck. The men did not answer. The colonel, his sunglasses hiding his eyes but not the look of contempt that curled around his lips, moved on to the next cluster of men.
Soldiers walked on either side of him, and in front and behind. Armored police and military vehicles were parked on every corner in the neighborhood, its entrance points blocked to traffic. The street had been strung with concertina wire. Only a few people dared to leave their houses.
This month, the American military said in a statement that it had arrested a man who had committed "assassinations against Iraqi judicial and police officials, and has allegedly coordinated improvised explosive device attacks against" the Iraqi police and army. The man's identity was not released.
Four days later, gunfire in an adjoining neighborhood killed two Iraqi police officers on patrol. The same day, in central Mosul, the deputy governor survived a bomb blast that demolished his armored car.
There are car bombs every day. Some are defused. Some blow up.
Like many here, Mr. Ahmed differentiated between the types of violence that take place.
"There are some terror actions and there are some jihad actions," he said.
Jihad actions are those aimed at American forces or their Iraqi security force allies. Terror actions are those directed at residents.
Whatever the reason, no one has been able to quell Mosul's violence: It is one of the few urban areas in Iraq where American combat troops patrol the streets. Some 18 Iraqi Army battalions are stationed in the city, and hundreds of Iraqi police officers staff checkpoints.
But in Amil, people say they want nothing to do with the Iraqi Army in particular - which in Mosul is composed primarily of Shiites from southern Iraq.
Residents complain the soldiers do not understand their culture, and are rude at best, brutal at worst, suspecting everyone in the neighborhood of being a member of Al Qaeda.
"There's no trust between the security forces and the people," said one resident, Hazim Mahmud al-Sahan, whose son was recently killed in Amil, not far from an Iraqi Army checkpoint.
Resistance Action
Jun 21, 2010 Reuters & June 22 (Reuters) & KUNA & AP & June 23 (Reuters) & June 24 (Reuters) & June 25 (Reuters)
Three bombers killed five police and army personnel and wounded nine others in two separate attacks in Iraq's restive northern city of Mosul on Thursday, security officials said.
The first attack occurred when a bomber blew himself up at a police checkpoint, killing four policemen and wounding four others, in a western part of Mosul, 390 km (240 miles) north of Baghdad, police said.
Two other bombers attacked the main gate of an Iraqi army base in eastern Mosul, killing one soldier and wounding five, an army source said.
************ ********* ********* ********* ********* *****
Two Iraqis were killed and another seven were injured shortly before eight Tuesday morning in a blast that targeted an official of the transport ministry, Muayyad Mohammad, in Al-Dourah area of Baghdad. Iraqi Police sources told KUNA a roadside bomb exploded upon the passing of the special transport department official's car in the vicinity of the Athuriyeen market, adding he was severely injured while two of his bodyguards were killed.
Iraqi police also reported another blast in Al-Jameaa neighborhood in western Baghdad. The sources said this was an attempt to assassinate Awqaf official Muhammad Ahmad, in which he was injured along with three other Iraqis who were at the scene.(
A bomber has killed six policemen in the northern Iraqi town of Shirqat, an interior ministry source said. The source says the bomber detonated an explosives belt when police and civilians gathered to inspect the site of a roadside bomb minutes earlier, in which no-one had been hurt. Shirqat is 300 kilometres north of Baghdad at the northern edge of Salahuddin province, once a hotbed of militants.
BAGHDAD - Two roadside bombs killed two policemen and wounded four police officers, near two police patrols in eastern Baghdad, police said.
The bodies of two members of a government backed militia, or Sahwa, were found dead after being captured overnight by militants wearing military uniforms in the town of Udhaim, 90 km (60 miles) north of Baghdad, police said.
KIRKUK - A roadside bomb went off near a police patrol wounding three policemen, in southern Kirkuk, 250 km (155 miles) north of Baghdad, police said.
Insurgents killed three policemen at a checkpoint in western Mosul, 390 km (240 miles) north of Baghdad, police said.
Two policemen and six people inside the vehicles were wounded when a roadside bomb detonated near a convoy carrying a newly-elected member of the Iraqi parliament from the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (ISCI) [pro-U.S.] near the town of Tuz Khurmato, 170 km (105 miles) north of Baghdad, police said.
In Diyala province north of Baghdad, bombs attached to cars belonging to members of an anti-insurgent group killed two of its leaders in separate attacks. Maj. Ghalib al-Karkhi, Diyala's police spokesman, said the blasts killed the chiefs of the Awakening Council in southern Baqouba, and in a village near Buhriz, about 35 miles (60 kilometers) north of Baghdad.
Two senior members of a government-backed Iraqi militia were killed on Tuesday. The Sahwa, or "Sons of Iraq," consist of Sunnis who joined forces with the U.S. military and Iraqi security forces to fight Islamist militants. Raad Tami al-Mujamai and Khamis Sabaa al-Aqabi, Sahwa leaders in the town of Buhriz, 60 km (35 miles) northeast of Baghdad, were killed in separate attacks, both by bombs attached to their cars, police sources said. Mujamai was a senior member of the Mujamai tribe, one of the largest in Diyala, and the more senior of the two Sahwa leaders killed in Buhriz.
A blast killed a vocal insurgent critic as he was driving his car in Fallujah, about 40 miles (65 kilometers) west of Baghdad. Police and hospitals officials said the bomb stuck to Najim Abid al-Issawi's car also wounded his passenger.
A bomb planted in the car of an off-duty army officer wounded him in northwestern Baghdad, police said.
A roadside bomb went off near an Iraqi army patrol wounding two soldiers, in eastern Mosul, police said.
IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE RESISTANCE
END THE OCCUPATION
AFGHANISTAN WAR REPORTS
Virginia Soldier Killed In Zhari
U.S. Army Pfc. Benjamin J. Park, 25, of Fairfax Station, Va., Company B, 1st Battalion, 502nd Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, died June 18, 2010 when his dismounted patrol encountered an IED in the Zhari District, Kandahar, Afghanistan. (AP Photo/U.S. Army)
Illinois Soldier Killed In Afghanistan
Army Pfc. Gunnar R. Hotchkin, of Naperville, Ill., was killed June 16, 2010, in Afghanistan from the explosion of a roadside bomb that flipped over the tank he was riding in. Hotchkin was assigned to the 161st Engineer Support Company, 27th Engineer Battalion, 20th Engineer Brigade, 18th Airborne Corps at Fort Bragg, N.C. (AP Photo/Courtesy Hotchkin Family)
Three U.S. Troops Killed Somewhere Or Other In Afghanistan Thursday And Friday
Jun 25 Associated Press
Three American troops were reported killed in rising violence across Afghanistan.
A U.S. service member was killed in an insurgent attack Friday in eastern Afghanistan and another American died following a roadside bombing in southern Afghanistan on Thursday. NATO did not provide the exact location of the attacks.
A third service member died in an explosion Friday in southern Afghanistan. The U.S. command said he was American.
Female Bomber Kills Two U.S. Soldiers In Afghanistan Monday:
"Locals In Kunar Told The Journal That An Afghan Coalition Raided Alimi's Home And Killed Two Relatives Two Years Ago"
Jun 23 Yahoo! News
A woman detonated explosives hidden under her burqa in Afghanistan on Monday, killing two U.S. soldiers and injuring more than a dozen bystanders.
Government officials tell The Wall Street Journal's Maria Abi-Habib and Habib Zahori that the bombing marks the first such attack perpetrated by a woman in Afghanistan.
The Taliban claimed credit for the attack, and said the bomber was named Bibi Alimi. Locals in Kunar told the Journal that an Afghan coalition raided Alimi's home and killed two relatives two years ago, prompting her to join the Taliban.
House raids are controversial, and Afghan President Hamid Karzai has called for them to end
2 US Service Members Killed Somewhere Or Other In Afghanistan Tuesday
6.23.10 AP
The military said Wednesday that two American service members died Tuesday following separate bomb attacks in southern Afghanistan, bringing to 69 the number of international forces killed so far this month.
Two Romanian Soldiers Killed In Afghanistan
23.06.2010 Ministerul Apararii Nationale
Two soldiers from Battalion 33 Maneuver deployed in Afghanistan have died on duty Wednesday, June 23, 14.30 (Romanian time).
Sergeant Major Dan Ciobotaru and Corporal Paul carp serving a combat mission in Kabul-Kandahar highway A1. At about 30 km from Qalat, Humvee-type vehicle they were in was attacked with an improvised explosive device, operated remotely. Following detonation, two soldiers and killed.
Sergeant Major Dan Ciobotaru, class 2007, was 28 years old and was unmarried. Corporal Paul carp, aged 36, was employed in the Ministry of National Defense in 1996, was married and had two children.
Minister of National Defence awarded posthumously a second lieutenant of two soldiers who sacrificed their lives under the national flag colors by committing acts of exceptional devotion during the execution of the mission in Afghanistan theater. Also, Romania's defense minister has submitted proposals for awarding by President of junior lieutenants posthumously Ciobotaru Dan and Paul carp with Romania's Star National Order in rank of Knight, military, with signs of war.
Oregon Soldier Killed At Ganjkin Village
June 24, 2010 U.S. Department of Defense News Release No. 535-10
Pfc. Anthony T. Justesen, 22, of Wilsonville, Ore., died June 23 at Ganjkin village, Pusht Rod district, Farah province, Afghanistan, of injuries sustained when insurgents attacked his unit with an improvised explosive device. He was assigned to Troop B, 4th Squadron, 73rd Cavalry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division, Fort Bragg, N.C.
Kentucky Soldier Killed At Charkh
June 24, 2010 U.S. Department of Defense News Release No. 536-10
Pfc. Russell E. Madden, 29, of Dayton, Ky., died June 23 at Charkh district, Konar province, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when insurgents attacked his vehicle with rocket fire. He was assigned to the 1st Squadron, 91st Cavalry Regiment, 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team, Conn Barracks, Germany.
Massachusetts Soldier Killed In Zabul Province
June 22, 2010 U.S. Department of Defense News Release No. 521-10
Spc. Scott A. Andrews, 21, of Fall River, Mass., died June 21 at Forward Operating Base Lagman, Zabul province, Afghanistan, of injuries sustained when insurgents attacked his unit with an improvised explosive device. He was assigned to the 618th Engineer Support Company, 27th Engineer Battalion, 20th Engineers Brigade, Fort Bragg, N.C.
Royal Marine Killed In Sangin
23 Jun 10 Ministry of Defence
It is with sadness that the Ministry of Defence must announce that a Royal Marine from 40 Commando Royal Marines, serving as part of Combined Force Sangin, was killed in Afghanistan today, Wednesday 23 June 2010.
The Marine was killed by small arms fire during a firefight with insurgent forces in the Sangin district of Helmand province. He was conducting a security patrol to reassure local nationals in the area around the patrol base when the firefight occurred.
Maine Soldier Dies In Afghanistan
06/23/10 Ken Christian, Information Center Content Manager; WCSH6
AUGUSTA, Maine (NEWS CENTER) -- The Governor's Office says a soldier from Maine has died in Afghanistan.
Sergeant Brandon Silk, 25, who was from Orono, was killed Monday while serving with the 101st Airborne Division. His family says Silk was a Black Hawk crew chief, stationed at Fort Campbell, Kentucky. He was on his fourth tour of duty overseas.
"In Maine, we're all an extended family," said Governor John Baldacci. "At times like these, we have to reach out and take care of one another. Sgt. Silk was a hero, and we will honor his life and his sacrifice."
Governor Baldacci will order flags in Maine lowered to half-staff on the day of Sgt. Silk's funeral, but there is no indication when that will take place.
While the military will not confirm where Silk died in Afghanistan, they did report on Monday an American and three Australian commandos were killed when a helicopter went down in a rugged area of southern Afghanistan.
Fighting has raged there for days, and the Taliban say they shot the helicopter down. But NATO and Australian officials say there's no evidence that hostile fire caused the crash.
Paul Higgins and Donald Joseph coached Silk on the Orono High School football team. They say he transferred from Calais before his junior year and had never played football before. However his determination and hard work led him to succeed on the field. They say he certainly set an example for his younger brothers David and Blaine, who will both be deployed in 2011.
Silk's family issued the following statement:
"We are all horribly saddened by the death of Brandon. He was a son, a brother, a nephew, and a cousin - and was well-loved by everyone in this family. We have always been a tight-knit family and Brandon's spirit will live on through memories of his sense of humor, his love for adventure, and the memories he created through his unique, outgoing, strong personality. "
"Brandon died while serving his country - honorably and with respect. When duty called, he answered that call without hesitation. We miss him and we love him."
Canadian Soldier Killed By IED In The Panjwa'i District
June 21, 2010 CEFCOM NR
One Canadian soldier was killed after an improvised explosive device detonated during a foot patrol, about 20 kilometres southwest of Kandahar City, in the Panjwa'i District, at approximately 8:00 a.m. Kandahar time on 21 June 2010.
Killed in action was Sergeant James Patrick MacNeil from 2 Combat Engineer Regiment, based in Petawawa, Ontario. Sergeant MacNeil was serving with 1st Battalion, The Royal Canadian Regiment Battle Group.
Soldier Killed In Afghanistan Had Joined Army To Help Son
Russell Madden's Bellevue High School yearbook picture: Provided
June 24, 2010 By Brenna R. Kelly, Cincinnati.Com
BELLEVUE, KY. - When Russell Madden signed up for the Army two years ago, it was with one purpose - to provide medical care for his son.
Four-year-old Parker suffers from cystic fibrosis.
"Where he had been working he had no benefits or anything like that," said Madden's sister Lindsey Madden, "so he joined because he knew that Parker would always be taken care of no matter what."
Madden's family learned Wednesday night that the 29-year-old Bellevue High School graduate had been killed in Afghanistan. Madden, a private first class, died that morning when his convoy was attacked with a rocket-propelled grenade, his sister said.
Madden's parents, Martin and Pamela Madden, his wife Michelle and his son and stepson were all on the way Thursday to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware, where Madden's remains are being returned from Afghanistan.
Madden is the second graduate in the Bellevue High class of 2000 to be killed in combat. Justin Scott died in Iraq in 2004.
An American flag and an U.S. Army Airborne Division flag hung Thursday from the Washington Avenue home where Madden grew up.
"The one thing he was always known for was a good laugh," recalled his 23-year-old sister. "He was the funniest, most outrageous person. "He was the craziest person I've ever met in my life."
Even when he was overseas, the family communicated regularly through Facebook and the occasional phone call, she said. When Army officials arrived on Wednesday night, Lindsey was on the computer retrieving the last e-mail her brother sent to their parents.
"He had just sent them a message saying how much he appreciated us," she said, "and that he thinks about us every day."
His father was upstairs packing a box full of razors, tobacco, wet wipes and food for his son.
"Mom just stood up and said 'No, no,'" Lindsey Madden said. "She wasn't even going to let them in."
News of Madden's death traveled quickly through the small city and especially among the remaining members of the 56-person Bellevue High class of 2000.
"I think everybody is just kind of in shock. It's very sad," said Assistant Principal David Eckstein. "We are very upset for his family and two children. It's times like this it makes us appreciate being here in America rather than overseas fighting. It's a real tragedy for the community. It's a very small community."
Madden was a tremendous athlete who ran track and played football, lettering all four years at Bellevue High School, where the flag was at half-staff Thursday. "He always laid it on the line for Bellevue, just like he did for his country," said Charlie Coleman, Madden's football coach.
Madden's greatest assets were his speed and overall athleticism, he said. Madden could often be seen running the hallways and steps of the high school in the winter to stay in shape, Coleman said. Madden was a running back, linebacker, place kicker, punter and punt returner on Bellevue's undefeated 1999 team.
"He was just a gifted kid who had no fear and a tremendous amount of confidence," Coleman said. "He was a good kid - fun to coach and very respectful."
Matt Pickeral was Madden's teammate, classmate and best friend. Last year, before Madden left for Afghanistan, the two spent a night sitting on the 50-yard-line of the Bellevue football stadium.
"We probably sat there until about 4 in the morning, talking, crying," Pickeral said. "I told him whenever you come back we're going to get together right here."
But Madden said: "What if I don't," Pickeral recalled.
Pickeral told his friend not to think about that - but if it happened, Pickeral told his friend, "I'll do whatever I can to help your family."
Pickeral said he admires what Madden did for his family.
"Knowing that he was willing to literally put his life on the line so that his son could have a better life," he said. "I don't know what more you could do."
While overseas, Madden would use a Webcam to see his family and play guitar for his sons, his sister said.
"He made up songs, not real songs, but funny songs, just to make everyone laugh," Lindsey Madden said. "He was a riot, always singing and dancing."
In his frequent messages on Facebook, he would tell his parents, sister and younger brother Martin, 18, not to worry if they didn't hear from him for a couple days.
"It's just hard to think that it's just me and my brother now," she said, "we are without one."
Madden was deployed to Afghanistan in November 2009. He was home for a brief visit in March. Last year, the family traveled to Georgia to see Madden graduate from the Army's Airborne School in Fort Benning, Ga.
After his deployment, his wife of six years, who also grew up in Bellevue, moved the family to Fort Thomas. Funeral arrangements were not yet complete Thursday night.
Michael Foulks, who was principal at Bellevue High School while Madden was a student there, said he knew Madden well.
"He was a very hard-working kid," said Foulks, a Vietnam veteran who now lives in Peekskill, N.Y.
Foulks said he still has memories of Madden on the football field.
"The kids in Bellevue are not big physically, but they could all reach down inside their hearts and do what they needed to get to the next level," Foulks said. "Russell stood for what Bellevue is - hard-working, determined and willing to do whatever it takes to succeed."
"His Right Foot Was Gone, Lost In An Attack On His Guard Tower By A Rocket-Propelled Grenade"
"Pfc. Kelly Beechinor, 23, Was Just One Week Shy Of Heading Home"
June 24, 2010 By ELY E. BROWN, ABC News [Excerpts]
The combat hospital at Kandahar Air Field may lie deep in Taliban country, but as far as military hospitals go, it is cutting edge.
Doctors there use advanced technology and medical techniques once unheard of this close to the battlefield to ease wounded soldiers' pain, to salvage limbs and to save lives.
In fact, about 98 percent of coalition soldiers who get to the hospital alive survive after treatment.
In the minutes before the injured arrived recently, the trauma team nurses prepared the treatment bays, hanging IV fluids and checking equipment.
The doctors reviewed what little information they'd been given about the patient on his way.
"He has a traumatic amputation of the right leg below the knee," said Dr. Richard Hilsden, the trauma team leader.
"Other than that, we have no other information. "
Hilsden is a captain with the Canadian forces, part of the multi-national team of doctors, nurses and medics staffing the U.S.-run hospital. Hilsden had been in Kandahar for only a month. He practices family medicine back in Canada.
When an ambulance pulled up, Hilsden quickly assessed the soldier, an American. His right foot was gone, lost in an attack on his guard tower by a rocket-propelled grenade.
Pfc. Kelly Beechinor, 23, was just one week shy of heading home.
Foreign Military Copter Down In Kunar:
Number, Nationality, And Severity Of Injuries Kept Secret
June 25, 2010 Reuters
KUNAR PROVINCE, Afghanistan - A foreign military helicopter was involved in a hard landing June 25 in Kunar province in eastern Afghanistan.
There were no fatalities in the incident, and all personnel on board have been evacuated to nearby medical treatment facilities.
Reports indicate the helicopter developed mechanical problems and the pilot was forced to make an emergency landing.
Occupation Fuel Supply Trucks Destroyed
Two oil tankers carrying fuel to foreign military forces in Afghanistan were destroyed in a bomb blast in the outskirts of Peshawar, Pakistan June 24, 2010. No casualty was reported. REUTERS/K. Parvez
Resistance Action
The destroyed vehicle carrying Mullah Azizurehman, a candidate in parliamentary elections scheduled for September, in Jalalabad, east of Kabul, Afghanistan, June 23, 2010. Azizurehman was injured when his vehicle was hit by a road side bomb. One person was killed and another four were wounded. (AP Photo/Rahmat Gul)
6.21.10 By Robert H. Reid - The Associated Press & June 22 (Reuters) & 6.24 By AMIR SHAH and HEIDI VOGT, AP & Jun 25 Associated Press
Monday, a bomber believed to be a woman attacked a security checkpoint in Kunar province of eastern Afghanistan, wounding 13 civilians, three policemen and three soldiers, provincial police chief Khalilullah Zaiyie said.
A spokesman for Wardak provincial police, Wakil Sherzai, said the Taliban beheaded the acting chief of the central province's district of Sayyed Abad. Insurgents seized the man at his home four days ago and his body was found Monday.
Two Afghan policemen were killed and two were wounded Monday by a roadside bomb in the Nad Ali district of southern Helmand province, the Interior Ministry said.
Seven Afghan construction workers were killed in a roadside bomb attack in central Afghanistan, the government said Thursday. The group of workers for Qaher Afghan Road Construction Co. was traveling in Uruzgan province on Wednesday when their vehicle was hit by a remote-controlled bomb, the Interior Ministry said in a statement. All the passengers were killed.
A bomber wounded three police officers in an attack on a police check post in the Shigal district of eastern Kunar province on Monday, the Interior Ministry said.
The bodies of 11 men, some beheaded, were found Friday. Mohammad Khan, deputy police chief in Uruzgan province, said a villager in the Bagh Char area of Khas Uruzgan district spotted the bodies in a field and called police. "They were killed because the Taliban said they were spying for the government, working for the government," he said. The acting Uruzgan governor, Khudia Rahim, said five or six of the 11 victims had been beheaded.
"When They Try To Develop The Capacity Of The Police, To Control The Insurgency, You Find That They Don't Have Computers, Often They Don't Have Phones, And Some Areas Don't Even Have Electricity"
[See Question Below]
June 20, 2010 By Gretel C. Kovach, UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER [Excerpts]
The U.S. military is under the gun to train the Afghan forces in double time as public support wanes and President Barack Obama's provisional deadline looms to begin withdrawing U.S. combat forces by July 2011.
But the rapid expansion of Afghan security forces has been accompanied by ongoing complaints of widespread corruption and ineptitude, particularly among the police. In addition to off-the-books officers hired by warlords and power brokers, the force also has to cope with "ghost police" who quit but remain on the rolls.
Buying promotions is common, and at least 60 percent of new recruits were put to work with no training.
During widespread screening, almost 14 percent of the police tested positive for drugs, including hashish, opium and methamphetamine, the Pentagon reported.
Eli Berman, a University of California San Diego professor who leads a Pentagon-funded research project on political violence, said "the government is weak or not present in many of the most difficult parts of the country.
"When they try to develop the capacity of the police, to control the insurgency, you find that they don't have computers, often they don't have phones, and some areas don't even have electricity. "
[The same is true for the resistance. Who also don't have U.S. army trainers or billions of U.S. dollars. All they're doing is fighting a foreign Imperial invasion and occupation of their country. So how can it be they're winning? T]
Notes From A Lost War:
"Experienced Educated Afghans Are Not Working As District Judges Or Finance Officers"
"They're Working As Translators For The U.S. Army, Making As Much As $200,000 A Year"
June 24, 2010 by Tom Bowman, NPR [Excerpts]
The Taliban insurgency is just one of the major problems in Kandahar, the southern Afghan province where U.S. troops are mounting a new mission this summer and fall.
Fueling the insurgency is the fact that Afghans lack everything from clean water and electricity to schools and health clinics.
As thousands of American troops fan out across Kandahar this summer, Afghan officials are hoping for just a few hundred bureaucrats to run the government here.
Earlier this week, more than 100 American officials, Afghan government officials and tribal leaders gathered to talk about the upcoming military operation at a conference held in Kandahar. The discussion shifted from troops to government workers.
Currently, some government offices in the province barely have a skeleton staff. Some districts have only a governor and a police chief, said Kandahar Gov. Tooryalai Wesa.
Jelani Popol, a Cabinet minister in Kabul, is in charge of working with local governments. The problem is that there aren't many local officials to work with.
"The major obstacle for recruiting the bureaucrats is the security, because they are not sure about the security," Popol says.
A lack of government money to pay decent salaries is another problem. International aid organizations are scooping up educated Afghans in Kandahar, offering salaries that far exceed a government paycheck.
Right now, many of those experienced educated Afghans are not working as district judges or finance officers.
They're working as translators for the U.S. Army, making as much as $200,000 a year.
BEEN ON THE JOB TOO LONG:
COME ON HOME, NOW
U.S. soldiers of the 293rd MP Battalion respond after an informant came forward disclosing the location of a weapons cache in downtown Kandahar City on June 14, 2010. (AFP)
June 26, 2010 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very good, but I think McChrystal is way out of Ollie North's league.
June 27, 2010 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's leadership is a legitimate concern, whether you want total war or think that we shouldn't have tried counterinsurgency at all and that Obama was dragged into it only because, like LBJ, he had to cover his right flank.
My suspicion is that Obama's Afghan strategy was really just a campaign strategy all along. During the campaign, he went on the offensive against the unpopular Iraq war, but then adopted the more popular Afghan war as his own to prove to the voters that, despite being against Iraq, he wasn't a "peacenik" and could be tough when need be. It never quite made sense to me . . . having abandoned the misguided nation-building strategy in Iraq, we were going to embrace it in Afghanistan, that ancient graveyard of imperial nations? The best thing the US could do is listen to Andrew Bacevich, renounce militarism, and stop being seduced by these overseas military interventions with vague objectives. Sadly, I don't think that will ever happen. Americans--the vast mass of dumb ones and the smaller, smarter, but more sinister (and highly influential) cabal of neocons--all love to salute our troops. And Obama, disappointingly and despite all his intelligence and rhetorical skill, has done nothing to lead America to some new vision. Instead, much like Clinton, he triangulates and compromises and praises bipartisanship, which really means he doesn't to anything too risky that might upset the status quo too much. Increasingly, he just seems weak. And being publicly embarrassed by his general doesn't help. So yes, McChrystal may have made a great move on the political chessboard, but it was Obama who left his own king exposed.
June 24, 2010 7:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, Purple State.
Since Obama is prosecuting this current war in identical fashion to his predecessor (and with the same 'reasons'), he deserves whatever he gets from McChyrstal. But the person to reap benefits from this will inevitably be Petraeus. Obama must show success in Afghanistan, and Petraeus will now get the credit for it (or its illusion). In turn, Petraeus will defeat Obama in 2012.
Obama fans may console themselves by considering that Petraeus is largely indistinguishable from Obama ideologically. We will get a Republican who won't need a tea partier as his VP. (Joe Lieberman as VP is a distinct possibility.)
June 24, 2010 7:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
General P defeat Obama in 2012? Nonsense. Won't happen. Obama will run in 2012 and easily win.
June 24, 2010 9:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
If this war is going to last ten more years, as its planners think it must to achieve its objectives, do you think the Democratic party is going to line up behind Obama in 2012?
June 24, 2010 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
That was Gen McC's view; Obama set the policy objective upfront. Troop withdrawals commence in 2011. Since the strategy was not working, of course Gen McC wanted more time. Your assumption is that Obama would have changed that date; I disagree.
June 24, 2010 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Keep the faith. In politics two years is an eternity, anything can happen, but on today's form he is toast. The kids are never going to out for him like they did before.
June 24, 2010 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your assertion seems to be based on an assumption that Obama doesn't really mean it when he says he will begin pulling troops out in 2011.
IMO, Obama believed that Afghanistan was the greater threat and had never received proper attention because we were off to Iraq. Now, Afghanistan has received proper attention and troops will be withdrawn beginning in 2011--and that was the premise all of the COIN strategy should have been built on since Obama set that requirement.
Plenty of time for the 2012 elections--and, hey, those "kids" like healthcare.
June 24, 2010 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
In what world are all wars 'satisfactorily concluded' once they get 'proper attention?'
June 24, 2010 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
The world where the Taliban controls Afghanistan and is cahoots with alQueda who planned and executed 09/11. The Taliban government (and Pakistan with their "thou shalt nots")was proving recalcitrant about turning over their Muslim "guests" who were running terrorist camps. So they got themselves invaded.
And don't cry about this, please. Unless you're really misinformed, you should also be aware of the drastic measures the Taliban took against women and that their only diplomatic recognition was from Saudi Arabia.
We were distracted from proper national building after our bit of an invasion by Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney who lusted after a real war with Iraq. America's attention only serious turned back to Afghanistan and the needed nation building after Obama's election.
If you're a pacificist, then I'm sure you're tearing your hair out right now. I'm not and I see a clear strategic advantange for Afghanistan to progress forward instead of regressing to the Taliban and a lawless territory shared with Pakistan where terrorists were born, bred and trained.
It wouldn't have taken this long if the previous administration would ADMIT that nation building and international involvement was required. Or that Iraq was not a war target.
June 24, 2010 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Leaving in 2011 is still losing... Americans don't like losing, although by now they should be getting used to it.
June 24, 2010 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Troops leaving is now interpreted as Americans vanishing? Doubtful.
June 24, 2010 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you are right, I think his mouth ran away with him during the campaign... he was in his, "from this day the waters will recede" mode.
June 24, 2010 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sadly true. The most cynical aspect of DLC centrism is their belief that you can triangulate with the lives of armed forces and that you can do that with incremental pragmatic wars.
June 24, 2010 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
In airing this "theory" about McChrystal wanting out (not just to escape blame, but perhaps also to be sure that the blame attaches to the administration, not the Pentagon), I'm assuming only two things.
First, that the strategy in Afghanistan is going nowhere, not just because Cassandra-like, sensationalist news media say so, but because it's really going nowhere;
Second, that McChrystal, who drank the "soft power" kool-aid during his year at Harvard's Kennedy School, got grandly ambitious about it, and that he has been really frustrated ever since, believing, probably rightly, that Obama and his team (Biden, Eikenberry, Holbrook) have really let him down by under-funding and stage-managing everything for domestic politics. So he has felt really betrayed.
I don't say that he orchestrated his departure all that much; he may have lurched into his confrontation with Obama somewhat. But I suspect that it would have happened sooner or later, even if the Rolling Stone reporter had been a push-over and the volcano hadn't stranded McChrystal's staff with him for so long. Don't forget that McChrystal seems to have tried to outfox the civilian leadership via the media before.
So, no, I'm not thinking literally that there was a "master-stroke" on McChrystal's part but that he did feel betrayed and is bitter and he has a mind of his own and some ambitions. And I'm assuming that neo-cons and the "I want my country back" crowd would love to use him in any way they can to discredit Obama.
I'm not suggesting that he would ever run for office, only that he may want to speak his mind. Maybe the ghost of Ollie North is haunting me....
June 24, 2010 9:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
lol
you sure want it both ways,,,
geez
June 25, 2010 9:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I doubt that McChrystal organized the Rolling Stone profile to get himself fired. If he wanted to, he could have insisted on policy changes Obama was bound to refuse and then resign on principle -- much better for him.
My impression from the RS article was of a general staff seriously demoralized by the failure of their own strategy.
June 25, 2010 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think McChrystal wanted out. I think he wanted more time and more troops for the fully manned and funded counterinsurgency of his dreams, and wanted to erase the July 2011 target date for the start of the withdrawal. This was his opening salvo in a media campaign designed to accomplish just those things, a campaign that began by targeting his civilian enemies in the administration.
McChrystal did the same thing last year when he used leaks, a London speech and the media to circumvent the chain of command, take on his opponents in the administration, and take his case directly to the public. And it worked. So it is not surprising that he had concluded it would work again.
McChrystal was betting that Obama didn't have the balls to sack him. But he miscalculated. And it turns out that he has more opposition inside the military than he bargained for too, and that he could have gleaned from listening only to the cult of followers surrounding him in Afghanistan. A lot of military folks admire actual wins, not offensives that fizzle without achieving their results.
This guy is a classic military prima donna, stationed far from home with a band of loyal followers contemptuous of civilian life and civilian leadership, and who had developed a dangerous pattern of going rogue.
June 24, 2010 7:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dan -- That's plausible, and it would be nice if McChrystal's dismissal were the end of the matter, but my sense of him -- and of his supporters, who I guess are more widespread in the military and the general population than you suggest -- is that we'll be hearing a lot more from him and them, and that our stressed body politic (not to mention some of our febrile public intellectuals) could respond to it in ways that won't be as easy to dismiss as McChrystal was from his command.
June 24, 2010 7:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think McChrystal was trying to find a way out that would not damage him with his personal ecosystem of drinking buddies and comrades in arms. He has always been known for having a crazy streak, his friends know that and forgive or even like that. If he had coldly resigned, thereby dumping on the mission, the Bushido code of his peer group might not have been so forgiving. I don't think he gives a shit about a bunch of chicken hawk neocons.
June 24, 2010 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Prima donna possibly, but given Stanley's strict bodily regimen of little sleep, daily miles of running and near-starvation diet, he may be a closer to a real-life Jack D. Ripper, Kubrick's classic military man of small brain and in Ripper's case apparently 'limping' libido.
(Ripper had a thing about Communists and water fluoridation - "water fluoridation is a Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all our precious bodily fluids," - of which Ripper was made aware when his "loss of essence" during the "physical act of love" fatigued him.) Just a thought.
June 24, 2010 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lovely, phelicity. JDR would be my candidate for the most memorable film characterization ever.
June 24, 2010 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
All generals are prima ballerinas
June 24, 2010 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
your "theory" is just as good as this one.
June 25, 2010 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
The time lines and undercomittment of troops and resources is a holdover inherited from the way Rumsfeld was trying to run the military and the wars in particular.
Unfortunately, we're still in that same mode of doing a war on the cheap. Bush / Cheney had to do it that way to keep from having to raise taxes.
As we speak, we're still putting the tab for the wars on the national credit card. These wars are being fought off-budget in spite of making a firm committment to long term military operations way before Obama came on board.
Imagine going into debt for over a trillion dollars and not have that expenditure show up as a line item on the budget. Congress just votes yea or nay for xxx hundreds of billions as we go along and when they give the OK treasury goes out and borrows the money from China. That is exactly what congress is doing. How's that for crazy?
June 24, 2010 7:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the idea of keeping McChrystal and making him finish the job is a bit too Machiavellian when you have Petraeus as an alternative. Petraeus now has a reputation to defend, doesn't he? It's his counter-insurgency theory on trial again. I think he's got more motivation than McChrystal at this point.
But I also think, as you say, that McChrystal probably already has an agent and a Hannity booking.
June 24, 2010 8:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
No way. It was a master stroke. Other than the utter crazies, even the GOP is backing Obama on this (Boehner, McCain). They love Petraeus and, I hate to compliment these guys, many have read the Constitution and have heard of the US military code.
Accordingly, no one of any significance is going to rally around whathisname who will disappear without a trace.
The old general may have wanted to be fired for just the reasons you say. He just did not consider that he'd be so outsmarted by the President.
Great move by BHO.
June 24, 2010 8:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
More crazy....
If the theory is true and the inevitable defeat takes place, McChrystal would be all over the place with "Told you so!".
If the theory is true, McChrystal would be comletely vindicated once Obama's war "inevitably" ends in failure.
I don't know if McCain and Co are celebrating Petreaus' appointment because of the supreme irony of the left-wing flip-flop on him versus 2007 (that includes his invention, the surge, widely condemned at the time as a failed strategy).
But it's more likely because McCain believes in the military code, wants to use the confirmation to push back on withdrawal timelines and believes Petreaus will join him on the timeline push back.
June 24, 2010 8:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
It would be a master stroke if the General had a magic wand that could get us out of two quagmires before Obama is bullied into a 3rd war.
June 24, 2010 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think McChrystal gave a damn about either Obama or the neocons. I think he saw that there was no way that he or anybody else was going to win this war after Marja failed and decided to exit without repudiating the war effort itself with a resignation.
If you were he and saw the situation was hopeless, how could you find a better way out without leaving your peers hanging out to dry?
June 24, 2010 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know if you can limit his motives just to this. I tend to doubt that his own sense of his "soldier's honor" would sustain a deliberate, tricky provocation like this simply to find an easy way out for himself. My sense of him is that he takes himself and his counterinsurgency ideas more seriously than that and that he'll continue to campaign for them from the outside, after an interval.
I'd be happy to be wrong, but time will tell.
June 24, 2010 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
My whole reading of this incident revolves around my belief that this war cannot and will not be won. This incident and the RS article prove to me that the people who really understand war believe that too.
As a "can do" soldier in love with his theories, perhaps McChrystal didn't realize that the war and all his strategy was failing until Marja stalled and Khandahar was postponed. Once he got that idea, he could see that his strategy is just putting soldiers at more risk, in more danger... for nothing. I think he couldn't stand that thought. He may have blown this up without actually planning it, just his warrior "zen" taking over.
June 24, 2010 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ, I hope you're right, but don't forget that we now live in Palin Land (and that Palin was discovered by Bill Kristol!) I do believe the neo-cons drew themselves up and realized they have to honor civilian control. But I also believe they'll lose no chance to try to drive a wedge between Petraeus and Obama. They may not succeed, but watch 'em try!
June 24, 2010 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama didn't fire him. He relieved him of his command. BIG DIFFERENCE.
June 25, 2010 3:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
"wanted to be fired, so that blame for the inevitable defeat of the present effort "
- That would mean, of course, that General Betray Us would make changes in the strategy to ensure that the "inevitable defeat" doesn't take place.
It would also mean that he would have a conversation with the President and urge a change in strategy. Because he wouldn't want to be walking into McChrystal's situation, staring the "inevitable defeat" in the face. Right?
That's what any sensible person would do, especially the military officer who was effectively an inventor of the surge strategy that Obama embraced after winning the election.
Of course, this theory is neo-con caliber crazy.
I suggest we read Obama's announcement to get a sense of his committment to the strategy that according to Sleeper and Seaton would lead us to the "inevitable defeat".
June 24, 2010 8:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
The more I think about it, the wackier the theory seems.
The theory says that the defeat is inevitable because of Obama's refusal to shift timelines and give as many troops as requested.
And that's why McChrystal is getting out - presumably Obama and his civilian leadership are not committed enough to winning the war, undermine McChrystal's efforts to win it, and so on.
Taking this to its logical conclusion and as I mentioned above, we should be expecting the inevitable defeat to take place exactly as expected. Except that instead of McChrystal, it will be General Betray Us who be responsible.
Crazy!
On second thought, given what Candidate Obama said to Petreaus during the 2007 hearing (the surge is a failed strategy and the modest success in Iraq happened IN SPITE of the surge, etc), maybe that's the plan all along?
I'm loving this diary. Jennifer Rubin should read and learn a thing or two from Mr. Sleeper and Mr. Seaton.
June 24, 2010 8:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
The debunking of the Sleeper-Seaton theory continues...
"Even more about McChrystal: now it can be told. The story about him voting for Obama is not contrived. He is a political liberal. He is a social liberal. He banned Fox News from the television sets in his headquarters. Yes, really. This puts to rest another false rumor: that McChrystal deliberately precipitated his firing because he wants to run for President."
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/06/the-night-beat-obama-borrows-the-military-back/58635/
June 24, 2010 8:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
And more, from the same source, utterly destroying the birther-level crazy Sleeper-Seaton theory:
"The President had to make a hard decision, but fortunately Gen. Petraeus has worked closely with Gen. McChrystal at every level, is in a position to minimize any disruption in key efforts, and his acceptance of the job is a symbol of the fact that the administration and the U.S. are not planning to leave, but are rather sending an even more senior commander to win the war."
June 24, 2010 8:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
And the another nail in the coffin:
"Senior administration officials tell ABC News that President Obama told General McChrystal in their meeting, “I've made a lot of mistakes. Don’t worry -- this one mistake is not what you'll be remembered for.”
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/06/president-obama-to-gen-mcchrystal-this-one-mistake-is-not-what-youll-be-remembered-for.html
June 24, 2010 9:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Politico chimes in with another blow at he Sleeper-Seaton logic-light crazy-heavy theory:
"In replacing him Obama had the opportunity to hit the re-set button on that policy. But in replacing McChrystal with Petraeus, the CENTCOM commander he reported to, Obama chose a charismatic and politically savvy general with strong ties to Republicans who is likely to be a vigorous advocate for seeing the job through in Afghanistan."
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38889.html
June 24, 2010 9:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why don't any of these "revelations" from the Atlantic and other sources impress me?
Try to remember that I aired the Seaton theory not to propound it from on high but, as I put it in the post, to see "what others think." Nothing you say here puts any nails in any coffin of its plausibility. Victor Davis Hanson, the National Review scourge of liberals and big supporter of the Iraq War, is a registered Democrat, too.
I'm still not convinced, but I still find Seaton's notion plausible.
June 24, 2010 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's an alternative take on the situation, for your reading pleasure:
Obama fires a liberal, a Democrat, with loose lips. (No, not Biden). Hillary said worse things about Obama but he actually hired her. Oh well...
Obama replaces McChrystal with a Republican, the inventor of the surge strategy that he opposed and built his entire primary campaign on.
Republicans are happy because of who Petreaus is and because of the Obama flip-flop on him and the surge strategy. Bush is smiling.
Democrats are happy because they are truly terrified of the "Obama is weak" meme and their primary goal was to prove he does have a pair of balls.
Meanwhile, contrary to Sleeper-Seaton theory, the surge strategy (remember, the one that's about to fail, hence McChrystal's jumping ship?) is not only changed, but emphatically reaffirmed.
McCain plans to take it a step further and push for the removal of withdrawal timelines during the confirmation hearings.
Conclusion: everyone is happy! Yay!
June 24, 2010 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Additional conclusion:
- when Petreaus wins this war for Obama, it will be a GOP war hero who won it, not a Democrat. That's going to be their big thing.
- and as Daily Beast suggests, this also means that Petreaus will not be able to run for President in 2012. The field will remain clear.
June 24, 2010 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely right on, Lalo.
June 24, 2010 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I know. But at least far more plausible than the crazy "jump ship before it's too late" nonsense, wouldn't you say?
And even if you take out the "balls" part and replace with "insubordination" part, the fact remains Obama put a GOPer to win the war after a Democrat failed to do so.
Mark my words - that will be the narrative. That's why McCain was beside himself.
June 24, 2010 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok This is a theory bouncing around the tubes not just from David. If this was Machiavellian grand scheme too get fired the stars certainly aligned to pull it off.
1) A two day interview went to 10 because of a volcano.
2) A plane ride turned into a bus trip with lots of beer
3) All the really damning comments come from aides over severed beer not McChrystal himself which means he needed to coordinate with them to pull it off.
Then there is the McChrystal is too smart not to have done this on purpose. Really? The brightest of the brightest in the military do stupid things everyday. Throw in a large ego into the mix and you a recipe for hubris that makes you believe you can pull a RS reporter to your side.
And no Obama did exactly what he should have done. Had he not his authority within the military would have been totally destroyed.
June 24, 2010 8:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama had no choice but to fire his general. It is a far larger issue than a clash of personalities (and I am not talking about the conduct of the war, which Obama has assured us will be continued in a similar fashion).
McChyrstal is both too hubristic and too frustrated (presiding over a military campaign in the graveyard of empires) to behave otherwise than the volcano, metaphorically speaking. Machiavellianism is the antithesis of this impulsive behavior.
Petraeus is actually temperamentally closer to a 'Machiavellian.'
June 24, 2010 8:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Insightful comment. McChrystal's behavior was erratic, more likely driven by emotion than by calculation.
No Machiavelli he, in this instance.
June 24, 2010 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama had no choice but to fire his general. It is a far larger issue than a clash of personalities (and I am not talking about the conduct of the war, which Obama has assured us will be continued in a similar fashion).
McChyrstal is both too hubristic and too frustrated (presiding over a military campaign in the graveyard of empires) to behave otherwise than the volcano, metaphorically speaking. Machiavellianism is the antithesis of this impulsive behavior.
Petraeus is actually temperamentally closer to a 'Machiavellian.'
June 24, 2010 8:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think McChrystal wanted to be fired. First and foremost, McChrystal is a liberal. I mean he voted for Obama and all. I think he incorrectly believed Rolling Stone would understand they were talking to a fellow liberal, a fellow Obama supporter, and do the right thing, just like most of the leftist MSM do, they wouldn't publish his frank talk and that of his aids directly. But they would find a way to harmlessly get his message out to Obama that full scale counterinsurgency was the only way to go at this point, not the halfassed, don't-pull-the- trigger-until-fired-upon horseshit Obama sees as counterinsurgency.
ex animo
davidfarrar
June 24, 2010 8:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is no way we will ever win a ground war there any more that we would have won a ground war in Vietnam or had won a ground war with Japan. For we fight a people with the same kind of single minded determination and ruthless commitment. They see it as a war against Islam and will fight to the death of each one.
Goldwater knew this with Nam and Truman with Japan.
The only reason to remain there is to give the defense contractors continued business.
C
June 24, 2010 8:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Trying to figure out why smart people do dumb things can engender endless speculation.
One reality is that the wars are bleeding us in more ways than one.
Using the money for millions of jobs would be a better effort.
June 24, 2010 8:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nope, I don't buy it.
As Dan K mentioned above, this type of hubris in the military is not unknown--our other two McC's certainly had it. He was physically fit and proud that he ran 7 miles a day; he liked his hand-picked team to be irreverent and mouthy; his previous two learning moments didn't register at all and certainly didn't change his behavior; he joined in the criticism of his civilian counterparts, encouraging the belief that he and his team had no weaknesses--and the only weaknesses were found in civilians.
General McC certainly misjudged Obama. Those previous two learning experiences had not helped McC at all. By all accounts Obama was steaming mad. And Prez O fired the general.
It's not written in stone that the architect (and was McC the sole architect?) of the Afghan strategy is the best person to implement the plan. If COIN requires close working with Afghans, Karzai, and diplomatic and civilian leaders from America, Nato, Pakistan, etc.....well McC certainly showed his weaknesses right there, now didn't he? Heck, McC didn't even sell his strategy to at least one unit where he tried--according to the article that sank him.
I don't view General McC as a future celebrity--but if it does happen it would be a one-week wonder. General McC seems to like the military spotlight--the civilian one, not so much.
My two cents....
June 24, 2010 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
You can't seriously believe that a 55-year old West Point graduated and newly minted 4-star general would want to END his career with a firing from commanding an active war theater. To, in effect, quit. No, I don't think so.
I think that Dan K, as he often does, offers a good analysis of what most likely was McChrystal's motivation. The obvious reasons why his firing was the right thing for Obama to do include; for the sake of military discipline and for U.S. public and foreign ally confidence regarding the conduct of the war. Perhaps, a less obvious reason is that had Obama kept McChrystal it could have left both his domestic enemies and our foreign enemies with the wrong impression that such was a sign of Obama's weakness. It would not have been weakness, but rather, a sign of his ultra-pragmatism, assuming Obama had kept McChrystal because it was the most practical thing to do. This president's domestic, as well as our international enemies, however, would likely have mistaken Obama's ultra-pragmatism for weakness. Possibly leading to their subsequently making avoidable destabilizing miscalculations. Just as General McChrystal seems to have done in his fatally flawed assessment of Obama.
The last thing Obama needs to concern himself with is the possible reaction of the neocons. To the degree that Obama does, indeed, make right-leaning decisions regarding security policy, it is because Obama is right-leaning on security policy. Not because of any political concern over neocon objections.
June 24, 2010 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
The answer to another question needs to be known if all this speculation is to continue intelligently. What affect will McChrystal's actions and subsequent firing have on the careers of those other officers on his staff who were a significant part of his transgression? The ones actually taking most of the shots? Could it be that those high ranking officers who were integral actors in the affair were fools and/or dupes while their boss just above them in rank and responsibility who was doing the same thing was a genius?
Does his firing let them go on with no blemish on their records which might adversely affect their path to the top? It seems to me that it should not but I don't know. Did they really demonstrate a willingness to die for him ? I kind of doubt it.
June 24, 2010 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's an excellent question. What will happen to the aides who supported McChrystal and shot off their mouths? I forsee some early retirements and quiet transitions to low-profile jobs in the civilian world...
June 24, 2010 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have the same query. Isn't it interesting that MSM (at least the dozens I reviewed) do not even note the 'aide's-de-camp' positioning and/or their (if any) consequences.
Hmmmm.
June 24, 2010 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tea Partiers are not Neo-cons. I don't see an analogy to 1940. An earlier commenter mentioned Andrew J Bacevich; Bacevich has written thoroughly about Neo-cons and reminds us that, to Neo-cons, "1980 was a year of crisis" in national security, as was every year before that and every year since.
Neo-cons have no broader appeal. And ultimately relieving McChrystal is not a momentous event in my opinion - it will reflect better on Obama more than anything.
Also, people who say Obama owed the insubordinate McChrystal an apology ought not to be taken seriously. They write about military affairs without bothering themselves with the most basic familiarity with military bearing at all, as M.J. Rosenberg mentioned above. Obama was at liberty to do whatever he wanted
June 24, 2010 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama did the right thing just as Truman did. MacArthur's attempt to strike back failed just as any such attempt by McChrystal would fail.
June 24, 2010 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Look at those eyes. The man's as crazy as MacArthur was.
We can hope he'll follow in MacArthur's footsteps, close his military career, and "just fade away."
June 24, 2010 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Andrew Bacevich on McChrystal's ouster at Salon
Can you discuss what may have been frustrating McChrystal?
It’s completely speculative, but I would think there’s ample reason for the guy to be frustrated in the sense that he’s been engaged in wars for about the last six years[emphasis added]. He’s constantly deployed. He never gets to see his family. I think he behaved stupidly. But I certainly understand these are people who are under tremendous stress. And that sometimes causes people to do stupid things.
June 24, 2010 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
And he closed the TGI Friday at Camp Victory or wherever, and that Talibangelic decision must have cost him something in the way of necessary R and R, which produced inappropriate venting when exposed to liquor in the presence of reporters. It is natural for puritans and prudes to behave this way when exposed to pleasures they have forbidden others.
June 24, 2010 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the quote from Bacevich, Emma.
No question, smart people do stupid things.
June 24, 2010 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're welcome.
June 24, 2010 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Additional Bacevich quote -- and more on point:
I think [the COIN strategy is] a defective concept and I don’t think it’s working.
Probably what drove the Bug around the bend.
June 24, 2010 10:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not likely to change, alas, until there's a Tet offensive, or something similar.
June 24, 2010 11:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seconded.
June 24, 2010 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
June 24, 2010 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
What will be interesting to see is whether he retires to write his memoirs or asks to be reassigned.
June 24, 2010 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I heard somewhere on TV yesterday that McChrystal needs to serve one more year in 4-star rank to retire as a 4-star in service record and retirement pay. So, my guess is that he will seek a one year reassignment to duty as a 4-star, with the agreement that he would retire immediately thereafter.
June 24, 2010 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Seems to me stlounick above hit the nail on the head--McChrystal was audacious and farsighted enough to see the benefits of the COIN strategy and get it in place, but then turned out not to be enough of a diplomat to actually make it work.
It really comes through in the RS article--McChrystal, much more than some others, had the right strategy and worked on it pretty hard, even getting Karzai to step up albeit in a limited way. But his need to set himself apart via disdain of others turned out to be a character flaw he couldn't overcome--either at the top levels by dealing with the diplomats & VP, or top-down by creating rules that his troops could follow with confidence.
Granted, it's a tough job. I'm not sure anyone could do it, but there's little doubt that McChrystal proved he wasn't the guy. I think that's what Obama meant when he said this mistake wouldn't be what McChrystal would be remembered for.
June 24, 2010 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think that McChrystal is a soldier's soldier born and bred and that all he cares about is the respect of his peers. Certainly about earning brownie points wiht a bunch of neocons. He didn't want to fail and he didn't want to attack the mission itself, he got out without doing that. His lifelong drinking buddies will still drink with him.
June 24, 2010 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
You mean he might have old-fashioned ideas like troops aren't props for the next chickenhawk campaign?
June 24, 2010 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly!
June 24, 2010 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Typo read:
Certainly NOT about earning brownie points with a bunch of neocons.
June 24, 2010 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't recall saying or suggesting that McChrystal cares a whit about neo-cons. What I was saying is that they care a lot about discrediting Obama and that he may now care, too. That he may have voted for Obama doesn't have much bearing on this, especially when you recall what the alternative was. The question is whether he's anything more than a soldier's soldier. Don't you think that a guy who went to the Kennedy School to study soft power may have more on his mind (and in his heart) than a safe retirement?
June 24, 2010 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jim I don't think he cares about Obama very much. I think what motivates him (reading RS) is that his strategy is very dangerous for the American soldiers, because it protects the lives of Afghan civilians. If that strategy is not going to succeed because the war is just plain lost, and after Marja that is evident, then those soldiers are going to die for nothing. I repeat, (again reading RS)the key to McChrystal is that he was born into an army family he has spent his life soldering, soldier are his family and his friends. In the RS interview his sense of kameradschaft is much evident. He wanted out of a losing situation without "betraying" the cause. He did it. A dumb mistake drinking with a journalist, not something that caused the death of a soldier under his command. For me this mostly a brilliant escape from a personal nightmare.
June 24, 2010 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
What I have heard about McChrystal is that a lot of soldiers complain that he has put them too much at risk. I don't know that Rolling Stone is the best authority on the question.
June 24, 2010 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that McCrystal was hearing all that every day and it was affecting him... How couldn't it? This is his "family" remember. This is a risky strategy, protecting Afghan civilian's lives at the risk of American ones, which might be worth the risks if you succeed, but if you don't? Marja has gone nowhere and Khandahar which was supposed to the masterpiece is on hold. The possibility of success narrows to nothing. Here is the quote from RS that clinches it for me:
How else could he extricate himself without making a bigger political splash and jeopardizing even more lives and careers within his ecosystem? If he didn't plan it, he has a brilliant subconscious.June 24, 2010 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why are so few people discussing Rolling Stone's reasoning/rationale for publishing this hit piece now. I like reading about internecine struggles between major figures during historical events as much as anyone but as history not while they are unfolding.
Sure the 'tudes of McChrystal and staff is news to most of Rolling Stone's readers but I doubt it was to Obama, Biden, Holbrooke et al. When are there not rivalries and sniping between people at those levels of ego? Yet somehow they mostly manage not to involve the whole country and as often as not will realign in the future when and if it is advantageous to them.
Why should Rolling Stone/Michael Hastings get any kudos from anyone for burning bridges between thses players in the middle of a campaign; for further alienating the military from the media. Self-serving, short-sighted jerks. Talk about egos.
June 24, 2010 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you like reading history, you might start with the 1st amendment.
June 24, 2010 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's your reply? RS has a right to publish something therefore they must publish something?
June 24, 2010 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
You've got an interesting point. Blog it at length.
June 24, 2010 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks. I would expand on my remarks except for two things:
1) Just after submitting my last post my computer got hit with Antivirus7. I admit calling them jerks was a bit harsh but really....was a malware attack really called for? :)
2) I am out of Ritalin.
Maybe later. You're welcome to take the point and run with it if you like.
June 24, 2010 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Emma,
On the malware infection, I got one too. See my post on it with a quote of your comment, thanks for mentioning it:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/a/r/artappraiser/2010/06/any-other-tpm-users-get-a-malw.php
June 28, 2010 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Something that everyone here is forgetting. This "villain", this fiend, McChrystal was the one trying to keep innocent Afghan civilians from getting killed and most of the people opposing him want more air strikes etc. Now there is going to be more "collateral damage" for sure.
June 24, 2010 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, so we're now evolving to McChrystal being actually a good guy (in disguise)....
LOL!
June 24, 2010 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
His COIN technique is the most "humane" use of American power ever attempted. Americans are more into carpet bombing traditionally. As American soldiers go, McCrystal is almost Gandhiesqe. Until the RS article appeared he was the flavor of the month.
June 24, 2010 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Now there is going to be more "collateral damage" for sure."
Petraeus is a COINdinista too, so that likely means a continued focus on reducing civilian casualties.
June 24, 2010 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Boy I wish I had a crystal ball...better yet, a McChrystal one. I don't know how many gunman there were in Dallas, I don't have an idea what was going through Jack Ruby's mind. This leaves me at a serious disadvantage when these kind of speculative games take over. I don't know what McChrystal's motive was, is, or might have been. I don't know if he knows, for that matter. I won't know unless he tells me, and if he really doesn't know then I won't know even then. Oh well, my lack of speculative insight will not shorten the chain of speculative commentary appreciably. Those bytes and bits of electrons will find other homes, so I won't feel too sorry for them.
June 24, 2010 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think part of this is very simple. He is an army brat born into a military family and soldering is the only life he has ever known. Military people are his only family, his only friends. In the RS interview his sense of kameradschaft is much evident. He wanted out of a losing situation without "betraying" the cause. He did it. A dumb mistake drinking with a journalist, not something that caused the death of a soldier under his command. For me a brilliant escape from a personal nightmare.
June 24, 2010 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
David, you have now said more -- at least half a dozen times, I think -- about McChrystal's drinking buddies and the culture that you inform us surrounds them and him than you've said about McChrystal himself. There is a little bit more to him than his army-brat, drinking-buddy side, and your repeated insistence on reducing him to that is, by itself, making me think that he probably has a stake in proving he's more than what you keep insisting he is.
Again, I don't believe that McChrystal gives a rat's ass about neo-cons. That was never my suggestion any more than it was yours. I do believe that neo-cons give a rat's ass and more about driving a wedge between Obama and anyone in uniform, and inflating McChrystal, and, soon, Petraeus, into great champions of the Mission.
But time will tell. We'll see what they'll do and whether it'll matter. I hope that it won't, but we do live in Sarah Palin land these days, and it was Bill Kristol who discovered her and presented her to McCain.
June 24, 2010 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jim,
You shouldn't neglect the ecosystem part of his personality. He has a couple of drinks and says, "I'd die for them, they'd die for me" in vino veritas. He comes from this alpha, Ranger, commando, soldier-soldier, culture, where people really do care who has their backs. When they talk about an American military caste, they are talking about people like McCrystal. They speak a different language than non-military people, they dream other dreams... they are a tribe.
June 24, 2010 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
David, I'm confused. On the one hand, you say:
"The McChrystal affair is much simpler than it looks.
"I'm sure that McChrystal knew perfectly well what he was doing and that he was only trying to get himself fired for some other reason than not winning the war."
Now you say he just made "A dumb mistake drinking with a journalist..."
Machiavelli would be embarrassed by him.
June 24, 2010 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think he may have a very "zenny" subconscious that has got him out of an impossible situation. Pure instinct may have saved him.
June 24, 2010 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think this is the best comment I've read so far. The speculation about motives of this bone-head move by the General is fun and even interesting. But it is just speculation. My sense is the General is more complicated than discussed here. He is probably not as devious as some have suggested nor as simple as others have opined. He is more likely somewhere in between. Like most things, history will reveal just what brought the General to this place. Until then President Obama had little choice. He had to protect the Office of the President.
June 24, 2010 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know what McChrystal's motive was, is, or might have been. I don't know if he knows,
Interesting observation! But such is the way it often is in trying to unravel what goes on in the public sphere.
Despite the dim prospect of unraveling the twisted tangled mess before us we are nonetheless driven to speculate and passionately defend our speculations against those of others. We invest a lot of time and effort in our lives in arguing about similar intractably opaque matters. And we do it because we must if we are going to have any civic discourse at all.
June 25, 2010 3:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I just wish we didn't get so involved in the back story that we stop trying to understand the front story, where our civil discourse could actually make a difference.
June 25, 2010 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know what McChrystal's motive was, is, or might have been. I don't know if he knows,
Interesting observation! But such is the way it often is in trying to unravel what goes on in the public sphere.
Despite the dim prospect of unraveling the twisted tangled mess before us we are nonetheless driven to speculate and passionately defend our speculations against those of others. We invest a lot of time and effort in our lives in arguing about similar intractably opaque matters. And we do it because we must if we are going to have any civic discourse at all.
June 25, 2010 3:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
"McChrystal can now retire from the military and undertake a massive domestic insurgency of his own, with total commitment from Murdoch and the conservative message machine"
Except that McChrystal wasn't faking his belief in COIN and reducing civilian casualties. FOX viewers and neocons can't stand this approach and I doubt McChrystal will do a 180 on it even if he did want to be replaced.
If he goes on FOX and argues for COIN, more power to him. COIN seems to be the only strategy that might work and FOX viewers need to hear it from someone who knows.
June 24, 2010 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, the neo-cons have not been opposed to his nation-building strategy. Please click on the link to Dissent in my post and read my article citing the rapturous praise that Max Boot and David Brooks lavished on McChrystal's "soft power," nation-building strategies.
June 25, 2010 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree that Brooks is a neocon, but the more important point is that support for COIN as elaborated by Petraeus and Kilcullen does not break down along liberal vs conservative lines.
Instead, I would argue that COIN (as elaborated by Petraeus and Kilcullen) is very liberal, especially in comparison to the dominant Fox News/Weekly Std framing.
June 25, 2010 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
In response to your Dissent article: the failure of economic development efforts is a problem, but the Taliban has been even worse at economic development. As Iraq demonstrates, economic development is not the only, or even central, point of COIN.
June 25, 2010 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
In response to your Dissent article: the failure of economic development efforts is a problem, but the Taliban has been even worse at economic development. As Iraq demonstrates, economic development is not the only, or even central, point of COIN.
June 25, 2010 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is as ridiculous as claims that Hillary Clinton was going to sabotage Obama's foreign policy if she were to become SoS. You don't trust the general and you don't trust the GOP so of course they must be up to something diabolical. Add to that the desperate need to explain why people, smart people, do incredibly stupid things.
Master-stroke? No. What I see in this theory is a colossal coward who would jeopardize his soldiers and this country for political gain. I certainly hope the general would not want to have that cloud hanging over his legacy.
June 24, 2010 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fascinating speculation about McChrystal's inner demons. But he's out, and I don't give a rat's ass. McChrystal has as much chance of carving out a political career as McClellan and MacArthur did.
More fascinating is the delusion that Petraeus might now reap the credit for "winning" the war in Afghanistan. He may be brilliant, but he's not God. The U.S. lacks the money, the resources, the patience, and more fundamentally the motivation. Can anyone even define any more what constitutes "winning"? I can't.
Read the dispatches from the front. Read some history. Run, don't walk, to the nearest exit. An elusive "honorable way out" is no reason for even one more soldier or civilian to die.
June 24, 2010 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama will be blamed for the coming disaster, not Petraeus or even McCyrstal (had he not been sacked). And justifiably so.
Petraeus is actually the best (plausible) candidate I can see stepping into the political vacuum left by the recriminations (on both sides) that will surely come.
June 24, 2010 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
They will TRY to blame Obama for it, but it is bush's fault. He took his eye off the ball to pursue the war he wanted to wage. Obama had to try to clean up his mess. He has not been successful, but it has not been from lack of trying.
He was in an impossible situation. We either walked away, leaving God knows what kind of a horrific situation for the people of Afghanistan, or try to finish the job and leave them something to build on. He opts for the latter, but we tell him we can't kill any civilians or American soldiers, so he goes to drones, and that wigs everyone out...There is no doubt that whatever happens after we leave will also be his fault.
We should be pushing back 24/7 about it being Obama's fault, but we won't because too many agree that it is. Chew him up and spit him out, he had his chance, and he blew it.
June 24, 2010 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
An irony here is that McChrystal's is not one of the "bad guys" in all of this. His strategy is predicated on NOT killing innocent bystanders like flies which is the traditional American method. Joe Biden (grinning fool) is the one who wants to use drones and air strikes against wedding parties, not McCrystal. One of the blowbacks of McCrystal leaving is going to lots more dead and maimed Afghan women and children. Think about that please.
June 24, 2010 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was going to reply to stlounick's delusional post above, but would rather reply to your infinitely more thoughtful comment.
The COIN McCrystal was trying to implement involved as little killing of civilians as possible. In a war zone that is not always either feasible or even moral, since some of your own soldiers- whom you are obligated to protect at all costs- will die as a result.
You can't fight a war that way, but you certainly can drive up the suicide rate like that. In a war people die, whether they are "targets" or not. COIN is a bloody joke.
What is Obama doing in Afghanistan? He is using the armed forces as his own private reelection campaign. The rest is scenery.
June 24, 2010 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think COIN is the only possible winning strategy in a counterinsurgency. If it had been applied vigorously in Afghanistan from the very beginning without invading Iraq, it might very well have succeeded, as it is, it is too little too late.
I repeat, it is the only winning counterinsurgency strategy possible and war is not about "protecting your soldier's lives at all cost", it's about winning the war, and you spend as many lives as it takes or you lose, which is what is probably going to happen in this case. I can just imagine Eisenhower saying before Normandy, "my first duty is not to get Americans killed", we'd all be speaking German today.
June 24, 2010 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Counterinsurgency can only succeed if there is a credible government in the region. Karzai's ultra-corrupt Kabul is not even close to being credible. It is telling that McChyrstal was so enraged by Eikenberry's cable- because it was true and demolished the central premise on which the whole COIN doctrine rests.
There is no goddamn mission in this "war." That is the problem. In which case- what is McChrystal's obligation again?
June 24, 2010 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Counterinsurgency can only succeed if there is a credible government in the region"
Credible government makes defeating rebels easier, but it's hardly a prerequisite. A long list of awful governments have defeated a long list of popular rebels. And polls show that the Taliban isn't popular with Afghans.
June 24, 2010 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
And furthermore, you are wrong in your assumption that this war went south because we didn't implement COIN or Bush got distracted. I especially despise Obama when he says crap like that.
What happened was we stepped into a civil war ON THE WRONG SIDE, from the point of view of American "interests," special and otherwise. That is, we joined an Iranian-backed insurgency against a Pakistan-backed Government. Quite the conundrum, one that no politician in this accursed country, least of all Obama, wants to acknowledge. Bush did not want to invade Afghanistan for this reason, and this is why he did not prosecute the war with any seriousness. Maybe Obama is just too stupid to have figured this out.
So- Were we going to implement COIN on behalf of the Iranian-backed Northern Alliance? On behalf of Pashtuns who we were fighting, and were backed by the nation that was not Iran, and was (and still is) our "ally?" Tell me- I've never figured this out.
The worst of all Obama's lies is that Bush didn't finish the job. True, Bin laden is not in Afghanistan anymore. Once he left, there was no job whatsoever to even begin.
June 24, 2010 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
You think we should have let the Taliban continue in that GD country and keep the al Queda terrorist camps going? So it was in our GD interest to fund the Father of the Pakistani Bomb to continue black-marketing nuclear technology to radical Islam? And all so we could stick a pin in Iran's eye?
Let me see. You think all that will happen if we pull out is that the Taliban will take control again, a Northern Alliance will re-form, and the merry little civil war will begin again. Then I suppose we can count on al Queda returning and starting up their terrorist training camps. And you believe this increases America's security?
Have I got that right?
June 24, 2010 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
"What happened was we stepped into a civil war ON THE WRONG SIDE ... That is, we joined [the Northern Alliance] against a Pakistan-backed Government"
Are you saying that we should have sided with al Qaeda and the Taliban because the Northern Alliance was receiving support from Iran? Massoud, the NA's leader, was assassinated by al Qaeda two days before 9/11, apparently because it was obvious who our friends would be.
June 24, 2010 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
No arguments for me? Sad, really.
I'm quite pleased with where Obama is going with Iraq and Afghanistan. Iraq hit below 100,000 troops this past February and is on schedule to remove 50,000 more August 31st and all to be gone by the end of 2011. That country will have their chance to succeed--or fail again as they did with Saddam.
The same possibilities are being extended to Afghanistan. And General McM was directly instrumental in developing the strategy for that country; his failure was in supporting a cowboy mentality on his staff in the midst of his strategy not yet working. What isn't changing is the drawdown date--all of the generals agreed to it before the surge was implemented. Now General P will have his chance to implement the plan; since he was successful in Iraq, perhaps the same success will be repeated in Afghanistan.
Mine is a fairly centrist view--which I am sure causes smoke to exit all of your orifices. But I'm not a pacificist and I didn't vote for one. I certainly don't expect a cowboy attitude--either in a president or in a general.
Waging war in Iraq was Bush's disaster--Obama is getting us out of it without leaving a dire mess behind. Afghanistan was Bush's forgotten war and Obama was again called upon to see if we could turn it around. Seaton may be right that the chance is gone. But I credit Obama with trying to put together what we broke in such a way that terrorists aren't given a warm welcome by that country's government and that normal folk there are given a reasonable chance for a successful government and country.
June 24, 2010 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't figure out if you're babbling about a war, or about some economic stimulus program. Are normal folk here being given a chance for a successful government and country?
June 24, 2010 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
You mean the folk run out after the Taliban became the rulers? Or did you miss that part of the Afghan history lesson?
June 24, 2010 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
stlounick, you wrote: "...I credit Obama with trying to put together what we broke in such a way that terrorists aren't given a warm welcome by that country's government and that normal folk there are given a reasonable chance for a successful government and country."
I read your comment in full and although I disagreed with some it, it was reasonable up until this part. But what on earth does this mean?
What is achievable militarily at this point? Paint for me, if you will, a scenario in which, by the time we leave, there is not an ostensibly national "government" consisting of the mayor of Kabul, with extremely weak support and no effective control outside the capital?
That's what it's going to be, regardless of whether we phase out in six months or on the timeline we're on, or six years from now. Actually, six years from now on a continuation of current trends there will not even be an illusion of a "friendly" government controlling Kabul.
There is no way in which we are going to be able to leave that country in anything like the kind of condition we would like it to be in. I don't know what it is going to take for us to be able to face that, for our leaders to be honest enough with ourselves to accept that, and to be honest with the public about that.
There is no US fix for Pakistan. Incredibly dangerous situation there. But who do we think we are kidding?
We are going to have to continue to be committed, long-term, to seeking out and destroying al qaeda, wherever they are. We've known that for almost a decade now.
We're continuing to throw good money after bad and losing more lives while we're saying we can't find money in the federal budget to save the jobs of 300,000 education employees who are going to be unemployed unless the federal government acts now.
This is part of the screwed up priorities that are weakening our country. It's one thing to fight for sensible priorities and lose. It's another to offer mealy-mouthed, pathetic excuses, like "we can't come up with the jobs money because if we attach it to the Afghanistan bill it'll complicate passage of that", which is the situation in the Senate now.
The White House has to its credit asked Congress for the jobs funding, although it has not taken that case to the public. What you do if you are a majority party with any common sense and conviction is put the jobs money into the Afghanistan bill and if senators aren't going to vote for the bill under those circumstances you call them out publicly for being asshats, or let them squirm in the mess they've created for themselves with their voters.
I'm sorry, but if as a US senator you can't defend money to avoid class size increases, service cuts and weakening the economy on account of increased unemployment, then you have no business being in electoral politics.
Absolutely fucking ridiculous. This point of view--end a futile war, avoid increasing unemployment and further damaging our schools-- in the Disunited, Disfunctional States of America, 2010, puts me in the "liberal wing" of the Democratic party, opposed to the "centrists", who stand for what vision for our country, exactly? Guilty as charged.
June 24, 2010 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dan K!
(I'm exclamating so as to call since you're so far away)
I go back and forth between thinking McChrystal wanted out and wanted to do it while the getting was good and thinking that he was just tired of the whole civilian thing and just didn't give a shit anymore (or only enough to want to spray the area and leave his mark before he lit out for the territories).
But you may be right that what he wanted was "more time and more troops for the fully manned and funded counterinsurgency of his dreamsto it was predominantly a fit of pique because things weren't going his way." Obviously he had ego enough to think he could play the game this way and just keep buzzing chickenshit Obama at the plate till he broke.
Who knows?
But Juan Cole had this to say the other day:
"McChrystal can’t possibly have planned out such a brain-dead counter-insurgency campaign against the vice president’s offices in the Naval Observatory beforehand. Presumably McChrystal did the interview because he is afraid he is being undermined in Washington. The left wing of the Democratic Party wants out of Afghanistan, in part because they don’t think the country can afford the war any more. Powerful critics of McChrystal’s approach are said to be gaining President Obama’s ear as it has failed to produce quick and tangible results."
Not uninteresting, I'd say.
June 24, 2010 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
and, obviously, I forgot to hit reply here...
June 24, 2010 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, because there is no time we can exit Afghanistan without the militarists in our society going nuts, we should...stay there forever? Obama should compound one dubious decision--to escalate the stakes in Afghanistan--with another one--tolerating repeated insubordination from a general, and the outrageous small boy challenge it represents to civilian control of the military?
Make the neocons and militarists either reaffirm civilian control of the military or disavow it. Put the question to them: do you think the military should be running our wars, or the President? Because if they think the former they need to try reading the US Constitution. And if they agree with the latter they should be able to see what even many very conservative types see clearly--that McChrystal's MO is unacceptable in any country that wishes to avoid tyranny and despotism.
At what point does capitulation to the militaristic insanity that continues to make so much noise stop? At what point is there a confrontation where the issue is posed, cleanly, and the lovers of war and all things military are confronted, assertively, articulately, with conviction?
See Truman and MacArthur. Yes, facts are different. Context is similar in the important respects, though--with the possible horrifying difference that civilian control of the military might not prevail at the US ballot box in 2010 or 2012 against the forces enabling and abetting them in our day. Stand up to the troglodytes and ignoramuses.
June 24, 2010 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Counterinsurgency can only succeed if there is a credible government in the region"
Credible government makes defeating rebels easier, but it's hardly a prerequisite. A long list of awful governments have defeated a long list of popular rebels. And polls show that the Taliban isn't popular with Afghans.
June 24, 2010 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, I obviously didn't hit reply to a previous comment.
June 24, 2010 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Owen, do you seriously think that ANY polling of Afghans as to whether they like the Taliban or the Karzai government (or the NATO occupation, for that matter) is going to produce reliable results? Think about it. Don't cite bullshit.
June 25, 2010 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are obvious problems with polling in a war zone, but the results from multiple polls have been clear. You can dismiss all polls in war zones as irrelevant, but you'd be making a mistake.
June 25, 2010 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
RE: "Hence a Machiavellian question: Shouldn't Obama have refused McChrystal's resignation..." - Jim Sleeper
LBJ: "Better to have him inside the tent pissing out, than outside pissing in." (Lynden B. Johnson, of J. Edgar Hoover)
June 24, 2010 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really seem to have set a cat among the pigeons.
June 25, 2010 1:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
total BS thinking.
if you believe a general that people know was fired and could care less about can orginize the country over a war that even more people want no part of, then somehow build this massive political campaign to become president you are taking to much medication.
sometimes things are really as they seem and if you took the time to understand the relationship between obama his inner circle and this war criminal general this kind of knee shaking theory could never develope.
there is no strategy to win this fake war, it cant be done and the people realize it.
this is beyond bizarre.
lol
June 25, 2010 9:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
ps.
you people must admire palin since you believe creating silly realities then hoping they filter into main stream thinking is clever.
June 25, 2010 9:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jade,
I don't think McCrystal wants to be president, I think he'd be happy teaching COIN at West Point.
June 26, 2010 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
. . . he has spent his life soldering . . . soldering is the only life he has ever known.
June 25, 2010 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink