posted
1. "McChrystal" and "Petraeus," not "McCrystal" and "Petreus"
2. McChrystal has not resigned. He has been relieved of top command in Afghanistan. Resignation is likely but not assured.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: "It was out of respect for this commitment -- and a desire to see the mission succeed -- that I tendered my resignation. It has been my privilege and honor to lead our nation's finest."
Ok, so he's out on that front too? Okay, disregard #2
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The article goes on to paint McChrystal as a man who "has managed to piss off almost everyone with a stake in the conflict," including U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, special representative to Afghanistan Richard Holbrooke and national security adviser Jim Jones. Obama is not named as one of McChrystal's "team of rivals." Of Eikenberry, who railed against McChrystal's strategy in Afghanistan in a cable leaked to The New York Times in January, the general is quoted as saying, "'Here's one that covers his flank for the history books. Now if we fail, they can say, "I told you so.'" Hastings writes in the profile that McChrystal has a "special skepticism" for Holbrooke, the official in charge of reintegrating Taliban members into Afghan society and the administration's point man for Afghanistan and Pakistan. "At one point on his trip to Paris, McChrystal checks his BlackBerry, according to the article. 'Oh, not another e-mail from Holbrooke,' he groans. 'I don't even want to open it.' He clicks on the message and reads the salutation out loud, then stuffs the BlackBerry back in his pocket, not bothering to conceal his annoyance. "'Make sure you don't get any of that on your leg,' an aide jokes, referring to the e-mail." Both Democrats and Republicans have been strongly critical of McChrystal in the wake of the story. House Appropriations Committee chairman David Obey, D-Wisconsin, called McChrystal the latest in a "long list of reckless, renegade generals who haven't seemed to understand that their role is to implement policy, not design it." McChrystal is "contemptuous" of civilian authority and has demonstrated "a bull-headed refusal to take other people's judgments into consideration."
posted
Interesting that Petraeus is taking over; there were other options (like McChrystal's deputy Gen. Martinez, mentioned this morning by Tom Ricks on NPR), but I guess the hope is Petraeus' academic calm will soothe the tension between the military and the diplomats (particularly Eikenberry and Holbrooke).
1) This had to happen (the firing, not the boneheaded comments to a Rolling Stone reporter) 2) It's terrible news for success in Afghanistan that this had to happen 3) If the Afghanistan surge fails, it will be interesting to see if the narrative is that McChrystal's early leadership doomed it or the lack of McChrystal's leadership after his resignation doomed it. I don't think either narrative will be "true," but people like to find simple causal explanations. Obviously if the latter narrative is adopted, there may be moderate political blowback to the Administration. 4) If the surge succeeds, I wonder if the "Draft Petraeus" movement in the GOP will gain steam. 5) Writing (3) and (4) I realized that politically this seems like a non-winner for Obama; if the surge fails, I think people will see it as his fault for futzing with the military (between the multiple reviews and now the firing). If the surge succeeds, I think Petraeus will get most of the credit, rather than Obama.
Also, while the comments of McChrystal's staff were asinine, the situation that led to them has as much to do with sniping from Biden, Eikenberry and Holbrooke as it does with the military. I don't think (unlike Bill Kristol) that Eikenberry or Holbrooke should be fired, but I do think that the information gained by this event should cause considerable reevaluation of the way the diplomatic/military relationship has developed over the last 18 months.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Still, canning McChrystal doesn't end the dysfunctional disunity that has plagued the war effort for many months. The U.S. ambassador, Gen. Karl Eikenberry, is on record as stating that Afghan President Hamid Karzai is an unsuitable partner for a counterinsurgency campaign. He may be right—he almost certainly is right—but, since counterinsurgency cannot succeed without a suitable partner heading the national government, Eikenberry is in essence disagreeing with the policy. His relations with McChrystal were exacerbated by the fact that the two men are longtime rivals; but those personal animosities clouded a professional tension that is probably untenable. If U.S. policy isn't going to change, Eikenberry, too, should go.
Richard Holbrooke should be sent packing, as well. He's the U.S. envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, but after he screamed at Karzai at one of their meetings, he's no longer welcome at the palace in Kabul. (It took a trip by Sen. John Kerry and 300 cups of tea to settle the Afghan president down.) Holbrooke would have been canned a while ago, were it not for special pleading by his immediate boss and longtime friend, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. But, as Obama said today, "War is bigger than any one man or woman, whether a private, a general, or a president." He should expand the list to include "a special envoy."
I think both these editorialists are neglecting the fact that replacing the commanding general in the midst of a counter-insurgency operation is bad enough. Replacing the entire civilian/military command is much, much worse. Really Holbrooke and Eikenberry should both have been booted last November, but I'd call this a situation where it's better to leave the arrow in and risk an infection than yank it out and cause a complete bleed out.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are we sure this is such terrible news for Afghanistan? Unlike Iraq, Afghanistan is a truly multi-national command, and McChrystal has shown open disdain for the militaries of other nations, especially the French. He has open and utter disdain as well for his civilian counterparts, and for a lot of the civilian command apparatus in the current White House. His strategy for Afghanistan had a lot of big promises, and thus far, very few positive results.
Petreaus is the natural successor. He's the foremost expert in the world right now on counter-insurgency operations, and he created a model for how the military can work with civilian forces for a modern day nation building effort, which McChrystal has had a problem with in his dealings with the State Department and others in the civilian force on the ground in Afghanistan. To add to the problem, creating government in Afghanistan is nothing like it was in Iraq, which looks like a picnic in comparison.
I don't think replacing him, especially after his behavior, is that bad, not if they guy replacing him is the guy who fathered the strategy that McChrystal was trying to implement.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I look forward to seeing General McChrystal as a regular paid consultant on Fox News Channel.
Some reports say that McChrystal voted for Obama. Apparently now he has joined the growing number who are experiencing the "Buyers' Remorse" that is sweeping the country.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
In Gen. McChrystal's statement, he only said he was resigning as commander of the Coalition and NATO forces in Afghanistan. Pres. Obama's statement did not make clear whether McChrystal was out of the military altogether. I would like to have this clarified.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know Petreaus personally- I was out of town during his last visit to Prague, but I knew his daughter fairly well when she lived here and we went to school together and worked together. From what I know about him through her, he's a natural diplomat as well as a military leader. I always wish I hadn't missed my chance to meet him personally.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Are we sure this is such terrible news for Afghanistan?
I wouldn't say we're sure of anything with regards to Afghanistan. However, changing horses mid-river generally is pretty bad. Add to that the fact that McChrystal was fairly popular with his men, and the only trusted conduit to Karzai (again with the dysfunctional diplomats). While Petraeus' skills are evidently formidable, it seems like there's a lot going against him in this situation. He has to build up trust with both the diplomats and the Afghan government (while he's had some interaction as head of CENTCOM it's not the sort of day-to-day relationship needed for effective COIN). He also has to earn the trust of his men, which given the other thread of the RS article about troops being frustrated with the rules of engagement might be a very difficult thing. Add to that the evidently hostile enviornment McChrystal's been fostering about Washington meddling, and Petraeus being the depiction of Washington meddling and you have a situation set up for a collosal failure, IMO.
Again, I recognize that Petraeus is eminently qualified and capable, but I just think that no matter how good the new general is, it'll be significantly more difficult to conduct a successful operation without the general who has been building it up over the last 8-12 months.
Another interesting question is who will be taking over CENTCOM? The reason Petraeus was serving there was his mix of diplomatic and military skills. Finding someone else who fits that bill at this precise moment might be hard.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
For the sake of ease of understanding, I'm going to point-counter point you here. I know some people hate this format, so let me know if it bugs you.
quote: However, changing horses mid-river generally is pretty bad.
I think changing horses mid-river is often portrayed as being bad. In this specific instance, I don't think all the details necessarily back-up that assertion. I'd also argue that changing generals in the middle of a battle (and by the way, the CinC of Afghan operations has changed several times since the war began) can often mean that something is already catastrophically wrong, and a change can be a sign of improvement.
quote:He has to build up trust with both the diplomats and the Afghan government (while he's had some interaction as head of CENTCOM it's not the sort of day-to-day relationship needed for effective COIN).
Petraeus already has good working relationships with a lot of the State Dept, and as far as I can tell, having no relationship with the civilians on the ground is an improvement over McChrystal's poor relationship with them. Besides, you're talking about the guy who quite literally wrote the book on COIN in modern warfare. His promotion to being head of CENTCOM was in part because of his counter-insurgency work in Iraq. I doubt his skills have been dulled at all in the last few months, and as McChrystal's boss previously, I'm sure he's apprised of the situation.
quote:He also has to earn the trust of his men, which given the other thread of the RS article about troops being frustrated with the rules of engagement might be a very difficult thing.
Everything I've read says that Petreaus is universally loved by the soldiers, and that this is one of the strongest arguments in favor of him being the replacement.
quote: Add to that the evidently hostile enviornment McChrystal's been fostering about Washington meddling, and Petraeus being the depiction of Washington meddling and you have a situation set up for a collosal failure, IMO.
Near as I can tell, McChrystal has been fostering a divisive inhospitable environment in general in the Afgan command. He has disdain for civilian commanders, loose lips with the press, and has even managed to anger members of Congress who usually keep their mouths shut for fear of being portrayed as anti-military. Petreaus on the other hand is universally respected in the civilian establishment, and has a history of bringing together the US civilian government, coordinating an international counter-insurgency effort, and successfully working with native tribes and militias to integrate into a larger government with a lot of hostile countervailing forces in place. I think McChrystal was at the helm of a listing ship that could have either righted or sunk. I think that Petreaus is the best man to see that ship out of troubled waters going forward.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
If the real Petreaus is anything like his fictional counterpart in the Salvation War series then he'll kick ass and probably solve everything in good time.
IP: Logged |
posted
Petreaus is pretty great, but I would hate to be him at the moment. Mainly I feel that he is simply stretched too thin and even though he is the named commander for Afghanistan I wouldn't be all that surprised if someone else is doing all the work. The man is in charge of CENTCOM and might as well be in charge in Iraq as well.
Mostly I would say that this pretty much sounds the death kneel for the military in both theatres. The military has a great deal of independence under President Bush, which can seen as both negative and positive. President Obama obviously is not going to let that happen, which again is something cheered on both some and booed by others.
That and I hate to agree with McChrystal on this, but a majority of the NATO forces in Afghanistan are for all practical purposes a drain on our logistical network. Many of them simply don't pull anything close to their weight as far as operations go and simply suck up fuel, food, water, and media coverage. When I was up in the mountains the Romanians, who had a battalion in the sector, literally did almost zero missions. While my infantry company had to literally do EVERY offensive operation in the area. I may just be a little biased here, hehe.
That and State has dropped the ball in every shape, manner, and form possible in Afghanistan. You would be surprised just how much humanitarian aid the Army wants to do, but simply never manifests itself. That and most of the members from State I've run into have had a kind of superiority complex over the military, but I will admit that I've only met a handful of them in theatre.
McChrystal's removal simply has a lot to do with politics between the military and the executive. A lot of Obama's staff simply doesn't trust the military and vice versa. My opinion, with the incredibly small weight that it pulls, would say that this is all leading to a failure of the current strategy. There is a feeling in the populace and the government that they simply want the problems in Afghanistan to go away, and that is one country that has no quick fix.
Oh and a quick side note, Petreaus has years of operational experience in Iraq ( starting from the initial invasion ) and practically none in Afghanistan. That isn't the sole factor towards success, however Petreaus' excellent understanding of the situation in Iraq helped in a lot of the decisions he made.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Black Fox: ... Many of them simply don't pull anything close to their weight as far as operations go and simply suck up fuel, food, water, and media coverage.
If that is the case, you should really convince your government to ask us to leave instead of staying. Seriously. It would be a great relief to the Canadian people if we could just go. It's not like its a fun place.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mucus, I said many not all. I would certainly say that the Canadians, British, and the Danes are certainly operating at a high tempo and getting a lot of great things done. However, just because some are doing good things doesn't mean that all are doing wonderful job or that they shouldn't pick it up a notch. I'm sure that if you talked to some Canadian soldiers they would be happy to point out some of the units in Kandahar Army Airfield that are not doing a thing except taking up space.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ask for 60 and a minimum 40 thousand to win and he gets 30k. History will favor him. At least he wont go down in history as the general who lost the war when his commander and chief have him half the recommended troops and 25% less than the minimum.
By the way, it was 124 degrees outside today where I am and I've been wondering about the women in ninja suits.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I understand that the public at large being aware of that particular Command's feelings toward the Administration's National Security team is unacceptable.
What I don't understand is the public ignoring those feelings now that they've been aired. Is Biden an effective military tactician? Are Eikenberry and Holbrooke effective American representatives? Jones probably isn't a clown, so I can see why that was ignored, but the rest of the mockery is based on a number of important personnel issues that need to be addressed.
Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by airmanfour: I understand that the public at large being aware of that particular Command's feelings toward the Administration's National Security team is unacceptable.
What I don't understand is the public ignoring those feelings now that they've been aired. Is Biden an effective military tactician? Are Eikenberry and Holbrooke effective American representatives? Jones probably isn't a clown, so I can see why that was ignored, but the rest of the mockery is based on a number of important personnel issues that need to be addressed.
I don't think the public is ignoring those views, they just don't feel like this guy really has a point that goes beyond his obvious, non-diplomatic, and palpable dislike for the new administration. I would be happy if it had been possible for a better environment for the resolution of McC's command of afghanistan, but he hasn't shown the goods as well as been unable to keep his mouth shut.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by airmanfour: I understand that the public at large being aware of that particular Command's feelings toward the Administration's National Security team is unacceptable.
What I don't understand is the public ignoring those feelings now that they've been aired. Is Biden an effective military tactician? Are Eikenberry and Holbrooke effective American representatives? Jones probably isn't a clown, so I can see why that was ignored, but the rest of the mockery is based on a number of important personnel issues that need to be addressed.
I don't think the public is ignoring those views, they just don't feel like this guy really has a point that goes beyond his obvious, non-diplomatic, and palpable dislike for the new administration. I would be happy if it had been possible for a better environment for the resolution of McC's command of afghanistan, but he hasn't shown the goods as well as been unable to keep his mouth shut.
I don't think they're ignoring it; nor do I think they think McChrystal doesn't have a point. Besides the Kristol and Kaplan articles I linked above, Tom Ricks advocated busting the diplomats, too. That's three fairly heavy lifters all from different ideological quadrants and all advocating the firing of the diplomats (and giving Biden and his team a stern talking-to).
I think they're wrong (except for the "stern talking-to" part), for the same reason I think it was a bad call to bust McChrystal, but I don't think "the public" (at least the portion made up by well-informed military political editorialists) are giving Eikenberry, Holbrooke and Biden a pass.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
I'm not going to point-counterpoint, not because it bothers me (although I do think it tends to result in tit-for-tat sort of arguments rather than discussions) but because I don't really have the time, or the concentration to do a point-by-point late on a Friday night.
I'll gladly concede that there are times switching a commander in the middle of an engagement is a good idea. Particularly when the engagement isn't particularly hot at the moment. However, in this case the engagement is just ramping up (unlike with previous theatre command changes in Afghanistan). McChrystal has spent the last 8-12 months working to build up the necessary relationships within the Afghan military and society for successful counter-insurgency. The same cannot be said of Holbrooke and Eikenberry, who made an early assessment that COIN couldn't work with the Karzai government and evidently (from editorials well before the RS hatchet job) excused themselves from contributing and became antagonists to the President's strategy. Which is why I think they should have been excused six months ago when it became clear they didn't buy into working with the Afghan government, due to its numerous flaws. Instead, the diplomatic lifting was left to McChrystal himself, who is the only high level American on speaking terms with President Karzai. That's the relationship (and the relationships with other government actors that devolve from it) whose loss I think puts the mission in serious jeopardy. I don't think the likelihood of Petraeus' successfully building sufficient trust with the Afghan government on the compressed timeline dictated by troop deployment schedules and the President's withdrawal schedule is very likely, and I think losing McChrystal at this point in the offensive is a significant blow to the successful outcome of the entire endeavor.
Although, after reading this article by Dan Twining on how the ISI's strategic objectives depend on maintaining a weak and divided Afghanistan, I'm less bully on the whole situation. I guess there was a similar situation in Iraq, where the Iranian Revolutionary Guard was actively (and successfully) fomenting civil war. But the Iran/Iraq border seemed significantly more secure-able than the Afghanistan/Pakistan border does, enabling COIN operations to work despite the threat of subversion. I tend to think Twining is probably right and there will be no lasting peace in Afghanistan until the ISI's strategic goals are realigned. What incentives can be used to do that I have no idea.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Frankly, I agree with much of what the diplomats are saying with regards to the effectiveness of the Karzai government. But I see your point that if they don't agree with the plan of action, it's best to get someone that does.
The problem with COIN operations in Afghanistan is that ultimately, you can't beat the bad guy with the army. Imagine where Iraq would be without the Sunni Uprising. I think the point is to beat the Taliban to a point where they'll accept a deal in shared governance with the Karzai government. It's a bit like Lord of the Rings when you think of it.
posted
In the sense that Gandalf said that victory could never be achieved by force of arms, the only hope was for the The One Ring to be taken to Orodruin and destroyed. And in our situation, victory will never be won through force of arms, but through negotiation and compromise that will end up in shared governance.
For Aragorn, assaulting the Morannon was a distraction. For us, assaulting Kandahar is a ploy to bring the Taliban to the table. In both cases, military action was essential, but also only a supporting role.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
