About 2 years ago (still can't believe it's already been that long), while in Afghanistan, a friend of mine stuck a picture similar to the one below up on our wall.
At the time the ISAF (international Security Assistance Force) commander was General David McKiernan. As we saw it, McKiernan was an ineffective commander. He obviously had no understanding of COIN (Counter-Insurgency) to speak of, spent much of his time kissing you know what, and seemed incapable of instilling confidence in his troops. So we coined the pun "Save us Petraeus" in the blind hope that perhaps the powers that be would see the light and move Petraeus, who was the main force behind the successes that were taking place in Iraq, to our neighborhood as the new commander of ISAF. The picture raised questions from the few who managed to weasel their way into our office and sparked some good conversation and debate. However, the months wore on, Mckiernan stayed, and eventually we were sent home.
Later, at a so-called "redeployment retreat" that was filled with don't kill yourself and don't slap your spouse briefings, my friend pulled me aside and showed me a presentation that had been masterminded by a Stanley McChrystal. I didn't know much about McChrystal at the time except that he had been a spokesperson in the "stuff happens" days of Rumsfeld. I later learned that McChrystal had been "off the radar" because he was conducting "off the radar" operations. Makes sense.
Anyway, I reviewed the presentation and was shocked to see that this general who I knew so little about had viewpoints that closely mirrored my own. (I don't mean to say that my viewpoints are always right, but anybody that knows me also knows that I tend to assume they are) The man advocated a campaign that would consist of scores of small bases in or near Afghan villages that housed NATO and Afghan troops working side by side all the time. It recommended a scaling up of psychological operations (fancy talk for propaganda), a heavier reliance on human intelligence operations (which I really liked for some weird reason), hinted to operations in Pakistan, and focused on a real support of and a genuine transition of responsibility to the Afghan Forces. Odd....this presentation seemed to actually sound like COIN. I loved the presentation and agreed wholeheartedly, but at the time I noted that if this new strategy was implemented, several things would happen. More troops would be needed. More people (including civilians) would die. The time required for any measure of success would be years and years out. And, as a result, I predicted that support for the effort would likely decline.
At or around the same time, I learned that McChrystal would be replacing McKiernan. He was, in my eyes, a second choice to Petraeus for the job. I thought that we finally would make some progress if President Obama, congress, and the general public could understand and support the strategy. To a degree, that's exactly what happened. President Obama at least pretended to stand behind McChrystal, more bad guys were being killed, and some success seemed to be made.
McChrystal has one weakness as a high profile general. He has trouble dealing with politicians and careerists. He's an infantryman and is, therefore, rough around the edges, outspoken, and a bit callous. His request for 40,000 troops was leaked, I believe, in an intentional effort to force Obama to accommodate the request. He hasn't gotten along well with the politicians that force their way into his circle. He obviously doesn't like Biden or Kerry, and I honestly don't believe he enjoyed being around President Obama. (Yeah I know he voted for Obama. But I seem to think that was a career move. Also, I don't think an infantryman like McChrystal would really support "be nicer to POWs" McCain)
His rough demeanor finally caught up to him when Rolling Stone Magazine spotlighted him. McChrystal should have known better than to allow his staff to be that disrespectful. He should have kept his and his staff's lips tight. Now that the story's out, I don't see how Obama, Biden, or any politician can work with him effectively. Therefore, he should go.
In short, I think what McChrystal said was right, but he wasn't right to say it.
Anyway, it appears that my buddy and I are getting our wish. Petraeus has come to save us. And, though I feel that the move from Centcom to ISAF could be considered a step back, I still think Petraeus is the man for the job. He practically wrote the book on COIN, demonstrated its effectiveness in Iraq, is an inspiring leader, and actually knows how to deal with careerists and politicians. He seems to be the ideal blend for the job.
My one fear is that Obama will restrict Petraeus' ability to operate, manipulate the resulting failures, then pull out of Afghanistan prematurely. I fear that he'll say, "I tried McChrystal and Petraeus and they didn't work. What else can I do?", then pull out. I hope I'm wrong.
4 comments:
Interesting read. I hope you're wrong, too.
I've had several of my Facebook friends up in arms because "someone who never served a day in the armed forces is firing someone who has given his life to serving our country" and "a community organizer shouldn't demand respect from a military hero" and so on. I'm bugged by that attitude, because military experience or not, he's still the Commander in Chief. And if there's one thing the military does well, it's respect for rank and authority. I agree that McChrystal may not have been wrong about what he said (and he can certainly have his own opinion), but he was wrong to say it. Especially to the media.
I heard a good segment this morning on NPR about McChrystal and his good working relationship with Karzai. It will be interesting to see what happens with Petraeus in that position instead.
McChrystal has been around the media a long time and I don’t believe he’s so naïve that he unloaded his feelings to the media without thinking it through. He wanted to show the public what a bunch of clowns we have running the show.
He's been frustrated by the attitudes of the civilians and officials he reports to, by their lack of common sense in accomplishing the mission at hand, by the time table set for the draw down and by the rules of engagement he and our soldiers have been subject to and he felt it had to change.
His options for bring these issues into the open are very limited as is his ability to argue against them. That left him with few options; I believe he went down this path with his eyes fully open and sacrificed himself rather that continue on a path that would cost more lives, more money, more time yet had no chance of accomplishing the goal of defeating the enemy and bring our people home in the foreseeable future.
Just my 2¢
Cami, my honest first thought was that Obama overreacted, but as I really thought about it, I came to the conclusion that he acted appropriately. Whether the man has done anything to earn the respect of a top general or not, President Obama is still the Commander in Chief. There's a saying in the military - respect the rank if not the man. I don't know if I'd have fired McChrystal, but I don't see it as a bad choice. I remember when I had a little tiff with a commander I was attached to while in Afghanistan. To be honest, we never really regained the ground we lost in that working relationship.
I think Petraeus will do well enough with Karzai. As Centcom commander, he's undoubtedly spent quite a bit of time with him. He's also quite talented at building rapport with people rather quickly. Trust will take time, but a working relationship shouldn't take too long.
Dad, how long did it take you to chicken peck your way through that novel of a comment? Nice to see you can find your way around that there internet thing.
I considered that maybe McChrystal intended for things to go down this way, but it didn't sound right to me. I still wouldn't put it entirely past him though, he is, after all, quite the tactician. However, most of the derogatory stuff was said by his staff and not by McChrystal himself. If a reporter hangs out with anybody else for a month, they're bound to hear something that could be damning, but McChrystal said surprisingly little. This has led me to think that maybe McChrystal wanted to shed light on the situation without putting himself at too much risk (kind of like the leaked troop request), but then things just got a little out of hand. He definitely fell on the sword and took one for his team, though.
Irregardless (not a misprint, but a little military inside humor), some of the more conservative organizations will no doubt try to snatch McChrystal up as their new golden boy. I'm sure McChrystal will find a bright new career as a Fox News contributor or as a vice presidential candidate to Sarah Palin or something like that.
For your info I got through the chicken pecking reasonably quick. (At least by my standards)
Post a Comment