Chaos-istan
On the Potomac. It’s the kind of thing political and military debacles are made of. UK Telegraph reports the president is PO’d at Gen. Stanley McChrystal over the London speech:
According to sources close to the administration, Gen McChrystal shocked and angered presidential advisers with the bluntness of a speech given in London last week.
The next day he was summoned to an awkward 25-minute face-to-face meeting on board Air Force One on the tarmac in Copenhagen, where the president had arrived to tout Chicago’s unsuccessful Olympic bid.
…
An adviser to the administration said: “People aren’t sure whether McChrystal is being naïve or an upstart. To my mind he doesn’t seem ready for this Washington hard-ball and is just speaking his mind too plainly.”
In London, Gen McChrystal, who heads the 68,000 US troops in Afghanistan as well as the 100,000 Nato forces, flatly rejected proposals to switch to a strategy more reliant on drone missile strikes and special forces operations against al-Qaeda.
He told the Institute of International and Strategic Studies that the formula, which is favoured by Vice-President Joe Biden, would lead to “Chaos-istan”.
When asked whether he would support it, he said: “The short answer is: No.”
He went on to say: “Waiting does not prolong a favorable outcome. This effort will not remain winnable indefinitely, and nor will public support.”
Theoretically Obama must be PO’d at Petraeus, too, because he essentially, if more diplomatically, said the same thing a couple of weeks earlier.
The big question now is whether this is going to be about Obama’s ego, or about winning in Afghanistan. If any general is ill-advised to shoot his mouth off, this business may also teach the administration something about blowing off generals at (unnecessarily extended) critical moments and insisting that political parameters trump military ones in wartime.
Maybe if he wasn’t so distracted with trying to have Democratic Christmas in October … an expensive tax-and-fee-subsidized health care giveaway in the middle of economic crisis and war. To be followed on by cap-and-trade’s assault on business, industry, utilities and consumers. And then you’ve got Iran, unresponsive to the extended hand of friendship. All debacles in the making. Who wouldn’t be distracted in that kind of chaos?
AFP, “On Afghanistan, US military puts Obama on the spot,” notes that the left would like the military to STFU, though AFP’s reporting suggests the irony of that position given the military’s relatively quiet acquiesence to the political leadership’s lighter push in the initial invasion and occupation of Iraq. AFP also notes that, in the wake of the Iraq surge and eight years of war, the US military has a pretty good idea what it is talking about. AFP also includes a McCain quote suggesting that the Democrats demonstrably don’t know what they are talking about, given their own Iraq surge experience, but should.
NYT with a look at Petraeus includes the unfortunate news that this president is less interested in listening to his generals than his predecessor was, notes that Petraeus is playing it low-key (which Jack Keane at the end suggests may well in the end be the more effective tactic than mouthing off), and mulls his political ambitions … no evidence of them as yet. Which either means he doesn’t have any, or he is being extremely smart about them, and sensibly focusing on the business at hand.
But that is something the Obama admin, if they care about nothing else but polls and politics, may want to consider. The many ways Afghanistan could play in 2012. Including who might be propelled into the race by Obama’s actions and inactions today. A moderate conservative war hero, in what is otherwise largely a field of hot-button hard-right prospects, such that it is a field at all.
But it isn’t just about opponents. It is also about issues. Three years is a long time, plenty of time for today’s decisions to bear fruit or go rotten on the battlefield. The health-care and climate-change debacles will be distant memories by then, inshallah, though the London Olympics and the see-you-in-Rio chatter may serve in that year to remind everyone what Obama’s priorities and track record have been. Obama will want a success in 2012. Of the issues prominent now that may still loom then, there is the economy … not likely to be improved by the deadweight of socialized health care or cap-and-trade … there’s Iran, and there’s Afghanistan. The first three might no longer be hot-button issues in three years, but the last two aren’t going anywhere. His prospects for a win in any of the above areas call for him doing the opposite of everything he is now leaning toward, but … given the uncertain tracks of both the economy and Iran … the prospects for either a banner victory or total debacle are probably most marked re Afghanistan.
My guess, and sincere hope, is that ultimately Obama will set aside pique and politics, turn away from the path of least resistance, and follow the sound advice of his generals and brighter Cabinet members. Because I don’t believe he wants to lose this one, and I think he is smart enough to figure out not only how he wins it, but that it will go worse for him in the long run if he doesn’t.
Back to the battlefield … so preferable for its honesty to the political arena, even if some days, all it seems as clear as dust:
LA Times: “Afghanistan assault points out US vulnerabilities.” Notes the base in question was due to be dismantled.
The general and his senior aides have concluded that Western firebases dotting the countryside do little to head off infiltration by insurgents who slip across the frontier from Pakistan or to help build bridges with local Afghans.
At the same time, small outposts in far-flung areas — particularly those in Afghanistan’s east, bordering Pakistan’s lawless tribal areas — are highly vulnerable to attacks.
By coincidence, Saturday’s battle came at a time of renewed scrutiny of an attack that took place in Nuristan in July 2008 and came to be known as the Battle of Wanat. In it, a thinly manned American-Afghan outpost was nearly overrun by insurgents, and nine U.S. soldiers — about one-fifth of the American contingent there — were killed in desperate close-quarters combat.
NYT, local governor would rather see more, not fewer troops in Nuristan:
But Mr. Badar, the Nuristan governor, said that pulling back would be a mistake. Too few troops in the area and its proximity to the lawless tribal areas of Pakistan have created a poisonous mix, leaving his province vulnerable.
“We knew the Taliban was getting stronger every day in eastern Nuristan,” he said. Teachers and civil servants in the area have been threatened and can no longer travel to the central parts of the province, he said.
He added: “We have long shared our concern with the government and foreign forces but they didn’t take it seriously.”
He said the attackers had gathered in a mosque and a nearby village before staging the assault on the compounds, which are near each other on top of a hill overlooking the district center about 10 miles from the border with Pakistan.
The fighters had come from Pakistan, he said, after military operations pushed them out of their bases there.
That last bit is interesting, as well. Sounds like what happens when you play wack-a-mole. Which is what McChrystal, Petraeus, Robert Gates, Hillary Clinton and any number of military, political and academic commentators have been talking about.
About Wanat, Herschel Smith at Captain’s Journal reports Petraeus has ordered a new investigation of the battle in which 9 Americans were killed in July 2008 about 20 miles from this past weekend’s deadly battle. Smith’s post looks at the firepower vs. friendly outreach COIN debate as it relates to Wanat, and concludes that killing the enemy is not counter to the interests of wooing the population, and that more troops, not fewer, are called for. The post jumps into the issue in midstream but his linked series of Wanat posts is a good primer on the subject.
Malkin: Dear Leader furious at McChrystal for showing … leadership.
Gateway: Obama pushes Petraeus aside
Protein Wisdom: McChrystal’s crime … depriving Obama of a scapegoat.
Jennifer Rubin, Commentary: “It’s not exactly an impressive display of expertise for a president who was going to assemble the best and the brightest in order to get the very best advice, stripped of ideology and politics.”
Jawa: “McChrystal would have to be an idiot not to know that generals don’t cross Presidents … Since McChrystal isn’t an idiot, it follows that the situation in Afghanistan is every bit as dire as the general has said, and he is willing to take extraordinary risks with his career to protect his troops.”
Thunder Run’s roundup of Afghan and other groundviews includes one from a wife at home awaiting news.
Moderate Voice, immoderately: Fire him! Now!
… I dunno, that sounds like a great way to make a bad situation worse.
Andrew Sullivan: Don’t take a Brit paper’s word for it that the unflappable One could possibly be flapped. Curiously, the Brit journo is suggesting that Brit journos don’t necessarily know what they are talking about. Warning: If you clink into the link you might be compelled to look at images of Andrew Sullivan’s head in various stages of being a blowhard, and invited to watch vid of him answering “your questions.” Though it’s rotating with an ad for “SAP.” Which as it happens is the subject of my question for Andrew. You close to getting over your Obama thing yet?
(Care to comment? Registration is shut down, due to persistent spammers. Use the “contact” link above to assure me you are a real human being interested in commenting on the topics at hand, include the screenname and temporary password of your choice, and I’ll create a logon for you. Lefty Kumbayah singers, moderate handwringers, mean-spirited rightwingers all welcome. No litmus test, this is a free speech zone as long as you keep it clean and make an effort to be accurate.)
Topics: Afghanistan, Obama, military
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 9:51 am on Monday, October 5, 2009
18 Responses to “Chaos-istan”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
October 5th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
[...] Crittenden calls it “Chaos-istan.” He’s talking about the Obama v. McChrystal fight being waged on the airwaves and on [...]
October 5th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
[...] Jules Crittenden: Theoretically Obama must be PO’d at Petraeus, too, because he essentially, if more diplomatically, said the same thing a couple of weeks earlier. [...]
October 5th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
What else does Obama have to either beat or entice GoP support for ObamaCare other than Afghanistan?
Nada, zip.
October 5th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
[...] generals have to speak plainly because the Obama administration isn’t paying attention (via Jules Crittenden): But we need to be realistic in recognising that the campaign will require a sustained, [...]
October 5th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
[...] Speaking of watching, watch as the administration’s stance on Afghanistan continues to go, ever so slowly, off of the beam. The Telegraph reports that last week’s McChrystal / Obama meet was actually in reaction to the former’s comments on the situation in the Middle East, and that the administration is ‘furious’ about it. For more wincing over the implications, see Michael Barone, The Corner, Hot Air, AoSHQ, & Jules Crittenden. [...]
October 5th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
[...] was to chastise him for showing leadership in asking for a decision from the Commander-in-chief. Perhaps he should be just as furious with Petraeus as [...]
October 5th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
[...] Daily: McChrystal Chided on Public Push for Troop Increase in Afghanistan Jules Crittenden: Chaos-istan Brutally Honest: Obama furious at McChrystal Michelle Malkin: Obama’s Afghanistan waffle The [...]
October 5th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
[...] This post was Twitted by london_olympics [...]
October 5th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
Oh, man, I disagree with you on a couple key points, but leaving that aside, I do agree with this:
The big question now is whether this is going to be about Obama’s ego, or about winning in Afghanistan. If any general is ill-advised to shoot his mouth off, this business may also teach the administration something about blowing off generals at (unnecessarily extended) criticial moments and insisting that political parameters trump military ones in wartime.
Maybe not the ego part. But certainly the idea that politics is playing a greater part in this “review” about Afghanistan instead of strategy, goals, and metrics is becoming clearer every day we go without the product of this ill-timed review. It’s foolish to think otherwise, I know, but Obama’s re-election should not be the main consideration in deciding how to resource this war. I think McChrystal is aware of that (though I disagree with those who think that his recent comments are meant to be politic-playing) and wants to offer a strategy that wins war, not American elections.
October 5th, 2009 at 6:36 pm
I expect General McChrystal to tender his resignation soon. And a giant, bloody debacle to follow.
October 5th, 2009 at 6:47 pm
[...] Howling Chunky Monkey: “… this business may also teach the administration something about blowing off generals at (unnecessarily extended) criticial [sic] moments and insisting that political parameters trump military ones in wartime. [...] Maybe if he wasn’t so distracted with trying to have Democratic Christmas in October … an expensive tax-and-fee-subsidized health care giveaway in the middle of economic crisis and war. To be followed on by cap-and-trade’s assault on business, industry, utilities and consumers. And then you’ve got Iran, unresponsive to the extended hand of friendship. All debacles in the making. Who wouldn’t be distracted in that kind of chaos?” [...]
October 5th, 2009 at 8:24 pm
[...] Jules Crittenden foresees “Chaos-stan” The big question now is whether this is going to be about Obama’s ego, or about winning in Afghanistan. If any general is ill-advised to shoot his mouth off, this business may also teach the administration something about blowing off generals at (unnecessarily extended) critical moments and insisting that political parameters trump military ones in wartime. [...]
October 5th, 2009 at 8:51 pm
We are in real trouble — way up $#;+$ creek, and the alligators just ate our paddle.
October 5th, 2009 at 11:25 pm
[...] Jules Crittenden notes that General McChrystal’s speech to London’s Institute for strategic studies caused a disturbance in the administration, especially because of McChrystal’s categorical rejection of the small footprint counter-terrorism model (advocated by Senator Kerry and VP Joseph Biden), saying that it would lead to Afghanistan becoming Chaos-istan (also see NYT). [...]
October 6th, 2009 at 12:44 am
the mental picture i get of Ear Leader trying to “chew out” a decorated Ranger like McChrystal has had me giggling like a fool all day……
October 8th, 2009 at 8:34 pm
[...] Post: Critics Don’t See the Nuance in McChrystal’s Comments on War Jules Crittenden: Chaos-istan Moe Lane: Elections Have Consequences Watch: Afghanistan Count Us Out: Barack Obama furious at [...]
October 10th, 2009 at 10:48 am
[...] almost positive that one isn’t a [...]
October 12th, 2009 at 5:45 am
[...] Post: Critics Don’t See the Nuance in McChrystal’s Comments on War Jules Crittenden: Chaos-istan Moe Lane: Elections Have Consequences Watch: Afghanistan Sister Toldjah: Profoundly inane quote of [...]