So far, counterinsurgency has succeeded only in creating a never-ending demand for the primary product supplied by the military: perpetual war. There is a reason that President Obama studiously avoids using the word “victory” when he talks about Afghanistan. Winning, it would seem, is not really possible. Not even with Stanley McChrystal in charge.-The last sentences of this article, (and the narrative that Rolling Stone wants the reader to accept)
*****
This is an interesting article in many ways. To me, I look at it from several points of view that might provide an explanation for such a thing. I look at the article as a big commentary on the poker game called Afghanistan, with a table of politicians, a president and his administration, civilian leaders, the enemy, Karzai, the media, and General McChrystal. Each player has their own strategy in this game, and each player has a plan to win. The stakes are political survival, the direction of the war, and the narrative in the history books and everyone is fighting for public support and opinion. So what is each player’s strategy and goals in this game?
Well, let’s break it down. The first up is Rolling Stone. For them the pot in this poker game is a sensational story and a further narrative of the war as being lost. That COIN sucks and General McChrystal is a ‘Runaway General’, or uncontrollable. Any way they can show a division between all the crucial leadership running the war, is good for their goal of ending the war. Rolling Stone is also a supporter of the Obama administration, but they also do not support the war in Afghanistan. So to them, showing a failed war and putting all the blame on an out of control general helps to insulate their guy in office. To show support for the administration, while at the same time protesting the war by making it the product of that insane guy in charge called General McChrystal.
The next player to discuss is the President and all of his men. They need a win in Afghanistan, but they have also painted themselves into a corner with the July 2011 date for withdrawal. They did this to appease their political base, and this date and the coming election is going to effect all of their decision making on the wartime strategy there. There is also historical context, and Obama does not want this to be his Vietnam. No standing President wants that, and every President looks at a war under their watch as how it will look in the history books. So the coming election and history are the two factors pressing this administration. Not to mention that he also has the economy and the BP spill in the Gulf as two negatives. He needs a win in one or two of these areas, because coming into re-election with all of those ‘losers’ will definitely hurt him.
Then there is the civilian leadership like Eikenberry, the U.S. ambassador. Of course there would be friction between him and McChrystal, and especially after McChrystal was his subordinate at one point, and especially after he was not chosen as the viceroy in Afghanistan. Plus DoD gets way more money than DoS when it comes to budget and resources, and you have that clash. But there is one part of this story that clued me into the history narrative of this war. When Eikenberry leaked the cable to the New York Times about how pathetic Karzai and the war strategy was, this was a way to seal their place in history books as a ‘I told you so’. McChrystal and gang referred to it as Eikenberry ‘covering his flank for the history books’. Anyone see the pattern here?
The politicians mentioned in the article all have the same goal as the President, and that is political survival. To understand the mind of a politician, all you have to do is think in terms of votes and re-election. Whatever it takes to stay in office and rally their base. So the anti-war politicians whose base is anti-war, only benefit if the war strategy fails. The pro-war politicians whose base is pro-war, only benefit if the war strategy works. That is the two sides of this political battle, and each side will latch on to anything that will give them an advantage with rallying their base. As it stands now, Obama has declared the war in Afghanistan as the ‘Just War’, so I imagine that the anti-war politicians really don’t see Obama as a tool to use for rallying their base. But if they can split Obama from his ‘just war’ view, and get him to not support the war effort or accept that it is lost, then they would benefit. That is their prize, and going back to the Rolling Stone prize, you can see who benefits from whom.
The pro-war politicians will rally around the general that will insure success. They need a winner to rally around. So if they supported McChrystal and now an article like this is circulating a perception that he is out of control, or worse yet, helps to create a divide between all parties involved, then they will not benefit. You need a team who has a unified command and a unity of effort, and this article gives the impression that this is not happening. There is also the issue of Article 88 which prohibits officers from using ‘contemptuous words’ about the president and his staff. Pro-war politicians at this point look at this story as a threat to their chosen winner, and ultimately a threat to winning the war. But the narrative of the story points to a divided team, and these pro-war politicians need to address this in order appease their base.
The pro-war politicians could do two things. They could rally around the general, and especially if the administration and others accept his apology (and not fire him), or they could call for his head and get someone new in there that will work better as a team. In other words, if the General is looked at as the guy who is stronger than the President after the dust settles, because he thumbed his nose at him and his staff and they have not fired him, then he might be a guy they could rally around. Especially coming into election, and especially if the President is not popular in the polls. But they also need a guy that can seal the deal, and they really need a guy that the troops on the ground support. Because most of the base of pro-war politicians, are military and military families who all care about winning this thing.
Karzai is at the table as well, and success to him is just hanging on to power and collecting as much money as he can from the war effort. He will support anyone that will continue his good deal, and McChrystal is the guy–kind of. Or at least that is the arrangement that the general has set up. The general is working with Karzai and doing what is necessary to control him and work with him. Kind of like a SF operator working with a village chief. He has to, because there is no alternative. Karzai also knows that if the Taliban come into power, he is out, so if he wants to survive politically and even physically, he needs a strong general and western partner to insure that survival.
The Taliban are also at this table, and their strategy is simple. Keep terrorizing the population/government and just survive long enough to make it to this withdrawal date of July 2011. This date is all they need to win, because all they have to do is pour it on while everyone leaves. And as long as the people perceive the west as weak and unable to defeat the Taliban, they will give in to the Taliban.
Finally there is General McChrystal. Personally, I think this article was a way to test the political resolve of those at the top. If they fired him, then McChrystal can fade away from the war and not be attached to it’s ‘perceived’ demise. The whole ‘history book effect’ comes into play here as well.
If they accept his apology and keep the guy where he is at, then that means they are saying ‘we did not like what you said, but we need a win in this war’. It is the same reasoning for contracting with Xe for security work–they might not like them, but they are the best, and for wars, you need the best of the best to win. So in essence, McChrystal was probing the defenses of these leaders at the ‘poker table’, to see what their position is on his command and the strategy.(calling their bluff or trying to determine their cards in the game) If you look at his history in war and life, you can see that this is exactly how he operates. He is testing them. Because an acceptance of the general’s apology, is also an acceptance of the fact that he ‘is the best man’ for the job. The general needs that acceptance in order to go after what he really needs for a victory in Afghanistan, and that is time.
I really think all of this boils down to one thing, and that is that stupid withdrawal date of July 2011. If COIN takes as long as most of the experts claim it takes, then attaching a time frame to the current strategy is stupid. The general knows this, and this was a huge debate with the Iraq war. During that time, it was debated furiously during the presidential debates and between the pro-war and anti-war crowds. With Iraq, the narrative was ‘get out now’ versus ‘leave based on success and results’. The latter is what we went with, and that is what worked.
A withdrawal should only be based on victory, a retreat is what happens when you lose. I personally think this article was McChrystal saying ‘if you want me in charge of this war effort, you must give me time and the flexibility to win’. Because as it stands now, to seal any kind of a victory in Afghanistan by July of next year is impossible. I think most observers would say so as well, and this article symbolizes the very battle between all parties who have a stake in this war and the pressing issue of time. Each player in this game looks at time as a leverage for their specific goals in this game. Each player is also looking at their place in the history books and their political survival.
There are plenty of angles to this war, and I am sure I am missing a few in this discussion. Below I posted a few pieces of the article that were interesting to me. Anyway, check out the entire article and let me know what you think. Things are changing pretty quickly and it will be interesting to see how this unfolds over the days and weeks. –Matt
Edit: 6/23/2010 – And he is replaced by General Petraeus. Wow, and all because of an article from Rolling Stone. He played his cards, he lost, and now there is a new player at the table.
——————————————————————
By Michael Hastings
July 2010
(Pieces of the article are posted below–all curse words edited)
Today, as McChrystal gears up for an offensive in southern Afghanistan, the prospects for any kind of success look bleak. In June, the death toll for U.S. troops passed 1,000, and the number of IEDs has doubled. Spending hundreds of billions of dollars on the fifth-poorest country on earth has failed to win over the civilian population, whose attitude toward U.S. troops ranges from intensely wary to openly hostile. The biggest military operation of the year – a ferocious offensive that began in February to retake the southern town of Marja – continues to drag on, prompting McChrystal himself to refer to it as a “bleeding ulcer.” In June, Afghanistan officially outpaced Vietnam as the longest war in American history – and Obama has quietly begun to back away from the deadline he set for withdrawing U.S. troops in July of next year. The president finds himself stuck in something even more insane than a quagmire: a quagmire he knowingly walked into, even though it’s precisely the kind of gigantic, mind-numbing, multigenerational nation-building project he explicitly said he didn’t want.