September 25, 2009
How to Trap a President in a Losing War
Tom Engelhardt: Petraeus, McChrystal, And The Surgettes On Next Moves In Afghanistan
-
Play CBS Video Video McChrystal on Afghan Violence Gen. Stanley McChrystal, America's military commander in Afghanistan, tells David Martin the spread of violence in that country is worse than he expected.
-
Gen. David Petraeus (AP Photo/Rafiq Maqbool)
Front and center in the debate over the Afghan War these days are General Stanley "Stan" McChrystal, Afghan war commander, whose "classified, pre-decisional" and devastating report -- almost eight years and at least $220 billion later, the war is a complete disaster -- was conveniently, not to say suspiciously, leaked to Bob Woodward of the Washington Post by we-know-not-who at a particularly embarrassing moment for Barack Obama; Admiral Michael "Mike" Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who has been increasingly vocal about a "deteriorating" war and the need for more American boots on the ground; and the president himself, who blitzed every TV show in sight last Sunday and Monday for his health reform program, but spent significant time
On the other hand, here's someone you haven't seen front and center for a while: General David Petraeus. He was, of course, George W. Bush's pick to lead the president's last-ditch effort in Iraq. He was the poster boy for Bush's military policies in his last two years. He was the highly praised architect and symbol of "the surge." He appeared repeatedly, his chest/>a mass of medals and ribbons, for heavily publicized, widely televised congressional testimony, complete with charts and graphs, that was meant, at least in part, for the American public. He was the man who, to use an image from that period which has
He never met a journalist, as far as we can tell, he didn't want to woo. (And he clearly won over the influential Tom Ricks, then of the Washington Post, who wrote The Gamble, a best-selling paean to him and his sub-commanders.) From the look of it, he's the most political general to come down the pike since, in 1951 in the midst of the Korean War, General Douglas MacArthur said his goodbyes to Congress after being cashiered by President Truman for insubordination -- for, in effect, wanting to run his own war and the foreign policy that went with it. It was Petraeus who brought Vietnam-era counterinsurgency doctrine (COIN) back from the crypt, overseeing the writing of a new Army counterinsurgency manual that would make it central to both the ongoing wars and what are already being referred to as the "next" ones.
Before he left office, Bush advanced his favorite general to the head of U.S. Central Command, which oversees the former president's Global War on Terror across the energy heartlands of the planet from Egypt to Pakistan. The command is, of course, especially focused on Bush's two full-scale wars: the Iraq War, now being pursued under Petraeus's former subordinate, General Ray Odierno, and the Afghan War, for which Petraeus seems to have personally handpicked a new commanding general, Stan McChrystal. From the military's dark side world of special ops and targeted assassinations, McChrystal had operated in Iraq and was also part of an Army promotion board headed by Petraeus that advanced the careers of officers committed to counterinsurgency. To install McChrystal in May, Obama abruptly sacked the then-Afghan war commander, General David McKiernan, in what was then considered, with some exaggeration, a new MacArthur moment.
On taking over, McChrystal, who had previously been a counterterrorism guy (and isn't about to give that up, either), swore fealty to counterinsurgency doctrine (that is, to Petraeus) by proclaiming that the American goal in Afghanistan must not be primarily to hunt down and kill Taliban insurgents, but to "protect the population." He also turned to a "team" of civilian experts, largely gathered from Washington think-tanks, a number of whom had been involved in planning out Petraeus's Iraq surge of 2007, to make an assessment of the state of the war and what needed to be done. Think of them as the Surgettes.
As in many official reassessments, the cast of characters essentially guaranteed the results before a single meeting was held. Based on past history and opinions, this team could only provide one Petraeus-approved answer to the war: more -- more troops, up to 40,000-45,000 of them, and other resources for an American counterinsurgency operation without end.
Hence, even if McChrystal's name is on it, the report slipped to Bob Woodward which just sandbagged the president has a distinctly Petraeusian shape to it. In a piece linked to Woodward's bombshell in the Washington Post, Rajiv Chandrasekaran and Karen DeYoung wrote of unnamed officials in Washington who claimed "the military has been trying to push Obama into a corner." The language in the coverage elsewhere has been similar.
There is, wrote DeYoung a day later, now a "rupture" between the military "pushing for an early decision to send more troops" and civilian policymakers "increasingly doubtful of an escalating nation-building effort." Nancy Youssef of McClatchy News wrote about how "mixed signals" from Washington were causing "increasing ire from U.S. commanders in Afghanistan"; a group of McClatchy reporters talked of military advocates of escalation feeling "frustration" over "White House dithering." David Sanger of the New York Times described "a split between an American military that says it needs more troops now and an American president clearly reluctant to leap into that abyss." "Impatient" is about the calmest word you'll see for the attitude of the military top command right now.
Buyer's Remorse, the Afghan War, and the President
In the midst of all this, between Admiral Mullen and General McChrystal is, it seems, a missing man. The most photogenic general in our recent history, the man who created the doctrine and oversees the war, the man who is now shaping the U.S. Army (and its future plans and career patterns), is somehow, at this crucial moment, out of the Washington spotlight. This last week General Petraeus was, in fact, in England, giving a speech and writing an article for the (London) Times laying out his basic "protect the population" version of counterinsurgency and praising our British allies by quoting one of their great imperial plunderers. ("If Cecil Rhodes was correct in his wonderful observation that 'being an Englishman is the greatest prize in the lottery of life,' and I'm inclined to think that he was, then the second greatest prize in the lottery of life must be to be a friend of an Englishman, and based on that, the more than 230,000 men and women in uniform who work with your country's finest day by day are very lucky indeed, as am I.")
Only at mid-week, with Washington aboil, did he arrive in the capital for a counterinsurgency conference at the National Press Club and quietly "endorse" "General McChrystal's assessment." Whatever the look of things, however, it's unlikely that Petraeus is actually on the sidelines at this moment of heightened tension.
He is undoubtedly still The Man.
So much is, of course, happening just beyond the sightlines of those of us who are mere citizens of this country, which is why inference and guesswork are, unfortunately, the order of the day. Read any account in a major newspaper right now and it's guaranteed to be chock-a-block full of senior officials and top military officers who are never "authorized to speak," but nonetheless yak away from behind a scrim of anonymity. Petraeus may or may not be one of them, but the odds are reasonable that this is still a Petraeus Moment.
If so, Obama has only himself to blame. He took up Afghanistan ("the right war") in the presidential campaign as proof that, despite wanting to end the war in Iraq, he was tough. (Why is it that a Democratic candidate needs a war or threat of war to trash-talk about in order to prove his "strength," when doing so is obviously a sign of weakness?)
Once in office, Obama compounded the damage by doubling down his bet on the war. In March, he introduced a "comprehensive new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan" in his first significant public statement on the subject, which had expansion written all over it. He also agreed to send in 21,000 more troops (which, by the way, Petraeus reportedly convinced him to do). In August, in another sign of weakness masquerading as strength, before an unenthusiastic audience at a Veterans of Foreign Wars convention, he unnecessarily declared: "This is not a war of choice. This is a war of necessity." All of this he will now pay for at the hands of Petraeus, or if not him, then a coterie of military men behind the latest push for a new kind of Afghan War.
As it happens, this was never Obama's "war of necessity." It was always Petraeus's. And the new report from McChrystal and the Surgettes is undoubtedly Petraeus's progeny as well. It seems, in fact, cleverly put together to catch a cautious president, who wasn't cautious enough about his war of choice, in a potentially devastating trap. The military insistence on quick action on a troop decision sets up a devastating choice for the president: "Failure to provide adequate resources also risks a longer conflict, greater casualties, higher overall costs, and ultimately, a critical loss of political support. Any of these risks, in turn, are likely to result in mission failure." Go against your chosen general and the failure that follows is yours alone. (Unnamed figures supposedly close to McChrystal are already launching test balloons, passed on by others, suggesting that the general might resign in protest if the president doesn't deliver -- a possibility he has denied even considering.) On the other hand, offer him somewhere between 15,000 and 45,000 more American troops as well as other resources, and the failure that follows will still be yours.
It's a basic lose-lose proposition and, as journalist Eric Schmitt wrote in a New York Times assessment of the situation, "it will be very hard to say no to General McChrystal." No wonder the president and some of his men are dragging their feet and looking elsewhere. As one typically anonymous "defense analyst" quoted in the Los Angeles Times said, the administration is suffering "buyer's remorse for this war...They never really thought about what was required, and now they have sticker shock."
Admittedly, according to the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, 51% of Americans are against sending in more troops. (Who knows how they would react to a president who went on TV to announce that he had genuinely reconsidered?) Official Washington is another matter. For General Petraeus, who claims to have no political ambitions but is periodically mentioned as the Eisenhower of 2012, how potentially peachy to launch your campaign against the president who lost you the war.
A Petraeus Moment?
In the present context, the media language being used to describe this military-civilian conflict of wills -- frustration, impatience, split, rupture, ire -- may fall short of capturing the import of a moment which has been brewing, institutionally speaking, for a long time. There have been increasing numbers of generals' "revolts of various sorts in our recent past. Of course, George W. Bush was insistent on turning planning over to his generals (though only when he liked them), something Barack Obama
criticized him for during the election campaign. ("The job of the commander in chief is to listen to the best counsel available and to listen even to people you don't agree with and then ultimately you make the final decision and you take responsibility for those actions.")
Now, it looks as if we are about to have a civilian-military encounter of the first order in which Obama will indeed need to take responsibility for difficult actions (or the lack thereof). If a genuine clash heats up, expect more discussion of "MacArthur moments," but this will not be Truman versus MacArthur redux, and not just because Petraeus seems to be a subtler political player than MacArthur ever was.
Over the nearly six decades that separate us from Truman's great moment, the Pentagon has become a far more overwhelming institution. In Afghanistan, as in Washington, it has swallowed up much of what once was intelligence, as it is swallowing up much of what once was diplomacy. It is linked to one of the two businesses, the Pentagon-subsidized weapons industry, which has proven an American success story even in the worst of economic times (the other remains Hollywood). It now holds a far different position in a society that seems to feed on war.
It's one thing for the leaders of a country to say that war should be left to the generals when suddenly embroiled in conflict, quite another when that country is eternally in a state of war. In such a case, if you turn crucial war decisions over to the military, you functionally turn foreign policy over to them as well. All of this is made more complicated, because the cast of "civilians" theoretically pitted against the military right now includes Karl W. Eikenberry, a retired lieutenant general who is the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, Douglas Lute, a lieutenant general who is the president's special advisor on Afghanistan and Pakistan (dubbed the "war czar" when he held the same position in the Bush administration), and James Jones, a retired Marine Corps general, who is national security advisor, not to speak of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, a former director of the Central Intelligence Agency.
The question is: will an already heavily militarized foreign policy geared to endless global war be surrendered to the generals? Depending on what Obama does, the answer to that question may not be fully, or even largely, clarified this time around. He may quietly give way, or they may, or compromises may be reached behind the scenes. After all, careers and political futures are at stake.
But consider us warned. This is a question that is not likely to go away and that may determine what this country becomes. We know what a MacArthur moment was; we may find out soon enough what a Petraeus moment is.
By Tom Engelhardt
Special to CBSNews.com
More From Opinion
Add a Comment See all 33 Comments
- I like you never say no, go for broke, attitude. I sometimes use method that when gambling at the casino. Of course you may loose a lot in the short term in order to gain a little in the short term. This is called a Pyr·rhic victory. You win but your country is busted. Democracy would be dead as we cannot sustain a war with huge losses and little tangible result. We probably would move to being an Oligarchy (power concentrated in a few hands). We would then be ripe for either takeover or anarchy. Take your pick.
- Reply to this comment
- There is no military solution to these quagmires. There is no winning an occupation. These fiascoes will just continue to drag us down to third world country status.
Get out NOW. Use the military money to build them schools and hospitals and they won't all be out to get us. As it is now, we deserve whatever comes to us. There is karma and there is justice! - Reply to this comment
- Someone actually replied to me wow. Since you did not offer up a solution I assume you are with the status quo. Don't know what to say to that. Thanks for replying. Actually I do have a reply now that I think about it. Afganistan is a nice place that has been ****** with for more than 25 years in a row. Don't you think its time they caught a break. I really don't think we are doing them any favors. Build some bridges. Thats going to create a more lasting impression and be around alot longer than our troops. Believe you me.
Pvt Brant Mateski aka. spacesky. - Reply to this comment
- Heh. If the wheel isn't broke why fix it? "The war wagon party." Get on the war wagon now as its only got about 2 more years left before the wheel gets broke an nobody knows how to fix it. I suppose if I was in the war wagon party I would suggest a gurilla war. We could all dress up in robes and turbans and pray to Allah 5 times a day in the local mosque. Gurilla rule # 101. Confuse and decieve your enemy. The guys in charge need to take diplomacy # 101. That and infrastructure. You can't go wrong building roads and bridges. The country being mountainous needs alot of roads and bridges as their roads suck. Sorry for making you Army guys looks stupid again. ;)
- Reply to this comment
- There are very good reasons to stay in Afghanistan.
1 - Leave and the Taliban comes back into power in less than 2 years - and terrorist bases get rebuilt and the world is at greater risk than before.
2 - Leave now and rogue states like Iran will see it as proof that Obama and America will not use the military to prevent an expansionist agenda in the middle east. This is essentially a green light to build nuclear weapons and blackmail the world to stop supporting Isreal.
3 - If you believe in freedom and equal rights can you abandon the women and children of Afghanistan to the likes to the Taliban who hold public executions of women who don't comply with the harshest and most brutal interpretations of Sharia law? Girls can not go to school, boys are taught on the Quran. - Reply to this comment
- Make me Prez! as a former PFC in the Army I have lots of military-type experience too.
- Reply to this comment
- you guys are spammy! Put me in charge! I am a PFC for gawds sake. I could do better then them.
- Reply to this comment
- Military leaders talking outside their chain of command? Harry Truman had a solution.
- Reply to this comment
- Once again neo cons are wanting to wage a war with no end in sight, a war we supposedly won, by the Repug's war president.
If you neo cons are so gung ho about this war of "Real" Americans ,why are you real Americans not over there fighting it.
I thought so, Let someone else put their life on the line.
It is safer to support this war from the safety of your living room ! - Reply to this comment
- It is a sad day when $220 Billion seems like a pitance in the shadow of a single swoop $1 Trillion stimulus. But here's the deal. If the President is interested in winning this war, he needs to act like a real Commander In Chief and make tough decisions. If he wants to accept a loss, he needs to get us out of there. But leaving our sons and daughters at a numerical disadvantage in Afganistan for the sake of political maneuvering just doesn't cut it. President Obama, do something, or get out of the way. Lack of action either way is costing American lives.
- Reply to this comment
- Once again, Americans, especially in the military and generals, no less! have failed in their study of history. The American Revolutionary War was guerilla warfare. We didn't have a chance in fighting it any other way! The British were professional soldiers; we were farmers and shopkeepers. The war will NEVER be won in Afghanistan (as in Viet-Nam), for the very same reason. Get with it, Generals and tell the truth! Leave Afghanistan, NOW.
- Reply to this comment
-
- The military is an instrument of government power. Generals recommend and our civilian Commander In Chief decides. The soldiers, sailors and airmen are not in Afganistan for their personal health or desire. They are there in response to deployment by their government leaders. So, the Commander In Chief holds all the marbles. Nine months ago he said he wanted to win this war. Six months ago he said he wanted to win this war. Either do what it takes, or get out; both civilian leadership decisions. You are correct; the Revolutionary War included different tactics. Every war has lessons learned. But they were tactics that worked for the specific circumstances of the day. Learning the lessons of history is important. But the lesson was not that such a war could never be won. It is a matter of strategy and tactics; both which must have the support of the Commander In Chief and a nation.
- If liberals only went after Bin laden as much as they do Bush, Limbaugh, and Fox news this war would already be over.
- Reply to this comment
- Might as well try it. What have we got to lose?
- Reply to this comment
- When the media gives aid and hope to the enemy with defeatist propaganda such as this, it does make a war difficult to win.
McChrystal's memo was not leaked to embarrass Obama, it was leaked by the Administration as a trial balloon, so that Obama could let public opinion make a decision that should be his to make.
Bin Laden told the world that the US does not have the will to fight a difficult war. Pelosi and Reid have told the world that the US does not have the will to fight a difficult war. Tom Englehardt and the US media have added their voices. Each of those has continually given hope to our enemy.
If the Media and Congress were on the same side of this fight as the US fighting man, it would not be nearly as difficult. - Reply to this comment
- This is the fight for humanity unfolding.
Will we forever be slaves to the military industrial complex who's only goal seems to be endless war for endless profits?
This is the fight for humanity unfolding. - Reply to this comment
- It is very late in the game to increase troop levels in Afghanistan, a war that once was considered won. That proved the power of the U.S, armed forces. That Bush left in mid steam to pursue his war for oil in Iraq.
The 8 years since its start ,the fraud laced election, the ineffective central government smells to much like Vietnam.
Americans refusing to back a war with no end in sight, the economic crisis it help start at home.
If the rest of the world is not willing to have their troops fight and die in this war, Why should we. - Reply to this comment
-
- You seem to have sacrificed so much for the war. However, did you miss the 9/11 memorial ceremonies that were in the news 2 weeks ago. Its kindve a big deal here to real Americans.
- "by mav547166
However, did you miss the 9/11 memorial ceremonies that were in the news 2 weeks ago. Its kindve a big deal here to real Americans."
Wow - your response had nothing to do with his statement.
9-11 happened not because Bush planned to allow it to happen - it happened because he was an idiot unable to protect America.
And you need to rethink your "real Americans" rhetoric. Yes, 9/11 memorials matter to Americans. But your implication that citizens who don't agree with any point you choose to make are somehow unAmerican IS the problem the nation is having.
You just are intent on looking for divisiveness - you'd like nothing better than to take the "United" out of "United States".
- I never knew a person could write so many run-on sentences in a row.
- Reply to this comment
- I am glad to see people making fun of Obama until he changes course and get us out of this disastrous, un-necessary and losing quagmire. Who are the REAL terrorists, people?
Bring them home. NOW! - Reply to this comment
-
- How come you didn't say anything like this during the Bush years regarding Iraq? In fact, people who said the exact same thing you do now were called traitors. Why do you hate America?
- Obama's problem is he isn't doing anything, and making no decisions. He doesn't want to escalate, but won't end it. He doesn't want to loose, but won't commit to winning. He is thinking only about how it will affect his next election and since he can't tell how the wind is blowing, and he is already on the shakey side of considered way to left of center appearing weak on defense and a quiter will only hurt him and so he won't decide.
That is why Obama is not a leader. He won't take a political risk, he will only bet on a sure thing.
The bottom line is, he will get a lot more GI's killed and the collition will break up because Obama can't make hard choices.
- ;) Guess I am the only one interested in this topic again.
- Reply to this comment
- Or simply have given then 220 billion for infra. The Taliban would have become extremely unpopular after a sharp move like that.
- Reply to this comment
The road ahead in Afghanistan, and the crucial decision Obama faces.
