The Runaway General
Stanley McChrystal, Obama's top commander in Afghanistan, has seized control of the war by never taking his eye off the real enemy: The wimps in the White House
How'd I get screwed into
going to this dinner?" demands Gen. Stanley McChrystal. It's a Thursday
night in mid-April, and the commander of all U.S. and NATO forces in
Afghanistan is sitting in a four-star suite at the Hôtel Westminster in
Paris. He's in France to sell his new war strategy to our NATO allies -
to keep up the fiction, in essence, that we actually have
allies. Since McChrystal took over a year ago, the Afghan war has become
the exclusive property of the United States. Opposition to the war has
already toppled the Dutch government, forced the resignation
of Germany's president and sparked both Canada and the Netherlands to
announce the withdrawal of their 4,500 troops. McChrystal is in Paris to
keep the French, who have lost more than 40 soldiers in Afghanistan,
from going all wobbly on him.
"The dinner comes with the position, sir," says his chief of staff,
Col. Charlie Flynn.
McChrystal turns sharply in his chair.
"Hey, Charlie," he asks, "does this come with the position?"
McChrystal gives him the middle finger.
The general stands and looks around the suite that his traveling
staff of 10 has converted into a full-scale operations center. The
tables are crowded with silver Panasonic Toughbooks, and blue cables
crisscross the hotel's thick carpet, hooked up to satellite dishes to
provide encrypted phone and e-mail communications. Dressed in
off-the-rack civilian casual - blue tie, button-down shirt, dress slacks
- McChrystal is way out of his comfort zone. Paris, as one of his
advisers says, is the "most anti-McChrystal city you can imagine." The
general hates fancy restaurants, rejecting any place with candles on the
tables as too "Gucci." He prefers Bud Light Lime (his favorite beer) to
Bordeaux, Talladega Nights (his favorite movie) to Jean-Luc
Godard. Besides, the public eye has never been a place where McChrystal
felt comfortable: Before President Obama put him in charge of the war in
Afghanistan, he spent five years running the Pentagon's most secretive
"What's the update on the Kandahar bombing?" McChrystal asks Flynn.
The city has been rocked by two massive car bombs in the past day alone,
calling into question the general's assurances that he can wrest it
from the Taliban.
"We have two KIAs, but that hasn't been confirmed," Flynn says.
McChrystal takes a final look around the suite. At 55, he is gaunt
and lean, not unlike an older version of Christian Bale in Rescue
Dawn. His slate-blue eyes have the unsettling ability to drill
down when they lock on you. If you've fucked up or disappointed
him, they can destroy your soul without the need for him to raise his
"I'd rather have my ass kicked by a roomful of people than go out to
this dinner," McChrystal says.
He pauses a beat.
"Unfortunately," he adds, "no one in this room could do it."
With that, he's out the door.
"Who's he going to dinner with?" I ask one of his aides.
"Some French minister," the aide tells me. "It's fucking gay."
The next morning, McChrystal and his team gather to prepare for a
speech he is giving at the École Militaire, a French military academy.
The general prides himself on being sharper and ballsier than anyone
else, but his brashness comes with a price: Although McChrystal has been
in charge of the war for only a year, in that short time he has managed
to piss off almost everyone with a stake in the conflict. Last fall,
during the question-and-answer session following a speech he gave in
London, McChrystal dismissed the counterterrorism strategy being
advocated by Vice President Joe Biden as "shortsighted," saying it would
lead to a state of "Chaos-istan." The remarks earned him a smackdown
from the president himself, who summoned the general to a terse private
meeting aboard Air Force One. The message to McChrystal seemed clear: Shut
the fuck up, and keep a lower profile
Now, flipping through printout cards of his speech in Paris,
McChrystal wonders aloud what Biden question he might get today, and how
he should respond. "I never know what's going to pop out until I'm up
there, that's the problem," he says. Then, unable to help themselves, he
and his staff imagine the general dismissing the vice president with a
"Are you asking about Vice President Biden?" McChrystal says with a
laugh. "Who's that?"
"Biden?" suggests a top adviser. "Did you say: Bite Me?"
When Barack Obama entered
the Oval Office, he immediately set out to deliver on his most important
campaign promise on foreign policy: to refocus the war in Afghanistan
on what led us to invade in the first place. "I want the American people
to understand," he announced in March 2009. "We have a clear and
focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat Al Qaeda in Pakistan and
Afghanistan." He ordered another 21,000 troops to Kabul, the largest
increase since the war began in 2001. Taking the advice of both the
Pentagon and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he also fired Gen. David
McKiernan - then the U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan - and
replaced him with a man he didn't know and had met only briefly: Gen.
Stanley McChrystal. It was the first time a top general had been
relieved from duty during wartime in more than 50 years, since Harry
Truman fired Gen. Douglas MacArthur at the height of the Korean War.
Even though he had voted for Obama, McChrystal and his new commander
in chief failed from the outset to connect. The general first
encountered Obama a week after he took office, when the president met
with a dozen senior military officials in a room at the Pentagon known
as the Tank. According to sources familiar with the meeting, McChrystal
thought Obama looked "uncomfortable and intimidated" by the roomful of
military brass. Their first one-on-one meeting took place in the Oval
Office four months later, after McChrystal got the Afghanistan job, and
it didn't go much better. "It was a 10-minute photo op," says an adviser
to McChrystal. "Obama clearly didn't know anything about him, who he
was. Here's the guy who's going to run his fucking war, but he didn't
seem very engaged. The Boss was pretty disappointed."
From the start, McChrystal was determined to place his personal stamp
on Afghanistan, to use it as a laboratory for a controversial military
strategy known as counterinsurgency. COIN, as the theory is known, is
the new gospel of the Pentagon brass, a doctrine that attempts to square
the military's preference for high-tech violence with the demands of
fighting protracted wars in failed states. COIN calls for sending huge
numbers of ground troops to not only destroy the enemy, but to live
among the civilian population and slowly rebuild, or build from scratch,
another nation's government - a process that even its staunchest
advocates admit requires years, if not decades, to achieve. The theory
essentially rebrands the military, expanding its authority (and its
funding) to encompass the diplomatic and political sides of warfare:
Think the Green Berets as an armed Peace Corps. In 2006, after Gen.
David Petraeus beta-tested the theory during his "surge" in Iraq, it
quickly gained a hardcore following of think-tankers, journalists,
military officers and civilian officials. Nicknamed "COINdinistas" for
their cultish zeal, this influential cadre believed the doctrine would
be the perfect solution for Afghanistan. All they needed was a general
with enough charisma and political savvy to implement it.
As McChrystal leaned on Obama to ramp up the war, he did it with the
same fearlessness he used to track down terrorists in Iraq: Figure out
how your enemy operates, be faster and more ruthless than everybody
else, then take the fuckers out. After arriving in Afghanistan last
June, the general conducted his own policy review, ordered up by Defense
Secretary Robert Gates. The now-infamous report was leaked to the
press, and its conclusion was dire: If we didn't send another 40,000
troops - swelling the number of U.S. forces in Afghanistan by nearly
half - we were in danger of "mission failure." The White House was
furious. McChrystal, they felt, was trying to bully Obama, opening him
up to charges of being weak on national security unless he did what the
general wanted. It was Obama versus the Pentagon, and the Pentagon was
determined to kick the president's ass.
Last fall, with his top general calling for more troops, Obama
launched a three-month review to re-evaluate the strategy in
Afghanistan. "I found that time painful," McChrystal tells me in one of
several lengthy interviews. "I was selling an unsellable position." For
the general, it was a crash course in Beltway politics - a battle that
pitted him against experienced Washington insiders like Vice President
Biden, who argued that a prolonged counterinsurgency campaign in
Afghanistan would plunge America into a military quagmire without
weakening international terrorist networks. "The entire COIN strategy is
a fraud perpetuated on the American people," says Douglas Macgregor, a
retired colonel and leading critic of counterinsurgency who attended
West Point with McChrystal. "The idea that we are going to spend a
trillion dollars to reshape the culture of the Islamic world is utter
In the end, however, McChrystal got almost exactly what he wanted. On
December 1st, in a speech at West Point, the president laid out all the
reasons why fighting the war in Afghanistan is a bad idea: It's
expensive; we're in an economic crisis; a decade-long commitment would
sap American power; Al Qaeda has shifted its base of operations to
Pakistan. Then, without ever using the words "victory" or "win," Obama
announced that he would send an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan,
almost as many as McChrystal had requested. The president had thrown
his weight, however hesitantly, behind the counterinsurgency crowd.
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.
Even those who support McChrystal and his strategy of
counterinsurgency know that whatever the general manages to accomplish
in Afghanistan, it's going to look more like Vietnam than Desert Storm.
"It's not going to look like a win, smell like a win or taste like a
win," says Maj. Gen. Bill Mayville, who serves as chief of operations
for McChrystal. "This is going to end in an argument."
The night after his speech
in Paris, McChrystal and his staff head to Kitty O'Shea's, an Irish pub
catering to tourists, around the corner from the hotel. His wife, Annie,
has joined him for a rare visit: Since the Iraq War began in 2003, she
has seen her husband less than 30 days a year. Though it is his and
Annie's 33rd wedding anniversary, McChrystal has invited his inner
circle along for dinner and drinks at the "least Gucci" place his staff
could find. His wife isn't surprised. "He once took me to a Jack in the
Box when I was dressed in formalwear," she says with a laugh.
The general's staff is a handpicked collection of killers, spies,
geniuses, patriots, political operators and outright maniacs. There's a
former head of British Special Forces, two Navy Seals, an Afghan Special
Forces commando, a lawyer, two fighter pilots and at least two dozen
combat veterans and counterinsurgency experts. They jokingly refer to
themselves as Team America, taking the name from the South Park-esque
sendup of military cluelessness, and they pride themselves on their
can-do attitude and their disdain for authority. After arriving in Kabul
last summer, Team America set about changing the culture of the
International Security Assistance Force, as the NATO-led mission is
known. (U.S. soldiers had taken to deriding ISAF as short for "I Suck at
Fighting" or "In Sandals and Flip-Flops.") McChrystal banned alcohol on
base, kicked out Burger King and other symbols of American excess,
expanded the morning briefing to include thousands of officers and
refashioned the command center into a Situational Awareness Room, a
free-flowing information hub modeled after Mayor Mike Bloomberg's
offices in New York. He also set a manic pace for his staff, becoming
legendary for sleeping four hours a night, running seven miles each
morning, and eating one meal a day. (In the month I spend around the
general, I witness him eating only once.) It's a kind of superhuman
narrative that has built up around him, a staple in almost every media
profile, as if the ability to go without sleep and food translates into
the possibility of a man single-handedly winning the war.
By midnight at Kitty O'Shea's, much of Team America is completely
shitfaced. Two officers do an Irish jig mixed with steps from a
traditional Afghan wedding dance, while McChrystal's top advisers lock
arms and sing a slurred song of their own invention. "Afghanistan!"
they bellow. "Afghanistan!" They call it their Afghanistan
McChrystal steps away from the circle, observing his team. "All these
men," he tells me. "I'd die for them. And they'd die for me."
The assembled men may look and sound like a bunch of combat veterans
letting off steam, but in fact this tight-knit group represents the most
powerful force shaping U.S. policy in Afghanistan. While McChrystal and
his men are in indisputable command of all military aspects of the war,
there is no equivalent position on the diplomatic or political side.
Instead, an assortment of administration players compete over the Afghan
portfolio: U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, Special Representative to
Afghanistan Richard Holbrooke, National Security Advisor Jim Jones and
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, not to mention 40 or so other
coalition ambassadors and a host of talking heads who try to insert
themselves into the mess, from John Kerry to John McCain. This
diplomatic incoherence has effectively allowed McChrystal's team to call
the shots and hampered efforts to build a stable and credible
government in Afghanistan. "It jeopardizes the mission," says Stephen
Biddle, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations who supports
McChrystal. "The military cannot by itself create governance reform."
Part of the problem is structural: The Defense Department budget
exceeds $600 billion a year, while the State Department receives only
$50 billion. But part of the problem is personal: In private, Team
McChrystal likes to talk shit about many of Obama's top people on the
diplomatic side. One aide calls Jim Jones, a retired four-star general
and veteran of the Cold War, a "clown" who remains "stuck in 1985."
Politicians like McCain and Kerry, says another aide, "turn up, have a
meeting with Karzai, criticize him at the airport press conference, then
get back for the Sunday talk shows. Frankly, it's not very helpful."
Only Hillary Clinton receives good reviews from McChrystal's inner
circle. "Hillary had Stan's back during the strategic review," says an
adviser. "She said, 'If Stan wants it, give him what he needs.' "
McChrystal reserves special skepticism for Holbrooke, the official in
charge of reintegrating the Taliban. "The Boss says he's like a wounded
animal," says a member of the general's team. "Holbrooke keeps hearing
rumors that he's going to get fired, so that makes him dangerous. He's a
brilliant guy, but he just comes in, pulls on a lever, whatever he can
grasp onto. But this is COIN, and you can't just have someone yanking on
At one point on his trip to Paris, McChrystal checks his BlackBerry.
"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
"Make sure you don't get any of that on your leg," an aide jokes,
referring to the e-mail.
By far the most crucial -
and strained - relationship is between McChrystal and Eikenberry, the
U.S. ambassador. According to those close to the two men, Eikenberry - a
retired three-star general who served in Afghanistan in 2002 and 2005 -
can't stand that his former subordinate is now calling the shots. He's
also furious that McChrystal, backed by NATO's allies, refused to put
Eikenberry in the pivotal role of viceroy in Afghanistan, which would
have made him the diplomatic equivalent of the general. The job instead
went to British Ambassador Mark Sedwill - a move that effectively
increased McChrystal's influence over diplomacy by shutting out a
powerful rival. "In reality, that position needs to be filled by an
American for it to have weight," says a U.S. official familiar with the
The relationship was further strained in January, when a classified
cable that Eikenberry wrote was leaked to The New York Times.
The cable was as scathing as it was prescient. The ambassador offered a
brutal critique of McChrystal's strategy, dismissed President Hamid
Karzai as "not an adequate strategic partner," and cast doubt on whether
the counterinsurgency plan would be "sufficient" to deal with Al Qaeda.
"We will become more deeply engaged here with no way to extricate
ourselves," Eikenberry warned, "short of allowing the country to descend
again into lawlessness and chaos."
McChrystal and his team were blindsided by the cable. "I like Karl,
I've known him for years, but they'd never said anything like that to us
before," says McChrystal, who adds that he felt "betrayed" by the leak.
"Here's one that covers his flank for the history books. Now if we
fail, they can say, 'I told you so.' "
The most striking example of McChrystal's usurpation of diplomatic
policy is his handling of Karzai. It is McChrystal, not diplomats like
Eikenberry or Holbrooke, who enjoys the best relationship with the man
America is relying on to lead Afghanistan. The doctrine of
counterinsurgency requires a credible government, and since Karzai is
not considered credible by his own people, McChrystal has worked hard to
make him so. Over the past few months, he has accompanied the president
on more than 10 trips around the country, standing beside him at
political meetings, or shuras, in Kandahar. In February, the
day before the doomed offensive in Marja, McChrystal even drove over to
the president's palace to get him to sign off on what would be the
largest military operation of the year. Karzai's staff, however,
insisted that the president was sleeping off a cold and could not be
disturbed. After several hours of haggling, McChrystal finally enlisted
the aid of Afghanistan's defense minister, who persuaded Karzai's people
to wake the president from his nap.
This is one of the central flaws with McChrystal's counterinsurgency
strategy: The need to build a credible government puts us at the mercy
of whatever tin-pot leader we've backed - a danger that Eikenberry
explicitly warned about in his cable. Even Team McChrystal privately
acknowledges that Karzai is a less-than-ideal partner. "He's been locked
up in his palace the past year," laments one of the general's top
advisers. At times, Karzai himself has actively undermined McChrystal's
desire to put him in charge. During a recent visit to Walter Reed Army
Medical Center, Karzai met three U.S. soldiers who had been wounded in
Uruzgan province. "General," he called out to McChrystal, "I didn't even
know we were fighting in Uruzgan!"
Growing up as a
military brat, McChrystal exhibited the mixture of brilliance and
cockiness that would follow him throughout his career. His father fought
in Korea and Vietnam, retiring as a two-star general, and his four
brothers all joined the armed services. Moving around to different
bases, McChrystal took solace in baseball, a sport in which he made no
pretense of hiding his superiority: In Little League, he would call out
strikes to the crowd before whipping a fastball down the middle.
McChrystal entered West Point in 1972, when the U.S. military was
close to its all-time low in popularity. His class was the last to
graduate before the academy started to admit women. The "Prison on the
Hudson," as it was known then, was a potent mix of testosterone,
hooliganism and reactionary patriotism. Cadets repeatedly trashed the
mess hall in food fights, and birthdays were celebrated with a tradition
called "rat fucking," which often left the birthday boy outside in the
snow or mud, covered in shaving cream. "It was pretty out of control,"
says Lt. Gen. David Barno, a classmate who went on to serve as the top
commander in Afghanistan from 2003 to 2005. The class, filled with what
Barno calls "huge talent" and "wild-eyed teenagers with a strong sense
of idealism," also produced Gen. Ray Odierno, the current commander of
U.S. forces in Iraq.
The son of a general, McChrystal was also a ringleader of the campus
dissidents - a dual role that taught him how to thrive in a rigid,
top-down environment while thumbing his nose at authority every chance
he got. He accumulated more than 100 hours of demerits for drinking,
partying and insubordination - a record that his classmates boasted made
him a "century man." One classmate, who asked not to be named, recalls
finding McChrystal passed out in the shower after downing a case of beer
he had hidden under the sink. The troublemaking almost got him kicked
out, and he spent hours subjected to forced marches in the Area, a paved
courtyard where unruly cadets were disciplined. "I'd come visit, and
I'd end up spending most of my time in the library, while Stan was in
the Area," recalls Annie, who began dating McChrystal in 1973.
McChrystal wound up ranking 298 out of a class of 855, a serious
underachievement for a man widely regarded as brilliant. His most
compelling work was extracurricular: As managing editor of The
Pointer, the West Point literary magazine, McChrystal wrote seven
short stories that eerily foreshadow many of the issues he would
confront in his career. In one tale, a fictional officer complains about
the difficulty of training foreign troops to fight; in another, a
19-year-old soldier kills a boy he mistakes for a terrorist. In
"Brinkman's Note," a piece of suspense fiction, the unnamed narrator
appears to be trying to stop a plot to assassinate the president. It
turns out, however, that the narrator himself is the assassin, and he's
able to infiltrate the White House: "The President strode in smiling.
From the right coat pocket of the raincoat I carried, I slowly drew
forth my 32-caliber pistol. In Brinkman's failure, I had succeeded."
After graduation, 2nd Lt. Stanley McChrystal entered an Army that was
all but broken in the wake of Vietnam. "We really felt we were a
peacetime generation," he recalls. "There was the Gulf War, but even
that didn't feel like that big of a deal." So McChrystal spent his
career where the action was: He enrolled in Special Forces school and
became a regimental commander of the 3rd Ranger Battalion in 1986. It
was a dangerous position, even in peacetime - nearly two dozen Rangers
were killed in training accidents during the Eighties. It was also an
unorthodox career path: Most soldiers who want to climb the ranks to
general don't go into the Rangers. Displaying a penchant for
transforming systems he considers outdated, McChrystal set out to
revolutionize the training regime for the Rangers. He introduced mixed
martial arts, required every soldier to qualify with night-vision
goggles on the rifle range and forced troops to build up their endurance
with weekly marches involving heavy backpacks.
In the late 1990s, McChrystal shrewdly improved his inside game,
spending a year at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government and then at
the Council on Foreign Relations, where he co-authored a treatise on the
merits and drawbacks of humanitarian interventionism. But as he moved
up through the ranks, McChrystal relied on the skills he had learned as a
troublemaking kid at West Point: knowing precisely how far he could go
in a rigid military hierarchy without getting tossed out. Being a highly
intelligent badass, he discovered, could take you far - especially in
the political chaos that followed September 11th. "He was very focused,"
says Annie. "Even as a young officer he seemed to know what he wanted
to do. I don't think his personality has changed in all these years."
By some accounts,
McChrystal's career should have been over at least two times by now. As
Pentagon spokesman during the invasion of Iraq, the general seemed more
like a White House mouthpiece than an up-and-coming commander with a
reputation for speaking his mind. When Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
made his infamous "stuff happens" remark during the looting of Baghdad,
McChrystal backed him up. A few days later, he echoed the president's
Mission Accomplished gaffe by insisting that major combat operations in
Iraq were over. But it was during his next stint - overseeing the
military's most elite units, including the Rangers, Navy Seals and Delta
Force - that McChrystal took part in a cover-up that would have
destroyed the career of a lesser man.
After Cpl. Pat Tillman, the former-NFL-star-turned-Ranger, was
accidentally killed by his own troops in Afghanistan in April 2004,
McChrystal took an active role in creating the impression that Tillman
had died at the hands of Taliban fighters. He signed off on a falsified
recommendation for a Silver Star that suggested Tillman had been killed
by enemy fire. (McChrystal would later claim he didn't read the
recommendation closely enough - a strange excuse for a commander known
for his laserlike attention to minute details.) A week later, McChrystal
sent a memo up the chain of command, specifically warning that
President Bush should avoid mentioning the cause of Tillman's death. "If
the circumstances of Corporal Tillman's death become public," he wrote,
it could cause "public embarrassment" for the president.
"The false narrative, which McChrystal clearly helped construct,
diminished Pat's true actions," wrote Tillman's mother, Mary, in her
book Boots on the Ground by Dusk. McChrystal got away with it,
she added, because he was the "golden boy" of Rumsfeld and Bush, who
loved his willingness to get things done, even if it included bending
the rules or skipping the chain of command. Nine days after Tillman's
death, McChrystal was promoted to major general.
Two years later, in 2006, McChrystal was tainted by a scandal
involving detainee abuse and torture at Camp Nama in Iraq. According to a
report by Human Rights Watch, prisoners at the camp were subjected to a
now-familiar litany of abuse: stress positions, being dragged naked
through the mud. McChrystal was not disciplined in the scandal, even
though an interrogator at the camp reported seeing him inspect the
prison multiple times. But the experience was so unsettling to
McChrystal that he tried to prevent detainee operations from being
placed under his command in Afghanistan, viewing them as a "political
swamp," according to a U.S. official. In May 2009, as McChrystal
prepared for his confirmation hearings, his staff prepared him for hard
questions about Camp Nama and the Tillman cover-up. But the scandals
barely made a ripple in Congress, and McChrystal was soon on his way
back to Kabul to run the war in Afghanistan.
The media, to a large extent, have also given McChrystal a pass on
both controversies. Where Gen. Petraeus is kind of a dweeb, a teacher's
pet with a Ranger's tab, McChrystal is a snake-eating rebel, a "Jedi"
commander, as Newsweek called him. He didn't care when his
teenage son came home with blue hair and a mohawk. He speaks his mind
with a candor rare for a high-ranking official. He asks for opinions,
and seems genuinely interested in the response. He gets briefings on his
iPod and listens to books on tape. He carries a custom-made set of
nunchucks in his convoy engraved with his name and four stars, and his
itinerary often bears a fresh quote from Bruce Lee. ("There are no
limits. There are only plateaus, and you must not stay there, you must
go beyond them.") He went out on dozens of nighttime raids during his
time in Iraq, unprecedented for a top commander, and turned up on
missions unannounced, with almost no entourage. "The fucking lads love
Stan McChrystal," says a British officer who serves in Kabul. "You'd be
out in Somewhere, Iraq, and someone would take a knee beside you, and a
corporal would be like 'Who the fuck is that?' And it's fucking Stan
It doesn't hurt that McChrystal was also extremely successful as head
of the Joint Special Operations Command, the elite forces that carry
out the government's darkest ops. During the Iraq surge, his team killed
and captured thousands of insurgents, including Abu Musab al-Zarqawi,
the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq. "JSOC was a killing machine," says Maj.
Gen. Mayville, his chief of operations. McChrystal was also open to new
ways of killing. He systematically mapped out terrorist networks,
targeting specific insurgents and hunting them down - often with the
help of cyberfreaks traditionally shunned by the military. "The Boss
would find the 24-year-old kid with a nose ring, with some fucking
brilliant degree from MIT, sitting in the corner with 16 computer
monitors humming," says a Special Forces commando who worked with
McChrystal in Iraq and now serves on his staff in Kabul. "He'd say, 'Hey
- you fucking muscleheads couldn't find lunch without help. You got to
work together with these guys.' "
Even in his new role as America's leading evangelist for
counterinsurgency, McChrystal retains the deep-seated instincts of a
terrorist hunter. To put pressure on the Taliban, he has upped the
number of Special Forces units in Afghanistan from four to 19. "You
better be out there hitting four or five targets tonight," McChrystal
will tell a Navy Seal he sees in the hallway at headquarters. Then he'll
add, "I'm going to have to scold you in the morning for it, though." In
fact, the general frequently finds himself apologizing for the
disastrous consequences of counterinsurgency. In the first four months
of this year, NATO forces killed some 90 civilians, up 76 percent from
the same period in 2009 - a record that has created tremendous
resentment among the very population that COIN theory is intent on
winning over. In February, a Special Forces night raid ended in the
deaths of two pregnant Afghan women and allegations of a cover-up, and
in April, protests erupted in Kandahar after U.S. forces accidentally
shot up a bus, killing five Afghans. "We've shot an amazing number of
people," McChrystal recently conceded.
Despite the tragedies and miscues, McChrystal has issued some of the
strictest directives to avoid civilian casualties that the U.S. military
has ever encountered in a war zone. It's "insurgent math," as he calls
it - for every innocent person you kill, you create 10 new enemies. He
has ordered convoys to curtail their reckless driving, put restrictions
on the use of air power and severely limited night raids. He regularly
apologizes to Hamid Karzai when civilians are killed, and berates
commanders responsible for civilian deaths. "For a while," says one U.S.
official, "the most dangerous place to be in Afghanistan was in front
of McChrystal after a 'civ cas' incident." The ISAF command has even
discussed ways to make not killing into something you can win
an award for: There's talk of creating a new medal for "courageous
restraint," a buzzword that's unlikely to gain much traction in the
gung-ho culture of the U.S. military.
But however strategic they may be, McChrystal's new marching orders
have caused an intense backlash among his own troops. Being told to hold
their fire, soldiers complain, puts them in greater danger. "Bottom
line?" says a former Special Forces operator who has spent years in Iraq
and Afghanistan. "I would love to kick McChrystal in the nuts. His
rules of engagement put soldiers' lives in even greater danger. Every
real soldier will tell you the same thing."
In March, McChrystal traveled to Combat Outpost JFM - a small
encampment on the outskirts of Kandahar - to confront such accusations
from the troops directly. It was a typically bold move by the general.
Only two days earlier, he had received an e-mail from Israel Arroyo, a
25-year-old staff sergeant who asked McChrystal to go on a mission with
his unit. "I am writing because it was said you don't care about the
troops and have made it harder to defend ourselves," Arroyo wrote.
Within hours, McChrystal responded personally: "I'm saddened by the
accusation that I don't care about soldiers, as it is something I
suspect any soldier takes both personally and professionally - at least I
do. But I know perceptions depend upon your perspective at the time,
and I respect that every soldier's view is his own." Then he showed up
at Arroyo's outpost and went on a foot patrol with the troops - not some
bullshit photo-op stroll through a market, but a real live operation in
a dangerous war zone.
Six weeks later, just before McChrystal returned from Paris, the
general received another e-mail from Arroyo. A 23-year-old corporal
named Michael Ingram - one of the soldiers McChrystal had gone on patrol
with - had been killed by an IED a day earlier. It was the third man
the 25-member platoon had lost in a year, and Arroyo was writing to see
if the general would attend Ingram's memorial service. "He started to
look up to you," Arroyo wrote. McChrystal said he would try to make it
down to pay his respects as soon as possible.
The night before the general is scheduled to visit Sgt. Arroyo's
platoon for the memorial, I arrive at Combat Outpost JFM to speak with
the soldiers he had gone on patrol with. JFM is a small encampment,
ringed by high blast walls and guard towers. Almost all of the soldiers
here have been on repeated combat tours in both Iraq and Afghanistan,
and have seen some of the worst fighting of both wars. But they are
especially angered by Ingram's death. His commanders had repeatedly
requested permission to tear down the house where Ingram was killed,
noting that it was often used as a combat position by the Taliban. But
due to McChrystal's new restrictions to avoid upsetting civilians, the
request had been denied. "These were abandoned houses," fumes Staff Sgt.
Kennith Hicks. "Nobody was coming back to live in them."
One soldier shows me the list of new regulations the platoon was
given. "Patrol only in areas that you are reasonably certain that you
will not have to defend yourselves with lethal force," the laminated
card reads. For a soldier who has traveled halfway around the world to
fight, that's like telling a cop he should only patrol in areas where he
knows he won't have to make arrests. "Does that make any fucking
sense?" asks Pfc. Jared Pautsch. "We should just drop a fucking bomb on
this place. You sit and ask yourself: What are we doing here?"
The rules handed out here are not what McChrystal intended - they've
been distorted as they passed through the chain of command - but knowing
that does nothing to lessen the anger of troops on the ground. "Fuck,
when I came over here and heard that McChrystal was in charge, I thought
we would get our fucking gun on," says Hicks, who has served three
tours of combat. "I get COIN. I get all that. McChrystal comes here,
explains it, it makes sense. But then he goes away on his bird, and by
the time his directives get passed down to us through Big Army, they're
all fucked up - either because somebody is trying to cover their ass, or
because they just don't understand it themselves. But we're fucking
losing this thing."
McChrystal and his team show up the next day. Underneath a tent, the
general has a 45-minute discussion with some two dozen soldiers. The
atmosphere is tense. "I ask you what's going on in your world, and I
think it's important for you all to understand the big picture as well,"
McChrystal begins. "How's the company doing? You guys feeling sorry for
yourselves? Anybody? Anybody feel like you're losing?" McChrystal says.
"Sir, some of the guys here, sir, think we're losing, sir," says
McChrystal nods. "Strength is leading when you just don't want to
lead," he tells the men. "You're leading by example. That's what we do.
Particularly when it's really, really hard, and it hurts inside." Then
he spends 20 minutes talking about counterinsurgency, diagramming his
concepts and principles on a whiteboard. He makes COIN seem like common
sense, but he's careful not to bullshit the men. "We are knee-deep in
the decisive year," he tells them. The Taliban, he insists, no longer
has the initiative - "but I don't think we do, either." It's similar to
the talk he gave in Paris, but it's not winning any hearts and minds
among the soldiers. "This is the philosophical part that works with
think tanks," McChrystal tries to joke. "But it doesn't get the same
reception from infantry companies."
During the question-and-answer period, the frustration boils over.
The soldiers complain about not being allowed to use lethal force, about
watching insurgents they detain be freed for lack of evidence. They
want to be able to fight - like they did in Iraq, like they had in
Afghanistan before McChrystal. "We aren't putting fear into the
Taliban," one soldier says.
"Winning hearts and minds in COIN is a coldblooded thing," McChrystal
says, citing an oft-repeated maxim that you can't kill your way out of
Afghanistan. "The Russians killed 1 million Afghans, and that didn't
"I'm not saying go out and kill everybody, sir," the soldier
persists. "You say we've stopped the momentum of the insurgency. I don't
believe that's true in this area. The more we pull back, the more we
restrain ourselves, the stronger it's getting."
"I agree with you," McChrystal says. "In this area, we've not made
progress, probably. You have to show strength here, you have to use
fire. What I'm telling you is, fire costs you. What do you want to do?
You want to wipe the population out here and resettle it?"
A soldier complains that under the rules, any insurgent who doesn't
have a weapon is immediately assumed to be a civilian. "That's the way
this game is," McChrystal says. "It's complex. I can't just decide: It's
shirts and skins, and we'll kill all the shirts."
As the discussion ends, McChrystal seems to sense that he hasn't
succeeded at easing the men's anger. He makes one last-ditch effort to
reach them, acknowledging the death of Cpl. Ingram. "There's no way I
can make that easier," he tells them. "No way I can pretend it won't
hurt. No way I can tell you not to feel that. . . . I will tell you,
you're doing a great job. Don't let the frustration get to you." The
session ends with no clapping, and no real resolution. McChrystal may
have sold President Obama on counterinsurgency, but many of his own men
aren't buying it.
When it comes to
Afghanistan, history is not on McChrystal's side. The only foreign
invader to have any success here was Genghis Khan - and he wasn't
hampered by things like human rights, economic development and press
scrutiny. The COIN doctrine, bizarrely, draws inspiration from some of
the biggest Western military embarrassments in recent memory: France's
nasty war in Algeria (lost in 1962) and the American misadventure in
Vietnam (lost in 1975). McChrystal, like other advocates of COIN,
readily acknowledges that counterinsurgency campaigns are inherently
messy, expensive and easy to lose. "Even Afghans are confused by
Afghanistan," he says. But even if he somehow manages to succeed, after
years of bloody fighting with Afghan kids who pose no threat to the U.S.
homeland, the war will do little to shut down Al Qaeda, which has
shifted its operations to Pakistan. Dispatching 150,000 troops to build
new schools, roads, mosques and water-treatment facilities around
Kandahar is like trying to stop the drug war in Mexico by occupying
Arkansas and building Baptist churches in Little Rock. "It's all very
cynical, politically," says Marc Sageman, a former CIA case officer who
has extensive experience in the region. "Afghanistan is not in our vital
interest - there's nothing for us there."
In mid-May, two weeks after visiting the troops in Kandahar,
McChrystal travels to the White House for a high-level visit by Hamid
Karzai. It is a triumphant moment for the general, one that demonstrates
he is very much in command - both in Kabul and in Washington. In the
East Room, which is packed with journalists and dignitaries, President
Obama sings the praises of Karzai. The two leaders talk about how great
their relationship is, about the pain they feel over civilian
casualties. They mention the word "progress" 16 times in under an hour.
But there is no mention of victory. Still, the session represents the
most forceful commitment that Obama has made to McChrystal's strategy in
months. "There is no denying the progress that the Afghan people have
made in recent years - in education, in health care and economic
development," the president says. "As I saw in the lights across Kabul
when I landed - lights that would not have been visible just a few years
It is a disconcerting observation for Obama to make. During the worst
years in Iraq, when the Bush administration had no real progress to
point to, officials used to offer up the exact same evidence of success.
"It was one of our first impressions," one GOP official said in 2006,
after landing in Baghdad at the height of the sectarian violence. "So
many lights shining brightly." So it is to the language of the Iraq War
that the Obama administration has turned - talk of progress, of city
lights, of metrics like health care and education. Rhetoric that just a
few years ago they would have mocked. "They are trying to manipulate
perceptions because there is no definition of victory - because victory
is not even defined or recognizable," says Celeste Ward, a senior
defense analyst at the RAND Corporation who served as a political
adviser to U.S. commanders in Iraq in 2006. "That's the game we're in
right now. What we need, for strategic purposes, is to create the
perception that we didn't get run off. The facts on the ground are not
great, and are not going to become great in the near future."
But facts on the ground, as history has proven, offer little
deterrent to a military determined to stay the course. Even those
closest to McChrystal know that the rising anti-war sentiment at home
doesn't begin to reflect how deeply fucked up things are in Afghanistan.
"If Americans pulled back and started paying attention to this war, it
would become even less popular," a senior adviser to McChrystal says.
Such realism, however, doesn't prevent advocates of counterinsurgency
from dreaming big: Instead of beginning to withdraw troops next year, as
Obama promised, the military hopes to ramp up its counterinsurgency
campaign even further. "There's a possibility we could ask for another
surge of U.S. forces next summer if we see success here," a senior
military official in Kabul tells me.
Back in Afghanistan, less than a month after the White House meeting
with Karzai and all the talk of "progress," McChrystal is hit by the
biggest blow to his vision of counterinsurgency. Since last year, the
Pentagon had been planning to launch a major military operation this
summer in Kandahar, the country's second-largest city and the Taliban's
original home base. It was supposed to be a decisive turning point in
the war - the primary reason for the troop surge that McChrystal wrested
from Obama late last year. But on June 10th, acknowledging that the
military still needs to lay more groundwork, the general announced that
he is postponing the offensive until the fall. Rather than one big
battle, like Fallujah or Ramadi, U.S. troops will implement what
McChrystal calls a "rising tide of security." The Afghan police and army
will enter Kandahar to attempt to seize control of neighborhoods, while
the U.S. pours $90 million of aid into the city to win over the
Even proponents of counterinsurgency are hard-pressed to explain the
new plan. "This isn't a classic operation," says a U.S. military
official. "It's not going to be Black Hawk Down. There aren't going to
be doors kicked in." Other U.S. officials insist that doors are
going to be kicked in, but that it's going to be a kinder, gentler
offensive than the disaster in Marja. "The Taliban have a jackboot on
the city," says a military official. "We have to remove them, but we
have to do it in a way that doesn't alienate the population." When Vice
President Biden was briefed on the new plan in the Oval Office, insiders
say he was shocked to see how much it mirrored the more gradual plan of
counterterrorism that he advocated last fall. "This looks like
CT-plus!" he said, according to U.S. officials familiar with the
Whatever the nature of the new plan, the delay underscores the
fundamental flaws of counterinsurgency. After nine years of war, the
Taliban simply remains too strongly entrenched for the U.S. military to
openly attack. The very people that COIN seeks to win over - the Afghan
people - do not want us there. Our supposed ally, President Karzai, used
his influence to delay the offensive, and the massive influx of aid
championed by McChrystal is likely only to make things worse. "Throwing
money at the problem exacerbates the problem," says Andrew Wilder, an
expert at Tufts University who has studied the effect of aid in southern
Afghanistan. "A tsunami of cash fuels corruption, delegitimizes the
government and creates an environment where we're picking winners and
losers" - a process that fuels resentment and hostility among the
civilian population. 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.
This article originally appeared in RS 1108/1109 from July 8-22,