Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Firing McChrystal Isn’t Enough. Fire the War
Gen. Stanley McChrystal should never have been the top commander in Afghanistan. He's a rogue and a bully, politically and militarily, and he's dishonest in the most dishonorable way: he signed off on the cover-up of the killing by his own troops of Pat Tillman, the NFL star who became an Army Ranger. McChrystal falsified the documents that lied to Tillman's family. "The false narrative, which McChrystal clearly helped construct, diminished Pat's true action," Tillman's mother, Mary, wrote.
Tillman was one victim. But McChrystal has been falsifying the narrative in Afghanistan since becoming commander there, pretending and preaching, like Gen. William Westmoreland in Vietnam 40 years before him, that more troops and more resolve can win in Afghanistan as no foreign army has won there since Gengis Khan. More troops and more resolve have killed more troops and more civilians while sapping soldiers' faith: Some of McChrystal's biggest doubters are his own troops.
I'm not saying this because McChrystal was just fired. I'm a McChrystal doubter of long date. McChrystal, I wrote last Oct. 1, "with his chat-and-snub strategy of outflanking Obama through the press while rebuffing Congress, appears to be choreographing his own political pressure tactics. The last thing the Afghan debacle needs is a neo-MacArthur presuming more than his command warrants." It was a debacle then. Obama worsened it by letting McChrystal lead it on.
In October, McChrystal was planting stories in the press, leaking a 66-page memo that all but made Obama look like a coward if he didn't put up at least 40,000 more troops, and refusing to testify before Congress. What finally brought McChrystal down was the sort of locker-room behavior that was no secret to anyone who knew McChrystal and his entourage since his middling and drunkard days at West Point (he's reformed, and imposed his teetotaler ways on troops under his command): making fun, in that now notorious Rolling Stone article, of Joe Biden and speaking contemptuously of Obama and every member of the president's foreign-policy team with the exception of, amazingly, Hillary Clinton, the weakest non-entity in Obama's foreign policy team.The contempt is deserved. Obama's foreign policy team is as fractured and arrogant as the French national soccer team. But the contempt isn't deserved from McChrystal, whose strategy in Afghanistan was itself predicated on the lie that there is something winnable there or something useful to win. Neither is the case.
Which is why his firing speaks more ill of Barack Obama than it does of McChrystal. Not because the firing was overdue, but because McChrystal should never have been hired, especially not in the hurried, uninformed way Obama hired him: on the advice of Pentagon brass, the last place a new president should have looked for advice on how to run Afghanistan after eight years of Pentagon failures there. Afghanistan required a more rational analysis of what's possible, exit strategies included, and who's best equipped to carry it through.
McChrystal, predisposed to worship the impossible as a reflection of his exceptionalism, was a man out of the Bush administration's playbook, not Obama's: McChrystal seconded Bush Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld when Rumsfeld foolishly described the falling apart of Iraq as "stuff happens," and he seconded Bush's own "Mission Accomplished" declaration that all major combat operations in Iraq were over by May 1, 2003, when they had barely begun. Obama picked him anyway, and wedded his Afghan fortune to McChrystal's idiotically acronymed "COIN" strategy-for "counterinsurgency." The strategy, a form of community policing with extra-lethal weapons and boots ready to kick down any door, was little more than the re-application of Iraq's pacification campaign to Afghanistan, as if the two countries were one and the same. They're as different as, say, New Jersey is from Nepal. But hey: they're both Muslim nations, they're both in the Greater Middle East, so how difficult could it be to fit them under the same Pentagon acronym?
Even after picking McChrystal, Obama in October and November had a chance to make his break with the Bush administration and come up with a new strategy in Afghanistan-one that recognizes that there are no Afghans who want to blow up Americans (although there will be), that there are no American interests in Afghanistan, that the Taliban is not America's fight, and that al-Qaeda is in Pakistan, and hasn't been in Afghanistan for nine years. The strategy could have also recognized that Afghan President Hamid Karzai is a corrupt incompetent more interested in his palace power than in running a country, let alone cooperating with the Americans beyond getting his hands on American aid. Most critically, Obama could have stopped pretending that a bankrupt America abandoned by virtually all of its allies can still rebuild a country that even God had little left for. (The old Afghan story goes that when God was finished making the world, he took all his leftovers, threw them together, and that was Afghanistan.)
Instead, Obama took up where Bush left off, added more troops, threw more money at the folly, and called it a new strategy. McChrystal was his cover. Bad choice. McChrystal blew it? Not so: McChrystal was an improvising explosive diva waiting to blow. He did. He would have anyway.
McChrystal's firing is the latest cover-up of a failure far larger than McChrystal's, a failure that Obama now owns entire, and that will only increase the number of American and Afghan deaths to no purpose. This month, June 2010, the Afghan war became America's longest in history. It is also America's most futile. Vietnam ended. Afghanistan has no end in sight. Worse, despite the lessons not learned of October and November, despite the lesson not learned of the McChrystal debacle, despite the lesson not learned of the winter's failed Marja offensive in southern Afghanistan-the offensive that was played up as the Obama administration's turning point in the war, with McChrystal in the lead-despite all that, Obama on Wednesday announced that nothing will change in Afghanistan.
McChrystal is gone. The strategy remains the same. All that was needed to accent the madness was that famous phrase of the Bush era (and the Westmoreland era): stay the course.
Obama didn't have to use the phrase. He appointed it. The man replacing McChrystal is Gen. David Petraeus, which is a demotion of sorts. Petraeus was McChrystal's commander, and Bush's designated architect of the Iraqi escalation of 2007-2008. Petraeus is now the 10th commander in nine years over the Afghan theater, or the latest custodian of that indestructible hammer nailing America's coffins.
- Posted in

34 Comments so far
Show AllDo we, in this country, have any significant number of people with the knowledge, intelligence, devotion, integrity, political competence, and perseverance to emerge as the second generation of "Founders" (perhaps third, if one counts 1865 as a second "Founding")?
And if we do, are they electable? And if so, by what means?
I believe there are people "out there" who have the qualities you speak of... however, they could never be elected today. To get elected now you have to "bury too many bodies" and sell out to too many special interests.
To quote Jello Biafra : If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal.
We just have to perservere until the revolution.
The QUOTE is from Theodore Adorno - a TRUE THINKER!
Not the questionable spawn of a rock musician.
The answer is no. There are no such people that I am even remotely aware of either in the upper echelons of powerful corporate management structures that control the governance of the US or among the elected and appointed officials of the US federal government whose strings the corporatist managers pull and whose pockets they fill.
It's really sad, isn't it? I think the empire is approaching its end of life, and what comes after, only god knows.
Changing commanders is meaningless and should get no more of our attention. It's just a 'change' to appear to be doing something.
While the President is castigated for those he has around him, the American people are never held responsible.
Every California Congressional incumbent was re-nominated. All 56 of them. Obviously, Californians are content with their political leadership, the same leadership that got us into this insane mess, the same leadership that keeps us trapped*.
I repeat:
In 2008 America voted for change in the White House.
America has NOT voted for change in Congress.
The President is expected to take on the entire rest of government by himself, fix all our problems with a wave of his pen, order (by himself) an end to a war that involves millions of people.
Yesterday, of course, we had an article about how the uber-President has too much power.
* the same leadership that said in 2006 'no more unfunded spending'
Amen...
I've been saying for years that the biggest problem is people saying; "...Everyone in Congress is bad... except my guy..."
They ALL must go. Yes, all... even Kucinich.
If we leave even one, we have not "cleaned the house".
Alas, the mass of the populace will not recognize this until it's too late. Then, we'll see the revolution.
Look back at the 7,000 years of human recorded history ... this never ends well for the "leaders". It will probably end with pitchforks, torches, and blood running in the streets.
I've been saying for years that the biggest problem is people saying; "...Everyone in Congress is bad... except my guy..."
Well my guy is Virginia Foxx and she sucks. I would never vote for the woman, but she has been reelected twice so I guess there is something to your theseus.
I predicted that 95 percent of the incumbents would be re-elected. Because, the people are clueless. In general, they don't know what is happening with their own government; and for the most part, they don't care. They are too busy with their own lives, not the life of the nation.
These people don't deserve to be free, and they are not. Freedom is seeping away from them as they look somewhere else.
I think most people of intelligence see that reform is hopeless. It is still troubling and interesting, however.
Good Grief.
locust says... "I repeat: In 2008 America voted for change in the White House.
America has NOT voted for change in Congress."
Bullshit! Do you remember the 2006 elections? The Dems were able to finally get the majority of the House and the Senate back. Remember? Or did that go down the memory hole for you? The Democrats used the 'vote for us and we will end these wars'. They promised change from the horrible Republican ways. So, they were voted in and gained the majority in both the House and the Senate... and did NOTHING! Their excuse was that they then needed to get the White House too because Bush would just veto anything they did. Now they have all three branches! And, they still do NOTHING for the people and EVERYTHING for their corporate donors. How is that going for us?
"that there are no American interests in Afghanistan"
Peirre,
Historians use five general classifications of why nations go to war.
Power, Prestige, Profit, Principle, Protection.
Don't you think Profit may be a primary reason of our corporate controlled government? Resent estimates have Afghanistan with One Trillion dollars in minerals.
There is also a matter that US Oil companies want to put an oil and gas pipeline across this nation.
CD is going down hill with articles like this. Bring back Norm Soloman so we can have some reasonable controversy.
You are correct that there are those potential US interests in Afghanistan, but at this juncture it is highly unlikely that any of them could ever be realized.
Pursuing the interests through war has proven to be a total failure of policy.
It's like a subprime mortgage - at a certain point the only practical economic policy would be to walk away from it.
Isn't that what was said about Iraq?
The multinational/US oil companies are still in Iraq with offices in the Green Zone, no doubt.
It will be the same for Afghanistan. And the USA tax payer pays the bill.
Reality is despair.
Pierre Tristam is an impeccable journalist, whose progressive thinking and masterful turn of phrase
keep me looking for more of his essays referenced at CD.
Your comments, sir, attacking his excellent piece is reflective of another
classification for going to war you have omitted but sadly emulate:
ARROGANCE.
Isn't it kind of ironic that if you take it upon yourself to kill someone they throw you in jail, but if oversee the killing of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of people for the state they put stars on your shoulders. And isn't it also ironic that you can keep your job if you oversee the killing of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of people for the state, but if you say bad things about your boss you loose your job. Strange isn't it?
Mr. Obama did _not_ fire McChrystal. He wimpily and with "deep regret" accepted McChrystal's resignation.
Today's NYT's article, In Week of Tests, Obama Reasserts His Authority By DAVID E. SANGER is whirling dervish spin. Our president's main problem is his lack of backbone.
My foolish belief that Mr. Obama is a brilliant, well-educated person who would not choose the wrong people and then let them take over his policy-making responsibilities. It's good to consider opposing views from other intelligent people and wrest conclusions out of the conflict. Unlike Mr. Bush who, because of his very limited personal abilities--a president of shreds and patches--demanded absolute loyalty, Mr. Obama, because of his much greater personal abilities, might have surrounded himself with other strong-minded people in order to forge coherent policy out of the chaos of argument.
The opposite has happened. Surgically-inserted steel reinforcement rods will not give him the backbone he should have developed as a young man.
The war must stop. Mr. Obama's not the man to do it.
Sad to say, you are exactly right. Obama is not going to stop the war.
And today we learn that he isn't even going to make good on his campaign promise to close Guantanamo.
Whether the promise was hollow or his resolve is lacking doesn't matter.
The war is now his. It pains me to say so, but it will be his downfall.
From my reading, when a reporter asked McCrystal if he was going to resign when he was on the way into the WH, his answer was, "No, you know me better than that". That type of arrogance on the way into the lion's den proved that it was time to can him. Reports were that when he wasn't ready to submit his resignation, Obama then fired him. At that point McCrystal asked if he could resign and Obama allowed him to write a short letter of resignation. The meeting took only 1/2 hour so there were no hugs or kisses or grand farewell ceremonies. Someone gave him very bad advice or he had become extremely over confident because he hadn't been canned before with his public demands. I think Petraeous was giving him hidden advice and Obama knew it.
The assignement to Afghanistan is a downgrade for Petraeous and we can only hope they put a new CENTCOM commander in that will prevent any attack against Iran.
Excellent points by Pierre! Obama has been played by the generals ever since taking office. His naivete is so obvious, and they took advantage of it.
I doubt much will change.
It is all a deadly show, from the mass murderer in chief on down; to keep the deluded masses....deluded !
I also posted this elsewhere:
I am beginning to believe that the flotilla incident and the firing of McChrystal have upset timing of the following operation and pushed it forward and made it ready to execute
The insanity of our leaders coupled at the hip with the Israeli right wing just about verifies an attack soon. May God have mercy on us.
http://beforeitsnews.com/news/86/786/The_Coming_Iran_War.html
Last week twelve US warships and at least one Israeli warship passed through the Suez Canal on their way to the Red Sea. Included among the US fleet is the aircraft carrier, USS Harry S Truman. Today we learn that the Israeli Air Force have set up base at a Saudi airfield near Tabuk in north-west Saudi Arabia despite earlier denials from the Saudi government that it had given the Israelis permission to use its airspace to attack Iran. We also learn that American and possibly Israel forces are also gathering at bases in Azerbaijan at the north-west border of Iran.
While Israel’s war against Iran has absolutely nothing to do with Iran’s nuclear weapons program – Iran doesn’t have one and the Israelis and the US are fully aware of that – Israel and the US will need to launch any attack against Iran by first attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities in order to maintain the illusion that the casus belli for the war is, indeed, Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Since many of Iran’s nuclear facilities are in the north-west corner of the country, it should not be surprising that Azerbaijan be used by Israel and the US as a springboard to launch their attack against Iran. However, once the initial attack has been launched, US and Israeli air forces will then likely concentrate on pounding Iranian political and defence institutions for the purpose forcing Iran to capitulate and sue for a peace through the UN which the US will conditionally concede to providing Iran rids itself of President Ahmadinejad and gives up its nuclear program.
But, while the attack on Iran will be seen by the world as the main event, the real purpose for the war will be happening on Israel’s doorstep.
At the same time as Iran is being attacked, Israel, using the excuse of pre-empting retaliation for attacking Iran, will attack both Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza and then move to occupy south Lebanon up to the Litani River and the Gaza Strip. Israel will also likely fully occupy the West Bank.
This is the scenario that the US and Israel would prefer to see happen; a quick overwhelming move against all of Israel and America’s enemies that concludes with the defeat of the Iranian regime and, thus, regime change, together with the demise of Hezbollah and Hamas. This then will give the Israelis a free hand in creating a Greater Israel that ultimately includes the Gaza Strip, south Lebanon up to the Litani River, the West Bank and the Golan Heights. It will also provide the US with an even stronger ally in the Middle East and also a neutered enemy.
But can it work the way the Israelis and the US plan?
Invasion of Iran by the US is out of the question, (though the insertion of some special forces is highly likely in order to co-ordinate air strikes). Iran is a vast country that is some three times larger than Iraq. The US, considering its current ground troop commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan would not be able to effectively invade Iran. It would have to rely on an overwhelming aerial bombing campaign in order to prevail.
The instant any attack is launched against Iran, or Hezbollah or Hamas, there will likely be instant retaliation against Israel by at least Hezbollah and possibly Hamas. Both entities would, by this stage, realise that this fight will be to the finish. The fighting therefore will be intense and fearsome and there will be many casualties – mostly, of course, civilians. In a worst case scenario, depending on the intensity of the bombardment of Israel by Hezbollah, Israel may threaten the use of nuclear weapons against Lebanon unless Hezbollah cease their rocket attacks against Israel. Likewise, if Iran retaliates with a rocket attack against Israel, both the US and Israel may threaten the use of nuclear weapons against Iran. In the very worst case scenario, if Iran or Hezbollah used chemical or biological weapons, Israel and /or the US would actually use nuclear weapons with little or no warning in retaliation.
Whatever happens, a war against Iran will have devastating consequences one way or the other and for all sides.
It’s time for the peoples of the world to stand up and be heard before it is too late. Source
This:
"This then will give the Israelis a free hand in creating a Greater Israel that ultimately includes the Gaza Strip, south Lebanon up to the Litani River, the West Bank and the Golan Heights. "
will NOT happen, because the international community won't let it!
Some article on CD earlier this week accurately described McChrystal as an "adolescent". Like George Wanker Bush, Stan the Man stopped growing emotionally at about the age of 13 or 14 when his shit faced tough guy persona was at or near its peak. This is probably true of much of the command structure of the U.S. military. To some extent, it's also true of Obama, who, like Slick Willie, wanted a war to win in order to go down in history as a "great president". Obama is now in shit up to his chin and the shit is still rising inexorably. He has, up to now, religiously and enthusiastically subscribed to every imperial lie that has come down the pike. It is not in his morally bankrupt character to act any differently. Petraeus is now the "new genius" who will defeat the Taliban and its allies. What a sick, vomit inducing extravaganza all this is and will continue to be. What a thoroughly weak, corrupt, repulsive and disgusting figure Obama has turned out to be.
Firing McChrystal Isn’t Enough. Fire the War
What more needs to be said????????
http://uruknet.com/?p=m67371&hd=&size=1&l=e
>>In 1843, shortly after his return from Afghanistan, an army chaplain, Reverend G R Gleig, wrote a memoir about the First Anglo-Afghan War, of which he was one of the very few survivors. It was, he wrote, "a war begun for no wise purpose, carried on with a strange mixture of rashness and timidity, brought to a close after suffering and disaster, without much glory attached either to the government which directed, or the great body of troops which waged it. Not one benefit, political or military, has Britain acquired with this war. Our eventual evacuation of the country resembled the retreat of an army defeated."
The rest of the article is worth a read.
Firing the war isn't enough.
Fire fossil fuel addiction.
FREE AMERICA
DIRECT DEMOCRACY
What do you mean by DIRECT DEMOCRACY?
Mob rule.
Tristam sez: "This month, June 2010, the Afghan war became America's longest in history."
***
Huh. Back in 2001 I was still reading and watching Assimilated Press outlets, yet I have no recollection of any reporting on a Congressional declaration of war.
Tristam also sez: "McChrystal (is) predisposed to worship the impossible as a reflection of his exceptionalism ..."
***
Sounds like McCuster.
Except he gets to strut away from the Little Big Horn and into a seven-figure lobbying job with some arm of GE. Pity.
I went into a local farm & garden supply/hardware store today. They stock farm/ranch clothing. There was a new line of shirts and a sign that that displayed the shirts imprint, "Freedom isn't Free."
I plan to go back and tape a note to the sign.
The note will read "Neither is war."
good for you!
(if freedom isn't free it isn't freedom.)
I did it! :-)
Please do not let the "Affaire McChrystal" divert you from demanding that it is the Congress that must command its servant, the commander-in-chief, to stop the war in Afghanistan. No matter how much hot air Mr. Obama blabbers, he must obey the Congress. Congress can do this by refusing to fund the adventures of Mr. Obama. It is our only hope because Obama has already stated that the war will continue full tilt while he is our President.
Crowsnest has it wrong. The Congress is not in the position to 'command' anything of the President. Congress and the President are under orders of what to do by the top 1% of the wealthy people. (I would have said here 'of our nation' - but this is no longer true. The power of the very wealthy is international.)
These bastards are in control of everything. We have but one small choice before revolution (or fuedalism). We must attempt to get some life back in our democracy. If you continue to vote for either of the two corporate parties, you are giving legitamacy to their actions against you.
You must not vote for either a Democrat or a Republican.