I have to admit, I did not not expect Obama to appoint David Petraeus to replace the Teabagger of the General set, Stanley “Bite me” McChrystal. Although I disagree with the policy implications of his choice, I have to admire the way put the GOP in a position where they cannot challenge his decision. without making complete fools of themselves.
President Barack Obama has accomplished what many might have thought impossible just a few hours earlier. He has fired Gen. Stanley McChrystal, his combat commander in Afghanistan, in such a way that not only will the general go unmissed but his name will likely soon be forgotten.
Obama’s decision to replace McChrystal with Gen. David Petraeus is a stroke of brilliance, an unassailable move, politically and strategically.
On a political level, McChrystal has many fans inside Congress and the military, but Petraeus has orders of magnitude more. No one could accuse Obama of compromising the war effort, knowing that Petraeus is stepping in.
On a strategic level, while McChrystal designed the U.S. military policy in Afghanistan, Petraeus is its ur-architect. Petraeus literally wrote the book on counterinsurgency strategy while McChrystal was still running the black-bag hunter-killers of the special-ops command.
Petraeus has also spent the last year and a half as head of U.S. Central Command, supervising military operations throughout the Persian Gulf and central Asia, including Afghanistan. McChrystal has built relations with political and military leaders in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Petraeus has been building the same relations, plus some.
Those who might have expected a scaling back in the U.S. commitment to Afghanistan will, and should, be disappointed. In his Rose Garden speech this afternoon, Obama made the point explicitly: "This is a change in personnel," he said, "but it is not a change in policy."
One of those who might be disappointed in this remark—and in the naming of Petraeus as McChrystal’s replacement—is Michael Hastings, the author of the Rolling Stone article that triggered this chain of events.
The last, and less-noticed, part of the article, which was called "The Runaway General," not only amounted to a critique of the whole idea of counterinsurgency but also suggested that President Obama bought into the concept, ensnared by the wily Gen. McChrystal, without grasping its full implications… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <Slate>
I have to admit that when the Betrayus ad, came out, I was one of the ones who jumped on the bandwagon. I was wrong. Every six months for three years, GW ChickenHawk had slithered in front of the cameras to announce a brand new strategy, each with its flashy new name. Without exception, the only thing new had been the name. So when he trotted out David Petraeus, I had no reason so suspect anything different. In fact, Petraeus did stabilize the situation. US casualties are still down. US troops have been withdrawn from combat, and most will be pulling out soon.
I continue to oppose this war. I expect counter insurgency to fail for the same reasons I gave yesterday. As long as Petraeus is saddled with Karzai, he’s doomed. But if anyone can get us enough breathing space to get out, he can.
In Iraq, he bribed terrorists to stop being terrorists and join us instead. Ironically, to do the same thing in Afghanistan may be problematic, because the GOP activists on SCOTUS just ruled that strategy to be a crime.
6 Responses to “Obama: A Shrewd Gambit”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Bribing terrorists not to be terrorists is certainly not the best idea – as was seen in Iraq, all it does is provide a culture of corruption (kind of like the US). Also, SCOTUS just said that was illegal. We made a big shit pile out of Iraq before we decided that we were almost done. And people are still dying in Iraq everyday – it’s not what I would call a remotely stable society.
We’ll see if Patraeus can do a better job with Afghanistan. I hope so, but the Taliban are pretty fucking stubborn and we still haven’t found OBL. If Obama did that, he would be the king of the US on both sides. (Seriously, how hard can it be to find a 6’2″ man tied to a dialysis machine in the fucking desert?) I still haven’t gotten through the entire RS article yet, but from what I read, it is pretty damning. I think McCrystal wanted out (shit, who wouldn’t), but with Patraeus saying that we’ll be there longer than July 2011, doesn’t give me a warm and fuzzy. I say call it a draw and get the fuck out. Let the Afghanis and Pakastanis deal with the Taliban if they want to. Or get the civilians out and nuke the place – it’ll be hard to extract minerals from a radioactive, glass parking lot. Can we do Israel too, you know since we’re in the area and all? (Kidding)
True Lisa. When I said stabilized, I was speaking comparatively. Frankly, I think they’re waiting for us to get gone so they can escalate the fireworks.
I think Petraeus will fail. Then I hope Obama recognizes the lose-lose situation and pulls the plug.
I confess to growing more and more glum about Afghanistan. I agree, Obama made the best move possible, but I think we must get out of this quagmire, which is what it is heading for. I’m not sure how the “minerals” fit into this, but since I trust Bushites about one inch, I have my questions.
the sad thing is that Obama’s foreign policy may be making some good inroads in Russia at least, and this is little reported.
The presidency is really getting bogged down in crisis after crisis and I fear we are headed for trouble in 2012, to say nothing of 2010.
Sherry, I completely agree. It wasn’t about the minerals when the Bush/GOP regime invaded Afghanistan. But it wasn’t about OBL or AQ either. The GOP wanted to run a gas pipelibe from the Caspian sea to Karachi to wrest contol of the natural gas produced in the STANs (the four Muslim countries that used to be part of the USSR) from GAZPOM, the Russian state natural gas company.
The only thing that I think will save us is the extremity of the GOP.
How can an intelligent man like President Obama be so obtuse when it comes to Afghanistan strategy as laid out by the generals?
Pull the plug on Afghanistan.
Indeed. Pull the plug on Afghanistan. To put it crudely, F*ck ’em. Weren’t for Bush we wouldn’t be there.
The “help the people of Afghahistan” shuck is all wrong. It’s dope and U. S. money that keeps the country going around. Pull the plug. They are welcome to their dope and their warlords. Bring the treasure and the soldiers back home. Buy Karzai a plane ticket to somewhere. Perferably Katmandu.
Ivan, it’s not quite that simple. We have allies there and need to coordinate withdrawl with them. We need to get the UN mandate, the basis for our presence there reversed. We also have thousands of civilians there who must be evacuated before we can withdraw. Under the best of circumstances the logistics will require at least a year, but we need to begin the process.