Why McChrystal Did Obama a Big Favor: Gareth Porter on the Policy Implications of Replacing McC with Petraeus
This piece was brought to my attention by John Cochrane.
Gareth Porter is an analyst with whose work I’ve had some familiarity, and have respected, for thirty years.
*****************
Can Petraeus Find a Way Out of Afghanistan?
Why McChrystal Did Obama a Big Favor
By GARETH PORTER
Despite President Barack Obama’s denial that his decision to fire Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal as commander in Afghanistan and replace him with Gen. David Petraeus signified any differences with McChrystal over war strategy, the decision obviously reflects a desire by Obama to find a way out of a deepening policy crisis in Afghanistan.
Although the ostensible reason was indiscreet comments by McChrystal and his aides reported in Rolling Stone, the switch from McChrystal to Petraeus was clearly the result of White House unhappiness with McChrystal’s handling of the war.
It had become evident in recent weeks that McChrystal’s strategy is not working as he had promised, and Congress and the U.S. political elite had already become very uneasy about whether the war was on the wrong track.
In calling on Petraeus, the Obama administration appears to be taking a page from the George W. Bush administration’s late 2006 decision to rescue a war in Iraq which was generally perceived in Washington as having become an embarrassing failure. But both Obama and Petraeus are acutely aware of the differences between the situation in Iraq at that moment and the situation in Afghanistan today.
In taking command in Iraq in 2007, Petraeus was being called upon to implement a dramatically new counterinsurgency strategy based on a major “surge” in U.S. troops.
Obama will certainly be put under pressure by the Republican Party, led by Sen. John McCain, to agree to eliminate the mid-2011 deadline for the beginning of a U.S. withdrawal and perhaps even for yet another troop surge in Afghanistan.
But accounts of Obama administration policymaking on the war last year make it clear that Obama caved into military pressure in 2009 for the troop surge of 2010 only as part of a compromise under which McChrystal and Petraeus agreed to a surge of 18 months duration. It was clearly understood by both civilian and military officials, moreover, that after the surge was completed, the administration would enter into negotiations on a settlement of the war.
Petraeus’s political skills and ability to sell a strategy involving a negotiated settlement offers Obama more flexibility than he has had with McChrystal in command.
Contrary to the generally accepted view that Petraeus mounted a successful counterinsurgency campaign in Iraq, his main accomplishment was to make the first formal accommodation with Sunni insurgents.
Petraeus demonstrated in his command in Iraq a willingness to adjust strategic objectives in light of realities he could not control. He had it made it clear to his staff at the outset that they would make one last effort to show progress, but that he would tell Congress that it was time to withdraw if he found that it was not working.
As commander in Iraq, Petraeus chose staff officers who were sceptics and realists rather than true believers, according to accounts from members of his staff in Iraq. When one aide proposed in a memorandum in the first weeks of his command coming to terms with the Shia insurgents led by Moqtada al Sadr, for example, Petraeus did not dismiss the idea.
That willingness to listen to viewpoints that may not support the existing strategy stands in sharp contrast to McChrystal’s command style in Afghanistan. McChrystal has relied heavily on a small circle of friends, mainly from his years as Special Operations Forces (SOF) commander, who have been deeply suspicious of the views of anyone from outside that SOF circle, according to sources who are familiar with the way his inner circle has operated.
In an interview, one military source who knows McChrystal and his staff described a “very tight” inner circle of about eight people which “does everything together, including getting drunk”.
“McChrystal surrounded himself with yes men,” said another source who has interacted with some of those in the inner circle. “When people have challenged the conventional wisdom, he’s had them booted out,” the source said.
The McChrystal inner circle has been accustomed to the insularity that Special Operations Forces have traditionally had in carrying out their operations, the source added.
The primary example of McChrystal’s rejection of outside expertise that challenged his beliefs cited by the sources is the case of David Kilcullen.
Kilcullen, a retired Australian Army officer, is recognized as one of the most knowledgeable specialists on insurgency and was an adviser to Petraeus in Iraq in 2007-2008. Kilcullen is known for speaking his mind, even if it conflicts with existing policy.
After McChrystal took command of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan last year, Kilcullen was slated to become an adviser on his staff. But after some early interactions between Kilcullen, and the McChrystal team, that decision was reversed, the sources said.
Kilcullen’s views on targeted killings as wrongheaded clashed with the assumptions of McChrystal and his inner circle.
McChrystal’s staff was also supposed to create a “red team” of outside specialists on Afghanistan who could provide different perspectives and information, but after the inner circle around McChrystal tightened its control over outside information, the idea was allowed to die, according to one source.
Several members of McChrystal’s inner circle are officers who worked for the general during his five-year stint as head of the Joint Special Operations Command, which carried out targeted raids aimed at killing or capturing insurgent leaders in Iraq and Afghanistan from 2003 to 2008, the sources say.
Two of the key officers on McChrystal’s staff who were part of his former JSOC inner circle are his intelligence chief, Maj. Gen. Michael T. Flynn and his Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, Maj. Gen. Bill Mayville.
Flynn was McChrystal’s director of intelligence at JSOC from 2004 to 2007 and then his director of intelligence at the Joint Staff in 2008-2008. Mayville also served under McChrystal at JSOC.
McChrystal’s political adviser, retired Army Col. Jacob McFerren, is not a veteran of JSOC. But he is described by one source familiar with McChrystal’s team as one of the general’s old Army “drinking buddies”.
Gareth Porter is an investigative historian and journalist with Inter-Press Service specialising in U.S. national security policy. The paperback edition of his latest book, “Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam”, was published in 200
June 24th, 2010 at 12:15 pm
McChrystal was the most popular and effective commander to appear on the scene. He marshaled an effective team of Major Generals to implement a strategy of `hunt-em-down–and–kill-em~ (al Qaida leader Abu Musab al Zarqawi) – quite a feat! McChrystal was in charge of Petraeus strategy – a surge similar to that in Iraq. McChrystal was hampered by disagreements over policy and personnel: this will not change; just be covered up by Petraeus – an old flanker. The Obama administration does not want to hear a disparaging word over policy: their policy is failing. Where the campaign had a good general in place, now this good general must convince Obama to replace the present US ranking official in Afghanistan who outranks Petraeus and blocks his initiative (its the same old strategy). McChrystal had the same problem!
The Taliban reject a central authority – an elected president and parliament – finding a solution is impossible with the conflict making no sense for Obama to continue. And the very man Petraeus needed to root out and bring everyone together has been sacked. Petraeus won’t find a way out of this other than to show Obama somehow, that he has put his policy in greater jeopardy and doing McChrystal a big favour by showing him the way out of this quagmire. The administration is hyper- desperate to find a solution to the madness. Meanwhile, the Pres is fleeing to Toronto to try and convince the world to increase deficits and avoid financial collapse: he will not receive a welcome response.
June 24th, 2010 at 9:40 pm
Is this really what America needs to be about ?
We have to go back to GWB and all his lies and look a little deeper:
Where has all this really come from ?
There is no good reason for the Democrats to be in ‘power’
EXCEPT what is the alternative ?
June 25th, 2010 at 6:46 am
NOTE: Welder’s basic Obama-sliming message goes here.
June 25th, 2010 at 6:59 am
NOTE ADDENDUM: Substitute Andy’s ignoring of inconvenient facts in this space…
June 25th, 2010 at 7:44 am
That’s the problem, Welder. There were no facts. Just your usual shtick.
Or do you consider, “He’s triggered the country’s gag reflex in record time,” a fact?
June 25th, 2010 at 9:02 am
Let it be noted that Welder feels unjustly treated here by me, for not posting his comments reliably and in full.
Let it be noted, too, that in my own best judgment, the excluded comments do not measure up to the standards I think appropriate to apply.
June 25th, 2010 at 12:09 pm
David R: because our sole governing principle now is fear. What FDR fought against is now embraced as the foundation of morals, ethics and action. Not coincidentally, its also the last remaining thing people will still happily pay taxes for.
the report from Toronto’s upcomming G20 talk is typical of the zeitgeist dogging our steps today:
http://tinyurl.com/32jzx8q
$2,000,000,000 so 20 delegations can divvy up the spoils snug and cozy, free from fear of meddling citizens. And on the same day extension of unemployment benefits were cut because that was too expensive.
Things are as they are because our rulers want them that way. A subtitle from one of today’s articles on AlterNet (http://tinyurl.com/24u5ngs) says it succinctly: “The military is no longer protecting America only — it’s also defending an empire that will lead to more and more loss of American lives for no reason.” They both, civilian & military authorities, serve the same interests, but only the military knows which buttons to push, and so they imagine themselves the real masters and come to hold the nominal civilian authorities in contempt.
But I dispute the ‘for no reason’ clause. There’s a reason, but it isn’t one that we’re allowed to discuss or consider in our political deliberations. Hence “The Battle in Seattle” then, and Toronto today.
June 25th, 2010 at 9:32 pm
Really, I understand your need to control the content here, but since nothing I’ve posted has been obscene or evenly vaguely threatening, you have outed yourself.
When you have to regulate things because they’re “inappropriate”, you’ve lost the argument.
Free speech is what it is, but I understand that I don’t have a right to be heard; at least not here.
The emperor is not the only one that lacks clothing, or cojones for that matter.
But, predictably played though; I’m almost sorry about your guy. But he’s turned out to be just exactly what I said he was…
http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/iglnwvn0jeaslencabs5iq.gif
June 26th, 2010 at 4:58 am
You apparently understand, Welder, that “free speech” is an inapt concept for this situation. Nobody has a “right” to have their letter to the editor posted in the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal.
This site, as I had occasion to articulate a number of years ago, is like a hall that has been rented by a speaker. Discussion is part of the process the speaker has in mind. But heckling is not to be permitted.
Only a handful of people in the five years of the site have made themselves into problems in terms of interfering with the quality of the discussion. Most of these have been from the left, certainly well to the left –in general terms– from me. Generally, it is not a problem simply of the person’s perspective. There are various forms of pollution, of toxicity, of repetitiousness, of non-constructiveness (any or all of those), involved.
My purpose here is to maintain as high a quality of content –my own, other writers, and the discussion– as possible.
You are free to believe that I’ve “outed” myself, and that my applying what I believe to be appropriate standards regarding which of your comments will be posted and which will not implies that I’ve “lost the argument.” You are free, as I say, to believe that.
To me, that belief of yours –if indeed you hold it, and it is not just another of your gambits– is another illustration of your lack of insight into the defects in your process. And I am free to believe that, and to act upon that belief as I believe best serves the quality of NSB.
June 26th, 2010 at 6:16 am
I understand that while I have the right to speak, I can’t compel anyone to listen.
I think, however, that the predominant predisposition here to ignore the failures and corruption of this president ill serves those who claim to be all about truth seeking.
Which is going to make the coming rejection of Obama and his agenda all the more of a surprise to you folks.
But, as you once told me, I have no realistic expectation that you’re capable of seeing what I see.
And, indeed, it’s not my place to attempt to force that vision…
June 26th, 2010 at 8:50 am
Only two inaccuracies here, Welder, at least as far as I can see.
How about citing this alleged place where I told you that I lack the capacity to see what you see. In my view, I not only believe I have a clear idea of how the world looks to you, I also have at least a pretty decent understanding of how the distortions in your perspective come about. In any event, I would bet heavily that I never admitted to being incapable of achieving your level of insight.
Unlike the ideologically driven places from which you get much of your “information,” here on NSB I’ve spent a lot of virtual ink discussing the shortcomings of Obama’s leadership, Enough so, in fact, that one of my long-time friends and supporters here has taken me to task on several occasions for being too critical of Obama in public, and for being insufficiently supportive and appreciative of his accomplishments.
Let me say here also something I’ve said more than once on WSVA, but have never had the opportunity to expand upon, which is that while there are legitimate criticisms to be leveled at Obama, they are mostly the very OPPOSITE of those that have been trumpeted by the Republicans, the Tea Partiers, and the right-wing Lie Media since before he came to power.
So to the extent that I “ignore” the “failures and corruptions” you have in mind, there’s a good chance that I do not ignore them so much as I understand them to be the kind of crazy misrepresentations of reality perpetrated by paranoid-style right-wing political forces, and that I’ve studied in some depth since 1965.
June 26th, 2010 at 1:58 pm
I recall your telling me in an email that you had no realistic expectation that I could understand why my worldview in general was flawed. The point that I was inarticulately attempting to make is that I’m now feeling a bit of role reversal. While I’ve read your critiques of Obama, they’ve always dealt with the manner in which he presents his message. It’s either not strongly worded enough, not targeted properly, not timed right or the poor rubes he’s trying to help are just too dumb or too enthralled by your “right wing lie machine” for him to break through.
But it’s not his presentation that’s lacking, it’s the substance. The more he tries to sell the populace his dream of a progressive utopia with he and his fellow deep thinkers at the helm, the more he’s being rejected.
We’re Americans, and the majority of us still have no desire to become Europe.
I have zero expectations that you folks will correctly assign blame for the failure of the Obama presidency when it inevitably occurs. Because your mindset (or hubris) simply does not allow you to accept the possibility that perhaps it is your own worldview that is fundamentally flawed.
Obama’s demise will have nothing to do with the salesman, his ad campaign, his competition or the way his product is packaged.
To quote a famous old ad man: “The dog just doesn’t like the dog food.”
June 26th, 2010 at 9:00 pm
Welder, my question is What’s your point ?
The sad political and econmic state of the country Is What It Is !
We can all see that. How is it that your contending with Andy in a personal way has any meaning at all other than to make it appear that professed conservatives are a contentious lot without solutions that include all Americans ?
Get the latest issue of the Economist for a clear view of the modern conservatives. I thought they were writing from reading my own mind, but no; it is apparently obvious now to the world.
June 26th, 2010 at 9:14 pm
Could you provide the link, David R., to that Economist article you’re recommending?
June 26th, 2010 at 9:56 pm
It’s the magazine week June 12-18. The cover for this issue would best be described as hilarious and actually tells the story by cartoon
But two articles in this issue What’s wrong with America’s Right (p 13)
and The dangers of Hell No ! on page 26. But the cover says it best.
I have no agreement with the anti-conservative view
but this crew today do not represent my own view nor values either
although they profess to; but by attitude . . NO!
However, I think the activists and noise makers are NOT representative
of the common sense bedrock conservative American.
That’s the point of the articles. American politics and society NEED the balance of a strong conservative ‘element’ and it’s leadership has gone astray.
Wish I could upload the cover of this issue . . it’s a killer !
June 27th, 2010 at 4:41 am
David R – I would have thought the point obvious. I read the Economist piece and did indeed find it amusing, particularly some of the comments.
Some examples:
Lapsing into inaccurate stereotypes of U.S. conservatives is neither becoming to your newspaper nor constructive. The U.S. has proudly and successfully flouted British establishment disapproval since 1776.
Obama was the wrong man, at the wrong time, with the wrong ideas. You did not get that right either.
Arizona’s response to illegal immigration is not xenophobic, it is an act of self preservation. Send a reporter to the border. If he or she returns, they will have an interesting story to tell. If not, try and find their notes among the tons of trash left in the formerly pristine desert.
Yes, the American right needs to present a coherent, well thought alternative to Barack Obama’s toxic combination of student socialism and Chicago corruption before we become the New Greece. Agreed, it’s not there yet.
Yes, the right and center-right majority of America is angry. If you had just had your pocket picked, your bank accounts looted and had your work ethic insulted by those responsible, few who have ever held an honest job, I’d forgive you for being peevish.
By 2012, I’ll bet that the fractious group of individualists you portray as a bunch of Bubbas (didn’t that used to be Yankee Doodles?) will coalesce into a force to be reckoned with. It happens all the time over here.
The Economist is dead wrong when it states: “There is a dwindling band of moderate Republicans who understand that they have to work with the Democrats in the interests of America.” The Democrats have refused to work with the GOP since Obama’s election. Why should the Republicans bother? The answer is that Washington has been polarized politically for more than 20 years; and the Democrats have refused to allow the Republicans to take part in the legislative process at all, so turnabout is fair play. The Economist was naive and wrong-headed to have supported Obama in 2008, and to have backed his health-care plan, which may be repealed or otherwise gutted politically (e.g., never funding its provisions).
Lastly, the Economist’s support of the so-called “financial-reform bill” is a joke, and just as wrong-headed as its support of Obama in the first place. Hopefully the legislation never sees the light of day. Also, if Obama, the Democrats and misguided “environmentalists” had not pushed drilling way offshore into deep waters, the BP disaster might not have happened.
In the 30 years that I have been an Economist subscriber I have seen the steady erosion of the fact based opinions (in both the Leaders and often in the periodic Surveys) that were once the best in the world. Now we have assertion based talking points following popular but often demonstrably false assumptions, of which this piece is a perfect example.
You “backed his disappointing-but-necessary health-care plan” and in the next sentence complain that he has done little to fix the deficit? Necessary for what? Even a casual acquaintance with the debate surrounding the plan showed that it was sold with fraudulent numbers – 10 years of revenues and only 6 years of benefits, funded with taxes from a new long term care entitlement without considering the full costs, double counting Medicare savings, excluding certain costs from the bill, stuffing assumed savings from an unrelated takeover of the student loan program in the bill, etc.
And common sense tells us that adding 30+ million new entitlement beneficiaries, expensive new mandates and dozens of new bureaucracies is going to drive up costs, reduce supply, lengthen waiting times, and ultimately kill the private insurance market, which will lead to politically motivated government rationing as costs explode.
And a contrarian point of view:
http://www.nysun.com/editorials/what-is-wrong-with-the-economist/87004/
June 27th, 2010 at 8:03 am
“The Democrats have refused to work with the GOP since Obama’s election. Why should the Republicans bother?”
Lest we forget what blindness looks like, we’ve got Welder.
June 27th, 2010 at 8:47 am
The Economist is not an unbiased publication; probably such doesn’t exist.
But the cover of the referenced issue is truly great; I have often wished for the cartoonist’s gift, but even so gifted I could not have equaled this one. Ho ! ho !
The tenor of the articles re would-be conservative poorly focused reaction to the times is correct. THe notion that conservatives need to ‘work-with’ Democrat liberals in dismantling American constitutional liberty in law
IS bogus.
It’s not what you do, as the saying goes, it’s how you do it !
Basically right principles wielded by warped outlooks can look awfully wrong.
June 27th, 2010 at 10:40 am
Harry – Thank you.
David R – Here’s the cover shot that amuses you, so we can all enjoy it.
http://www.kaltoons.com/wordpress/category/cover-art/
The only quibbles I have with it are that Gov. Palin is clearly in violation of Rules 1 and 2 of gun safety and that she is armed with a Sov Bloc weapon.
I’m pretty sure that in reality she’d be guilty of none of those firearms faux pas.
June 27th, 2010 at 11:29 am
Ho ! ho ! Great . . and Thanks
Their cartoonists are some of the best commentators anywhere.