General McChrystal submits resignation.

[Lady Macbeth]

General McChrystal's Rolling Stone Interview A 'Significant Mistake,' Gates Says

General Stanley McChrystal has submitted his resignation, an unnamed source has told Time magazine. CNN tweeted news of the resignation. More details to follow.

WASHINGTON (AP)— A furious President Barack Obama weighed whether to fire his Afghan war commander at a perilous time in the conflict as he summoned Gen. Stanley McChrystal to Washington to explain disparaging comments about his political masters.

McChrystal's complaints about his commander in chief and Obama's aides put his job in jeopardy. Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs said Tuesday "the magnitude and greatness of the mistake here are profound" and repeatedly declined to say McChrystal's job was safe. "All options are on the table," he said.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the commander's comments in Rolling Stone magazine were "distractions" to the war in Afghanistan.

McChrystal publicly apologized Tuesday for using "poor judgment" in interviews for the magazine. He then left Afghanistan to appear, as ordered by Obama, at the White House on Wednesday.

He'll be expected to explain his comments to the president and Pentagon officials who, as Gibbs put it, want "to see what in the world he was thinking." The presidential spokesman said Obama acknowledged McChrystal's apology and believed he deserved a chance to explain himself.

However, military leaders rarely challenge their commander in chief publicly and when they do, consequences tend to go beyond a scolding. And Gibbs left little doubt that a firing was probably in the offing. "Our efforts in Afghanistan are bigger than one person," he told reporters several times.

A decision on McChrystal's future will be announced by the White House after Wednesday's meeting, Gibbs said.

Obama appointed McChrystal to lead the Afghan war in May 2009. Despite a continuing troop buildup, progress has been halting, with U.S. casualties rising, public support waning and tensions growing between Washington and Kabul.

Practically the only expression of confidence in McChrystal on Tuesday came from Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who issued a statement calling the general the "best commander" of the war. Karzai spokesman Waheed Omar said Karzai hoped that Obama doesn't decide to replace him.

A top military official in Afghanistan told AP that McChrystal hasn't been told whether he will be allowed to keep his job. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to describe internal discussions between Washington and the general's office in Kabul.

Gibbs said McChrystal had not offered his resignation, in part because he has not yet spoken to or seen Obama, who was angry when his press secretary gave him the story Monday night.

Gibbs refused to describe how angry the president was, except to say: "You would know it if you saw it."

McChrystal spent Tuesday calling several others mentioned in the article to apologize, officials said, including Gates and Richard Holbrooke, U.S. special envoy to Pakistan.

Gates issued a statement saying McChrystal made "a significant mistake" and used poor judgment in his remarks to a magazine reporter.

"We are fighting a war against al-Qaida and its extremist allies, who directly threaten the United States, Afghanistan, and our friends and allies around the world," Gates said. "Going forward, we must pursue this mission with a unity of purpose. Our troops and coalition partners are making extraordinary sacrifices on behalf of our security, and our singular focus must be on supporting them and succeeding in Afghanistan without such distractions."

Holbrooke's office said in a terse two-line statement that McChrystal had called him in Kabul "to apologize for this story and accept full responsibility for it." It said Holbrooke "values his close and productive relationship with General McChrystal."

A spokesman said Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen told McChrystal of his "deep disappointment" over the article.

In the article, McChrystal complains that Obama handed him "an unsellable position" on the war, back when the commander was pressing for more troops than the administration was then prepared to send. "I found that time painful," he said.

McChrystal also said he was "betrayed" by Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, the man the White House chose to be his diplomatic partner in Afghanistan. He accused Eikenberry of raising doubts about the reliability of Afghan President Hamid Karzai only to give himself cover in case the U.S. effort failed.

"Here's one that covers his flank for the history books," McChrystal told the magazine. "Now, if we fail, they can say 'I told you so.'"

In Kabul on Tuesday, McChrystal issued a statement saying: "I have enormous respect and admiration for President Obama and his national security team, and for the civilian leaders and troops fighting this war and I remain committed to ensuring its successful outcome."

"I extend my sincerest apology for this profile," the statement said. "It was a mistake reflecting poor judgment and should never have happened."

Mullen talked with McChrystal about the article Monday night, Capt. John Kirby, Mullen's spokesman said. In a 10-minute conversation, the chairman "expressed his deep disappointment in the piece and the comments" in it, Kirby said.

The Wednesday meeting at the White House was one of Obama's regular sessions on the Afghanistan war, which McChrystal and others in Afghanistan usually attend via videoconference. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Gates are among those who regularly attend the Situation Room meetings in person.

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., chairman of Senate Foreign Relations Committee, called for all involved to "stay cool and calm" and not the let situation interfere with the mission in Afghanistan.

He said he had "enormous respect" for the general and had spoken to McChrystal on Tuesday morning and "emphasized to him that I think, obviously, those are comments that he is going to have to deal with with respect to the commander in chief, the vice president and his national security staff."

General McChrystal's Rolling Stone Interview A 'Significant Mistake,' Gates Says

[Lady Macbeth]

Here are the latest developments involving Gen. Stanley McChrystal, America's top commander in Afghanistan.

He and his staff made comments in a Rolling Stone article that appear to mock top civilian officials, including Vice President Joe Biden. The story, which is to appear in Friday's edition, was written by Michael Hastings.

[Updated at 4:41 p.m.] Gen. Stanley McChrystal has submitted his resignation, Time magazine's Joe Klein told CNN, citing an unnamed source. CNN is working to confirm Klein's information.

[Updated at 3:50 p.m.] Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-North Dakota, a member of the Senate Democratic leadership, called for McChrystal to step down, telling CNN that the remarks in Rolling Stone were "unbelievably inappropriate and just
can't be allowed to stand."

[Updated at 3:30 p.m.] Gen. Stanley McChrystal and his staff "became aware" that the Rolling Stone story would be controversial before it was published, story author Michael Hastings told CNN Tuesday.

I "got word from (McChrystal's) staff ... that there was some concern" about possible fallout from the story, Hastings
said.

Hastings noted that there was "a lot" of material from the interviews with McChrystal that he didn't use in the article.

[Updated at 1:41 p.m.] Waheed Omar, spokesman for Afghan President Hamid Karzai, said U.S. Gen. Stanley McChrystal is the best commander for the war in Afghanistan and hopes Obama does not replace him. Karzai and his team believe McChrystal is a man of strong integrity who has a strong understanding of the Afghan people and their culture, Omar said.

[Updated at 1:25 p.m.] President Barack Obama was "angry" after seeing the upcoming controversial magazine article about Gen. Stanley McChrystal, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Tuesday.

"I gave him the article last night," Gibbs said at the daily White House news briefing. "He was angry."

Earlier, Gibbs described the "magnitude and graveness" of mistakes by McChrystal in the article as "profound."

[Updated at 1:10 p.m.] White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Tuesday that Gen. Stanley McChrystal will have President Barack Obama's "undivided attention" on Wednesday when the two meet in person. "The president looks forward to speaking with him tomorrow about what's in the (Rolling Stone) article," Gibbs said.

[Updated at 1:09 p.m.] White House press secretary Robert Gibbs refused Tuesday to say what President Barack Obama's reaction was to the story about Gen. Stanley McChrystal in Rolling Stone. But he noted that McChrystal had been recalled to Washington in part to explain his actions.

"Suffice it to say, our combatant commander does not usually participate in (Afghanistan war planning) meetings from Washington," Gibbs said. Obama will speak to McChrystal about his comments.

"We'll have more to say after that meeting," Gibbs said. [Updated at 1:01 p.m.] Senate Armed Services Committee chairman Carl Levin, D-Michigan, said Tuesday that Gen. Stanley McChrystal's remarks will have "a negative effect on policy implementation" in Afghanistan. Levin said he didn't know if McChrystal would be able to keep his job.

[Updated at 12:12 p.m.] Defense Secretary Robert Gates released the following statement on McChrystal's comments:

"I read with concern the profile piece on Gen. Stanley McChrystal in the upcoming edition of ‘Rolling Stone’ magazine. I believe that Gen. McChrystal made a significant mistake and exercised poor judgment in this case. We are fighting a war against al Qaeda and its extremist allies, who directly threaten the United States, Afghanistan, and our friends and allies around the world. Going forward, we must pursue this mission with a unity of purpose. Our troops and coalition partners are making extraordinary sacrifices on behalf of our security, and our singular focus must be on supporting them and succeeding in Afghanistan without such distractions. Gen. McChrystal has apologized to me and is similarly reaching out to others named in this article to apologize to them as well. I have recalled Gen. McChrystal to Washington to discuss this in person."


[Updated at 11:46 a.m.] U.S. Senators John McCain (R-Arizona), Joe Lieberman (I-Connecticut), and Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) issued the following statement regarding General McChrystal's comments in Rolling Stone:

“We have the highest respect for General McChrystal and honor his brave service and sacrifice to our nation. General McChrystal’s comments, as reported in Rolling Stone, are inappropriate and inconsistent with the traditional relationship between Commander-in-Chief and the military. The decision concerning General McChrystal’s future is a decision to be made by the President of the United States.”

[Updated at 10:46 a.m.] Rolling Stone Executive Editor Eric Bates told CNN Tuesday that comments made by Gen. Stanley McChrystal and other top military aides to writer Michael Hastings in Afghanistan were "not off the cuff remarks."

"They gave us a lot of access," Bates said. "We fact-checked it thoroughly. ... They knew what they were doing when they granted the access and the interview."

Bates said the story shows "a deep division" and "a war within the administration" over strategy in Afghanistan. It's "hard to see how we can win a war when we're divided ourselves," he said.

[Updated at 10:13 a.m.] Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry, D-Massachusetts, weighed in Tuesday on the controversy surrounding Gen. Stanley McChrystal, saying that his "impression is that all of us would be best served by just backing off and staying cool and calm and not sort of succumbing to the normal Washington twitter about this for the next 24 hours."

McChrystal is "a terrific soldier," Kerry said at the start of a committee hearing. But "it will be up to the president of the United States, as commander in chief" to decide how to respond.

"The priorities of (the Afghanistan) mission are best served by letting the president and his commanders make a determination as to how we move forward," Kerry added.

McChrystal, America's top military commander in Afghanistan, has been recalled to Washington amid his controversial remarks about colleagues and civilian authorities in a Rolling Stone magazine article.

[Update 9:05 a.m.] An official at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul said Ambassador Karl Eikenberry and McChrystal "are both fully committed" to President Obama's Afghan strategy and are working together to implement the plan. The official said, "We have seen the article and Gen. McChrystal has already spoken to it."

[Update 8:28 a.m.] A U.S. military official confirms to CNN that Gen. Stanley McChrystal has now spoken to: Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen, U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, Special Representative Richard Holbrooke, National Security Adviser Jim Jones and Vice President Joe Biden.

Remarks about Biden

McChrystal and his staff had imagined ways of dismissing Vice President Joe Biden with a one-liner as they prepared for a questions-and-answer session in Paris, France, in April.

He had grown tired of questions about Biden since earlier dismissing a counterterrorism strategy the vice president had offered.

"Are you asking about Vice President Biden? Biden?" McChrystal says with a laugh. "Who's that?" Hastings writes.

"Biden?" suggests a top adviser. "Did you say, 'Bite Me?' "

Comments about other top officials

The article paints McChrystal as a man who "has managed to piss off almost everyone with a stake" in the Afghan conflict, including U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, Special Representative to Afghanistan Richard Holbrooke and National Security Adviser Jim Jones.

Of Eikenberry, who railed against McChrystal's strategy in Afghanistan in a cable leaked to The New York Times in January, the general said, "Here's one that covers his flank for the history books. Now if we fail, they can say, 'I told you so.' "

McChrystal has a "special skepticism" for Holbrooke, the official in charge of reintegrating Taliban members into Afghan society, Hastings writes.

"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 his annoyance."

"'Make sure you don't get any of that on your leg,' an aide jokes, referring to the e-mail."

The fallout

McChrystal extends his "sincerest apology for this profile," saying it was a "mistake reflecting poor judgment and should never have happened."

"I have enormous respect and admiration for President Obama and his national security team, and for the civilian leaders and troops fighting this war and I remain committed to ensuring its successful outcome," he said.

McChrystal said he's "lived by the principles of personal honor and professional integrity" throughout his career and that "what is reflected in this article falls far short of that standard."

McChrystal was recalled to Washington to attend a meeting on Afghanistan and Pakistan in person rather than by video conference on Wednesday to explain his remarks to Obama and Pentagon officials, administration officials said.

McChrystal has fired a press aide because of the Rolling Stone article, two defense officials told CNN Tuesday morning

Gen. Stanley McChrystal: Latest developments – This Just In - CNN.com Blogs

[Lady Macbeth]

Olbermann on the self-destruction of McChrystal
President Obama shouldn't accept a resignation from the general

YouTube

YouTube

By Keith Olbermann
Anchor, 'Countdown'
msnbc.com
updated 9:24 p.m. ET June 22, 2010
Finally tonight as promised a Special Comment on the self-destruction of General Stanley McChrystal.

"We have the highest respect for General McChrystal and honor his brave service and sacrifice to our nation. General McChrystal's comments, as reported in Rolling Stone, are inappropriate and inconsistent with the traditional relationship between Commander-in-Chief and the military."

Senators Lindsey Graham, Joe Lieberman, and John McCain. They left out the far greater truth — that the comments are inappropriate and inconsistent with the traditional relationship between military and civilian authority and are thus intolerable.

We can honor his service, the way we honor the service of General Curtis LeMay, or the way we honor the service of General Douglas MacArthur — forever blemished, forever compromised, forever instructive that how ever much credit each heroic soldier deserves, he and his comrades are not the masters of this country, but its employees.

It is the fundamental tenet on which this nation rests; it is what has kept us from any serious dalliance with a militaristic government in all our long history; it is the simple balanced poetry that has saved us from the threat of military overthrow and dictatorship for 234 years while nearly all the other great nations of the world, from Germany to Japan, have succumbed to it.

And what happens next should be no surprise to anybody: General McChrystal will walk into the White House tomorrow and offer his resignation, not just from his leadership position in Afghanistan, but from military service itself.

And that, Mr. President, is when you should thank him for that service. And you should thank him for whatever admission he makes about the chain of command. And that is when, Sir —presuming he recognizes his rank stupidity and his erasure of that inviolable line between the military and the civilian — you should say you are heartened that he realizes the depth and breadth of his idiocy.

And that is when, Sir, you should take General McChrystal's resignation, and fold it up, and put it in your top drawer, and tell him that that is where it will remain, and that as of now you are not accepting it. Correct.

He tenders his resignation. You tell him to get back to Afghanistan because he's not getting out of this morass he helped create, and tell him to make sure we get the surge troops withdrawn on time or faster if he can. And then, Sir, you sit back and watch the political world's collective jaw drop.

This would not be mere contrariness, nor even the satisfying destabilization of the entire political climate — although those would be fun, too. Consider the last Administration. Let's look at the list alphabetically.

General John Abizaid of CentCom. Expressed public skepticism about the Bush surge in Iraq. Replaced. General George Casey, Iraq. Expressed public skepticism about the Bush surge in Iraq. Replaced. Admiral William Fallon, ex-head of CentCom. Told Esquire Magazine we should not use force against Irahn. Retired by Mr. Bush.

Dr. Larry Lindsey, director of the National Economic Council. Told Mr. Rumsfeld estimated that war in Iraq would cost 60 billion dollars. He said, no, $200 billion. Rumsfeld called that "baloney." Lindsey was fired. It was "baloney" — it cost three trillion dollars.

General Eric Shinsecki, Army Chief of Staff. Warned that the Rumsfeld troop estimates were disastrously low, hundreds of thousands would be needed for occupation. "Villified, then marginalized" by Bush.

General Anthony Zinni, Marines, Retired, Middle East Envoy. Said that the President had far more pressing foreign policy priorities to face than Iraq, and that the trouble would start in Iraq after the war itself ended. Not reappointed.

Remember, this, from the previous President whose empty, but lovely-sounding catchphrase, was 'I listen to the commanders on the ground.' It was true. He did listen. And then he fired all the ones who dared to tell him the truth.

It cannot be argued that General McChrystal has said anything as controversial, as jarring, as upsetting to the status quo, as any of the men Bush ignored, and in ignoring, led to the deaths of Americans, and to the wasting of money and international goodwill. McChrystal made, to be blunt about it, a fool out of himself. He called a lot of people names. He has previously been involved in the leak of his own complaints demanding more troops and faster decisions in Afghanistan.

And most heinously — and this is the toughest part of this pill to swallow — he was the facilitator in the cover-up of the friendly fire death of Pat Tillman. It is difficult to bypass an opportunity for retribution against such a man. But more opportunities for that will come in time.

It is not McChrystal that matters right now. It is doubtful he is an irreplacable general officer. It is doubtful he will influence Afghanistan much one way or the other — that mistake has been made already by this military and this President.

But Mr. President, consider the after-math of McChrystal's resignation or firing. If, in the America of 1951, the dismissal of General Douglas MacArthur, a strutting peacock of a soldier with a corncob pipe and a messianic complex, could turn the politics of the time on its head because Harry Truman had had the temerity to fire him after he said we should use nukes against the Chinese and create an impassible radioactive zone in the Far East.

If that happened then what exactly will the ouster of General McChrystal provoke, in our stupid, under-informed, constantly propagandized America of 2010? Who will be the first to identify McChrystal as a martyr to the evil Obama Administration? How many Americans, still looking for a rationalization to justify their rage at a Democratic president, or a black one, or an intelligent one, will have new fuel to feed their blind hatred?

Keep him, Mr. President. will not merely neuter the political blowback, you will present a front of force, and calm, and intelligence, and a willingness to, dare I use the phrase Sir — a willingness to listen to the Commanders on the ground, even when they shoot off their big brass-covered bazoos.

You can own him, Mr. President, and own the political aftermath, now pregnant with opportunities for your critics. The General can be your voice to speed up the de-escalation. My goodness, he could be your mouthpiece if you suddenly saw the morass for what it is and decided to declare victory and get the hell out now. Who would fight you on that, Sir?

You would be the President who defended General McChrystal after he humiliated himself. You would be the leader sensitive to the military, and its needs, and its failures, and its pressures.

President Obama has pushed the Abraham Lincoln thing from the day he declared his candidacy. It may serve him well tonight to consider the third of the eight generals Lincoln employed to run the Union Army during the Civil War. After the Antietam disaster, Mr. Lincoln cashiered General McClellan — "Young Napoleon" — and promoted John Pope of Illinois. His advisors were horrified.

Pope, as Shelby Foote recalled in Ken Burns's documentary, was a liar and a braggart. Yes, said Lincoln. In fact I knew his family back in Illinois. All the Popes were liars and braggarts. I see no particular reason why a liar and a braggart shouldn't make a good general. Pope did not win the Civil War, but in appointing him, Lincoln made it plain that what he needed from his Generals was usefulness, not etiquette.

And which is more useful to this President and this nation right now? A martyred ex-General, around which an irresponsible and potentially dangerous opposition can coalesce? Or a spared and humbled General, surely no worse than any potential replacement, whose retention can recalculate the political formula... without a drop of blood, or a drop of teers, being shed?
Olbermann on the self-destruction of McChrystal - Countdown with Keith Olbermann- msnbc.com

[Araz]

Well Rolling stones Magazine will make a bundle out of it.Poor Mc chrystal, i thought he was one of the more responsive generals from the Pak point of view.
Araz

[Lady Macbeth]

Originally Posted by Araz

Well Rolling stones Magazine will make a bundle out of it.Poor Mc chrystal, i thought he was one of the more responsive generals from the Pak point of view.
Araz

Being insubordinate has a price to pay.....Law of the world = 'what you reap is what you sow'.

McChrystal has to be accountable for his actions. (To the firing squad)

[Neo]

After Reconquista failure (Marjah, Qandahar)-McChrystal’s firing was inevitable

June 24, 2010

* President Obama’s decision to fire Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal will create new complications for the troubled U.S. effort
* “There were a set of assumptions underlying the COIN” — counterinsurgency — “strategy, and many of them are proving to be either false or very difficult to achieve,” said a senior U.S. official in Afghanistan, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to candidly discuss war policy.

The set of assumptions tied to the surge strategy was breaking the back of the insurgency, and dealing with the Taliban from a position of strength. This is what Bruce Riedel had called for. Bruce Reidel is one of the worst things that happened to the Afghan war. After initially talking sense, he began the policy of targeted assassinations, bombing Pakistan, allowing Bharat (aka India) free reign in Afghanistan, and surging troops into the “graveyard of empires”. This policy of antagonizing the Pakistanis backfired, and ISAF and NATO lost about 90% of Afghan territory to the insurgents. Bharat was unable to deliver Pakistani acquiescence, and despite complaint leaders, the Pakistanis resisted falling over and playing dead.

Realizing the writing on the wall, President Obama called “Come to Jesus meeting” and reversed course–bringing in the Pakistanis and essentially limiting Bharat to Arts and Crafts activities which involve spending money in Afghanistan, the Obama Administration is working closely with Pakistan for a face saving exit.

President Obama’s decision to fire Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal will create new complications for the troubled U.S. effort to stabilize Afghanistan, but selecting Gen. David H. Petraeus to replace him represents an attempt to minimize disruptions resulting from a change in command.

“The decision to name Petraeus is the least disruptive way of removing McChrystal,” said Bruce Riedel, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and the leader of an Afghan strategy review team for Obama in early 2009. “Petraeus knows the strategy inside and out, he knows the plans — he is as much of an architect of this as General McChrystal.”

But, Riedel added, “it’s still going to be a setback because disruption is inevitable anytime you change a commander.”

By all accounts, Petraeus would not seek to fundamentally transform the war effort — as CentCom commander he signed off on McChrystal’s campaign plan, and he has remained a staunch defender of the counterinsurgency strategy being implemented by the military. It is, after all, drawn heavily on strategic changes he promulgated and then implemented in Iraq during the troop surge there.

.. Petraeus will nonetheless face a set of challenges that appear even more difficult than what he encountered when he assumed command of the foundering Iraq war.

An operation to pacify the onetime insurgent sanctuary of Marja, which was supposed to demonstrate new momentum in the fight, is taking longer — and proving bloodier — than expected. An upcoming mission to improve security in Kandahar, the country’s second-largest city, has been delayed and scaled back because of opposition from Afghan leaders, including Karzai. And efforts to get the Afghan government to take more responsibility for helping its population have faltered.

“There were a set of assumptions underlying the COIN” — counterinsurgency — “strategy, and many of them are proving to be either false or very difficult to achieve,” said a senior U.S. official in Afghanistan, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to candidly discuss war policy.

Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee last week, Petraeus insisted that the strategy was starting to demonstrate results in Afghanistan. He argued that “the conduct of a counterinsurgency operation is a roller-coaster experience. . . . This is an up-and-down process. And that defines the experience of counterinsurgency, where there’s no hill that you can take and plant the flag and then go home to a victory parade. Rather, progress is almost the absence of something.”

It is essential, he said, “that people do realize there has been progress, but there clearly have also been setbacks.” By Rajiv Chandrasekaran and Karen DeYoung, Washington Post Staff Writer, Wednesday, June 23, 2010; 4:52 PM

General McChrystal is the odd man out in the new strategy of reconciliation, pan-Afghan solutions, and cooperation with Pakistan. General McChrystal was brought in to duplicate targeted assassinations, murder and mayhem–a la Honduras, Cambodia, Nicaragua and Chile. Those policies worked to take over Panama, but failed to quell the violence in Afghanistan–and failed to retake the territory lost to the insurgents. General McChrystal conti9nued to work with the RAW agents in the Afghan Intelligence Agencies, and continue to sabotage Pakistan. He refused to work with VP Biden, Ambassador (General) Eikenberry and Ambassador Holbrooke. Egged on by the Retired General turned Ambassador, Eikenberry Mr. Hamid Karzai kept him on board as long as he kept Karzai do what Karzai likes best–make money. Events show that the Karzai-McChrystal relationship was fraying beyond repair. In other words like Genera Macarthur, General McChrystal had outlived his utility. General Patraeus harbors presidential ambitions. President Obama wants to be 2nd term president. Both fates are tied to the war in Afghanistan. Both want a face saving exit that can be declared a victory.

With the elimination of the RAW agents in the Afghan Intelligence services, and Mr. Karzai losing faith in the US war effort, McChrystal was increasingly isolated on the Afghan front. Mr. Karzai had begun to put all his eggs in the Pakistani basket and had started building alliances with the very same people that General McChrystal was fighting during the day.

In a understatement of the year, Rajiv Chandrasekaran and Karen DeYoung of the Washington Post seem to be saying that the task for the US forces has become more difficult. They either don’t have a clue on how bad the situation is in Afghanistan, or the Editors of the Washington Post tell them that they cannot report the reality. Afghanistan is lost and cannot be reconquered. The British and Europeans are going to leave soon. A rump US presence will lose all legitamacy and Bharat cannot bail the US out. Pakistan can, but for a price.

After Reconquista failure (Marjah, Qandahar)-McChrystal’s firing was inevitable

[Neo]

Viewpoint: Why the general ran away

SAIDA FAZAL

ARTICLE (July 01 2010): It was obvious that the top US General in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, would not retain his position after "Rolling Stone" magazine published an interview article in which he and his aides openly made disparaging remarks against the Obama administration, from the president down to vice president Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Special Representative to Afghanistan Richard Holbrook, and National Security adviser General Jim Jones (Retd).

Even before Obama announced he had fired the general because his "conduct represented in the recently published article does not meet the standard that should be set by a commanding general" the media had begun predicting his ouster. His remarks were simply too offensive to let go by. The "wimps in the White House", as the article described the president and his men", had to show they were strong and the President as commander in-chief was in control and ready to assert his authority.

Like Obama noted in his dismissal speech, General McChrystal had helped design the US' new Afghan strategy, hence there were no policy differences that could have created a sense of frustration, and consequently criticism of the way the administration handled the war. Also, open dissent and defiance has little place in military culture, to which unquestioned obedience is integral. It would not be wrong, therefore, to assume that a general of McChrystal's standing and experience must have expected what he got.

Putting it in another way, he planned his own ouster. Why? The "Rolling Stone" article remarks that "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." It is no secret that the experiment is fast hurtling towards failure.

Soon after he took over a year ago, McChrystal had put in a request for 40,000 strong troop reinforcements - the Americans like to use the word 'surge' to make it look like an operational exigency rather than a sign of the enemy gaining an upper hand. Obama agreed to send in 30,000 troops, about as many as the general wanted. Still, from the US perspective, the situation has kept getting from bad to worse. The reinforcements sent to Afghanistan on McChrystal's request have failed to achieve the desired results. In fact, most of the country has fallen under the Taliban control. The Marja offensive, launched in February, is not getting anywhere. "Rolling Stone" quotes McChrystal himself referring to Marja as a "bleeding ulcer." The much trumpeted plan to start military operation in Kandahar, the Taliban stronghold, has been postponed until fall. In the meantime, the war in Afghanistan has crossed an important milestone, becoming the US' longest war since Vietnam.

The US can manage this war for a little longer, but there is no way it can overwhelm the Taliban with military force. What it badly needs is a face-saving exit, something like Iraq where the 'mission' was never accomplished yet the Americans have been able to extricate themselves from the day-to-day fighting and declare success, even naming General David Petraeus, CentCom chief and commanding general in Iraq during the Iraq 'surge', a war hero. It is another matter though that the country lies utterly devastated and bloody violence continues to claim Iraqi lives.

Needless to say, no two situations are exactly alike. Success in Afghanistan would be different from what the US calls success in Iraq. A complicated plan for a negotiated settlement has been under way for a while. As part of that plan, Afghanistan's puppet President Hamid Karzai announced, at the London Conference, earlier this year a "big new programme" of reintegration and reconciliation. It aims at winning over the Taliban foot soldiers with the lure of jobs while a reconciliation proposal is directed at the leaders.

To lend the plan legitimacy, Karzai and Washington are working under a pretense to create the impression that Karzai has started overriding American objections to make peace with the Taliban. As part of the pretense, Washington has leaked to the press some reports, including one by its Kabul Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, in which Karzai is criticised for acting against the US policy.

Pakistan Army's old connections with the Taliban, especially the powerful Haqqani Network and Gulbadin Hikmatyar group, have come in handy to push for a negotiated settlement. A few days ago, COAS General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani visited Kabul along with ISI chief Lieutenant General Shuja Pasha to facilitate negotiations with the Taliban. Some reports say they had taken along Sirajjudin Haqqani to have him meet with Karzai. General Kayani is also reported to have offered to bring Mullah Umar on board.

Washington, of course, will own the process when it sees the results. It is said to be sceptical. Some of the sceptisim is not entirely misplaced, considering that Haqqani is believed to have been closely associated with al Qaeda, getting both financial and training help from it. Yet when Holbrook was recently asked about the possibility of including the Haqqanis in a future Kabul government set-up, he gave an unenthusiastic response, but did not rule out the possibility, either.

Reports suggest that the Taliban are willing to part ways with al Qaeda. But they are unlikely to hand over Osama and his deputy Ayman al Zwahiri to the Americans, especially now that they are negotiating from a position of strength. But getting rid of al Qaeda's violent ideological agenda is, and should be, the objective of not only the Americans but all sane people in our part of the world as well.

It is hard to predict how exactly the Afghan war will end, but one thing is certain: it will not end in anything resembling victory for the US. This is the considered opinion of even those involved, such as McChrysal's chief of operations, Major General Bill Mayville, who told "Rolling Stone": "it's not going to look like a win, smell like a win or taste like a win." Equally telling was his remark, "it is going to end in an argument."

Surely, General McChrystal could also see that, and decided to run away so that he is not remembered as the general who lost America's longest war fighting in what a US official recently described as a "thirteen century" country. But considering his reputation of being a 'brash' and 'reckless' officer, he may not want to fade away like a good general. When the war finishes in an argument, he might jump into the fray to claim respect as a general who was let down by 'the wimps in the White House.' That probably was his thinking when he talked to "Rolling Stone". People outside military though are a lot smarter than a general might think.

Business Recorder [Pakistan's First Financial Daily]