First The General, Now The War

There is a quote that I once heard that says something to the effect of "have mercy on the man whose wisdom brings him no comfort. In other words, sometimes it sucks to be right.

Take for instance 9/11. I think most Americans were solidly behind then President Bush when we went after the Taliban in Afghanistan. They clearly provided support and a safe haven to Al-Qaeda, who did indeed bring down the World Trade Center. It made perfect sense. And while there was less consensus around bombing Iraq, most people (politicians included) went along with the mission.

I had no problem backing the former, but when it came to Iraq my B.S. detector went off like a four alarm fire. The arguments for going to war just weren't convincing. All the professed certainty around Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction" capacity seemed overblown and too much of a hard sell. It was as if they were trying to convince themselves--as much as us--that Iraq represented a clear and present danger to our national security. Plus, the claimed connection between Saddam and Al-Qaeda was even more dubious. Bin Laden had no love for secular rulers such as Saddam Hussein. On the contrary, Bin Laden--ever the fundamentalist--hated Hussein for not ruling Iraq with an Islamic iron fist. Throw in the younger Bush's desire to get out from under his father's shadow and finish what Papa Bush started with Operation Desert Storm in 1990, and it just felt like we were looking for an ass to kick.

Defeating the Taliban in Afghanistan was relatively easy...at first. But because of Al-Qaeda's decentralized organization style, it was difficult if not impossible to say we won the war on terror. So, we needed a straw man. Everybody hated Saddam Hussein. Americans knew who he was and the axis of idiocy that was Bush, Rumsfeld, and Cheney knew we could get him. It was tangible and quantifiable. It was also incredibly foolish. By taking our eye off of Afghanistan and attacking a country that did not attack us, had no WMD's, and no relationship to Al-Qaeda or the Taliban, we allowed ourselves to get mired in the nation building effort that stemmed from the execrable "Shock and Awe" campaign while Afghanistan remained unfinished and undernourished.

Still, when we started dropping bombs on the heads of the Iraqi's, I desperately hoped I was wrong. What good would being right do? To expend so much national treasure and end so many soldiers lives for a lie? Who would want that? And yes, I know that thanks to the genius of General Petraeus that this pig has a lot more lipstick on it than anyone could have ever expected. But at what cost? Now that we have propped up their government and the surge has created a relative level of security, do we really have a long term partner that we can count on as an ally? The current Prime Minister, Nuri al-Maliki is challenging the democratic election from March of this year in an effort to maintain his position. Despite a recount that confirmed the results that his opponent's party did indeed win out, al-Maliki is still trying to retain power. Not to sound fatalist, but civil wars have been started over less.

However, compared to the state that Afghanistan was left in by the Bush administration, Iraq is a certifiable bastion of democracy. After helping to ensure a democratic election in 2004, we watched as Hamid Karzai won a clear mandate from his people. So far, so good, right? Wrong. Karzai's government is chock full of corruption and incompetence. He has proven unable to coalesce his own security forces to protect his people. He continually makes statements that not only undercut our government but bring into question his own sanity.

Here are just two:

--"I don't think Osama is a Muslim. I don't think Osama is a human being."

--"if I come under foreign pressure, I might join the Taliban."

Nice.

As well, the 2009 Afghan elections were characterized as fraudulent. With widespread security issues that depressed voter turnout and allegations of ballot stuffing and voter intimidation. Guess who all those criticisms were aimed at? Yep, our own Mr. Karzai. Hell, his own brother, Ahmed--who is the representative of the southern Afghanistan region--is a noted drug lord. And this is what we have to work with after nine years?

Into this Bush-provided horse apple stepped our current President, Barack Obama. During his election campaign, then Senator Obama made it clear that he would draw down in Iraq and ramp up in Afghanistan. I was totally with him on the first point, but unsure on the second. As before, I hoped to be wrong.

One of the first decisions Obama made regarding Afghanistan was to honor a troop request that had sat on Bush's desk for nearly eight months. On June 10, 2009 the senate approved General Stanley McChrystal to take command of the effort in Afghanistan. Originally, McChrystal looked like a good choice. He knew the Middle East well, was considered a very sharp tactical mind, and was known for giving honest assessments to his superiors. Unfortunately, it didn't take long for it all to go pear shaped.

The one black mark on McChrystal's career was his role in the friendly fire death of former NFL star turned Army Ranger, Pat Tillman in Afghanistan. McChrystal was informed prior to putting in the paperwork for Tillman's Silver Star that the former Arizona Cardinal defensive back had died of fratricide. However, McChrystal's report made no mention of this and Tillman was awarded the Silver Star posthumously. While you could look at this situation as McChrystal attempting to honor Tillman's sacrifice, the inherent dishonesty of the whole endeavor points to a certain "moral flexibility" that should have been a greater concern to the Obama administration.

However, the embarrassment of falsifying Tillman's military record wasn't the last time that McChrystal would get himself in trouble. After making a troop request of 40,000 to the President, McChrystal went on the record as saying that he "could not support" a plan put forward by Vice President Biden that would have limited our engagement in Afghanistan to 1) Protecting the capital, 2) Securing their borders, and 3) Performing targeted anti-terror operations. In the end, Obama made it clear to the General that this kind of "talking out of school" was unacceptable, while also giving McChrytal 30,000 more troops.

Then came the article in the latest RollingStone Magazine (what were they thinking giving unfettered access to a hippie mag!) "The Runaway General." In this piece, McChrystal described Obama as "intimidated" and unengaged. He made jokes with his closest staff about Biden, referring to him as "Bite Me." He referred to National Security Advisor, Jim Jones, as a "clown," and also took shots at US Ambassador to Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry, and Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke. This breach of decorum put into question the entire war effort. It belittled the civilian leadership of the military and exposed a complete lack of respect by McChrystal and his staff. Some of this stuff is so sophomoric that you actually want to see the birth certificates of those involved. I mean, how long have they been out of high school?

By most accounts, McChrystal has gotten nearly everything he has ever asked for from the President and now he was undermining not only the nation's efforts, but his own. And shouldn't they have been one and the same?

The next decision by the President was probably painful, but clearly necessary. He fired McChrystal. Yeah, I know in the record books it's going to be called a resignation, but we all no better. While there were some that said firing McChrystal would have a negative impact on the war effort in Afghanistan, what would have keeping him in place done? You simply can't have an insubordinate General heading up something as important as the future security of an entire foreign nation as well as our own.

The next move by Obama was a political masterstroke. He essentially talked General David Petraeus into taking a demotion and cleaning up McChrystal's mess. While there is no doubting the brilliance of General Petraeus, there is plenty of reason to doubt this war effort all together.

We clearly do not have an honest partner in Karzai. We are losing soldiers at increasingly higher rates. There seems to be no date certain when the Afghan's will be able to man their own security force. It's costing us a fortune. And there is no clear sense of when this will turn around. From Alexander The Great to the vaunted Soviet Union, Afghanistan is the place where great foreign powers go to die. Due in large part to an unmanageable terrain and an extremely backward culture where 3/4 of the population can't read and whose greatest export is opium, Afghanistan has proven time and time again that it can't be won. At a time when when republicans in congress have filibustered a bill that would extend unemployment benefits to our own citizenry, we seem to have a bottomless supply of cash for this boondoggle. We need to extricate ourselves, and right soon.

Now I know this week when Obama announced that Petraeus would be taking over for McChrystal he said "This is a change in personnel, not a change in policy." I sincerely hope that was a political statement that covers up a deeper truth. This could present our President with an opportunity to disengage from this God forsaken mess. With new leadership in charge, Obama should order a new assessment of the war effort from Petraeus that will hopefully take us in a new direction. Because after nine years of banging our head against the wall, that plan by "Bite Me," er, Biden sounds pretty damn good right now.

Sumo-Pop
June 25, 2010