Obama and an Insubordinate General

Published in La Nacion
(Chile) on 25 June 2010
by Raúl Sohr (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Linda Chamiec-Case. Edited by Heidi Kaufmann.
In the U.S., they say that fighting with the Pentagon is the same as fighting with a 300-kilogram gorilla. President Barack Obama just demonstrated up to what point this saying is true. Stanley McChrystal, one of the key generals in charge of 100,000 U.S. soldiers and 40,000 NATO soldiers in Afghanistan, was interviewed by Rolling Stone Magazine. In the interview, he regarded key government players as clowns, in addition to other epithets. Strictly speaking, no public official — in any country — stays in power after such nonsense.

Despite this, McChrystal wasn’t lacking advocates. Robert M. Gates, the secretary of defense, said that at the moment it would be very bad for the delicate Afghan campaign to lose the author of the applied strategy. It was, in any case, Gates who proposed that McChrystal oust Gen. David D. McKiernan, who had only one year in office. In the Republican opposition, and even among the Democrats, people advised ignoring the insults of the uniformed.

McChrystal is a classic military man that complies but doesn’t always carry through with everything he’s supposed to. He had barely taken the job when he demanded a substantial reinforcement of forces. He even threatened to resign if his demands weren’t met. Then he resorted to the usual leaks of classified documents to the press. In the end, he got what he wanted: The government agreed to send 30,000 more men. In any case, the tactics bordering on insubordination did not go unnoticed.

But this time Obama decided to call for his resignation and stated that the challenged article eroded the trust and "undermines the civilian control of the military that is at the core of our democratic system." The president got out of a tight spot with the astute tactic of appointing as McChrystal’s successor General David Petraeus, who has broad support across the political spectrum and also has thorough knowledge of the Afghan situation. Petraeus also helped design the strategy to launch the departure of U.S. troops from Iraq.

The row between civilians and the U.S. military officials expresses the growing frustration with a war that is now in its ninth year. The number of deaths of American soldiers is an indicator of the difficulties: In 2001, the year of the invasion, 12 troops were killed; in 2008, 295; in 2009, 521; and thus far this year, 296 have died. In total 1,133 Americans and 731 soldiers of other nationalities have died.*

Afghanistan has not succeeded in establishing a stable and legitimate government. Afghan President Hamid Karzai is questioned by many observers of the international community. The British, who have lost 307 men, have illustrated through its officers’ statements that this is a war that cannot be won by military force, something that Washington admitted the moment that Karzai was given the green light to negotiate with some enemy Taliban factions. In fact, the war in Afghanistan is already destabilizing a large area of Pakistan. Western commanders refer to the conflict as AfPak, joining the names of the two countries.

The Taliban, which is one of the most reactionary groups in the world, oversimplify sins that come from their religious fundamentalism. They claim that their agenda is fighting for good against evil. About this situation, their spokesman Yousuf Ahmadi said: “We don't care whether it's McChrystal or Petraeus. Our position is clear. We'll be fighting the invading forces until they leave.”

Perhaps it is time for Washington and NATO to do more than change the leadership. After nearly a decade of fruitless struggle, the strategy should be revised.

* Editor’s note: The yearly totals of casualties listed are in reference to coalition casualties, including U.S. The figures listed in the article do not add up to the total as stated.


En Estados Unidos se dice que lidiar con el Pentágono equivale a pelear con un gorila de 300 kilos. El Presidente Barack Obama acaba de experimentar hasta qué punto el dicho es cierto. Stanley McChrystal, uno de sus generales clave a cargo de los 100 mil soldados estadounidenses y 40 mil de países de la OTAN en Afganistán, dio una entrevista a la revista Rolling Stone. En ella trata a integrantes del gobierno de payasos, amén de otros epítetos. En rigor, ningún funcionario público, en cualquier país, sobrevive en el cargo luego de semejantes despropósitos.

Pese a ello, a McChrystal no le faltaron abogados. Robert M. Gates, el secretario de Defensa, señaló que en estos momentos sería pernicioso para la delicada campaña afgana perder al autor de la estrategia aplicada. Fue, en todo caso, Gates quien propuso a McChrystal desbancando al general David D. McKiernan, que llevaba sólo un año en el cargo. En la oposición republicana, e incluso entre los demócratas, se alzaron voces que aconsejaban pasar por alto los insultos del uniformado.

McChrystal es un clásico militar que aplica la máxima de acatar pero no cumplir. Apenas asumió el puesto, exigió un refuerzo sustantivo de efectivos. Incluso amenazó con renunciar si no obtenía su exigencia. Luego recurrió a las consabidas filtraciones de documentos reservados a la prensa. En definitiva logró lo que quería: el gobierno accedió a enviar 30 mil hombres más. En todo caso las tácticas que bordeaban la insubordinación no pasaron inadvertidas.

Y esta vez Obama optó por exigirle la renuncia y puntualizó que el cuestionado artículo erosionaba la confianza y “minaba el control civil sobre los militares que está en el centro del sistema democrático”. El Presidente salió del brete con astucia al nombrar como sucesor al general David Petraeus, que cuenta con vasto apoyo en todo el espectro político, además de conocer bien la situación afgana. Petraeus contribuyó además a diseñar la estrategia para iniciar la salida de las tropas norteamericanas de Irak.

Las rencillas entre funcionarios civiles y militares estadounidenses expresan la creciente frustración ante una guerra que ya está en su noveno año. Las cifras de muertes de soldados norteamericanos son un indicador de las dificultades: en 2001, el año de la invasión, murieron 12 efectivos; en 2008, 295; en 2009, 521 y en lo que va corrido de este año ya han muerto 296. En total, han muerto mil 133 estadounidenses y 731 soldados de otras nacionalidades.

Afganistán no ha conseguido establecer un gobierno estable y legítimo. El Presidente afgano, Hamid Karzai, es cuestionado por muchos observadores de la comunidad internacional. Los británicos, que han perdido 307 hombres, han señalado por la boca de sus mandos que es una guerra que no pueden ganar por medio de la fuerza militar. Algo que Washington admite desde el momento que ha dado luz verde a Karzai para que negocie con algunas facciones de sus enemigos talibanes. En realidad la guerra en Afganistán ya desestabiliza una vasta zona de Pakistán. Ello al punto de que los mandos occidentales aluden al conflicto como Afpak, amalgamando a ambos países.

En lo que toca a los talibanes, que constituyen una de las agrupaciones más retrógradas del mundo, pecan del simplismo que brota de su fundamentalismo religioso. En su programa postulan que están en favor del bien y en contra del mal. En cuanto a la coyuntura, su vocero Yousuf Ahmadi declaró: “No nos importa si es McChrystal o Petraeus. Nuestra posición es clara. Lucharemos hasta que las fuerzas invasoras se vayan”. Quizás ha llegado la hora para que Washington y la OTAN no sólo cambien los mandos. Después de casi una década de lucha infructuosa convendría revisar la estrategia.
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Indonesia: Trump’s Chaos Strategy Is Hurting His Allies, Not Just His Rivals

Turkey: Musk versus the Machine: Disrupting the 2-Party System

Germany: Musk Helps the Democrats

Indonesia: Trump Needs a Copy Editor

Canada: Trump Doesn’t Hold All the Cards on International Trade

Topics

Japan: The Role of a Diplomatic Attitude To Maintain the International Order

Russia: The Third Party Idea as a Growing Trend*

Germany: Trump’s Tariffs: China Acts, Europe Reacts

Germany: Trump Is Capable of Learning

Germany: Nerve-Wracking Back and Forth

Indonesia: Trump Needs a Copy Editor

Indonesia: Trump’s Chaos Strategy Is Hurting His Allies, Not Just His Rivals

Sri Lanka: Epstein Files, Mossad and Kompromat Diplomacy

Related Articles

Chile: (Fictional) Female US Presidents We Remember

China: There Should Be No More Monroe Doctrine in the Americas

Chile : An Indicted Former President

U.K.: The Guardian View on the Other 9/11: Pinochet’s Dictatorship Casts a Lengthening Shadow

Pakistan: Killing Democracy

1 COMMENT

  1. Regardless of McChrystal’s military capabilities, or his penchant for political posturing, he committed an offense that every American soldier is entirely aware is out of bounds…he denigrated the Commander & Chief, and did so publicly.

    When you’re discharged from the military, you may say anything you want, whenever you want, and to whomever you want, about the president.

    But when you sign up to serve in uniform, you have willingly given up that right, for the duration of your service.

    McChrystal was well aware of this, but decided to violate it anyway. His being “asked” to step down was entirely warranted.