Changing of the Guard in Afghanistan

When talking about American Gens. Petraeus and McChrystal, it is natural to notice the significance of their last names.* In a sudden decision from Barack Obama, the former has replaced the latter as commander of the allied troops of 46 nations in Afghanistan.

During his year on the front lines of the war, McChrystal was, no doubt, a candid general. With incorruptible frankness, he often asked soldiers what errors they saw in the politics of their superiors, opened doors to journalists, and did not hesitate to apologize when his troops were discovered to have committed certain abuses. Such sincerity, however, was his undoing. In a moving interview with Rolling Stone magazine he criticized his superiors, making unacceptable jokes about Vice President Joe Biden and showing skepticism about Obama’s politics in the region.

As might have been expected, within a couple of hours he was replaced by Petraeus. But will this general, superior in rank to the ousted McChrystal, be that rugged, harsh, inflexible military man that his name suggests, a man prepared to transform Afghanistan into a devastated nation? History would suggest otherwise. The man who Obama and NATO hope will be able to succeed — in a country where they have not yet done so — will be, on the contrary, a strategist that believes in weapons and the creation of civil society. At 57, Petraeus is already a national hero. His management in Iraq is celebrated as a victory in every sense of the word. When he arrived there in early 2007 Iraq was an inferno of violence. His debut as commander of the 101st Airborne was the result of ongoing vigorous and valiant military successes. Promoted later to commander, he took great care in promoting civic duties, education, reconstruction and other forms of “nation-building.”

Thanks to him, the situation in Iraq made a dramatic turnaround. Even Turkish politicians, who have had complaints about the conduct of the allies in Iraq, accepted — as affirmed in a recent article from Istanbul — that “Petraeus showed a capacity to understand the complexity of foreign military operations that has been rare in United States strategists in this region.”

Still, Petraeus must remember to differentiate between Iraq and Afghanistan, as they are different conflicts that require distinct solutions. At this moment, the situation in Afghanistan is wretched. More than 1,000 U.S. soldiers have already died in these untamed territories where 65,000 NATO troops still fight, and where 30,000 more are expected. The corruption of the government in Kabul, which is supported by the West, is scandalous.

There are areas where ethnic battles and drug trafficking are rampant, like in Helmand, and others under constant Taliban attack, like Marja. Well financed and with a long history of combat driven by nationalism and religious sentiments, the insurgents are fearsome enemies. As proof, look only as far as the “welcome” received by the new commander: Wednesday’s Taliban attack in full daylight against a NATO base on the Pakistani border.

There exists a growing sense that the war in Afghanistan is being lost, and that the retreat of the troops beginning July 2011, announced by Obama, is fanciful and will be slow. In truth, Petraeus has not taken charge of organizing an allied retreat, but rather, is there to ascertain how to remain until their experiment with reconstruction in Iraq can be repeated in some manner in Afghanistan.

*Editor’s note: the names Petraeus and McChrystal loosely resemble Spanish words for rock (piedra) and candid (cristalino).