America’s top commander in Afghanistan could be fired when he meets with an “angry” President Obama on Wednesday to explain published comments that revealed deep rifts between the military and the White House over Afghanistan policy.
Gen. Stanley McChrystal and his senior staff were openly dismissive of the top administration foreign policy officials, according to an article published by Rolling Stone magazine. The general was “disappointed” by Obama’s understanding of Afghanistan when the two met, the article said, quoting a McChrystal aide. And the article portrays McChrystal and his top aides ridiculing the war input of Vice President Biden.
The article also focuses attention on the discontent among American soldiers in Afghanistan with rules of engagement they believe force them to increasingly risk their lives to keep from inflicting civilian casualties — a central tenet of McChrystal’s counterinsurgency strategy.
The explosive revelations come on the eve of a planned U.S. offensive in Kandahar and at a time when American casualties are soaring in Afghanistan. That creates a bleak choice for Obama: to fire the top American commander before a critical battle, or to accept open lack of respect.
Obama was “angry” over the comments attributed to McChrystal and his staff and was keeping all options open ahead of Wednesday’s meeting, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said. Some leading Democratic lawmakers were already calling for the general’s ouster. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the general “made a significant mistake and exercised poor judgment in this case.”
McChrystal, who was handpicked by Obama to execute his goal of an expanded Afghan war after the president fired his predecessor, Gen. David McKiernan, a year ago, apologized for “poor judgment” in his comments. He did not deny any of the quotes attributed to him or senior staff.
Obama now faces the difficult choice of Harry Truman, when he relieved Gen. Douglas MacArthur during the Korean War, and Abraham Lincoln, who fired Gen. George McClellan during the Civil War. Both of those decisions followed rifts over how much control civilians should have over war policy.
Obama last year agreed to a McChrystal plan to “surge” additional troops to Afghanistan, but cut the numbers sought from 40,000 to 30,000. The president also announced that the United States would begin to withdraw from Afghanistan in July 2011, a timetable that appears increasingly optimistic as counterinsurgency efforts fail to produce gains.
Retired Army Reserve Maj. Gen. Timothy Haake, who served with the Special Forces and knows McChrystal, said, “If he is relieved, this will set back U.S. efforts in Afghanistan immeasurably.”
Michael O’Hanlon, director of foreign policy research at the Brookings Institution, said the article gave readers a “distorted view” of both McChrystal and the rules of engagement in Afghanistan. “I think the White House does have reason to rethink its own comfort level with McChrystal as a good team player but I don’t think there are grounds for considering this insubordination.”
But retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, who has known McCrystal for many years, said, “Military leaders are totally frustrated with lack of leadership in the administration. We’re not going to win. You can’t nation build and win a war at the same time. You have to win the war first.”
