ShareThis Page
The generals’ war |

The generals’ war

| Wednesday, October 7, 2009 12:00 a.m


The Pentagon’s pre-emptive strike came with the leak of Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s confidential review of the Afghan war to Bob Woodward of The Washington Post.

McChrystal’s painting of the military picture was grim: “Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near-term (next 12 months) — while Afghan security capacity matures — risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible.”

Word was quickly out that McChrystal wanted 40,000 troops, to bring U.S. force levels to 110,000 and coalition forces to 140,000.

Last week, a three-hour review was held at the White House. McChrystal participated by teleconference. His strategy — fight a counterinsurgency against the Taliban by taking and holding population centers, protecting the Afghan people and building up Kabul’s army, economy and government — was challenged.

Among those urging a smaller U.S. footprint and a strategic shift from fighting the Taliban to killing al-Qaida in Pakistan with drone and Special Forces strikes was Joe Biden.

McChrystal answered Biden in a speech and Q-and-A session in London, all but saying Joe ought to stick to the rubber-chicken circuit and leave war to the warriors. A “counter-terrorist focus” like the Biden strategy, said McChrystal, would lead straight to “Chaos-istan.”

Would he support it?

“The short answer is no,” said McChrystal. “Waiting does not prolong a favorable outcome. This effort will not remain winnable indefinitely, and nor will public support” — a shot at what critics are calling Obama’s dithering in deciding on McChrystal’s troop request.

Obama, said to be “furious,” called McChrystal to Copenhagen for a 25-minute face-to-face on Air Force One.

Sunday, National Security Adviser Gen. James Jones said of the McChrystal-Obama meeting, “I am sure they exchanged direct views.”

Jones tossed ice water on McChrystal’s urgency. Afghanistan is “in no imminent danger of falling to the Taliban,” and al-Qaida has “less than 100” fighters in the country, “no bases, no buildings to launch attacks either on us or our allies.”

As for McChrystal’s public campaign, said Jones, “It’s better for military advice to come up through the chain of command.”

As Obama approaches the pivotal decision of his presidency, here is where the major players seem to be lining up.

Gen. David Petraeus, regional commander for Afghanistan and Iraq, has yet to commit himself. But as architect of the surge in Iraq, he would seem to support McChrystal.

From her own words, Hillary is with McChrystal: “Some people say, well, al-Qaida’s no longer in Afghanistan. If Afghanistan were taken over by the Taliban, I can’t tell you how fast al-Qaida would be back in Afghanistan.”

This challenges what Gen. Jones said Sunday when he minimized the al-Qaida threat in Afghanistan and the Taliban threat to Kabul.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates will be a key player. It was he who relieved Gen. David McKiernan of his command in May, saying we need “fresh thinking,” and turned Afghanistan over to McChrystal. Can Gates come down against the general he appointed only months ago?

Yet Biden is not alone. Jones is receptive to his views, as are a majority of Obama’s party on the Hill, as are White House aides who see Afghanistan as Obama’s Vietnam.

Obama is thus being told by the McChrystal camp: If you do not send the 40,000, you lose the war and the presidency. He is being told by the Biden camp: If you send the 40,000, Afghanistan will be your Vietnam; you will not win it by 2012; and you will lose the presidency.

Look for Obama, not a natural Decider, to split the difference and send a few thousand U.S. troops to train the Afghan army.

Pat Buchanan is the author of the book “Churchill, Hitler and ‘The Unnecessary War.'”

Categories: News
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.