[Originally published in the Rutland Herald and Barre Times-Argus.]
In today’s America, it is the exceptional, bright, educated, aggressive and politically aware warrior who gets promoted to four-star general.
Certainly, Gen. Stanley McChrystal fits that mold. West Point and Harvard educated, Rangers, Special Operations, Desert Shield, Desert Storm, Iraq and Afghanistan. Before running afoul of Rolling Stone, he had pretty much punched all the required tickets.
Successful military commanders from all nations can tell you about every notable military campaign in the history of mankind. They are, after all, students of warfare. Thus, Gens. McChrystal, David Petraeus and all their savvy peers are aware of Afghan history, even if our less well informed national civilian leadership of the last 10 years apparently has not been.
An examination of the history of foreign invasions of Afghanistan will not give comfort to those who believe that America will “win” in Afghanistan, even if it were possible to define the precise contextual meaning of that word. In modern times, many have tried and none has succeeded.
Why, then, would either Mc-Chrystal or Petraeus, both knowledgeable students of their trade, take on a mission that has never been successful? They are both intelligent, so the reason must lie somewhere between hubris and politics. Either our military leaders believe they are so good and so smart that they can accomplish the heretofore impossible, or they are reluctant or afraid to tell their commander in chief that the job never has been done and probably can’t succeed. Sadly, as our diplomatic policy is driven in the Middle East by internal American politics, so now is our military policy. Forget reality and past history. After 9/11 it became politically attractive (or, perhaps in Obama’s case, necessary) to invade Afghanistan.
In forcing McChrystal’s resignation, however righteous that act, Obama took a major political risk here at home. That risk was mitigated solely by his politically inspired choice of Gen. Petraeus, McChrystal’s boss, as McChrystal’s successor. In today’s divided and hostile American political world, any other choice, however highly qualified, would almost certainly have seen Obama attacked by the Republicans.
What can we expect from a new Petraeus era? Are we to believe that he is any less well-educated or informed than McChrystal? He was, after all, his commanding officer and shares with him in abundance all those qualities that successful senior American commanders have. Since he already has signed on with the American policy now in force in Afghanistan, it would seem we will see no changes.
On the other hand, what seems clear is that this unexpected change will create a dynamic which will make it difficult for President Obama to turn down any “reasonable” request from Petraeus for support for this Afghan counterinsurgency. Petraeus has already spoken of an “enduring” American commitment that could last years.
Of course, the critical issue is whether Gen. Petraeus believes we can “win” and how he defines that word. In that arena he has already shown flashes of understanding that are not overly politically acceptable in the United States. He has said that the lack of a fair and safe resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict is having an ongoing negative effect on the success of our military operations in the Middle East. That is certainly a political no-no in this country.
More recently, the Marjah operation, which is the model to be used in Kandahar, has proven to be fairly effective during daylight hours, but not so great at night when the Taliban sneak back into town and maim or murder those who cooperate with the Americans.
Gen. Petraeus has acknowledged that our summer plans for Kandahar will be postponed until fall, because there is evidence that the majority of Kandahar residents do not want it to happen. More recently we hear that even Afghan children, who used to be quite friendly to our troops, now tend to throw stones at them.
The post-Iraq re-invasion of Afghanistan, which was cynically sold to the American people as part of the “War on Terror,” has now been belatedly acknowledged to be a counterinsurgency issue, as al-Qaida is no longer present there in any significant numbers.
The nature of counterinsurgency is winning hearts and minds. As either Gen. Petraeus or McChrystal will tell you, we will not be able to “save” the Afghan people if they don’t want to be saved.
Whose job is it to explain Afghan realities to the president? Or do the pressures of internal American politics trump those realities?
Haviland Smith is a retired CIA station chief who served in East and West Europe and the Middle East and as chief of the counterterrorism staff.
Rural Ruminations 