Europeans React Skeptically to McChrystal Debacle
U.S. President Barack Obama’s decision to remove General Stanley McChrystal as commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan has generated considerable media commentary in Europe, where governments are facing an uphill struggle to reverse dwindling public support for the Afghan deployment.
Most European opinion-shapers say that Obama had no choice but to relieve McChrystal of his command after the general and his associates publicly ridiculed Obama’s war cabinet in a magazine article. But the overarching theme in European newspaper commentary is that McChrystal’s insubordination is a symptom of a much larger problem, namely that Obama’s counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan is not working.
Around 25 European countries collectively have more than 30,000 troops stationed in Afghanistan, but political pressure is mounting on European governments to withdraw those troops from the country. Recent polls show that more than 70 percent of Britons want their troops out of Afghanistan immediately, as do 62 percent of Germans. Polling across Europe — from Portugal to Poland — shows that well over 50 percent of Europeans want their troops to come home.
In February, Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende’s coalition government collapsed when the two largest parties failed to agree on whether to withdraw troops from Afghanistan this year as planned. Now the Poles, the British, and others are discussing how long they will stay.
Although European governments have praised Obama’s decision to name General David Petraeus as the new commander in Afghanistan, the public squabbling within Obama’s inner circle clearly has undermined the president’s credibility, which up until now has provided European governments with much-needed political cover to help them keep their troops in Afghanistan. The question is now: can Petraeus make enough headway in Afghanistan to keep the Europeans from rushing to the exits?
What follows is a brief selection of European commentary on the McChrystal affair:
In Britain, the left-wing Guardian published an article titled “Fears for Afghan Strategy after 24 Hours of Turmoil.” It says the “Rolling Stone story has focused attention on the serious divisions and personality clashes among those in charge of the military and political strategies. That in turn has led to further questioning of whether McChrystal’s counterinsurgency strategy is working. … The likelihood that McChrystal’s strategy will fail is accepted by some senior British Army officials. One speculated that the coming year would bring a further scaling back of the objective of the international mission in Afghanistan, which already slipped last year from ‘defeating’ to ‘degrading’ the Taliban.”
Another Guardian article titled “Where McChrystal Led, Britain Followed” says McChrystal’s dismissal should make British commanders, diplomats, and politicians rethink their Afghan policy. The article says: “For the British military, especially the British special forces, McChrystal was a hero of almost Homeric proportions. His dismissal should make the commanders, diplomats and politicians think hard and think again about the Afghanistan policy from top to bottom. It is no use them clinging to the notion that the British army needs to defend its military honour and prowess to prove Britain is still a vital ally to the U.S. — which is how some argue for our troops still being there. Notions of honour and fidelity are not in any sense practical operational objectives.”
Also in Britain, the Economist magazine published an essay titled “McChrystal and Afghanistan: It’s His War.” It says: “Mr. McChrystal is an advocate of full-spectrum counterinsurgency (COIN) warfare, a sophisticated approach that embraces politics and economic development as part of the war effort. But the question facing COIN advocates in Afghanistan today isn’t whether they are, in principle, right about how to fight insurgencies. The question is whether this approach — which demands such sophistication and expertise, so many soldiers who are also social workers, agriculture experts and police trainers, so many USAID consultants who need to be protected by soldiers, and such an effective development aid effort in a world that has rarely seen effective development aid anywhere, let alone in the middle of a jihadist insurgency — is possible in practice. And, if so, is it possible in Afghanistan? Is it achievable by the actually existing American military and aid bureaucracy in Afghanistan? And can it be done at a price that Americans are willing or even able to pay? The answer we’re seeing so far isn’t yes.”
In another article titled “Out with the New, in with the Old,” the Economist says: “Today’s decisions [to replace General McChrystal] do not change the reality on the ground in Afghanistan, where a brutal insurgency and incompetent government make victory, however it is defined, uncertain at best. Nor does it do much to change Eliot Cohen’s observation that Mr. Obama has assembled a dysfunctional team to work on the Afghan project. And, with General Petraeus now focused 1,500 miles east, what becomes of Iraq?”
As much as I hate to come to the defense of Obama, if the Europeans are using this as an excuse to withdraw troops, then anything he did (or failed to do) would have served as an excuse.
On the other hand I think his shabby treatment of our allies over the past year and a half likely has much to do with their willingness to withdraw troops. Can’t say I blame them, really. Afghanistan is a bloody fight, likely to get bloodier, and is more our fight than theirs. Insulting them really isn’t a good way to keep them involved.
obummer replaces McChrystal with Pretaus (who was already McC’s boss) just as they’re getting ready to implement current operations. A man the ultra-left absolutely despise, they called him “General betray-us”. europe recalls it’s troops. afghanistan falls, and Pretaus takes the fall.
sounds like the chicago way.
Until there is an American administration in power that realizes that Islam is the enemy, there will never be a winning strategy. There is only one war – the war Islam is waging against the non-Muslim world.
Many people here simply won’t come to terms with that fact until the battle is in their own backyard
The battle is already in your backyard.
My first reaction to this is who really, really cares what the Euros think? Do you honestly think that they (their gov’t's) were ever in this middle east fighting to win? They are sideliners who just want to wait and pick up spoils that will favor their financial, political agendas.
The only thing that counts as far as the U.S. population is concerned is that we win a war that we are fighting. Most writers on this subject seem to want us to believe that there are other more important issues at stake. They are all full of it.
Yes, it is good copy to report about infighting. Yes, it sells newspapers, if there were any solvent enough to sell. Yes it is probably true that this Obama administration is not pursuing a war to win it.
But yes, there has never, ever been a declaration from Congress to actually fight a war, has there?
Has anyone had the balls to say we will kill every last one of the enemy who attacks our country? No, there have nothing but apologies for our country’s actions, or successes, or triumphs over the moronic catastrophes of others in the 20th century.
Take a few minutes to think or calculate about the slaughter of millions by Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Romanian dictator, Hitler, Mussolini, Burmese, Rwanda, Congo, Amin, and others. I’m only talking to the last 50-100 years. Because that’s when the U.S. had a stake in the chance that some people might be saved. But we didn’t save them, did we?
And the biggest reason we didn’t save them is because of the thinking that prevails today, especially in Europe. We listened to the idiots that are still on their podiums in Europe.
“But the overarching theme in European newspaper commentary is that McChrystal’s insubordination is a symptom of a much larger problem, namely that Obama’s counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan is not working.”
No matter how much they didn’t want to participate, for anyone to fault European nations for wanting out of this mess now is absurd.
This would be the same people that want everyone convinced that Obama sat in a Black Liberation Theology church for twenty years listening to a raving maniac curse and damn America, Caucasians and Jews; yet he (Obama) remained neutral about the whole thing.
Obama’s strategy in Afghanistan directly reflects the dedication and purpose of his entire life; that being inflicting as much irreparable damage onto the United States of America as possible. If that process happens to take out a few thousand European military members serving in Afghanistan tough stuff, that is the way the cookies crumble.
Now enter the poppycock world of those who actually believe that Obama is just inexperienced, incompetent or in over his head as the explanation for what is going on and you are dealing with people that have to be watered everyday when they get up.
Bottom Line: Europe finally gets it. Obama is very bad news for the entire world.
However, no European has the right to say that, “We told you so..” because there is more than a good chance that Obama was elected as a result of their direct support and cheering him on.
“The question is whether this approach — which demands such sophistication and expertise, so many soldiers who are also social workers, agriculture experts and police trainers, so many USAID consultants who need to be protected by soldiers, and such an effective development aid effort in a world that has rarely seen effective development aid anywhere, let alone in the middle of a jihadist insurgency — is possible in practice.”
This is the heart of the matter. This fetish the United States has for “nation building” must stop. Soldiers should not have to be social workers, agriculture experts, police trainers, or construction workers. They should be able to concentrate on fighting and defeating an enemy. That’s it. But we are using the military as social workers and that just does not work while trying to defeat jihadist thugs and killers who are terrorizing a nation.
The Afghan people will support whoever is in power if the Taliban threat is removed. If you destroy the Taliban, you destroy the threat and the population will support you. Concentrate on KILLING the Taliban, not trying to convince them to give up. They will give up if they know the war is lost, not because they’ve decided to “like” you. Defeat them militarily and they will fold.
If you cannot defeat them militarily, then the people will not support you because they know they will have to deal with the Taliban once they return to power. And trust me, they are returning to power. In July 2011, Obama will declare some sort of “victory,” which will allow him to turn over Afghanistan to Karzai and then he’s out of there. Just like we achieved “Peace with Honor” in Vietnam, we will have our pretext to leave Afghanistan and then the whole country will collapse after we leave, just like South Vietnam did.
My bet is that the Europeans will all leave Afghanistan early next year, before our July 2011 deadline. After all, if we’re leaving, why should they stay? We should have gone into Afghanistan with massive, crushing, force, killed (YES KILLED, not captured and sent to Guantanamo) as many al Qaeda and Talban as possible, AND THEN LEFT. There is absolutely no reason to stay in Afghanistan. We would have made a military point and threatened the Afghans by saying that, if they did attack us again, we would be back and hit them even harder. We then should have turned over the country to some provisional Afghan government and then wished them the best of luck. Afghanistan has been a basket case for centuries, and the US Government, no matter what its intentions, isn’t going to change that.
Now some people will say, “But the Taliban would simply come back and you would have to invade again.” Perhaps, but if you did have to go back in, you would hit the country even harder and make an even more devestating military point. In that part of the world, if you use massive force AND MEAN IT, they will leave you alone. And, even two limited yet violent attacks on Afghanistan certainly would be cheaper in terms of both lives and treasure than having to stay there for almost ten years, which is where we are right now.
Nation building must stop. It only wastes American blood and treasure and the faster we realize that the better. I think the Europeans have already come to that conclusion and are about to leave. We should, too.
My feeling from the beginning. This isn’t WWII
You are absolutely correct. In addition, this whole McChrystal situation stinks at the outset. I think it is nothing short of a cynical ploy by Obama, since McChrystal not only made the ridiculous decision to speak with a Conservative-bashing rag like Rolling Stone, but also voted for the Liar-In-Chief in the first place.
Meanwhile, McChrystal’s restrictive COIN rules of engagement are doing little except allowing our fighting men to be killed for nothing, and the local population to come to increasingly believe that the “strong horse” is the Taliban. Unless Petraeus immediately ceases all the political correctness hoops our troops must now jump through, this war is lost.
I suspect Obama has known this all along. When Petraeus comes up short next year in trying to turn things around, Obama (Peace Be Upon Him) will simply shrug, and say, “Gee, even with the best general we’ve got, it’s just too tough, so I have a perfect reason for pulling out.”
This whole situation stinks to the skies, and meanwhile our troops are getting sacrificed over corrupt progressive power politics. God, I can’t believe what has happened to out country.
How many European soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan? The burden of this mission is being borne by Americans and Canadians.
How many have ever left their bases in Afghanistan?
The Brits, Aussies, and Poles as always, are pulling their weight too. The Georgians were great allies in Iraq, before the Russians invaded Georgia. Another case of a one-way alliance with the U.S.
The Germans, Italians, and Spanish troops went home with the same number of bullets they arrived with.
An Afghan brigade commander told me that he hated sending his “boys” out with the Italians and Spaniards because they ran back to base at the first wiff of gunpowder. He preferred American mentors because they stayed with the Afghan troops and fought.
Other Afghan officers have told me similar stories. Generally, the English-speaking troops (UK, US, Canadian, Aussie SAS) are respected because they fight. The others, not so much.
For Europe, every soldier matters(and every Afghan too). And for the US? Are those who support war ready to send their own sons or brothers to Afghanistan? I am not so sure.
Quite frankly, any pundit who talks about Obama’s strategy is not worthy of being read. Obama doesn’t have a strategy, unless giving orders to stop the rising of the seas counts as strategic thinking. He sees himself commanding a team of rivals who will allow him to pick one from column A and two from column B. Coherence and endurance are not his things. Voting present is.
A serious CIC would put a zipper on Biden’s mouth and get State to stop grandstanding. He would be explaining longer range goals to a world audience, and he would make sure the Afghans know we plan to leave the country when they have a chance to make a better life for themselves. He would talk to the people in countries that have troops on the ground and explain the difficulties and the value of the difficult work they are doing. He might even invite some of the families of foreign soldiers in theater to the WH to show his appreciation of their sacrifice and to honor their serving soldiers.
Europe’s pundits for the most part are still trying to show how much more sophisticated they are than American rubes. Take everything they say with a huge block of salt, but remember that they shape the opinions of their consumers. What have Obama’s ambassadors been doing to counter the fallacious messages of the foreign media? Has Obama done anything to improve on the much criticized public diplomacy of Bush? Not that I have noticed.
It would extremely helpful if some frank-speaking person – Rumsfeld could have done it – would just stand up sand say what “politics” is in these tribal societies: king-of-the-hill, my-tribe-over-your-tribe, winner-take-all. There can be no nation “in the negative” – an international border which creates a country simply by bounding it with other quasi-nation states that protect their own borders. Afghanistan is by nature a hole where a nation should be – even “Tajik” and “Pashtun” are atomized into innumerable squabbling groups among alliances resembling Mandlebrot’s fractals.
Instead of pointing this out, America takes upon itself the burden of having “failed” in its mission of “re-creating” a “nation.” But just because Afghanistan appears to have been something like a nation for 10 minutes during the 1950s-1960s doesn’t mean that it really is a nation whose present incoherence is the fault of anyone, least of the Americans who have tried to stand up a country and poured a Gigantic amount of blood and treasure into Afghanistan in the attempt.
The “Afghan strategy” has been criticized since about 10 minutes after the first loya jirga was convened in Bonn Germany and Karzai acclaimed President of an Afghan republic. The problem is not the “strategy,” the problem is the Afghans. It’s about time someone started pointing this out, since it is the truth, and it is dishonorable – at least – to suffer for a falsehood.
Q: What is the difference between a plan and a dream ?
A: A plan has a chance of coming true.
The US should give up its diplomatic dream of nation building,
and plan to spend the remaining time before it withdraws its army
making the Khans of the Tribes secure in their territory and from
foreign aggression; This includes Karzai, the Mayor of Kabul.
The US should maintain its amazing airborne reconnaissance and strike
capabilities, to give each Khan a Gods-eye view of his own territory,
and to repel invaders; Paying in gold for the opium crop, and the heads
of terrorists, is also a good idea.
The US should point out to the Khans that, as much as they dislike change,
and as valiant as they are in defense of their territory, it is now known
that their land has been cursed with a great wealth of natural resources,
and it is only a matter of time before the Chinese arrive to take them.
While McChrystal’s comments to RS magazine were dumb (but not inaccurate), they weren’t cause to be fired. I personally don’t think firing him was the right course of action, and when I heard the network talking heads hailing it as a “brilliant” move, I knew then I was correct.
#3Terry is right. Until we have an administration that fully understands Islamic terrorists want to kill us – period – and why, we will never be able to win. The fact is, acts of terrorism will continue (1993 WTC bombing attempt, 9/11, SS Cole, Ft. Hood, pants bomber, Xmas bomber, et al) and our way of life will suffer (security delays, constant fear, beefed-up law enforcement everywhere) and they will have won. I say elect an administration with a backbone that can and will allow profiling and just as important, an administration that isn’t afraid to let our soldiers win. I was painfully reminded of this last night as I watched Rambo II – our military is so hamstrung by the limited rules of engagement under which they operate, they are able to accomplish very little – not their fault. I say unleash our great(est) fighting men & women and let ‘em do what needs doing.
Let us bring our troops home now along with the Brits and the Germans. We have no objective in Afghanistan and the islamic leader of the New American World State has no intention of fighting his fellow muslims.
These generals are all left wing PC political whores. Bill Bennett’s hero Petraeus included. Let him send his sons to fight for democratically elected Sharia governments. Hide your rosaries boys, they’ll kill you and our generals won’t say a peep.
McChrystal is a leftist. His utopian ideas of creating a democratized Middle East that votes for Sharia based governments while handcuffing our soldiers because of his insane ROE are a disgrace. We are “fighting” to install governments that kill Christians while implementing jihad against us. They are just being Muslims. They follow Muhammad’s teachings which commands them to wage jihad whenever possible meaning they are commanded to convert, kill or enslave or subjugate us.
What the heck are we doing in Afghanistan? Fighting for Sharia. Don’t bring your Bible or cross. They kill Christians.
I confronted Rick Santorum on the Bill Bennett Show this morning about this and all he could say was he didn’t want “radical Muslims” in charge of Afghanistan. What does that mean? Muslims that don’t follow Muhammad’s commands? Oh, I get it non observant Muslims which means we are going to pin our hopes on some “new” kind of Islam” emerging, one that ignores Muhammad. What a disgustingly utopian idea based in leftist fantasy. Obama is even worse. He has no problem with Muhammad as is.
These generals are nothing more than PC politicians. McChrystal was a leftist who voted for Obama, banned Fox News, banned Burger King (a symbol of Western excess). He got what was coming to him.
I’d fire the entire joint chiefs of staff because of their allegiance to the left. General Casey was more concerned about diversity after Muslim jihadist Major Hassan murdered all those Americans at Ft. Hood. General Mullen is of the same cloth and I don’t trust Petreaus because of his anti-Israeli remarks.
Petreaus’ anti-Israel remarks are a concern.
Things get a little bit tough and people go to water, all doom and gloom, just like was the case of Iraq. Why do you think Pakistan is trying to cut a deal for Haqqani, because they know we are going to win, so they want to get a deal now. They are acting in their strategic interest, not to help the Afghan Government or ISAF, because we are going to lose. They want to cut a deal now because they believe they will not be able to get a better one. And we are only a year into a 5 Year COIN doctrine.
I know some people think we did not win in Iraq, but we did win because under COIN the objective is containment of the insurgency, so the indigenous security forces can continue the containment policy. It is like policing you cannot stop all crime but you can contain criminal activity.
Now if the Iraqi’s had listen to VP Biden, they would have formed a government by now and the violence would be further reduced.
McChrystal is the kind of guy I wouldn’t trust running a lemonade stand. He’s all about himself, and he surrounded himself with a gaggle of like-minded, infantile bozo’s who alternate between singing his praises and acting like dartboards whenever McChystal felt like throwing a few disdainful thunderbolts their way. I’m sure that Obama picked McChrystal in the first place because he is just the kind of yes man Obama likes to surround himself with. Unfortunately for all concerned McChrystal actually started to believe the BS he’s been spouting and forgot that his primary job was to continue kissing whatever a$$ was higher up the food chain then he was. Good riddance to foul hot air.
PS: RIP Pat Tillman.
If you need a laugh check out this humorous cartoon at http://drawfortruth.wordpress.com/category/obama/ on Obama’s “Brilliant” choice in selecting Petraeous! You may be surprised by who else he was considering.