McChrystalGate

Yes, I know how absurdly cliche it is to refer to a scandal as “gate,” and I know how not-clever and boring this one is, but whatever.  But seriously.  Let’s get into the scandal.

So McChrystal made some disparaging remarks about US Ambassador Eikenberry, VP Biden, and the Special Envoy to the region Richard Holbrooke.  Which in itself isn’t surprising so much as he did it on the record in front of a Rolling Stone reporter, which is either unbelievably stupid or intentionally subversive.

I don’t have much of a desire to talk about whether or not he should have been fired – this was the second time he openly questioned policy – and this is more or less in keeping with the idea of a civilian run military, where the military has a say in procedure, but is ultimately answerable to the executive branch.  Read:  he bad-mouthed his boss to the press.  Any other institution that would be legitimate grounds for firing.

The problem this raises, of course, is that he is the lead commander in Afghanistan, which makes him a particularly sensitive asset.  Naturally, the choice to replace him is David Petraeus, who is the darling of the left and right, and a guy who, in his current standing, could run for President.  He turned around the Iraq war and basically salvaged it from complete failure, and now he is charged with doing the same in Afghanistan.  Which is what McChrystal was in charge of.

The strategy they are using is called counter-insurgency, which is a heavy-handed but smarter form of warfare; a type that actually involves some form of diplomacy.  Essentially, you step up the military force, secure the country, and then try and win over the locals and the enemies to your side.

The problem here is that Afghanistan has never been conquered, and the Taliban is not only a nebulous force that can be beaten in battle but not destroyed – much like the Viet Cong, thanks to their ability to blend in to the local population – AND they are supported, at least marginally, by the Pakistanis.  The terrain in Afghanistan is impossible to totally conquer, the trade of poppies is flourishing in the region, and now there are billions in mineral deposits in the country.  Holy shit.

This is a tough situation, and it is significantly more complex than it was in Iraq, which at least had geographical advantages.  And it’s still really unsure whether we can win.  The major offensive into Kandahar will be occurring this summer, and that will really determine the outcome of the war, but if history is any indication, it probably won’t be good.

It also doesn’t help that current Afghan President Hamid Karzai is widely perceived as corrupt in Afghanistan, and that his support is fragmented at best.

So Petraeus has an uphill battle.  What about Obama?

At this point, Obama is scheduled for a 2011 draw-down of the troops in Afghanistan.  Afghanistan is currently the longest war the US has ever been in, and if Obama doesn’t want to be seen as a war-time President, he’ll have to draw down in 2011.  I frankly think that, aside from the economy, this could make or break his chances in 2012.  If Afghanistan has some semblance of stability by the end of the year, maybe he’ll be okay.

What I think?  I think Obama has been so eager to appear tough on terror that he has made the same mistake as LBJ, which is that he has deepened his commitment to a damn-near impossible war for political reasons and has ultimately shot himself in the foot.  I have always liked Obama, so I hope I’m wrong, but Jesus.  Things look dark.