The Philippine Online Chronicles

In the wake of a planned major offensive against the Taliban stronghold of Kandahar, President Barack Obama has decided to sack the commander of United States and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) forces in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal.

McChrystal was caught in controversy last week for his scornful remarks against officials in the Obama administrations that appeared on a feature article by Rolling Stones. Obama said the remarks “undermine the civilian control over the military that is at the core of our democratic system.”

US Central Command chief General David Petraeus was picked to replace McChrystal. Known for turning around the Iraq war by adopting counter-insurgency instead of traditional warfare strategy, Petraeus is expected to continue the course of the war and re-assure NATO and Afghan officials, who expressed earlier opposition to the firing of McChrystal.

McChrystal, a veteran special forces commander, was appointed by Obama last year because, like Petraeus in Iraq, he advocated a shift in Afghan war policy from conventional military planning to a “modern, asymmetric warfare.” He called for a stop to indiscriminate NATO air strikes that result to civilian casualties and put heavy emphasis on increasing patrols in the Afghan countryside.

Controversial comments

In the highly controversial Rolling Stone article , McChrystal and his staff were quoted mocking the Obama administration's Afghanistan team, painting as “the real enemy: The wimps in the White House.” Among the officials candidly ridiculed were American Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, who was accused by the general of “covering his flank for the history books”; Special Envoy Richard Hoolbrooke who was called a “wounded animal”; and National Security Adviser James Jones, who was labeled “a clown.”

When asked about Vice President Joe Biden, McChrystal reportedly asked, “Who's that?” while an aide said “Biden? Did you say bite me?” Obama, on the other hand, was described by the general as looking “uncomfortable and intimidates” when surrounded by top brass of the military. McChrystal also complained about Obama's failure to be “deeply engaged” in Afghanistan . An aide described the president and the general's first meeting in the Oval Office as nothing more than a “ten-minute photo op.”

“The Boss [McChrystal] was very disappointed,” the aide said.

McChrystal and his staff's criticisms of these White House officials were made right after Obama announced that troops must begin withdrawing from Afghanistan by June 2011, thereby putting pressures on McChrystal to accomplish his mission- neutralizing the Taliban and strengthening Aghan security forces- within a year. Analysts say that the time table set by Obama sends a message to the military in general and McChrystal's team in particular that the present administration is interested only in getting out of Afghanistan instead of achieving victory there.

For McChrystal, victory means leaving an Afghanistan not only without the Taliban threat but with a stable government that would have the capability to keep any future insurgency at bay. To achieve this, McChrystal believes that, for the long term, the American and NATO forces should engage in the effort to win the support of the Afghan people not just for the Western forces but for the government of President Hamid Karzai as well; while for the short term, McChrystal is advocating further surge in the number of troops stationed in Afghanistan. Although Obama has cautiously approved of his request for the surge earlier, key officials in his administration, including Biden, oppose it.

While McChrystal has apologized and even initially offered to resign over his comments, he neither claimed to have been misquoted nor tried to retract his criticisms of his civilian superiors. In fact, according to Rolling Stone editor Eric Bates, the general did not object to or dispute anything in the article when he was informed of the quotes prior to the article's publication as part of the magazine's fact-checking process.

Contempt for civilian authority?

This is not the first time McChrystal made public his disagreements with his civilian superiors. In October last year, he delivered a speech in London that criticized Biden for opposing the surge in the number of troops stationed in Afghanistan and proposing to make a shift to a strategy that relies more on drone missile strikes and special forces operations. The speech earned him a dressing down from Obama aboard Air Force One. Prior to this, McChrystal was said to have leaked to the press his recommendations to the president calling for the surge a few weeks after he was appointed to the post. The leak was seen as an attempt to force the president’s hand into adopting his approach.

Observers see these as acts of contempt on McChrystal's part against the constitutionally-mandated civilian control over the military. Writing for the Christian Science Monitor, Howard LaFranchi said: “While McChrystal’s comments reflect the mounting frustration all around with a war effort seemingly in growing disarray, the dismal context does not excuse what experts almost uniformly deem was an egregious disregard for the democratic principle of military subordination to civilian command.”

“What this reveals,” adds Boston University international relations professor and retired Army colonel Andrew Bacevich, “is a command climate where expressions of contempt for senior civilian officials are permissible.”

Such a climate has not been seen in America since General Douglas MacArthur publicly opposed President Harry Truman's military policy during the Korean War. Truman sacked MacArthur at that time, but the general triumphantly returned to the United States to drum up public opposition against the president's Korea policy. At one point MacArthur almost threatened Truman's presidency, but his fellow military officers came out in support of Truman in the Congressional hearings that ensued.

Foreign Affairs editor James Hoge believes that McChrystal should follow McArthur's fate. In his blog, Hoge wrote: “This is not the first time that McChrystal has disregarded the chain of command, which is a bureaucratic way of saying that his propensity for speaking out of turn has violated the cardinal principle of civilian control of the military. But it should be the last time. Despite his impressive military achievements, McChrystal must be sacked by President Obama. The principle is a hallowed underpinning of democracy as President Truman recognized when he fired General MacArthur in the midst of the Korean War.”

Meanwhile, conservative blogger Leslie H. Gelb wrote that real story behind the McChrystal fiasco is the “basic truth that the military just doesn't like the Democrats.” Noting that “the Rolling Stone article barely mentions policy differences over Afghanistan or anything else,” Gelb claims that “the bad feelings are mainly about values, style and constancy more than policy. The military feel the Democrats come at common problems from a different place and don’t stick to agreed plans when the going gets rough.” He cited the military's opposition to Obama's plan to reverse the “Don't Ask, Don't Tell” regulations imposed on homosexual soldiers and the military's belief that unlike the Republicans, the Democrats are less likely to course during wars.

It must be noted, however, that McChrystal claims to have voted for Obama.

No policy changes

While many on Capitol Hill, including erstwhile McChrystla supporter Senator John McCain, have stressed that the general’s remarks warranted his dismissal, some expressed opposition to replacing a commander in the midst of escalating conflict in Afghanistan. In particular, Afghan officials initially warned that sacking McChrystal would undermine the progress with regards to the rebuilding of the image of NATO forces and the Afghan government among the people of Afghanistan.

“Since Gen. McChrystal took over the job as commander of the international forces, there have been a lot of changes in different departments, which are very important and positive," said Afghan Defense Ministry spokesman General Mohammad Zahir Azimi. “For example, there has been a decrease in the numbers of civilian casualties and we're still working jointly with McChrystal to decrease it further.”

But there was a sense of relief in Afghanistan on Thursday when Obama announced that Petraeus would replace McChrystal. This is because both generals follow the same approach to counter-insurgency.

For his part, Obama indicated that although McChrystal was replaced, there is to be no major shift in military policy in Afghanistan. “This is a change in personnel but it is not a change in policy,” said the president.