Masopher's Mind

At the end of June 2010, reporter Michael Hastings wrote in the Rolling Stone magazine, an article indicating fractures in the relationship between General McChrystal’s Afghanistan mission and the Whitehouse, in particular James Jones the National Security Advisor and retired 4 star general out of the Marines. McChrystal is 11 years younger than Jones and from the Army.  Is this name calling simply a slight generational gap and inter-services rivalry, or something more?

Both men started their military careers around the same age and pretty much the same commission.  McChrystal comes from the distinguished West Point whereas Jones graduated out of the esteemed Quantico. Both men were slated for good careers, having inherited the kudos and pedigree from military families. Jones fought the commies in Vietnam, while McChrystal has been part of Spec Ops and saw frontline action in Desert Shield.

In the year 1985 Jones went to the National War College. This is where officers go to prepare for “the big time”. At the same time McChrystal went to join the rangers. I see nothing critical about this period except that Jones would have been taught to battle the Soviets rather than insurgencies.

During the first Iraq war both men engaged in very different roles. McChrystal’s work was defending Saudi Oil fields; Jones on the other hand protected the Kurds and reinforced Turkey.

Undoubtedly the two men come from immensely different military backgrounds. Jones seems to be the thinking man, brought into the Obama administration along with a very heavy academic core. McChrystal on the other hand comes from the Bush era and for the past 2 decades has been an action man.

The magazine and its writer, Michael Hastings seems quite eager to paint McChrystal as a Sara Palin-like rogue. Rolling Stone and Hastings are independently anti-war and have had nothing good to say about the efforts in Afghanistan. Destroying the General would help to defeat the administrations efforts. The administration already understands that this is a distraction meant to weaken the US military. They are careful to allude that they are not angry with he general but about how he has been portrayed and what he allowed them to capture. This is not Macarthur is Korea. This is not Colonel Walter E. Kurtz in Apocalypse now; this is a military man venting steam in front of a sensationalist liberal journalist. There are frustrations, there are grumblings there are disappointments but McChrystal’s misjudgement was to display them in front of a hostile reporter.

The issue here is strategy. McChrystal seems certain that more troops can come from somewhere to be reassigned in South East Asia, but where does he have in mind and at what price?

America has troops at home resting and some keeping their eyes on the large liberal minded population. They have troops in Europe guarding against the “Ruskies” and another large contingent in Japan, Taiwan and South Korea to guard against the Reds or possible re-rising sun….  They have a few in Africa fighting Al Qaeda and possibly the French and more than a few in the north of South America in case Chavez and the FARC act up. Troops are still heavy in both Saudi Arabia and Iraq to ensure that Shiia influence does not get out of hand.

McChrystal obviously doesn’t see “the reds” as a threat. He has not served in EUCOM (Jones has) and he has spent long enough battling AQ and insurgencies to have developed a slight tunnel vision on that threat. Jones has spent his life confronting communism and his current role allows him to act more strategically and keep his mind fixed on Iran, China, Russia, Venezuela and North Korea. McChrystal’s “small war” status credentials are illustrated by his endorsement by the corrupt Popalzi President Hamid Karzai. While Karzai refuses to allow more troops on the ground he thinks the US General is the best one he’s had in his country in the 9 years of fighting. The other general in the mix is 3 star Karl W. Eikenberry, current ambassador to Afghanistan. Eikenberry is closer to age (slightly older) with McChrystal and also comes out of WestPoint. It is therefore quite understandable that McChrystal would feel betrayed by his Army peer who has taken the administrative route. Eikenberry is no fan of Karzai and one sees a bit of sly Pashtun politics at play here as one US official is played against another.

What I see here is a mix of methodologies personalities and perspectives which is being exploited by a magazine for its own purposes. Jones does have to maintain a geo-strategic view while McChrystal has to win this war. Eikenberry has to do as he is told and say what is on his mind. The three men need to serve the president and not get bogged down in the quagmire of the liberal press.

Subjectively speaking, I side with the school of thought that would deliver a heavy knock out blow rather than a costly mix of counterinsurgency and bullet magnets. The Obama administration is not only dealing with the traditional enemies but facing a realpolitikal game with Europe which is perfectly happy to see America’s strength bleed off in the same terrain which brought as the Soviets to an end.

It is a time of change in the US military where some still think in terms of fighting the USSR and some think in terms of not becoming the USSR. The path through to the other side is treacherous and by no means guaranteed. Is the administration being Pennywise by prolonging this horror? If McChrystal has ever read a  Steven King novel then he surely thinks so.