THE GENERAL'S GAMBIT

by H. N. Burdett

There is no conceivable way that Gen. Stanley McChrystal committed a gaffe.

He knew exactly what he was doing when he gave a writer on assignment with Rolling Stone magazine access to himself and his staff. He was fully aware that President Obama would order him to explain his behavior and that his position as top commander in Afghanistan would be at stake. He also knew that the story would dominate the headlines, even pushing aside the Gulf of Mexico oil spill and Congressional efforts to regulate Wall Street. It was beyond the shadow of a doubt a calculated risk.

With his career on the line, McChrystal, who has taken pride in his brashness at least since his West Point days when he was a century man (having chalked up more than 100 demerits), rolled the dice and bet the President wouldn't fire him.

After all, Obama had given him almost everything he asked for to assure the success of his counterinsurgency, namely the 20,000 troops to effect the surge the general feels is critical to his regime change scheme.

What the President has not given McChrystal is the rescission of his pledge to begin withdrawing troops from Afghanistan by July 2011. The general and his staff don't feel this is adequate time to accomplish their mission. Obama administration officials are turning a deaf ear to their arguments, reminding the general that the President was elected to end the war. McChrystal and his staff also want to end the war, but with a victory -- regime change in Afghanistan -- only first the timetable must be scrapped.

Though a timetable for removing U.S. armed presence from that perpetually beleagured country served the political purpose of the tipping point that won the 2008 election for the junior U.S. senator from Illinois, it is not supported by a scintilla of logic.

It does not require the military insight of Carl von Clausewitz to figure out that announcing to your enemy the date when you intend to stop fighting is not such a great idea. Is there anyone who really doubts that the Taliban will be back fighting desperately for control of Afghanistan within days if not hours after American troops leave?

Somehow Bush the Younger sold the preemptive invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan as necessary to prevent the United States and their allies from having to fight Al Qaeda on our home turf. It was as though there would be landing barges in New York, Philadelphia and Boston harbors with Bin Laden's troops pouring out, armed to the teeth, and more of them parachuting into Miami and Atlanta. None of this was the kind of military capability to which Bin Laden has access, or perhaps even wants. Al Qaeda seems perfectly content perpetrating random acts of terrorism.

Though most of the so-called Coalition of the Willing bailed out of West Asia, Bush's salesmanship was sufficient to win re-election to the presidency. Barack Obama, despite his vow to disengage our troops from that incredible misadventure as soon as possible, apparently bought into the Bush administration's faulty premise. Since the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, there have been no major acts of terrorism within the confines of the continental United States. Not that the bad guys haven't tried -- most recently, of course, in Times Square. Our much maligned homeland security capabilities combined with great dollops of good luck have kept us safe.

Meanwhile, the war has dragged on longer than our involvement in Vietnam, which tore the country apart more than any other event since the Civil War. Besides being obviously unwinnable, the preemptive war in West Asia, considering the long and slow recovery from the implosion of the global economy, is clearly unaffordable. Yet it continues. Gen. McChrystal is among a distinct minority who still seems to believe the war can be won and Afghanistan can be converted into a democracy. He appears determined to drive home that point one way or another.

But, as the Rolling Stone article makes clear, the general deplores decorum and diplomacy. If he's unable to buy more time from Obama, McChrystal may try to find a way to take his case to the American people. The nation, however, is weary of this war, which has bogged down to a stalemate. An expensive stalemate that voraciously gobbles down millions of dollars at a time of barely perceivable recovery from the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

The general may have to resort to showcasing his macho persona. Rather than convince the public that we need a foothold for democracy in West Asia to quench our thirst for oil, he may have to sell himself. Americans love nothing more than a macho hero. In McChrystal, they would have a reasonable facsimile of the second coming of General Patton or John Wayne. He's genuinely tough as nails and outspoken, tough enough to badmouth the Vice President in front of a magazine reporter; no one should bet against him trying to speak his mind to the country's ultimate power figure.

It has been reported that when Obama, who had never served in the military, had his first meeting with the nation's top brass he was intimidated by all those uniforms, ribbons and medals. Indeed this is the reason given for his moving the war to Afghanistan rather than bringing the troops home and restructuring the hunt for Bin Laden and dissolution of Al Qaeda as the international police action it should have been from the beginning.

While it is true enough that President Obama inherited a veritable plethora of unmitigated crises from the previous administation -- from the wreckage of the economy, to energy dependence on foreign oil, to near double-digit unemployment -- the so-called 'war on terrorism' was the issue that got the most attention, along with the resolve for disengagement. It was, after all, supposed to be a slam dunk. Practically in the blink of an eye, the mission was to be accomplished, as the cartoonish leader of the free world announced nine years ago.

Though Abraham Lincoln was frustrated with Gen. George McClellan, who commanded the Union army from a perpetually defensive posture, he declined demands to replace him because he simply had no one better. Finally Lincoln ordered McClellan to stand down, turning his post over to Ulysses S. Grant, who justified the President's confidence by moving aggressively to win the Civil War. When Harry Truman finally had had enough of Gen. Douglas MacArthur's arrogance and insolence, he replaced him with Matthew Ridgway, who had instilled morale and a fighting spirit into the U.S. Eighth Army in Korea which MacArthur insisted was demoralized and weary. McChrystal is risking his career and perhaps his place in history on his wager that Obama has no Grant or Ridgway waiting in the wings.

When MacArthur, a household name who had defeated Japan in World War II, took it upon himself to announce, in defiance of President Truman, his intention to expand the Korean conflict into mainland China, the President relieved him of his command. Truman later said he regarded that decision as among the most important of his presidency and that his biggest mistake in the White House was not having done it months earlier.

Those who agreed with the decision heralded it as an act of great courage, considering the enormous esteem MacArthur had earned as perhaps the most famous contemporary American warrior. "Courage didn't have anything to do with it," Truman said. " General MacArthur was insubordinate and I fired him. That's all there was to it."

Looking back upon it years later, Truman wrote, "If there is one basic element in our Constitution, it is civilian control of the military. If I allowed him to defy the civil authorities in this manner, I myself would be violating my oath to uphold and defend the Constitution."

Both Gen. McChrystal and President Obama might do well to reflect upon those words.