The Runaway Commander: Opportunities and Risks Inherent in McChrystal’s Dismissal

Obama was right to fire McChrystal after the general and his staff made outrageous comments to a Rolling Stone reporter, with unfavorable characterizations of Vice President Joe Biden and other senior administration officials. In the American and other western systems, the primacy of the elected civilian leadership over the military is a central governing principle that is rarely challenged.  Even in this case, it seems clear that McChrystal did not seek to fundamentally question the President’s authority; his poor judgment was in expressing personal frustration publicly and, apparently, in abetting an atmosphere for his staff that encouraged their own worst instincts.  But Obama’s swift action was nevertheless essential to ensure that this principle is preserved.  Beyond the point of principle, Obama also faced charges of weakness at home and abroad, and this decision was tactically necessary as well.  By any standard, Obama’s statement announcing his decision was masterful in substance and tone.

Unfortunately, despite Obama’s impressive handling of this episode, this week’s events will only add to a perception that events in Afghanistan are going against the United States and its allies.  Obama in his comments referred to breaking “the Taliban’s momentum.”  The fact that such momentum persists after close to nine years of combat—which makes this the longest-running war in American history—and only one year before his own stated deadline to begin a drawdown of forces is not encouraging.

European governments and publics will also see this week as yet one more reason to question the course of events in Afghanistan.  The Rolling Stone article confirms unambiguously that the team Obama has put in place to run the war has not functioned well and that there are serious, unresolved internal differences on how to proceed.  The strategy that the Obama team took so long to develop does not seem to be yielding the results that were hoped.  In any war, but especially in a war like Afghanistan, confidence of success is critical.  This week will only strengthen the confidence of the Taliban, who will see in this leadership change evidence of confusion on our part.

In an attempt to deal with this question of confidence, Obama selected General David Petraeus to replace McChrystal.  Petraeus is the hero of the “bad war” in Iraq, the thinker who authored the surge strategy that has substantially reduced violence there and, perhaps, given politics in Iraq a real if uncertain chance.  McChrystal’s surge strategy for Afghanistan was drawn from his own Iraq experience and from the Petraeus approach, and Petraeus (as commander of U.S. Central Command) oversaw McChrystal’s efforts in Afghanistan.

Obama takes a certain political risk in the United States by associating himself so decisively with the same general his predecessor picked to pull Iraq out of its disastrous state in 2005-2006.  Further, calling Petraeus back to field command suggests a lack of confidence in the other available choices, which may only increase grumbling within the senior ranks of the military.  It also puts an almost inhuman burden on Petraeus himself, as if Eisenhower had been put in charge of the Pacific war after his campaign in Europe.

The stakes in Afghanistan are very high.  A defeat would strengthen Islamist extremists immeasurably and likely hasten a sense of the decline of the West’s ability to defend itself and to influence events in its favor.  The triumph of the Taliban, whose values as manifest during their time in power are as inimical to those of Europe and the United States as can be imagined, would be a catastrophe.  Obama was right to defend the purposes of the war in Afghanistan when he replaced his commander, and he did so in strong terms:

“We will not tolerate a safe haven for terrorists who want to destroy Afghan security from within, and launch attacks against innocent men, women, and children in our country and around the world.  So make no mistake:  We have a clear goal.  We are going to break the Taliban’s momentum.  We are going to build Afghan capacity.  We are going to relentlessly apply pressure on al Qaeda and its leadership, strengthening the ability of both Afghanistan and Pakistan to do the same.”

This week marks a key moment for the United States, for its allies, and for Obama’s presidency.  If Petraeus is to succeed in Afghanistan, he must enjoy the confidence of his commander-in-chief. For his part, Obama owes Petraeus and the United States’ allies a smoothly functioning political team to guide and support the military effort.  If McChrystal’s comments that rightly got him fired catalyze such a development, he will have done his country—and the allied cause—a final unintended service.  But if this episode only weakens Western commitment and determination even further, the consequences will be disastrous.

»» Joseph R. Wood is a Senior Resident Fellow with the German Marshall Fund in Washington, D.C.