Interesting news out of Afghanistan

[Boz]

www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world/asia/14minerals.html

The resources to build an economy that's not entirely based on opium exportation could potentially do more than anything we've ever done there to make this a viable and more stable nation.

(Sorry for starting a new thread; I couldn't find a good one to put this link into).

On a tangential note, is Tom Clancy some kind of prophet or something?

He introduced America, sadly, to the notion of some crazy person flying airliners into our buildings.

And then he also wrote about exactly this sort of thing (in Russia instead of Afghanistan).

Hopefully he's not too close to the mark, because the next big event to follow Russia discovering untold riches in natural resources was all out war with China.

Anyway, a good article and, as always, I remain hopeful that there will be success in Afghanistan. I'm sure it will be messy, but this damn sure could help.

[badgerhoya]

Jun 14, 2010 9:26:50 GMT -5 Boz said:

www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world/asia/14minerals.html

The resources to build an economy that's not entirely based on opium exportation could potentially do more than anything we've ever done there to make this a viable and more stable nation.

(Sorry for starting a new thread; I couldn't find a good one to put this link into).

On a tangential note, is Tom Clancy some kind of prophet or something?

He introduced America, sadly, to the notion of some crazy person flying airliners into our buildings.

And then he also wrote about exactly this sort of thing (in Russia instead of Afghanistan).

Hopefully he's not too close to the mark, because the next big event to follow Russia discovering untold riches in natural resources was all out war with China.

Anyway, a good article and, as always, I remain hopeful that there will be success in Afghanistan. I'm sure it will be messy, but this damn sure could help.

Not to be a debby-downer on this at all, but there's this little thing called the resource curse which makes this not a pure win-win. Sure, it'd be nice if they weren't a narco-state, but at the same time, do we really need another Venezuela? Or even another Nigeria with the added bonus of people trying to kill us?

[derhoya]

www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/06/the-mineral-miracle-or-a-massive-information-operation/58104/

Interesting to note, Afghan's mineral rich deposits aren't new news.

[kchoya]

Jun 14, 2010 9:26:50 GMT -5 Boz said:

www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world/asia/14minerals.html

The resources to build an economy that's not entirely based on opium exportation could potentially do more than anything we've ever done there to make this a viable and more stable nation.

(Sorry for starting a new thread; I couldn't find a good one to put this link into).

On a tangential note, is Tom Clancy some kind of prophet or something?

He introduced America, sadly, to the notion of some crazy person flying airliners into our buildings.

And then he also wrote about exactly this sort of thing (in Russia instead of Afghanistan).

Hopefully he's not too close to the mark, because the next big event to follow Russia discovering untold riches in natural resources was all out war with China.

Anyway, a good article and, as always, I remain hopeful that there will be success in Afghanistan. I'm sure it will be messy, but this damn sure could help.

As long as they don't detonate a nuke at the Super Bowl, I'll be happy.

[The Stig]

It just became a lot easier for Afghanistan to become economically independent.

It just became a lot harder for Afghanistan to become politically independent.

[Boz]

Somewhat less pleasant news out of Afghanistan:

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/22/AR2010062200813.html?hpid=topnews

Some quick thoughts:

1. Just excerpts available right now, so I'd like to read the whole thing in context, but still, this sounds pretty bad. You just can't do this type of thing. As much as I might be sympathetic to Gen McChrystal (again, I would like to read the whole piece), he is a military officer and there is a chain of command. If he is not going to respect that, I think he has to go.

2. Part of me wonders if this was not intentional on his part, even though he has issued an apology. It's not the first time he has challenged the civilian leadership of this administration, and it seems clear they don't see eye to eye. I'm not saying this was a good choice to make if his goal was to be relieved, but I do wonder if part of him might have been thinking that.

3. Despite what I noted in #1, the President's options here are not very palatable. He can remove the general, but he's going to still have to replace him with one who wants to see the mission in Afghanistan through. He can dress him down and leave him in command, which will have many (probably mostly from the left) howling at him and undermine his authority. He can completely change strategy in Afghanistan, but that is fraught with its own perils. I don't know; I don't envy him his choices.

4. Finally, on a side note, this is obviously a big story for Rolling Stone. Which makes me wonder: when was the last time Rolling Stone was ever relevant as a music publication? The 70s?

[jerseyhoya34]

I generally agree. That he would seek out this kind of a profile/publicity does not reflect well on his judgment. I am glad not to have backed him on his troop levels publicity stunt in light of this.

[hoyawatcher]

There were multiple stunts from every corner of the "discussion" leading up to Obama's decision to support the surge. No side or angle in the discussion was pristine so linking how they operate to whether you support them is fraught with the probability of finding no solid ground to stand.

But specific to this outburst I really don't see a way for the General to continue. Obama has to do something to wack this guy who is way out of bounds or he risks losing his own standing. And if he wacks him but leaves him in command he is now leaving a wounded leader who is going to not have the standing and stature he needs to successfully operate in the bureaucratic maze of defense, state and public opinion. The worst thing for trying to succeed here would be to have a wounded or potentially ineffective leader and I don't see a way forward for him in that role.

[SFHoya99]

Rolling Stone has had more Britney Spears covers than anything interesting as long as a can remember.

And their reviews are embarassing: "It's pretty good, if you like that kind of music. 3 1/2 to 4 stars." Geez, thanks, Rolling Stone.

But they do tend to do a few nice, in depth things every once in a while.

-----------

McChrystal honestly sounds like all of us -- we all bitch about our superiors -- but we obviously don't do it in print.

[AustinHoya03]

Jun 22, 2010 9:50:51 GMT -5 SFHoya99 said:

McChrystal honestly sounds like all of us -- we all bitch about our superiors -- but we obviously don't do it in print.

Shouldn't superiors be aware of this, also? If so, why can't complaints (even serious ones) be brushed off?

Is it a good idea to recall a general during a period where casualties have increased? Better to briefly tear the general a new one in private and in public and let him keep doing his job, IMO.

[hoyainspirit]

He's toast, and deservedly so. My guess is that he offers his resignation tomorrow, and that the resignation is accepted. As a high profile, four star general, one just cannot say that stuff publicly.

[SFHoya99]

Jun 22, 2010 10:01:38 GMT -5 AustinHoya03 said:

Jun 22, 2010 9:50:51 GMT -5 SFHoya99 said:

McChrystal honestly sounds like all of us -- we all bitch about our superiors -- but we obviously don't do it in print.

Shouldn't superiors be aware of this, also? If so, why can't complaints (even serious ones) be brushed off?

Is it a good idea to recall a general during a period where casualties have increased? Better to briefly tear the general a new one in private and in public and let him keep doing his job, IMO.

It's one thing for it to be spur of the moment, but in a magazine interview/feature, it's somewhat unforgiveable. Not from an ego standpoint, but more from a willful insubordination.

I do think you can never tell what the real issues are here -- and Obama should look at his own people and see if they aren't part of the problem. But can you actually come back from this and work together?

[TC]

Also - remember the release of the report in December that he did to force getting what he wanted? This is probably strike 2 and 3 on McChrystal.

[jerseyhoya34]

Jun 22, 2010 9:36:23 GMT -5 hoyawatcher said:

There were multiple stunts from every corner of the "discussion" leading up to Obama's decision to support the surge. No side or angle in the discussion was pristine so linking how they operate to whether you support them is fraught with the probability of finding no solid ground to stand.

That may be fair, but there's a difference between Obama and McChrystal. One is the Commander in Chief - in charge of making such decisions, and the other is not. Most recognized at the time, including on this board, that McChrystal's ideas were better left to private discussions.

[hoyawatcher]

I totally and wholeheartedly agree that McChrystal is way out of bounds and most likely will and should be canned. No general should make public comments of that level about the civilian side regardless of whether the prez is Obama or Bush or whomever. So I don't have an argument with separating Obama from McChrystal.

My only comment was that all sides in the run up to Obama's decision made wide use of strategic leaks to the media (such as the cable that trashed Karzai), planted stories that expoused their point of view, shots at other player's competience and ideas from "unnamed but well placed sources". Holbrook and the Ambassador and others were markedly more skilled in their PR approach than the bull in the china shop masquerading as McChrystal, but they were engaged in the same basic activities. So my only point was don't link your support of an idea to whether it was presented in a pristine fashion or you won't find many ideas at this level you can support.

[TC]

After reading this article, WTF, is this guy the Jimmy McNulty of Four Star Generals?

www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/119236

- meeting with french ministers "is gay"
- coming up with one-liners about Biden
- Jim Jones is "a clown"
- McCain is a glory hound but Hillary is cool because she's a rubber stamp machine

And he previewed the article and okayed it. The actual article is much worse than the one quote about Holbrooke that everyone keeps harping on. Yes, McChrystal didn't say half of the stuff, but it's coming out of his staff - if he were sane wouldn't he want to keep staff-on-staff crime out of the article when previewing it?

[The Stig]

The unfortunate thing is that McChrystal is as good at counter-insurgency operations as he is bad at political/PR moves. He's a VERY good general, and he's improved the situation in Afghanistan by leaps and bounds since he took over. He's done a good job of taking the fight to the Taliban while at the same time winning lots of hearts and minds among the Afghan people.

If it were any other general, I'd say sack him immediately. As others have said, this is a completely unforgivable offense from ANY active duty military officer (not to mention a 4 star general), especially because he approved the article before it was published. It's also not the first time McChrystal has improperly spoken out in public. But his successes in Afghanistan have made this a much tougher decision than it would normally be.

[Boz]

Hmmm, having read the full article, I think I have to adjust my opinion.

The only really bad thing the general actually himself said was the Eikenberry thing, IMO. And I'm not entirely sure, but I don't think that constitutes insubordination.

(OK, the Biden thing was in very bad taste and shouldn't have been said or approved, but even this pretty antagonistic writer concedes that he was joking.)

Virtually everything controversial was said by a staff member or anonymous source, including all the things TC listed.

However, my adjustment is this: because most of these things were not said by him, I think there is a pretty good chance Obama might actually keep him on. He is in fact, as Stig points out, very good at his current job, with the possible exception that he might allow his staff to speak too freely. On the other hand, I'm sure that's why they all love him.

I think Obama has an out here to retain the general. And I think that might be what happens.

One note: are we sure that McChrystal himself reviewed and approved this article? I haven't seen that in any of the news reports I read. But I did read that McChrystal's press aid has resigned today, which makes me think maybe it's possible he's the one who reviewed and approved it.

[hoyawatcher]

After reading the whole thing it is not as damning as advertised but still overall is something that should not happen or come from a general - especially one at his level. I cannot see what he was trying to accomplish in the context of winning the war in Afghanistan - and that should be the one and only guiding principal for what to say and to whom.

Beyond that the description of his staff is classic and goes a long way to understand how they would be way out of line. When you read the background on these guys it makes the comments you hear about others almost understandable

"The general's staff is a handpicked collection of killers, spies, geniuses, patriots, political operators and outright maniacs. There's a former head of British Special Forces, two Navy Seals, an Afghan Special Forces commando, a lawyer, two fighter pilots and at least two dozen combat veterans and counterinsurgency experts. They jokingly refer to themselves as Team America, taking the name from the South Park-esque sendup of military cluelessness, and they pride themselves on their can-do attitude and their disdain for authority."

Throw in the background of McChrystal and views like the ones reflected in the article are not unexpected. In reality the description of McChrystal and his staff really looks more like a Chief of Operations rather than the Chief Executive role. The operations guy being the one who is going to get stuff done in a manner no one really wants to know about but is not the front guy.

after reading it all the way through there is some wiggle room if Obama really wants to keep him. I don't expect it but Gibbs and Gates already seem to be trying to create that space. We will see.

[jerseyhoya34]

No surprise here - Eric Cantor has released or given a statement in support of the criticism from McChrystal's shop - www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38850.html

Mixed bag on the left - some say McChrystal should go, others reserving judgment. I think it will be a game time decision and that Obama will listen to what McChrystal has to say tomorrow.