Tethered Swimming

Stanley McChrystal got shit canned earlier today for running his mouth in front of a Rolling Stone reporter after, apparently, too many Bud Light Limes.  It goes almost without saying that a war might be troubled when its highest general can be felled by a “hippie magazine” and watery beer.  More importantly, as Juan Cole pointed out this morning, is whether or not this will have any effect on our long term plans:

In short, we have no idea why US troops are being sent to Afghanistan at such an accelerating rate. It isn’t to fight al-Qaeda. And if it is mainly a matter of fighting the Taliban, why should we do that?

[…]

No wonder McChrystal was so frustrated that he went around his line of command to the press. The real reason for this contretemps is that Obama does not have a realistic, sharply defined set of goals in Afghanistan

A lack of defined goals didn’t stop us from invading Afghanistan in the first place (ditto Iraq), and it certainly won’t stop us from staying.  Indeed, President Obama said so himself after firing McChrystal, “It is a change in personnel, but it is not a change in policy.”  The people who cooked this up in the first place were not kidding when they coined the term “the long war”.

Lost in all of this is that, while the behavior of McChrystal and his inner circle was wildly irresponsible and easily firing worthy, he and they have good reasons to gripe.  The military is stuck fighting an endless guerilla war not because we desperately need to win, or even because there’s some important national interest at stake.  They’re fighting it because our political system here in America is badly broken.

Not that I expect people to notice what I say here at the ass end of the internet, but I’ve said this before and I’m sure I’ll say it again: Obama would not be President if he had promised to end both wars.  Promising to continue the war in Afghanistan was the tacit price our stupid political system demanded in exchange for promising to end the one in Iraq.

The steady withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, in the face of a fucked up election, continuing violence, and not so subtle opposition from dead-enders here at home, has been the silent success of the still young Obama Administration.  (And let’s hope he doesn’t chicken out as we get closer to zero.)  But it never would’ve gotten this far if we weren’t playing empire in Afghanistan.  The polite bloodlust of the Villagers must be sated, or they’d throw some huge fit casting Obama as a long haired, hippie idealist.  So we grind on in Afghanistan, and guys like McChrystal get caught in the gears.

That doesn’t excuse the behavior of McChrystal and his officers, of course, and good on Obama for pulling the trigger and firing him without undue drama or deliberation.  But resentments of this nature are inevitable when the civilians ask the soldiers to fight indefinitely, pausing only to grandstand and bleat about “the troops”.  It’s been commented on in many places and in many ways, but the disconnect between Here and Over There is enormous; and the fact that The Hurt Locker won some awards doesn’t mean shit to the people actually making the sacrifices.

There’s been a lot of talk of the civilian-military relationship as a result of this, but it’s one that goes both ways.  Yes, the military is absolutely subordinate, that is as it should be and threats to it must be taken very seriously, hence, McChrystal’s firing.  But after nine years of war, it’s very clear who the irresponsible member of this relationship is.  The civilians have fallen down on the job, and until they own up to it the military will keep griping.

Brief End Note:  What is it with disruptive generals and Scottish surnames?  Lots of people mentioned Douglas MacArthur in comparison to McChrystal, but the record holder for most insubordinate is easily George McClellan.  He went so far as to run against Lincoln in 1864, and got himself humiliated in the process.