| July 2010 |
|
Petraeus steps into 'runaway' general's shoes
Rahimullah Yusufzai
|
| |
|
US policy: Deeper into the Quagmire
Ashok K Behuria |
| |
|
McChrystal and the US-led effort in Afghanistan
Stratfor |
| |
|
Where global powers converge for the 'Great Game'
G Parthasarathy |
| |
|
Globalisation and the border
William Crawley
|
| |
|
Lord Bhikhu Parekh
Shyam Bhatia
|
| |
|
Paradox of a conflict: two Kashmirs, two voices
David Watts |
| |
|
Bush-era warmth is missing
Inder Malhotra |
| |
|
Abhisit Government stuck between a rock and a hard place
A Special Correspondent |
| |
|
Kim Jong-il's reign of fear
Andrew Small |
| |
|
The ruler has no immunity from rules
Kuldip Nayar |
| |
|
Faisal Devji, reader at Oxford, describes Pakistan as a proxy battlefield
Shyam Bhatia |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
July 2010
Change of command
McChrystal and the US-led effort in Afghanistan
While the ousting of General Stanley McChrystal has no sinister undertones and signals no change in tactics, the flawed US strategy in Afghanistan will remain under scrutiny.
By Stratfor
|
 |
Disloyalty in the ranks: Gen McChrystal was ousted for his cutting criticism of Obama's civilian team |
|
|
While the ousting of General Stanley McChrystal has no sinister undertones and signals no change in tactics, the flawed US strategy in Afghanistan will remain under scrutiny.
US President Barack Obama on Wednesday accepted the resignation of the man he handpicked last year to implement a new strategy and execute the war in Afghanistan. In one sense, the commander of US Forces-Afghanistan and the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force Gen. Stanley McChrystal left the president with little choice after making blatantly critical remarks about senior administration officials in an inflammatory Rolling Stone magazine interview.
But the bottom line is that Obama did not wake up on Monday with any intention or thought of relieving McChrystal of his duties in the coming days. He had an oil spill and a domestic economy to worry about. So while there is no shortage of conspiracy theories circulating inside the Washington beltway, the fact of the matter is that this resignation had little to do with anything other than the article in Rolling Stone, set to hit news-stands on Friday.
|
|
|
| |
Obama went out of his way in his speech in the Rose Garden on Wednesday to emphasize the continuity of efforts in Afghanistan as well as the strategy behind it as he announced that US Central Command (CENTCOM) chief Gen. David Petraeus would replace McChrystal. Indeed, because Petraeus is such a prominent figurehead for the counterinsurgency paradigm to which McChrystal subscribed, and because Petraeus played a central role in formulating, advocating and implementing the current American strategy in Afghanistan, it is hard to imagine another potential candidate for the job who would have more completely embodied that continuity.
Ultimately, wars do not turn on a dime. The status of a war is not re-evaluated in 24 hours; the current strategy took some six months to devise and debate. A president certainly does not choose a field commander in 24 hours unless he absolutely must. And because commanding the war in Afghanistan and CENTCOM are each more than enough of a job for one individual, a single person can hardly manage both. So it is far from clear that this is the final command structure. The bottom line is that a senior officer was replaced because his actions warranted it.
McChrystal's resignation does not reflect a shift in strategy, but that hardly means that all is well with that strategy. For example, the delay of the long-anticipated Kandahar offensive appears to be symptomatic of some deeper underlying strategic issues. Similarly, the emphasis placed on continuity of strategic intent does not guarantee a smooth transition. This change of command comes at a time when the Taliban perceives itself as winning the war, perceptions are growing within the West that NATO is losing the war and Afghans remain deeply skeptical of the government in Kabul and the US commitment to Afghanistan.
Perception is critical in this war. The United States must gain supporters in Afghanistan despite the common knowledge that US forces will not remain in the region for long. Further, it remains to be seen how this shift will be spun and interpreted by everyone from leader of the Taliban Mullah Omar to Afghan President Hamid Karzai, and from local Afghans to American grunts. The United States is having a hard enough time as it is in Afghanistan.
At the end of the day, no matter who is in charge, the American-led effort in Afghanistan remains deeply intractable with limited prospects for success. And so our eyes turn back to the execution of the war and the effectiveness of the strategy guiding that effort.
. top |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
