Descent into Chaosistan?

Daily Times	Thursday, July 01, 2010

COMMENT: Descent into Chaosistan? —Dr Mohammad Taqi

The war in Afghanistan is not about what one military commander can deliver. It is really about the commander-in-chief getting his house in order. On Petraeus’ success or failure potentially hinges Obama’s re-election

Let’s face it: the CIA plan titled ‘Chaosistan’, alluded to by General Stanley McChrystal in his October 2009 speech at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, might actually be playing out in Afghanistan — by default.

General McChrystal’s more recent asides carried by Rolling Stone magazine that cost him his job, is not the first time a US military commander has trashed an incumbent president from Illinois. General George McClellan was promptly relieved of his status as the general-in-chief by Abraham Lincoln when the former referred to him, in private letters, as “nothing more than a well-meaning baboon”, a “gorilla”, and “ever unworthy of his high position”.

That both generals chose the wrong words, language and conduits to castigate their lawyer-presidents from Illinois is not moot. The civilian command of all US wars is also a well-established fact and McChrystal has become — after Admiral Fallon and General McKiernan — the third wartime commander to be canned, post-9/11, by the civilian leadership.

However, after removing his general-in-chief, Abe Lincoln prosecuted the war through a war council that, at least in the history books, seems to have had its act together. The Obama situation room, on the other hand, appears to be like the proverbial deer in the headlights. In his insubordination, McChrystal has managed to turn the high beam on to a highly dysfunctional bunch. The confusion in Washington — and not some sinister CIA plan — is leading to a similar state of affairs in Afghanistan: Chaosistan is right here in the US.

The one word missing from Mr Obama’s 4,608 word subdued speech delivered at the West Point Academy on December 1, 2009, was victory. Pandering to the democratic left, Mr Obama laid out his plan to get out of Afghanistan: a $ 30 billion a year war is economically not sustainable. The US has to cut its losses and get out. In effect, he made it clear that he was out to win an election and not the war.

Four days later, the worn-out looks and body language of Hillary Clinton and Robert Gates, trying to sell Obama’s West Point speech on Sunday-morning talk shows, said it all. Deep divisions and not just disagreement existed within the Obama team. The scholar-president, while apparently agreeing with the McChrystal, Clinton and Gates camp, was increasing troops but had practically sealed the fate of this surge by announcing a draw down date. The clown-prince, Joseph Biden, supported by Nancy Pelosi and Rahm Emanuel, had prevailed.

In a too-clever-by-half move, the Obama administration has now appointed General David Petraeus to lead the war in Afghanistan. Chatter had it that Petraeus — a Republican registered to vote in New Hampshire — may have been interested in running against Mr Obama in 2012.

It was not too long ago that the democratic financier George Soros’ outfit, Moveon.org, ran full-page advertisements in the New York Times against Petraeus, calling him ‘General Betray us’. Ironically, Mr Obama, then a junior senator, did not vote for the Senate resolution calling for a removal of these advertisements. Interestingly, Moveon.org removed the advertisement from its website only last week.

The Wall Street Journal-NBC poll, also released last week, shows that Americans’ confidence level in President Obama has hit an all-time low with 62 percent saying that things in the US are “off on the wrong track”, while only 29 percent think that things are “headed in the right direction”.

In this backdrop, White House political operatives have effectively demoted Petraeus and have prevented him from being a leading Republican candidate in the January 2012 New Hampshire primary. US presidential historians do remember that successful generals have given career-politicians a run for their money in the presidential elections. Even the unsuccessful ones like General McClellan remained a thorn in Abe Lincoln’s side and ran against him in the 1864 election.

What is lost on the Obama administration is that, like McChrystal, General Petraeus — a shrewd political mind himself — is not the one interested in losing wars or creating a façade of success that clueless peaceniks of the Pelosi variety need for their electoral victories at home.

More than that, the war in Afghanistan is not about what one military commander can deliver. It is really about the commander-in-chief getting his house in order. On Petraeus’ success or failure potentially hinges Obama’s re-election. Major bad news from the warfront in an election year can turn the tables on him, especially when the economy and domestic issues have very little chance of giving him a major boost. Obama’s potential electoral rival is his best ally now.

It is about time that Obama commissions a robust review of his Pak-Afghan policy. Especially pertinent would be to rate the advice he has received from his two so-called experts on Pakistan, i.e. Joe ‘foot-in-the-mouth’ Biden and that sheep in wolf’s clothing, Richard Holbrooke. The performance of this duo is pathetic at the very least and outright counterproductive in many instances. Mrs Clinton may have to accept her share of responsibility for the failure of the motley bunch that Holbrooke has gathered around him.

The Pakistani security establishment has played Mr Obama’s team like a fiddle. Among all the regional and world players involved in Afghanistan, Rawalpindi — to its dubious credit — has had the most consistent, clearly enunciated and efficiently executed policy. The way things are going, the Pakistani security establishment and its jihadi assets will very likely recover the strategic losses incurred in the last nine years. They have already scored high in the battle of perception.

The US endgame in Afghanistan has been effectively reduced to damage control. The most effective message that Petraeus can convey to Obama is the observation noted in his PhD thesis on the Vietnam War: “The war was a painful reminder that when it comes to intervention, time and patience are not American virtues in abundant supply.” This is precisely the perception that the Pakistani security establishment has banked on to regain its hegemony over a sovereign neighbour.

On how General Petraeus manages the perception of a worn-out US depends whether Chaosistan becomes a reality, again.

The writer teaches and practices Medicine at the University of Florida and contributes to the think-tanks www.politact.com and Aryana Institute. He can be reached at mazdaki@me.com