The New York Times has already fired McChrystal. It strikes me, however, that the general found himself in a position where he has to go to save the mission. Gave the interview, and hands in his letter of resignation. I find it unlikely that he would make such a "mistake" to "act without judgment".
What if he wants to try to force a change in the administration? Secretary of State Hilary Clinton was spared in the Rolling Stone article. Apparently the chemistry between McChrystal and Obama was not right after their first meeting. McChrystal did not find that Obama was sufficiently engaged in the problem. General Petraeus has also begun to address policy questions like stating that Israel has become a liability for the US military.
McChrystal's importance on the mission might be sufficiently grand to make it possible gain such a moral victory? Hamid Karzai has turned to Pakistan and India, fired two ministers that were the most trusted by the US, is McChrystal trying to regain his trust by fouling Karzai's enemies in the administration?
McChrystal's strategy is probably top of the line in this kind of new warfare and if Obama wants to minimize loss, to use Thomas Friedman's conclusion today, or to make it possible to transform Afghanistan to a stable country based on mineral wealth to cite others. Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the NATO commander, Carl Bildt, the Foreign Minister of Sweden, and Hamid Karzai fully supports McChrystal. Obama is facing a choice where he is forced to choose between Joe Biden and Eikenberry and McChrystal. The NSA chief James Jones, who was called "clown" might stay.
On the other hand, maybe the whole affair is about changing the over-all strategy? The number of casualties has increased every year since the beginning 8.5 years ago and the summer fighting season now begins. Although I haven't seen the data, preliminary figures might already be possible to project to yet another record peak of deaths?
The initial COIN endeavor in Marjah was troublesome and the conclusion is that the time schedule is bust for initial withdrawal of troops in July next year. The Kandahar surge is delayed because of this. The New York Times thinks the US and ISAF has a draw with the Taliban and Friedman says, pointedly, that it might be a mistake to try to teach the Afghans how to fight themselves? Then falls the security first on our call strategy.
It seems to me that the only other strategy for achieving stability for extracting mineral wealth and increasing living standards for the Afghan people is to let the country shake down to its natural power state by leaving them alone and taking care of US security needs later by pointed al Qaida attacks by special forces. Somalia style. I think Joe Biden, the US Vice President, had such ideas. This would mean that Obama has come around to his and Eikenberry's way of looking at things.
En försvagning är en försvagning, inte en förstärkning
5 timmar sedan