Gen. David McKiernan has been replaced less than halfway into his normal two year tour of duty as the top us commander in Afghanistan. The Stars and Stripes lists out a variety of reasons for his replacement. They run the gamut from being in the way of a new man, to being out of step with the new administration’s policy.
“From a military perspective, we can and must do better,” Gates said at a news conference Monday. “Our mission there requires new thinking and new approaches from our military leaders. “We have a new policy set by our new president. We have a new strategy, a new mission, and a new ambassador. I believe new military leadership is also needed.”
Antony Cordesman suggested that the requirements of the “clear-hold-build” strategy required another man. The general’s Afghan translators, who were also reached by the Stars and Stripes for comment, seemed deeply saddened by his departure and appeared to like McKiernan a great deal.
Anthony Cordesman, analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the move shows the White House’s belief that the coming months are a critical period in the future of U.S. operations overseas. “The deterioration of Afghanistan over the last year was certainly not (McKiernan’s) fault,” he said. “But his experience is as a different kind of commander. “He does not have the direct experience with the clear-hold-build strategy that McChrystal has. That’s what the White House and Gen. (David) Petraeus see needed there right now.”
Kabir Sekander, a cultural adviser and translator for McKiernan, said Monday that McKiernan had told staffers just days before about the leadership change.
“It was very sad,” Sekander said. “This guy honestly worked so hard and did so many good things. He was very involved in so many aspects of this job and the mission. We went with him to so many meetings with the elders. I traveled with him extensively all over the country.
His replacement, Stanley McChrystal, whose “counterinsurgency combat approach” the Washington Times describes as being “more in tune with the Obama administration’s policy to combat Taliban resurgence in the region”, has an interesting background. Wikipedia writes that
As head of what Newsweek termed “the most secretive force in the U.S. military,” McChrystal maintained a very low profile until June 2006, when his forces were responsible for the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq.[3] After McChrystal’s team successfully located Zarqawi and called in the airstrike that killed him, McChrystal accompanied his men to the bombed-out hut to personally identify the body. Impressed, President George W. Bush publicly credited McChrystal and his troops by name for Zarqawi’s death, breaking an Army policy against mentioning McChrystal in public. Asked to confirm that it was indeed McChrystal who had engineered Zarqawi’s death, Multi-National Force – Iraq spokesman Major General William B. Caldwell IV said, “If the president of the United States said it was, then I’m sure it was.”[3][6]
McChrystal’s Zarqawi unit, Task Force 6-26, became notorious for its interrogation methods, particularly at Camp Nama, where it was accused of abusing detainees. After the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse scandal became public in April 2004, 34 members of the task force were disciplined; five Army Rangers were ultimately convicted of prisoner abuse at Camp Nama.[7][8]
McChrystal was also criticized for his role in the aftermath of the 2004 death by friendly fire of Ranger and former professional football player Pat Tillman. The day after approving a posthumous Silver Star citation for Tillman that included the phrase “in the line of devastating enemy fire,” McChrystal sent an urgent memo warning senior government officials not to quote the citation in public speeches because it “might cause public embarrassment” if Tillman had in fact been killed by friendly fire, as McChrystal suspected. McChrystal was one of eight officers recommended for discipline by a subsequent Pentagon investigation but the Army declined to take action against him.[9][10] …
Normally a routine process, McChrystal’s Senate confirmation was stalled by members of the Senate Armed Services Committee who sought more information about the alleged mistreatment of detainees by Special Operations troops under McChrystal’s command in Iraq and Afghanistan.[16] After meeting with McChrystal in private, the Senate Armed Services Committee confirmed his reappointment as lieutenant general in May 2008 and he became director of the Joint Staff in August 2008.[2][5][17]
The Captain’s Journal suggests that the real point of conflict with McKiernan was that he wanted a heavier footprint while the Obama administration is reluctant to send in more military resources. “McKiernan wanted a heavier footprint, just as did Mr. Obama during his campaign for Presidency. He continually requested more troops. John Nagl, who is now head of the Center for a New American Security (which, ironically, is currently advising the Obama administration), has stated that up to 600,000 troops would be required in Afghanistan, and advocated such a commitment.” As in many other things, McKiernan’s mission lived and died on the outcome of a debate in Washington. The Captain’s Journal adds:
In sparsely covered news, there also seems to be a deep reluctance to deploy more than about 68,000 troops in Afghanistan. So another strategy must be employed. It’s difficult to tell with certainty what this strategy entails, since this administration isn’t telling us has declared the metrics for the Afghanistan campaign to be classified. But a relatively good guess might be that heavier reliance will be made on special operations forces attacks on high value targets, which would be more of the same strategy that had failed us so far in Afghanistan.
In a fortuitously timed article Stratfor attempts to explain what it believes is the key debate in the administration over Afghanistan. Stratfor believes that Petraeus and Obama (with Gates on Obama’s side) are divided over the issue of whether it is necessary to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Petraeus argues that the U.S. strategic goal — blocking al Qaeda in Afghanistan — cannot be achieved simply through an agreement with the Taliban. In this view, the Taliban are not nearly as divided as some argue, and therefore their factions cannot be played against each other. Moreover, the Taliban cannot be trusted to keep their word even if they give it, which is not likely.
From Petraeus’ view, Gates and Obama are creating the situation that existed in pre-surge Iraq. Rather than stunning Afghanistan psychologically with the idea that the United States is staying, thereby causing all the parties to reconsider their positions, Obama and Gates have done the opposite. They have made it clear that Washington has placed severe limits on its willingness to invest in Afghanistan, and made it appear that the United States is overly eager to make a deal with the one group that does not need a deal: the Taliban.
On the other side of the debate, Stratfor believes that Obama and Gates, mindful that the Taliban can simply hide out in Pakistan, cannot be militarily defeated. Hence Petraeus’s Iraq strategies would be useless against them. Stratfor says that in Obama’s view, a Taliban victory is inevitable in the end. “Gates and Obama are not convinced that the endgame in Iraq, perhaps the best outcome that was possible there, is actually all that desirable for Afghanistan. In Afghanistan, this outcome would leave the Taliban in power in the end. No amount of U.S. troops could match the Taliban’s superior intelligence capability, their knowledge of the countryside and their willingness to take casualties in pursuing their ends, and every Afghan security force would be filled with Taliban agents.” Therefore, it might be better to enlist the Taliban or at least elements among the Pashtuns in a fight against al-Qaeda and remain in their good graces after the endgame. I have no idea whether Stratfor’s reading is an accurate one.
Those are the different explanations for McKiernan’s depature. Some are strategic in content, others political. What the “real” reasons are will likely be leaked in the coming weeks. But what matters most isn’t McKiernan’s replacement itself, but what it tells us about the new strategy in Washington, which is the key determinant of victory or defeat in the region.
Tip Jar or Subscribe
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
37 Comments
1. DW:“They run the gamut from being in the way of a new man, to being out of step with the new administration’s policy.”
So I can assume that he’s being replaced with Yanni?
May 11, 2009 - 3:06 pm 2. Bonzo:Bend over and let allah drive….
May 11, 2009 - 3:29 pm 3. Peter:Replacing Gen. McKiernan will be Lt.-Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who has had a top administrative job at the Joint Chiefs of Staff for less than a year. He is a former commander of the Joint Special Operations Command.
from:
May 11, 2009 - 3:41 pm 4. JFSanders:http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090511.wafghangeneral0511/BNStory/Afghanistan/home
Wretchard,
“On the other side of the debate, Stratfor believes that Obama and Gates, mindful that the Taliban can simply hide out in Pakistan, cannot be militarily defeated. Hence Petraeus’s Iraq strategies would be useless against them. Stratfor says that in Obama’s view, a Taliban victory is inevitable in the end.”
How does the quoted statement square with the Pakistani military action against the Taliban occurring at this time?
Doesn’t that make the 0’s view of future events incorrect or maybe less possible than previously thought?
May 11, 2009 - 4:00 pm 5. CatoTheShorter:“Obama’s view, a Taliban victory is inevitable in the end”
If these facts are correct, ( that Obama believes an inevitable victory by the Talibs ) then I hope that Obama realizes he must situate things so that the Taliban are effectively neutered, even if they eventually retake Afghanistan.
I would think that a stable and safe Pakistan (along with its nuclear weapons) is much more worthwhile than a stable Afghanistan. Perhaps our fighting in Afghanistan has forced the Talibs to move to an easier target (Pakistan)? If we eventually leave Afghanistan, would that somehow relieve pressure on Pakistan?
Ideally we would be the anvil for Pakistan’s hammer, holding Afghanistan while the Pakistanis drive the Taliban into the remote corners of the northwest frontier. However it appears that the Taliban are proving to be just as hard as the hammer, for the moment.
May 11, 2009 - 4:14 pm 6. vanderleun:The “new strategy” is to prep for the Afghan bugout. Pure and simple.
May 11, 2009 - 4:15 pm 7. vanderleun:The Road to a Democrat Led Defeat of America Goes Through Afghanistan
http://americandigest.org/mt-archives/terrorwar/the_road_to_a_d.php
Also, to quote myself at the end of March responding to Wretchard’s More Afhanistan:
http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2009/03/29/more-afghanistan/
So how do we engineer an American defeat? It is simplicity itself. You begin, not with a “surge” but a ripple.
1) Ripple: Reinforce, but only lightly. After all, it’s not really a “surge.”
2) Raise the body count: Tighten the Rules of Engagement on US forces. This loosens the Rules of Engagement for the Taliban which increases the casualties for the US.
3) Look rational: Set “goals” and a “timetable” going in. Make sure these goals cannot be achieved with the resources available in the time allowed.
4) Short Pakistan: Alienate the land power that control the supply routes. Make protecting logistics consume most of the “reinforcements.”
5) Grandstand: When the land supply routes go down, make a valiant “Kennedyesque” resupply “effort” with an airlift for a short period.
5) Look “realistic:” When your goals are not met and airlift fails, announce that you’ve given it the old college try and must regretfully withdraw.
6) Give a history lesson: Make sure you withdraw using plenty of airpower, with lots of large helicopters at the end taking off from Kabul. The media will be more than happy to compare and contrast the fall of Saigon.
7) Triumphantly involve the UN: Announce at around the same time that your soft diplomacy has born fruit in Iran, and that Hans Blix and the Mullahs have agreed to UN-type weapons inspections of 20 square blocks of the downtown shopping district of Tehran.
9) Mission accomplished : Just in time for, say, a 2012 September surprise: “I brought your boys home, and we’ll have enough troops for government to fill your sandbags in Fargo this spring!” Make the defeated army “your” helpful-at-home army.
10) Reallocate funding: Once you transform the army into something that fights natural disasters and not enemies, you can slash their budget to the bone. The Navy’s next since there won’t be any American power to project or protect. But, hey, you’ve just funded National Health Care so you don’t care. Make sure you’ve got a lot of burn units near major cities. You can name them after Saul Alinsky.
May 11, 2009 - 4:22 pm 8. wretchard:How does the quoted statement square with the Pakistani military action against the Taliban occurring at this time?
Pakistan has never fully controlled the NWFP provinces and some would allege that in the end, the Pashtuns can never be brought under the control of Islamabad. In the Afghanistan/Pakistan area there are not one, but two weak states. And to the extent that the Taliban represents Pashtun nationalism the problem of establishing stable regimes in Kabul and Islamabad means dealing with the tribes which straddle both sides of the Durand Line.
Personally, I think that Stratfor’s formulation of the divide between Petraeus and Obama is probably wrong because the problem, as far as I can see, is how to get the Pashtuns to accept the exclusion of al-Qaeda and other radical element from the tribal areas, not the liquidation of the tribal areas themselves. If Stratfor is half-right, then Petraeus wants to achieve this by showing the Pashtuns on the Afghan side of the border that a just modus vivendi sans the al-Qaeda is possible. If the Obama faction (as described by Stratfor) is right, then the Pashtuns will never be forced to terms while they can shelter in Pakistan.
If Pakistan can convince the Pashtuns (by a combination of coercion and inducements) that they must remove the radical elements, then you can lift the bench on both ends simultaneously, as it were. But I think the problem is now seriously in danger of going out of kilter. In the recent past Pakistan tried dropping its end of the bench by making a deal over Swat. Now they are lifting their end of the bench. The problem, it seems to me, is if as the Pakistanis are lifting the State Department will be dropping. Somehow they have to get their act together. Drop at once or lift together or risk working at cross purposes. Otherwise the Taliban can play both ends against the middle.
The other problem is whether Pakistan is really fully onboard or whether it has a post-endgame scenario. Parts of the ISI have always coveted Afghanistan and why should we believe that, if and when the US withdraws, others will stay out?
May 11, 2009 - 4:24 pm 9. Uncle Jefe:I hope India is ready to take off the gloves.
May 11, 2009 - 4:28 pm 10. KimW:That would be the real hammer (through Pakistan) for our anvil in Afghanistan.
Why do they assume that the Taliban, or their backers in Pakistan do not study history?. A good strategy would be to simply wait the Obama doctrine out until Pakistan falls, giving the State Department something real and immediate to worry about.
May 11, 2009 - 4:36 pm 11. JFSanders:Wretchard,
May 11, 2009 - 5:32 pm 12. Cannoneer No. 4:So basically we have Charlie Brown once again falling for Lucy’s line. And in the end all the players find themselves at the same place they started from. Less some fantastic and hugely brave young men and women sent into the meat grinder for a unattainable goal. How do you suppose I feel, having two sons over there doing what they feel is the right thing to do. And me supporting their choice, believing all the while that in the end the U.S. would be safer and the world would benefit…. I think I am going to be sick.
vanderleun, you were right back then.
Look for a lot of Direct Action looksee pidgen to impress the rubes, followed by a dramatic raid into some Himalayan Alpine Redoubt to snag some definitive DNA proving bin Laden’s death so that Peace With Honor can be declared and the bug out can begin in earnest. And I wouldn’t be surprised if Osama was in on it.
Every promise made to an Afghan by an American will be reneged upon. Thousands of honorable Americans will be made liars.
DHS must have known this was coming down the pike.
May 11, 2009 - 5:35 pm 13. 49erDweet:Warm up the helo’s. O is getting ready to bug out. The fact a neophyte “community organizer” is now establishing US military strategy would be funny if we didn’t have so many warriors’ lives at stake.
May 11, 2009 - 5:39 pm 14. whiskey:The problem with Bug-out from Afghanistan is that it leads to a Taliban take over of Pakistan, and nuked American cities.
It’s that simple.
Obama probably is betting that most of his coalition of SWPL Yuppies, Gays, Hispanics, Blacks and Women will remain firm in the face of nuked cities and demand a surrender in whatever form so he can go about his dream of being General Petain. A dream firmly shared by Democrats.
He’s probably right too, all his core backers will move that way.
But for everyone ELSE, it’s a matter of survival, not just of removing Obama however can be done (impeachment likely) but removing his coalition too from public life. No one needs a Black Lesbian stand up comic for example, if the question is how best to save America’s remaining cities from being nuked.
THEN all gloves come off PC. Pure survival means not just nuking pretty much half the Muslim world into cinders, but shipping most most Muslims into internment camps and then summarily deporting them.
That would not happen with just NYC gone. It is a highly likely outcome in my view with NYC, DC, and some other major city (Atlanta, Dallas, Chicago, Denver) getting nuked as well.
Remember, this isn’t Ho Chi Minh, with defeat consquence free for America’s homeland. Defeat directly means dead Americans in the tens of millions and ruined great cities.
It means at it’s most stark, the choice for life or death, and if life, doing things absolutely unthinkable beforehand.
Peace with Honor was cheap and easy in Nixon’s day. Nuclear proliferation and globalization make that a sick joke on the corpses of millions of Americans.
May 11, 2009 - 5:56 pm 15. Jim Nicholas:JFSanders @ 11
I admire your sons and am grateful for what they are doing for me. My heart aches for you, and so I can only imagine how the present must be for you. I hope the future turns out well for them and you.
Best wishes,
Jim
May 11, 2009 - 6:02 pm 16. NahnCee:Ummm, forgive my ignorance, but where does Petraeus stand in all this? I sort of thought he had overall command in Afghanistan, but I must be mistaken. I still think Obama will be looking for ways to take him out both militarily and politically, lest he run for political office at some point in the future, so I’m wondering if firing this guy might have the effect of going after Petraeus’ support system somehow.
May 11, 2009 - 6:09 pm 17. wretchard:How do you suppose I feel, having two sons over there doing what they feel is the right thing to do. And me supporting their choice, believing all the while that in the end the U.S. would be safer and the world would benefit…. I think I am going to be sick.
In our own small way this online community is trying to put the issues where they can be publicly discussed and transparently resolved. It would be unfair, I think, not to make sure the strategy adopted is well thought out and leads to a worthwhile conclusion before asking men, like your sons, to risk their lives and limbs. The question must always be: for what?
While I don’t pretend to know the answers, I think there are answers that ordinary people can understand. Part of our challenge is to cut through the gobbledygook and find out just exactly what all the agendas are.
May 11, 2009 - 6:29 pm 18. JFSanders:15. Jim and 17. Wretchard,
Thank you for the kind words and consideration. I will pass them along to my sons.
I read Belmont Club because it comes from an honest desire to explain what goes on in the world. Without spin and obfuscation. Good work. And Thank you.
Jim
May 11, 2009 - 7:06 pm 19. A Conservative Teacher:This has Vietnam written all over it- a ‘peaceful’ liberal Democrat increases troop strengths and fires generals with the ultimate goal of losing a war. Kind of makes you wish the good old days of just-doing-whatever-it-takes-to-win Bush.
May 11, 2009 - 7:12 pm 20. noprisoners:Whiskey @ #14:
The problem with Bug-out from Afghanistan is that it leads to a Taliban take over of Pakistan, and nuked American cities.
It’s that simple.
Whiskey,
Please confirm that missiles that were designed to hit India have sufficient range to reach the U.S. Somehow I doubt it.
THanks.
NP
May 11, 2009 - 8:05 pm 21. E. Nigma:There are several ways to look at Afghanistan, both retrospectively and prospectively.
1) what was really possible in 2002 until 2005 or 2006? Afghanistan is at the end of a very long supply line, and landlocked. A “large” footprint was probably never really possible. A hold and build strategy was the order of the day. But as others wiser than me that have been on the ground have said, this is a poor, backward country with much fewer resources than Iraq. The “build” part of the strategy seems to have been stalled out for the past few years.
2) the enemy was always diffuse, with implicit support from the Pashtun northwest of Pakistan, and of course, the heart of darkness, the Pakistani ISI.
3) prospectively, Afghanistan is still at the end of a long supply line, and now the situation is Pakistan is much worse. Musharaff gone, Bhutto assasinated, her doofus husband in charge, the Pakistan Army disillusioned and mislead. It can (and might) get much worse. And where are the Pakistani nukes?
4) Obama is feeling his way, but for what? McKiernan is leaving, an energetic officer of dubious methods is replacing him, limited replacements are the order of the day, again not a heavy footprint.
Perhaps Obama plans to double deal both sides. Perhaps Karzai already smells a double deal, based on his “gratefullness” expressed on Meet the Press last Sunday. He may turn on his American friends if his own neck is on the line, now.
Could the plan be to lead the Taliban/Al Qaeda out into the open, and use Special Forces to inflict key leadership casualties? Or could there be a deal to make an autonomous “Pashtunistan”, covering both sides of the Durand line?
Waziristan is really the Heart of Darkness. KSM and Ramsi Yusef are both from there. As they say out in that land, “a thousand years for revenge”. A profound misunderstanding of these very tribal people, and their “guests”, Al Qaeda.
Or maybe Obama is just going to “bug out”. My heart is with any soldier serving in theater now. Leadership seems very indeterminate, and foolishly telegraphing their moves.
May 11, 2009 - 8:07 pm 22. Nomenklatura:As usual for a left wing Democrat, Obama’s goal is basically to find someone he can surrender to.
May 11, 2009 - 8:21 pm 23. Rob:Very interesting.
Stratfor has made extreme predictions before and they do not always work out.
My impression was, that although the scenario laid out here, to abandon Afghanistan again, to bug-out as it were, has wide support on the left, it may not happen. This is the Good War/ Iraq was the Bad War; Obama maybe smart enough to avoid such conspicuous defeat.
My Congressman friend stated that he felt confident that Obama, on Afghanistan, was going to stay the course and try to win the war.
Obama is clearly good at saying things that people want to hear, until it becomes time to throw them under the bus. I hope this time he sticks with the mission.
What Stratfor does not mention is what happens after we leave or a decade later.
Will we be safer??
Code Pink will be happy,
but all kinds of disaster are possible:
civil war, in Afghanistan and in Pakistan
refugees everywhere
an explosion of drugs
an energized Iran
an energized Taliban
an energized Al Qaeda
no more leverage on Pakistan
no more hunting Al Qaeda
chaos in Pakistan
or war with India to provide a distraction.
Al Qaeda allies in control of nuclear weapons
Simpler in my view to support the civil government in Afghanistan, enlarge the army, train the police, conduct civil affairs particularly in those safer areas not
against the Pak border, where there are few Taliban and few drugs.
We have our best generals and the best soldiers over there. They know how to win. We should back them up and basically stay the course.
No one is going to be impressed with declaring victory and going home.
May 11, 2009 - 9:32 pm 24. Robohobo:Hopefully Obama can see that.
noprisoners @ 20: “…confirm that missiles that were designed to hit India have sufficient range to reach the U.S.”
Here is how. Not missles but UAV’s launched from off of the coast. This is just one way. Also, read about how few containers come into the ports of the country and are properly inspected. This is a story and not even about Afghanistan but still…
http://www.newmediajournal.us/staff/kraft/2006/10242006.htm
I have a question for wretchard. What drew me to your site(s) was your essay on the 3 Conjectures. Where do the current events fit into that very sharp observation? Can you update your thoughts around the conjectures to allow for recent events? IOW, where are we, in your opinion?
May 11, 2009 - 9:36 pm 25. RaviT:#9 Uncle Jefe,
I wouldn’t count on any help from India–the army is woefully underfunded (navy and air force are better), and the politicians are total wimps. Sad, but all too true.
May 11, 2009 - 9:53 pm 26. Rob:JFSanders thanks to you and your sons, we have a choice. We still have the option of keeping a future for ourselves and Afghanistan. The Taliban are weak in large parts of Afghanistan, but they are very good at propaganda with bombs and guns. And our media sucks the propaganda up.
May 11, 2009 - 10:01 pm 27. 49erDweet:There are few stories about the refugees coming home and the new houses that are going up all over the country. Afghanistan has had 30 years of chaos and does not want any more.
The problem is the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Pakistan and the lack of political will in Washington DC. If we lose we will lose there.
The beauty of it is that O can lose in Afghanistan and the spin will be it is all GWB’s fault because he waited too long. If it’s still around at the time, you can bet that will be the story-line in the NYT.
May 11, 2009 - 11:31 pm 28. RaviT:Northern/Western Afghanistan are doing OK–the problem area is in the south and east–Pashunistan, just like NWFP in Pakistan–of course, the Taliban’s ideology is for a full-fledged Caliphate–they’re far from focused (at least in rhetoric, which I wouldn’t dismiss) on ethnicity. It’s really difficult to predict how things will go–the Pakistani offensive against the Taliban seems un-serious, really, and it doesn’t look like Obama is much more serious about crushing the Taliban–maybe Petraeus can work something out? I’m dubious, but I guess a lot of the Taliban don’t share in the broader ambitions of their movement? That would be the hope, unless we’re willing to go for a real drag-out fight, which we (i.e., the West) don’t seem to be ready for in the short-term, at least. It really is shaping up as a classic case of “if good people do nothing” . . . . Obviously US/UK/Canadian/Dutch troops are doing a lot more than nothing, but–unless more is done . . . .
May 11, 2009 - 11:51 pm 29. wretchard:Re where we are now with respect to the Three Conjectures essay I wrote so long ago. There are two models of peacekeeping: the police model and the Wild West model. In the police model, we delegate the use of force to the authorities and go about largely unarmed. In the Wild West model there is no police. Everyone goes about armed and when necessary, exchanges fire with someone else.
My guess is that the non-proliferation regime is collapsing and that the current political leadership in the West will accelerate its demise. The police model is coming to an end. A lot of pundits have predicted that some time in the next decade, there will be a WMD terror attack on a Western city. What they’ve not predicted is what happens after that. One trajectory from that point is a slow slide into a Three Conjectures type situation. The politicians won’t be able to solve it and then at some point, something will snap and a catastrophe will ensue. At that point either a new and brutal sheriff will emerge from the chaos and the police model will be re-established; The other possibility is that new equilibrium will emerge because the “other side” — whoever that may be, will be struck with a deniable reprisal. In other words, bushwhack will be met by bushwhack.
Suppose for example, Mumbai vanished in a blast with no one admitting responsibility? A nuclear version of the last attack. But what if a half dozen Pakistani cities were to go up with no one claiming the credit. Would the militants stop? Maybe. In the face of that kind of brutal reprisal there would be a lot of internal social pressure to cool it. They’d enforce control internally out of the need to survive. At least for a while. Universal nuclear disarmament except for the police will be replaced by universal concealed carry. We go from the police model to the Wild West model. Instead of a single gigantic Three Conjectures event, you might have a dozen little nuclear exchanges until some way is found to cool things down.
Either way, the current political generation will have failed to meet the test of keeping the peace and we’ll go into an uncertain future where the open travel, trade and security of the last thirty years is replaced by a dark and terrifying era.
May 12, 2009 - 3:02 am 30. ledger:I agree with vanderleun @7. I think is a Cut & Run strategy by Obama. It’s also going to be done by committee.
There will be two Generals running the show which will probably one too many chefs in the kitchen. This will give Obama the cover he needs to cut & run.
[Navy Times]
Gates said he will nominate Army Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, a special operations veteran who now is director of the Joint Staff, to replace McKiernan. He also said he will create a new post dubbed deputy commander for Afghanistan forces. Army Lt. Gen. David Rodriguez will be tapped for that position.
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2009/05/military_mckiernan_gates_051109w/
[cdrsalamander]
“Nothing against LtGen McChrystal – but unlike some, I am not all that happy with this rumor… Gen. McKiernan is the right man at the right time in the right job. Only now are his ideas starting to be put in place. He needs, no – deserves – another year.”
May 12, 2009 - 3:49 am 31. ledger:Here is the link to CDR Salamander
http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com/2009/05/mckiernan-out.html
May 12, 2009 - 3:51 am 32. Boiled Cabbage:“half dozen Pakistani cities were to go up with no one claiming the credit”
In 1939-45 not even fire-bombing of whole cities, in retaliation for the Blitz, led to the belligerents changing their tune.
Just perhaps the Predator strikes are the most successful part of AfPak. In time they might condition AQ etc to equate jihadi action with an unexpected missile in the middle of the night.
May 12, 2009 - 4:05 am 33. Lifeofthemind:noprisoners,
Please confirm that missiles that were designed to hit India have sufficient range to reach the U.S.
Mexico.
There is no longer security in isolation for America. Northern Mexico is dissolving under the pressure of corruption, drug gangs, and both Sunni and Shiite infiltration. Once they get a warhead they will be able to smuggle it into Mexico and then it will only be a matter of time. Tons of drugs breach the border routinely and enter the United States. How can we expect to keep out a warhead under these circumstances?
Paradoxically the swine flu episode might have strengthened the hand of the central government and bought us a little breathing space.
May 12, 2009 - 4:06 am 34. DWB:JF Sanders # 18 – Everything is in a constant state if change. The Michaels (Yon & Totten) seem to be one of the few good sourses of information in those areas these days. Trusted blogs seem also to be the new source of information. If the issues stated are in question, they’re openly challenged. The Post “Wink, Wink” is a good example. In that post, I think that the comments were better than the initial post. The “group think” expressed in the comments section is probably better than any individual think. If one only wants to hear what they agree with, they need to join the “The bible says it, I believe it, That settles it.” crowd. Unfortunately uncertainty is the bedfellow of people that think for themselves.
May 12, 2009 - 4:13 am 35. buddy larsen:JF Sanders/11; can’t add much to what the others have said, except to add a salute to your boys and you and your family.
May 12, 2009 - 5:41 am 36. buddy larsen:Gen. Petraeus was on the toob over the weekend –an interview by Chris Wallace. He dissembled in the usual way, positive words delivered rather less than enthusiatically. But what was striking was his expression –it was like David Petraeus’s depressed twin brother. i have a strong impression that there is much in this O admin that is so far out of square & plumb that the good general is burdened with more court politics than he knows is good for the soldier’s mission.
May 12, 2009 - 7:18 am 37. Craigicus:Before U. Grant took the reins, McClellan kept asking for more resources and appeared to want to train but not fight. When Lincoln replaced him, now that was a firing.
The general replaced this time just didn’t fit perfectly. At this high stage in their careers, they should either quit or be happy with the time to serve that they are allowed. When I was a soldier under generals, I sure as hell hoped that if someone thought another general would do better then we shouldn’t worry about feelings or politics or anything — just make the swap and get on with it.
Most generals are graceful when they are replaced. That is right and the way it should be. We citizens can ask all the questions we want but we don’t have to ponder that the replaced general is disgraced — unless you see something stronger than asking someone to resign.
May 13, 2009 - 8:24 pmSorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.