US General’s fate lies in “please explain”

The fate of the commander of the Afghanistan campaign, Stanley McChrystal, lay in the hands of President Barack Obama last night: equally, perhaps, the course of the eight-years-plus war hinged on the fortunes of the four-star general.

 

 

Should he survive his White House confrontation with the President - though few commentators believed he would - it would almost certainly be because he was judged the man best capable of seeing through a mission that many fear is nearing impossible.

 

 

Forced to repeat in person his apology to Mr Obama and key administration figures over intemperate remarks made to a Rolling Stone correspondent, General McChrystal would escape being sacked if the President concluded that his staying on was in keeping with the administration’s war focus.

 

 

“And that is success in making sure that al-Qaeda and its affiliates cannot attack the United States and its allies,” Mr Obama said yesterday after a cabinet meeting.

 

 

“We’ve got young men and women there who are making enormous sacrifices, families back home who are making enormous sacrifices. And so whatever decision that I make with respect to General McChrystal or any other aspect of Afghan policy is determined entirely on how I can make sure that we have a strategy that justifies [their] enormous courage and sacrifice.”

 

 

But beyond that, the White House was conceding little in the lead-up to the meeting.

 

 

“The purpose for calling him here is to see what in the world he was thinking,” press spokesman Robert Gibbs said.

 

 

The dilemma for the President was clear, however: in the face of remarks that bordered on insubordination, Mr Obama could sack his top commander in Afghanistan- or accept his offer to resign - at the risk of putting the war strategy in jeopardy. Or he could let him stay on at the risk of being labelled weak by his political opponents.

 

 

Though Democrats generally clamoured for blood, John Kerry, who is chairman of the Senate foreign relations committee, stood by the general despite unguarded comments in which he belittled Vice-President Joe Biden and bad-mouthed top USdiplomats.

 

 

“I have confidence in his abilities as a general,” Senator Kerry said, before adding: “The real question is, will it affect his ability to continue to have a relationship with the President and his top staff?”

 

 

The general, however, has form. Last September, in a speech he delivered in Londonon counter-insurgency, he referred to Mr Biden’s alternative war proposal - for fewer troops and more unmanned drone attacks - as likely to lead to “Chaos-istan”. And he took a swipe at the President’s long deliberations over the war, saying: “This effort will not remain winnable indefinitely”.

 

 

General McChrystal’s tendency to self-destruction comes as popular support for the war is being severely tested by rising American and NATO casualties, with 67 deaths already this month - the worst June since hostilities began in 2001.

 

 

The general does, however, remain central to Mr Obama’s strategy. In December, after a three-month review of the conflict, the President backed his call for a “surge” similar to the troop build-up in Iraq that was credited with stabilising areas of that country leading up to elections. – (The Age, Australia)