General Stanley McChrystal
US President Barack Obama faced a dilemma on Tuesday after his commander in Afghanistan showed disdain for the White House, as sacking the general could carry too high a cost at a pivotal moment in the war.
General Stanley McChrystal's role as commander was hanging in the balance after a damaging profile in Rolling Stone magazine in which he and his aides openly mock top civilian officials and speak dismissively of Obama himself.
Analysts said Obama must decide if he can still trust the general after the disrespectful display, or whether replacing him might derail the war effort amid an overhaul of strategy overseen by McChrystal.
The embarrassing episode could not have come at a more sensitive moment in the troubled Afghan war, amid a surge of 30,000 US troops and plans for a make-or-break operation in the southern province of Kandahar.
"This is an unfortunate distraction at a critical time," said a senior defense official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
Although Obama had plenty of grounds to fire McChrystal based on the article, sacking him could jeopardize a delicate timeline that envisages a military push against the Taliban and then the start of a US withdrawal in July 2011, some analysts said.
"While the White House has every right and reason to be deeply concerned, and angry, I hope President Obama will retain McChrystal," Michael O'Hanlon, a fellow at the Brookings Institution, told AFP.
He said that "we need him badly in this war effort and he would be very difficult to replace."
Removing the general also could trigger political fallout over a war that lacks strong public support, requiring drawn-out hearings in the Senate to confirm a successor, commentators said.
Even as NATO's Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen lent public backing to McChrystal, bloggers speculated about who might succeed the general, with General James Mattis topping the list of possible candidates.
McChrystal has come to personify the war in Afghanistan and has been praised by fellow military leaders as one of the few officers suited to the difficult task.
The former special operations commander has reshaped the US-led campaign in Afghanistan, pressing Obama for a troop buildup, closing some remote outposts and issuing orders to limit heavy firepower to avoid civilian casualties.
But he ran afoul of some of Obama's deputies in his push for more forces.
The general's aides and allies have been accused of trying to box in the White House last year with leaks to reporters, as the president weighed whether to grant a request for reinforcements.
Some commentators said Obama had to exert his authority as commander-in-chief or else set a worrisome precedent for military-civilian relations.
"Obama owes it to past and future presidents to draw the line and say: this is not tolerable. You must go," James Fallows, a former speechwriter for ex-president Jimmy Carter, wrote on the Atlantic's website.
The former head of Central Command, Admiral William Fallon, was sacked by Defense Secretary Robert Gates in 2008 over a similar flap, in which he bashed the then Bush administration over Iran policy in an interview with Esquire magazine.
Unlike his boss, the politically savvy General David Petraeus, McChrystal lacked experience in the public spotlight before taking command and the article will likely leave him wounded, if he stays in the job.
His background as a special operations commander in Iraq meant McChrystal was more accustomed to moving swiftly without having to wait out Washington's political machinations, wrote Andrew Sullivan in his Daily Dish blog.
"He is a driven man, strong-headed, amazingly disciplined, extremely able in a limited fashion -- and clearly unused to compromise or getting along with people as powerful as he is. Diplomat he is not," Sullivan said.
0 comments:
Post a Comment