The rolling moss of McCrystal’s fate

AIPNews.com

'The Peace through Strength Institute'

This is an example and a sense of the style of the piece: (referring to McChrystal’s group)

" The assembled men may look and sound like a bunch of combat veterans letting off steam, but in fact this tight-knit group represents the most powerful force shaping U.S. policy in Afghanistan. While McChrystal and his men are in indisputable command of all military aspects of the war, there is no equivalent position on the diplomatic or political side. Instead, an assortment of administration players compete over the Afghan portfolio: U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, Special Representative to Afghanistan Richard Holbrooke, National Security Advisor Jim Jones and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, not to mention 40 or so other coalition ambassadors and a host of talking heads who try to insert themselves into the mess, from John Kerry to John McCain. This diplomatic incoherence has effectively allowed McChrystal's team to call the shots and hampered efforts to build a stable and credible government in Afghanistan. "It jeopardizes the mission," says Stephen Biddle, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations who supports McChrystal. "The military cannot by itself create governance reform."

Tucked into the details elsewhere :

"McChrystal and his team were blindsided by the cable. (*leaked COIN criticism by Eikenberry) "I like Karl, I've known him for years, but they'd never said anything like that to us before," says McChrystal, who adds that he felt "betrayed" by the leak. "Here's one that covers his flank for the history books. Now if we fail, they can say, 'I told you so.' "

Here is a stunning line from it:

But facts on the ground, as history has proven, offer little deterrent to a military determined to stay the course. Even those closest to McChrystal know that the rising anti-war sentiment at home doesn't begin to reflect how deeply f---- up things are in Afghanistan.

"There's a possibility we could ask for another surge of U.S. forces next summer if we see success here," a senior military official in Kabul tells me.

If you read between the lines, as an anti-war strategist would, it seems to indicate that the less visible signs of success there are the better for their ideology.

See article: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/119236?RS_show_page=0

According to those close to the two men, [US ambassador] Eikenberry – a retired three-star general who served in Afghanistan in 2002 and 2005 – can't stand that his former subordinate is now calling the shots. He's also furious that McChrystal, backed by NATO's allies, refused to put Eikenberry in the pivotal role of viceroy in Afghanistan, which would have made him the diplomatic equivalent of the general. The job instead went to British Ambassador Mark Sedwill – a move that effectively increased McChrystal's influence over diplomacy by shutting out a powerful rival. "In reality, that position needs to be filled by an American for it to have weight," says a U.S. official familiar with the negotiations.

As the piece continues, the irony of the fallout should become clear to any reader. In Washington we have Obama – who dislikes criticism anyway unless its self inflicted humor – who referred in his campaign to a team of rivals approach is now dressing down a key general.

Most attributions are on deep background or unnamed. Ones specified by name are down the line field sergeants. It was worth reading because if one remembers during the early campaign, the magazine did a piece on Obama that was pretty detailed about his various connections.