President Obama’s dismissal of General Stanley McChrystal as the senior U.S. and coalition military commander in Afghanistan—prompted by critical remarks about senior civilian officials and the Obama Administration’s decision-making process from General McChrystal and members of his staff, as reported in Rolling Stone magazine—should focus attention on the incoherence of the Obama Administration’s strategy for prosecuting what is now the longest war in American history (yes, longer than Vietnam).
The Rolling Stone article is not the first time that McChrystal’s critical views of his civilian superiors have made their way into the public eye. Last fall, at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, McChrystal described the “counterterrorism” strategy for Afghanistan being advocated by Vice President Biden as a superior alternative to the general’s preferred “counter-insurgency” strategy as a “shortsighted” approach that would lead Afghanistan into a state of “Chaos-istan”.
One of the more striking aspects of the current episode is that no one is vigorously disputing the essence of the assessments advanced by McChrystal and his associates; most commentary argues only that sharing the assessments with a journalist was inappropriate. Among other items in the Rolling Stone account, America’s senior military leadership in Afghanistan
–Characterized national security adviser James Jones as a “clown” and an “inept bureaucratic infighter” who is “stuck in 1985”. (It is hard to find many people in Washington who think that Jones is not ineffective as Obama’s national security adviser.)
–Depicted special envoy Richard Holbrooke as a “wounded animal” obsessed with “rumors that he’s going to be fired, so that makes him dangerous. He’s a brilliant guy, but he just comes in, pulls on a lever, whatever he can grasp onto. But this is [counter-insurgency], and you can’t just have someone yanking on shit.” (Holbrooke seems to have been determined to make an American counter-insurgency campaign since his service as a young Foreign Service Officer in Vietnam in the 1960s.)
–Described Ambassador Karl Eikenberry’s cable leaked to The New York Times in January that sharply questioned McChrystal’s counter-insurgency strategy as “one that covers his flank for the history books—now, if we fail, they can say, ‘I told you so’”.
–Criticized high profile politicians like Senator John Kerry (D-Massachusetts, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee) and Senator John McCain (R-Arizona and the GOP’s 2008 presidential nominee), who “turn up, have a meeting with Karzai, criticize him at the airport press conference, then get back for the Sunday talk shows. Frankly, it’s not very helpful”.
Furthermore, while we are not fans of counter-insurgency, it seems that McChrystal agrees with one of our long-standing critiques of Obama’s policies: the people he has appointed to key national security and foreign policy positions are incapable of or unwilling to put together an effective strategy to broker a political settlement for Afghanistan—a settlement that would include the key internal Afghan players, such as President Hamid Karzai and leaders of the Taliban, as well as the dominant external powers, especially Iran and Saudi Arabia.
But the problems with Obama’s advisors do not stop with their ineffectiveness. While refusing (or simply being unable) to work together to develop and implement a strategy to stabilize Afghanistan, many of these same advisors are working overtime to stoke conflict between the United States and one of Afghanistan principal external players—Iran. They are also working to exacerbate tensions between two of Afghanistan’s most important external players—Iran and Saudi Arabia—which, in years to come, could add an Iranian-Saudi proxy war in Afghanistan on top of the country’s already chaotic landscape. Likewise, they are trying to prevent Iran and Pakistan—which have had an historically antagonistic relationship—from cooperating on an important gas pipeline.
It remains to be seen whether McChrystal’s designated replacement, General David Petraeus, will be able to inject a more genuinely strategic approach into the Obama Administration’s Afghan policy. In his assignments in Iraq, General Petraeus exhibited occasional understanding of what needed to be done politically with key internal and external actors. During his first assignment in Iraq, as commander of the 101st Airborne Division with responsibility for the area around Mosul, Petraeus broke with the preferences of neoconservative civilians in the Office of the Secretary of Defense (Donald Rumsfeld, at the time) to engage with Syrian officials in order to get an electrical power supply established for his area of responsibility. During his later assignment as senior commander of U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq, Petraeus had the foresight to engage Sunni groups which the United States had previously written off as irredeemable supporters of Al-Qa’ida in Iraq. If—and this is a big if—these relatively small points about his service in Iraq indicate how Petraeus will approach his new assignment in Afghanistan, then the new commander might be able to see the importance of engaging with all of the critical players inside Afghanistan (including senior members of the Taliban), as well as with key external players like Iran and Saudi Arabia.
But even more important than McChrystal’s highlighting of the weaknesses of Obama’s national security and foreign policy team is his powerful implication that the President himself is not capable of articulating a clear strategy, sticking with it, and putting together a team capable of implementing it. Whether he meant to or not, General McChrystal has unveiled a stark failure of presidential leadership that puts U.S. interests in an important part of the world in serious jeopardy. And that’s something that not even a new general can fix.
–Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett
In an interview appearing in Spiegel online today (June 28th), Bruce Riedel of the Brookings Institution claims the Afghan was “is important for the defeat of al-Qaeda”.
Yet another cheerleader for more war on false premise.
Eric,
I think Iran has made it very clear that an attack on itself will cause the closing of the Gulf to shipping. The Israelis (and/or the US) would get the blame for launching an illegal war.
Ahmed Rashid has some excellent comments in the Financial Times today (June 25th): “It is time to rethink the west’s Afghan strategy”.
Rashid argues that the Obama camp want to deal a military blow to the Taliban before seeking a negotiated settlement, but this seems not to be possible.
Richard,
Two points. First, you shift from discussing whether Iran can and should close the Strait of Hormuz to the likelihood of a US attack on Iran as if one’s views on the second issue are somehow connected to one’s views on the first. They’re not. But I don’t want to get into the second issue here.
YOU WROTE: “I can’t see Iran not using its most effective economic weapon against the US simply to score PR points over not closing the Straits. It makes no sense, although it’s not impossible.”
The question you’re not addressing is pretty straightforward: Would Iran be wise to close the Strait of Hormuz? Rather than discuss it again, may I ask that you re-read my two longer posts on this and respond?
Richard,
If your assumption is that Israel would not attack Iran without a go-ahead from the US, and that the object would be to ensure the US was dragged into the conflict, I agree with you. And the Gulf would be closed to shipping, causing world-wide economic chaos.
To me, the idea of attack Iran seems to obviously absurd and insane, it is with a grim fascination I read the posts of those who think such a war makes sense.
The key problem, to me, is the pervasive penetration of the US national security establishment by Jewish interests who see “protecting” Israel as their primary mission.
While it is theoretically possible that Iran might gain some PR advantages by not closing the Straits, this is a considerably weaker strategy than actually trying to close them.
Actually, it’s not even necessary for Iran to describe its military actions in the Gulf as “closing the Straits”. It could leave that description to the US. Meanwhile, it’s actual actions in conducting naval operations against the US naval forces in the Gulf – namely, mine laying, missile attacks that “just happen” to hit an oil tanker, etc. – would result in the same effect: nobody will want to pilot a tanker in that situation.
Obviously Iran would not keep the Straits closed for “years” – unless the war drags on for years. But the Western economies can not endure $250 oil for even six months at this point.
I can’t see Iran not using its most effective economic weapon against the US simply to score PR points over not closing the Straits. It makes no sense, although it’s not impossible.
Every time I see a discussion of an Iran-US war, the same thing appears to happen. People desperately try to figure out some way it wouldn’t be a total disaster. This usually leads to the conclusion that the US would “never” attack Iran. This is irrelevant since Israel could do the initial attack and that would be enough to drag the US into it, absent some really strong US President (who doesn’t exist). But even if Israel continues to refuse to start such a war, in order to avoid being blamed for it later when it goes bad for the U.S., face facts. Sooner or later another bozo Republican President like a John McCain is going to get elected – and such a President very likely will start such a war, regardless of the consequences, just as the Iraq war started.
The US military-industrial oligarchy and the politicians have NO DOWNSIDE to attacking Iran. THEY aren’t going to be harmed in any way by doing so. Right now the only push-back there is against attacking Iran is from the Pentagon which knows they are too bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq to take on Iran (except the Air Force people who are gung-ho on bombing Iran from the air.) And Obama knows that his political fortunes in the next election pretty much depend on NOT starting another war (even though he continues to plow ahead with the failed war in Afghanistan). So he may well dither around and fob off the Iran war on his successor, whether Democratic or Republican.
The problem for the war-mongers is that with another four or eight years of no Iranian bomb, the rationale for war is going to get thinner and thinner. I really can’t see Israel and the US war-mongers sitting back and letting that happen. They have too much MONEY and POWER at stake.
So any notion that war with Iran is not on the table is dangerously naive. And any notion that Iran is going to sit back and let itself be seriously bombed without undertaking major asymmetric retaliatory moves, which quite likely will lead to major escalation, is also naive.
R.d.,
“[Iran} has no reason or need to close the Strait. Except of course, if their oil installation is targeted.”
I agree with that. But that won’t happen either. The US might have in mind some ownership changes, but blowing up one of the world’s largest oil refineries is hardly in the US’ best interest.
Obama’s selection of Petraeus to replace McChrystal was suggested in advance by neoconservative columnist William Kristol, and hailed by the right-wing media as a political masterstroke. (Patrick Martin, WSWS, Jun 24)
Bill Kristol, the man who brought you Sarah Palin…
Eric “I can’t see why Iran would hand the US such a useful excuse in exchange for very little if any gain”
Assuredly, the iri has exercised its many options to the nth degree… the moment the very first bullet is fired, the oil prices will shut up… that’s “almost” as bad as body bags coming back to US (economically speaking). The iri has no reason or need to close the straight. Except of course, if their oil installation is targeted. IRI has shown in their FP practice, they will not provoke. However, they will never sacrifice their rights either. They have stuck with the NPT, but have not compromised their rights. During the Iraq war, they refused to retaliate with chem. Weapons, when attached by chem. weapons. They have shown, they logically think through their approach/options, even considering the limited options they have at their disposal.
On the other hand, US is sitting on the high seat and makes decisions based on might makes right. We’ll free Iraq from Sadam and the Iraqis will welcome us with flowers. Send more troops and you can secure Afghanistan! Even the layman (at least outside US!!) seems to recognize the fallacy on that line of thinking. There should be no questioning the resolve of the iri in defending the countries rights and its independence. That’s where the US decision makers falter. Same as the GM, specially, their leadership. Not to recognize the countries independence is not for sale. That is not to say that, there may be a need for certain social changes within the country. However, without independence, those social changes are irrelevant.
Kooshy “For Iran an attack by US is like the old saying “when your head is under water it doesn’t matter how deep you are”
Unfortunately, for US decision makers the cost/damage to US doesn’t even appear to be on the radar screen. Might, makes right, rules. Are there damages from the continued policy in Iraq? There must not be, at least as far as US policy makers are concerned. There are no policy changes. Is Afghanistan hurting? Must not be, there are no changes, except the big kuhano.
The US is behaving like a person who was unexpectedly shot! Looking down on the hole and the blood gushing, one can not believe he has been shot. Still standing, and not on the knees, but refusing to accept the realty. The political bickering, polarization, and special interest groups influencing the decision making has paralyzed the country.
Despite the American optimistic view, the economy is stuck in low (reverse?) gear and not going anywhere. No matter how much the corporate prostitute journalist, other wise know as the mass media, portrays economic progress. All indicative of signs the US is headed for more radical, right wing political movement. Sadly, the reality may be the most undesirable option, when it comes to US and Iran.
James,
“Eric: Are you suggesting Obama could be so astonishingly stupid as to believe it is the prerogative of the US to be “punishing” Iran?”
I don’t claim to know what Obama believes, nor see a need to characterize his beliefs. The US certainly welcomes excuses to punish Iran, however, and I can’t see why Iran would hand the US such a useful excuse in exchange for very little if any gain. In the unlikely event that the US and Iran go to war, Iran would be wise to do as little as possible to turn the rest of the world against it. Closing the Strait of Hormuz, any longer than would inevitably result from a US-initiated war, would do just that.
Eric,
Are you suggesting Obama could be so astonishingly stupid as to believe it is the perogative of the US to be “punishing” Iran?
Eric,
A US attack on Iran would certainly result in the closure of the Gulf, and a spiking in oil prices to above $200 per barrel, causing world-wide economic havoc.
An idiotic Israeli attack might cause the same result.
I share your concern Obama seems lacking in strategic thinking ability, but this problem clearly affects US generals who seem to delude themselves into thinking “sucess” is achievable in Afghanistan without working with Iran.
Eric, the only reason that there is no pipeline from Persian Gulf to Red sea ports in the Saudi Arabia is because it has to pass thorough northern Shihe states and therefore vulnerable for Saudi government to make concession to the Saudi Shihe (empowering), can you imagine if a Saudi pipeline blows off like in Iraq what will happen to markets next day, is easier to secure a oil terminal then a pipeline.
At any time in future if there would be any Military action by US against the Iranian installation in Iran, or in the Persian Gulf, for sure US and its allies like in Iraq will have to ultimately plan an invasion inside Iran, because simply Iran will retaliate against US and US’s Persian Gulf Bases in tiny golf states, same scenario as Iraq war 1 and 2.
For obvious supply line reasons the only way a land invasion of Iran for US is conceivable is from the Persian Gulf like the operation Eagle Claw, and not the mountainous Zagros or Alborz trains from west and north, as for the eastern borders US forces will be even more vulnerable then Iran sort of sitting ducks with long supply lines, so the south is the easiest way for an invasion, Assuming that the Persian Gulf becomes center of the US military action and base of operations and the main theater of operation, that alone will close the golf for a good period of time no need for Iran to close the golf. How much chance there is that US will be willing to make the Persian Gulf the main theater of operations. A big zero. For Iran an attack by US is like the old saying “when your head is under water it doesn’t matter how deep you are”
Richard,
“If the US attacks Iran seriously, Iran’s shipments of oil are going to be halted regardless of whether the Straits are closed by them or not.”
The question is for how long Iran’s shipments will be halted. For weeks or months, while the fighting continues and maybe for a little while after it ends, or for years or decades because the US has been handed a convenient excuse to punish Iran long-term for closing the Straits?
Other countries’ oil shipments through the Strait will be disrupted during war merely because they will worry that Iran might block the Strait – even if Iran never actually does. Eventually, of course, mere uncertainty will not scare away shippers, and Iran might decide to attack an oil tanker in order to extend the shipping disruption.
But would that disruption-extension be worth the price Iran would pay?
The price would undoubtedly include immediate heavier attacks on Iran by the US, possibly “work-arounds” (such as expensive pipelines) to reduce the impact of Iran’s blockade, and probably a long-term prohibition against Iranian shipments through the Gulf. If the US’ response is effective enough, the disruption-extension might be very brief, and Iran will never again be able to cause one. What net result for Iran then? Severe punishment, both short-term and long-term, in exchange for a brief disruption-extension that Iran can never again threaten.
Might Iran be better off never attacking Gulf shipping at all – just issuing vague threats about what it might do some day if its own shipments continue to be disrupted? Those vague threats will have value as long as Iran does not act on them, but not for very long after it does. If Iran wants to take strong military action, there are plenty of targets besides Gulf shipping.
So if I were Iran, I’d leave the Strait-closing to the war-induced uncertainty and vague, nearly cost-free threats. Soon the world will get tired of $150 oil prices that predictably will drop once Iranian oil shipments are allowed to resume. Iran can point out that it never closed the Strait and it’s time for the world to acknowledge this by letting Iran resume shipments through the Gulf.
Most of the world probably would agree immediately. The US government would grumble for a while, but its oil-thirsty consumers won’t like $150 oil prices any more than the next guy.
“It is quite likely that the war will escalate to include a ground invasion from Iraq into Iran (albeit perhaps only after months of air bombardment). This, as William Lind has repeatedly warned, could conceivably turn into a major disaster for US forces in Iraq, even excluding the effects of Iranian agents in the south of Iraq allied with anti-US Iraqi Shia forces.”
I agree, can anyone think of any forward military operations/invasion by any army when your supply line could not be secured and you have an ongoing insurgency at the start base of operations, the answer is yes if the great strategist Mr. Paul Wolfoitz is palming the new war, and for sure tab will all be paid by the Iranian Oil.
Iran would definitely close the Straits if it were attacked. It’s an obvious strategic move to damage or at least disrupt the supply of oil to the West. Certainly there would be adaptations by the Arab oil producers, but fundamentally there would still be disruption and a spike in the oil price temporarily which would have significant consequences on the weakened Western economies.
As to whether Iran could keep the Straits closed, it’s not an either/or proposition. Iran, unless it’s entire (very long) coastline could be completely secured by US forces – which in itself means US Marine forces on the ground on the coastline – would be able to continue to launch strikes of various kinds in the Gulf probably for months. This would make navigating the Straits a risky proposition for shipping. While it might not stop shipping, it would negatively impact it. That is the best result Iran could hope for – and it would take it.
If the US attacks Iran seriously, Iran’s shipments of oil are going to be halted regardless of whether the Straits are closed by them or not. Iran will have more serious problems to worry about than whether they’re losing revenue while under attack by the US. Either Iran will halt the shipments (to the West, at least) to punish the West’s economies or the US will halt them as a means of punishing Iran’s economy. Either way, they stop.
Iran has so many ways of causing damage to the US if the US attacks it that only idiots would consider an attack on Iran to be viable. Unfortunately the US government is populated by idiots – including Obama. Obama is SO CLUELESS about military matters that he could be persuaded to attack Iran if all other measures fail – which they will.
ANY attack on Iran – even a limited air attack directed solely at nuclear facilities (which the US can’t do until they suppress air defenses at the very least) – could cause Iran to retaliate with large-scale missile attacks toward Iraq and other US facilities. The real problem is ESCALATION: at what point will the rabid US Congress allow the US to pull back once US military personnel start dying in Iraq, over Iran and in the Gulf? It is quite likely that the war will escalate to include a ground invasion from Iraq into Iran (albeit perhaps only after months of air bombardment). This, as William Lind has repeatedly warned, could conceivably turn into a major disaster for US forces in Iraq, even excluding the effects of Iranian agents in the south of Iraq allied with anti-US Iraqi Shia forces.
Attacking Iran, even solely by air, will not be a cake-walk. It could quickly turn into something twice as big and disruptive as the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined.
Nasser,
“And I very highly doubt [Iran] can shut off the Strait of Hormuz which receiving severe consequences and not just from the US.”
It’s generally assumed that Iran would try to close the Strait of Hormuz in the event of a military conflict with the US, and could keep it closed if it chose to. I’m not sure either assumption is correct.
If military action were to begin in the Gulf, the Strait would be closed for at least a short while all by itself, since no oil shipper would risk its cargo until the dust had cleared at least a bit. In the medium term, the US might or might not be able to keep the Strait open if Iran should try to keep it closed. But let’s assume Iran could keep it closed it if it wanted to do so.
What would Iran gain? Prevent oil from being shipped through the Gulf – the one and only outlet for oil shipments from Iran’s huge Abadan refinery, but not the only outlet for oil produced by other Middle East producers? If so, how else would Iran get oil from Abadan to its customers? A pipeline through Iraq, perhaps?
Does anyone doubt that the US would be able to re-open the Strait sooner or later – probably sooner? Once that has occurred, does anyone doubt that the US would punish Iran by prohibiting oil shipments from Iran’s Abadan refinery? How many years or decades do you suppose the US would keep those restrictions in place?
Some have argued that the US would not be able to re-open the Strait of Hormuz if Iran insisted on blocking it. I personally doubt that. In any case, if the US were really worried about this, it probably would be pressing (and helping) the Saudis right now to build several pipelines from the Gulf to the Red Sea or the Indian Ocean, just in case. Some months ago, on this website, someone estimated that building such pipelines would take a long time, during which period Iran would have considerable leverage, but that estimate struck me as questionable. The writer’s timeline implicitly assumed that the pipeline-building effort would start at one end and work its way toward the other, or at best work from both ends toward the middle. If necessary, however, the US and the Saudis could simply assign a dozen or more pipeline-building teams to different portions of the route, hooking their segments together once they were completed. It would take a very few months at most. The fact that the US hasn’t even pressed for this obvious “work-around” (at least as far as I know) suggests strongly to me that the US isn’t even concerned that such a “work-around” might be necessary.
Rehmat,
I did not like Petraeus’ apparent attempt to portray Iran as the murderer of American soldiers in Iraq (your post June 23rd 10:08pm). But then, I thought Petraeus badly injured the interests of the US by helping to prevent implementation of the Iraq Study Group recommendations back in 2006. Jim Baker and Lee Hamilton were quite right, that the US needed to make deals with Syria and Iran, and pull out all US forces from Iraq asap.
McChrystal was a rat who wanted off a sinking ship, whilst saving face. Getting fired was the way to to do it.
I agree with Mr. Hack`s comments
Indeed part of the Nato`s strategic goal was to build a kind of chemistry between the local populations and the Nato troops on the ground.But it`s impossible to build such a chemistry if :
1 – Local civilians are constantly killed by Nato air strikes and home raids.
2 – The Nato troops lack the language , religion and cultural background of the locals.
3 – Karzai`s puppet government has so far failed to connect itself with the local populations , therefore the Kabul central government is alien to ordinary Afghanis.
4 – The local populations see a huge presence of foreign troops , but they see no basic improvement in their already miserable lives. In fact a lot of them were better off under the Taliban regime !
All this suggests that , the U.S had a poor planing for the ” Regime Change ” in Afghanistan and consequently in Iraq as well. Now under Zionist pressure , the U.S wants another ” regime change ” in the region , this time in Iran !
Richard Steven Hack, you wrote:
“He literally CANNOT attempt to move this country away from a state of “permanent war” without jeopardizing his political aspirations.”
WHY NOT? I had this conversation with a friend: “Obama is likely being blackmailed,” I said; “His children may be threatened,” I pleaded.
So what, said my friend. Be a statesman. Be a leader, not someone who follows from the front. He’s got protection like nobody else in the world. Politically, what does he have on the line? Being the statesman would be a brilliant move as well as courageous.
but then, Rowan Berkley pointed out the CENTCOM vacuum that Petraeus’s appointment creates, and the possibility that Israel will exploit that vacuum to provoke an attack on Iran.
Chilling. And well within the pattern of militarized Israeli tactics.
I wonder whether the intention behind the Rolling Stone article might not have been indirectly to bring about a leaderless condition in CENTCOM, as has in fact happened. This could be advantageous to Israel if it intends to provoke a war with Iran in the near future: a leaderless CENTCOM would be more responsive to Israeli tactical priorities, and if there were a large number of initial US casualties, for instance as a result of an Iranian missile strike on the US fleet, it might be more ready to resort to the use of nuclear weapons against Iran.
Fiorangela,
Here’s a note I sent a few days ago to Brian Downing, a frequent contributor to Asia Times online re: McC’s self sabotage.
Since reading your send-up of the McC/O-man flap, I’ve read more of it in NYT (and spent yesterday reading about it everywhere) and have come to the conclusion that Mc was acting unconsciously to get himself relieved of command. I hate to be so psychological in this assessment but I’m pretty certain this was ’self-sabotage’ in defense of the ego from deepest level of subconscious. I don’t think he’s actually smart enough to script himself on how to get fired. His ego got him into this mess starting in 2009 with his insubordination speech in London, Now, his deepest ego defenses are trying to extricate him from “failure”, guilt and shame. d
In case someone want to know which foreign country Obama’s new replacement as head of NATO forces on Iran’s borders would be serving:
General Petraeus: “President Ahmadinejad and other Iranian leaders promised to end their support for the special groups but the nefarious activities of the Quds Force have continued.”
Senator Joseph Lieberman: “Is it fair to say that the Iranian-backed special groups are responsible for the murder of hundreds of American soldiers and thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians?”
General Petraeus: “It certainly is…That is correct.”
General Petraeus testimony to the US Senate, April 8-9, 2008
General Petraeus: Zionism’s Military Poodle: From Surge to Purge to Dirge
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8893
General Stanely McChrystal is not dismissed because he ridiculed Ben Obama – but because he criticized AIPAC appointees Joe Biden and Richard Holbrooke.
Last week, I had the chance to hear British Television journalist, author and personal friend of Golda Meir and Yasar Arafat.
Here are some of his views about the US, Canada and Israel.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/06/24/alan-hart-israel-has-no-right-to-exist/
Pirouz I was in no way advocating for the Shah but simply pointing out some of the successes he did have. It is undoubtedly true that he had many foreign policy failures and I concede that and I hope you can also concede that this present Islamic government made serious blunders as well. As Pak pointed out: “Imagine there was no revolution in Iran and the Pahlavi dynasty remained in place. Do you not think that Iran would have benefited significantly from the fall of the Soviet Union, in terms of territory?”
I have to very strongly disagree with your views regarding the Iranian military capabilities in particular. You write: “Under pahlavi dynasty we wasted astronomical amounts of petro-dollars on junk military equipment from USA..” I’ll say it again had the Shah not purchased those weapons and after his collapse Saddam invaded, Iran would have been completely defenseless. In fact, Khomeini in his infinite wisdom carried out numerous purges and abolished the nuclear program which I think has had disastrous long term consequences. I take issue with the characterization of Iran’s rudimentary military industry as adequate or self sufficient when Iran barely has an air force. And I very highly doubt it can shut off the strait of Hormuz which receiving severe consequences and not just from the US. The concern is more that such attempts would drive up insurance prices and the price of oil but no one seriously considers Iran’s capable of taking on the fifth fleet.
“Today Hezballah by OUR ARMS is capable of defeating Israeli army and our influence in this region has skyrocketted.:” This is truly laughable, I highly doubt anyone believes Hezbollah can take on the IDF as you say and I am a Shia. But it is true that they cannot be wiped out without inflicting catastrophic civilian casualties and so can be said to have won in the guerilla sense.
I wont debate you on the economic issues as it seems you have very strongly bought onto to the IRI propaganda. But I’ll relay on this old wisdom from economists that self sufficiency is the road to poverty and trade is the road to prosperity.
Fiorangela
“He wanted OUT — didn’t want a failure on his record. Being booted out of his command by the assembled multitude surrounding him in the Rose Garden — that’s star-power, baby! Wonder what he’ll title his book.”
I think that’s one of the reasons, but not all of it, it looks to me that there is a more fundamental and larger problem that is begging to surface as we get closer to the elections. That is the problem with acceptance of Obama administration’s authority in US government and US military specially among the currier military and the foreign service personals, this was the reason I earlier wrote” for whom the bells toll”, perhaps reasonably soon we will see how many times the bells will toll and for whom.
Trust me, it’s not going to matter one whit that Petraeus MIGHT be able to handle the immediate diplomatic aspects of Afghanistan better than a gung-ho COINdinista. The fact of the matter is that Petraeus is of the same ilk. The fact that Obama appointed him means that Obama is doubling down on a failed strategy. This should make clear that Obama is CLUELESS about foreign policy and military matters, as I said all during his Presidential campaign.
The bottom line, as I have also been saying for a long time, is that COIN IS IMPOSSIBLE imposed from the outside. The only way COIN works is if it is implemented by the government facing the insurgency. In other words, you have to put a platoon of soldiers in every neighborhood in the insurgent’s area, AND that platoon has to speak the native language and understand the native culture and the political and social aspects of the area. This is IMPOSSIBLE with an outside military force from another country. It also requires the government to at least appear to address whatever grievances the local population has that has caused them to support the insurgency.
NONE of this applies in Afghanistan, nor did it apply in Iraq.
Check this article out: Rolling Stone Article’s True Focus: Counterinsurgency – http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/23/rolling-stone-articles-true-focus-counterinsurgency-coin/#more-21307 for a recap on why COIN is a failed strategy.
Obama could have easily GOOGLED for any number of regional and asymmetric warfare experts who could have told him two years ago that none of this was going to work in Afghanistan. The real question is why is he pursuing this. The answer is very simple: he is owned and operated by the same military-industrial complex that every President in the last fifty years has been. He literally CANNOT attempt to move this country away from a state of “permanent war” without jeopardizing his political aspirations. Until the military-industrial complex system in this country is BROKEN, the US will continue to mire itself in wars and collapse into a Third World power. It is inevitable.
To quote Dorian Grey in the movie “League of Extraordinary Gentlemen”, “Empires crumble. There are no exceptions.”
That the US would not encourage construction of the gas pipeline to India via Pakistan, in the interests of better cooperation between Pakistan and Iran, underscores general incoherence and stupidity of US foreign policy in the greater Middle East.
McChrystal is dumb like a fox.
You think he would ACCIDENTALLY say such stuff to a Rolling Stone journalist?
He wanted OUT — didn’t want a failure on his record. Being booted out of his command by the assembled multitude surrounding him in the Rose Garden — that’s star-power, baby! Wonder what he’ll title his book.
Interpretation #2: McChrystal is accustomed to high-testosterone fighting. That’s addictive. Doing ordinary shooting and killing and writing reports was the equivalent of driving a Lamborghini to the grocery store.
I agree it appears Obama simply is not able to comprehend that working with Iran is essential if minimum stability is to be achieved in Afghanistan.
I thought Biden and Eidenberry were quite right, that increasing the US military footprint in Afghanistan was more likely to make failure of the mission the end result. US troops are counter-productive.
“For whom the bells tolled”