Given Obama’s record of subservience before the military and intelligence apparatus, I think you miss the point in your claim that the firing of McChrystal is about asserting civilian control over the military. The move has everything to do with the growing dissatisfaction within sections of the Obama Administration and the military with the conduct of the war. Moreover, it is a reflection of the growing quagmire the US is finding itself in after nearly a decade of waging war in the country.

The issue centers around McChrystal’s rules of engagement, which indeed, happens to be the first “modification” Patraeus is looking into. According to McChrystal, the killing of innocent civilians creates enemies faster than the military can kill them. His strategy was thus to show a tactical level of restraint. This does not make McChrystal any less of a war criminal than Patraeus, but merely represents a different concept of how best to subjugate a population resisting foreign occupation. The fact is, McChrystal’s strategy has failed to dislodge the Taliban from the southern and eastern areas of Afghanistan. And it is his “restraint” that is being blamed for this failure.

Shortly before the Rolling Stone article, McChrystal had briefed NATO defense ministers warning them “not to expect any progress in the next six months.” As the British Independent commented, “It was this briefing, according to informed sources, as much as the Rolling Stone article, which convinced Mr. Obama to move against” McChrystal.”

The conclusion being drawn is that US troops must be freed to brutally crush all resistance to the occupation and punish the civilian population that sympathizes with this resistance. Patraeus is being called in to loosen the rules of engagement to allow more deadly force to be used.

The media has been particularly enthusiastic about this prospect. New York Times (liberal) columnist Bob Herbert wrote in his column “Worse Than a Nightmare” that the counterinsurgency strategy has “lost sight of a fundamental aspect of warfare: You don’t go to war half-stepping. You go to war to crush the enemy. You do this ferociously and as quickly as possible. If you don’t want to do it, if you have qualms about it, or don’t know how to do it, don’t go to war. The men who stormed the beaches at Normandy weren’t trying to win the hearts and minds of anyone.”

New York Times (conservative) columnist Ross Douthat argued that the Rolling Stone article voiced “complaints that the current strategy places too much value on innocent Afghan lives.” He cited other criticism that McChrystal’s strategy “doesn’t allow our soldiers to kill enough people.”

The result of the coming change in strategy sought by Obama, the military, and the media is an increased bloodletting. Presenting the situation as a question of civilian control of the military is the means by which Obama apologists obscure their support for the coming bloodbath as well.

The war cannot be won short of killing entire sections of the population precisely because the majority of Afghans see US troops as foreign occupiers. It appears Obama is ready to go to that length.

I agree with almost everything Clement said. My take on this situation that America finds itself in, is that this is another example of nation building. Somewhat different from our nation building efforts in Iraq, but still nation building.
We have constructed schools, had elections, tried to convert the poppy fields into corn or whatever, and yes decided to be particular in who we tried to destroy and kill.
This is now the third war in my lifetime that America has tried to do the exact same thing, and it does not work. We tried this first in Vietnam. Ended up giving control to the South Vietnamese who almost immediately surrendered to the North Vietnamese, and so all was lost. Everyone then said that this was going to lead to a spread of communism throughout Southeast Asia. Guess what. It didn’t happen.
My point here, is that if we were to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan tomorrow, the same result would occur. Nothing. We will still have to be vigilant as to terrorists, but we don’t have to control territory to do that. Aren’t we sophisticated enough with our technology that we can track down terrorists no matter where they may be.
To those of you who believe bloodbaths and civil wars would be the result in these countries if we pulled out now – why won’t they happen two years from now, or five, or whatever? That is what happened in Vietnam, and again that is regretable, but that is why one country cannot force its values on another and think that everything will be just fine.
I am always amazed at how our country makes the same mistake over and over again. We are taught history because we are to learn from it.

Kenneth,

You make some interesting remarks. In particular, you say that if “we were to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan tomorrow, the same result would occur. Nothing.” If this were the case, then the US has no legitimate purpose there, which is what a majority of Americans, including myself, feel. But once one admits that the US has no legal right to be there, it follows that the official reason for being there – the threat of terrorism – is not valid, and is thus but a pretext.

However, you continue: “We will still have to be vigilant as to terrorists, but we don’t have to control territory to do that. Aren’t we sophisticated enough with our technology that we can track down terrorists no matter where they may be.”

While terrorists do exist, their threat is certainly miniscule considering the threat posed by capitalism (as the BP oil spill is only the latest example). Moreover, combating terrorists requires removing what motivates them to be terrorists, i.e. the brutality of American foreign policy and the desperate living conditions which are the legacy of colonialism. President Obama, the man swept into office by popular revulsion of the crimes of the Bush Administration, is doing the exact opposite: He is both pursuing a policy of colonialism and drastically increasing the brutality of American foreign policy, especially with regards to Afghanistan.

Furthermore, it is true, as you suggest, that the US is sophisticated enough to track terrorists down without controlling territory. It follows then that the real motive for the invasion was precisely to “control territory.” The official lie is that occupying Afghanistan is the means by which the US will combat terrorism, its purported ends. But the truth is the contrary. The War on Terrorism was the means by which the US sought to get its ends in the occupation of Afghanistan.

Clement and Kenneth if you think Capitalism a greater threat, move to the communist country. You will like North Korea, free health care when you can get it, true social equality because everyone is starving dirt poor except for the dear leader. So who is buying a plane ticket..any volunteers I though so.

BP disaster happened due to incompetent leadership form BP and not following any basic safety regulations because they bought off Pres. Obama.

“President Obama, the man swept into office by popular revulsion of the crimes of the Bush Administration, is doing the exact opposite: He is both pursuing a policy of colonialism and drastically increasing the brutality of American foreign policy, especially with regards to Afghanistan.”

Sounds like disappointment to me… Obama just plain out oversold himself like that hot toy for XMAS. Just like that toy about 5 hours after you pull it out of the package you realize it just does not look as fun as the commericals made it out to be. Now he is going to ruin any chance for reelection and utterly destroy his political party for years if not decades to come.

Colonialism ironically, those same African countries had better standards living when they were colonies. Once the rebels drove the Europeans out, mostly because UK and France could not longer control those territories after WWII. They found out that they were good at running a revolution both no running a nation. It is not the European powers why those nations are 3rd world hellholes it is the local governments who are robbing from their own people and squandering their own resources. Today those same Western Powers are the same nations that donate billions upon billion of AID to those same countries.

Most of these nations that became free from colonial rule on the 40’s and 50’s ended up becoming dictatorships because the people put their faith in socialist movements run by thugs and criminals who saw Marxist movements as a fast track to absolute power, that is what they truly wanted.

As for Iraq and Afghanistan, what the US is basically doing over there is cleaning up our own messed we created in the cold war. JFK helped to pot the Baa’th party in power because they were pro-west at the time, then helped Saddam in the 80’s because he was fighting a war in Iran, who was on out crap list at the time. Afghanistan, the CIA and Carter armed and funded the Mujahadeen in the 1979 to drive the Soviets out.

Now those same attack dogs came back to bite us so we are doing the world a favor and putting those rabid pit-bull
down. Or would you rather trust the corrupt UN to maybe China can be in Iraq or Afganistan instead. So you can cry and whine for the poor Muslims after they start to live under the brutal rule of the Red Dragon. China would love all that Iraqi oil and those minerals that are under Afganistan.

Dear Gary,
I am totally confused by your comments. I do not recall discusing capitalism in my discussion of Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan, and I do not want to live in North Korea. Where does that come from? If you are somehow implying that because I have called for the United States to pull out of Afghanistan, that this is somehow against capitalism, or favors communism, you are way off base.
Maybe you need to re-read my comments, because our leaving Afghanistan will result in nothing that will directly effect us as a country. I did not call for the U.N. or China to fill the void left after we leave Afghanistan, so I find it very hard to understand the point you are trying to make.
If, you’re bringing Africa into this to try and prove that Afghanistan cannot rule or govern themselves, again I feel you are way off base. From what I have ascertained the Afghan people are very tribal in nature, so to think that they have some strong identity to the nation of Afghanistan is not necessarily correct. Therefore, aren’t we as a nation, wrong to try and force some sort of centralized government upon them?
Lastly, any oil that is mined anywhere in the world, goes into a central system that we all buy from. So, all that Iraqi oil that we were supposed to get was just a big ruse.
I hope this has clarified my position for you.

Do you know what the main customer of Iraqi oil is? It is not the USA it is CHINA. The Iraqi govt all they hear from our media is “alternative energy”, “domestic drilling” etc. yet China is a nation of 1-2 billion people that is rapidly modernizing with a growing private automobile market. This is a consumer that has a demand that is going to go only on place UP. If China starts getting politically involved in the Mideast things will get ugly real quick for the USA and Muslims in the region.

As for alt energy, we need to explore these new sources. We also need to face the reality that solar wind and bio-fuels, have promise are still a young technology. Thus they are not at the point we can replace oil with. Wind and solar are still more expensive and do not give us the same output as conventional sources such as oil and nuclear..yet. Just like computers 20 years ago heck even 10 years ago computers and game consoles could not do what they are capable of now.

With this current conflict against terror out leaders need to realize that we are fighting a war over ideologies. Our Modern Secular world versus a old fanatical old fashioned fundamentalist religious order that is forcefully imposing their will on anyone they can. These clerics know if given a choose their people will choose our way of life over theirs. our way is that of freedom and the ideal that people should be able to have the free choice to achieve. They want everyone forced to submit to their warped and perverted idea of God’s Will. Truth is even that version of Islam is a LIE.

To show how twisted it is, this “true traditional version of Islam” the follow is only 50 years old. Women in Saudi Arabia and were not devoutly wearing burkhas and headscarves back in the 1940’s. We need to fight Islamic terrorism like how we fought the Cold War, with special forces, black ops and CIA operations. Unlike the cold war we must not make the same kind of mistakes that will come back to haunt us in 25 years.
I fear that one day the US and Europe will get frustrated with the region and just let China have the mideast for the oil. In return for “dealing” with the terrorism problem China sells the west the oil for cheap. We just have to sit back and see the Red Dragon commit atrocities that the holocaust of WWII will pale on comparasion.

Every war the USA fought always have unresolved issues that created the next war. Not dealing with Slavery during the American Revolution made the Civil War a century alter possible. The Versallies Treaty of WWI led to the rise of Hitler the UK making Japan and ally to help drive Germany out of China led to Pearl Harbor. End of that war led to the cold war, which gave us the Korean Conflict and Veitnam.