Are we winning the war in Afghanistan?

On June 15, 2009, the Obama administration removed Gen. David McKiernan as Commander of U.S. Forces in Afghanistan and appointed Gen. Stanley McChrystal.  On June 23, 2010, President Barack Obama “removed” Gen. McChrystal from that position and appointed Gen. David Petraeus. Hence, in just over 12 months, the United States has had three different Commanders in Afghanistan. Yet, we are told Afghanistan is improving. That simply cannot be the case.

In a recent Rolling Stone interview, Gen. McChrystal displayed uncommon disdain for the administration's competence and allowed his subordinates to ridicule key administration figures both in Afghanistan and Washington. In the interview, Gen. McChrystal irreverently asked, "Who is that?" in reference to Vice President Joe Biden and referred to him as "Bite me." He called National Security Advisor Jim Jones a "clown" who is "stuck in 1985"; said Richard Holbrooke is a "wounded animal" and that Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry is "one that covers his flanks." The article also notes that Gen. McChrystal's staff criticized the president as being "unprepared" and "intimidated" during key meetings.

Gen. McChrystal thus violated a fundamental duty of all soldiers: to treat superiors respectfully at all times. Everyone, in the media, the Obama administration and the GOP, expressed surprise and profound dissatisfaction with the general's attitude.  It is clear to most that Gen. McChrystal had to go, if only to reinforce the chain of command.  What is less clear, however, is why Gen. McChrystal was so openly and flagrantly critical of the Obama administration.

Why did a general with 34 years of exemplary military service, a proven warrior who had respected the chain of command all his life, a general who was hand-picked by Mr. Obama suddenly speak out? Why did he do so with his subordinates in the presence of a Rolling Stone reporter who was recording their words to write an article about the general?  Why did Gen. McChrystal somehow lose his grasp on reality and allow outbursts of pent-up anti-administration emotions to flow freely in the presence of a reporter for a leftist publication?  That simply cannot be the case.

Gen. McChrystal was fully aware that his comments and those of his staff would cause Washington to remove him or give him the opportunity to resign. Either way, Gen. McChrystal was looking for a personal exit from Afghanistan.  The hurried departure of a top commander in the midst of combat operations is never good news.  We can only conclude that Gen. McChrystal believed that Mr. Obama's Afghanistan war strategy is doomed-that the situation in Afghanistan is much worse than the administration cares to admit and that it is about to deteriorate further.

The unpleasant reality is that Afghanistan has become unwinnable in the way Americans conceive of victory. Indeed, the Taliban will never surrender; there will be no capitulation ceremony and no victory parade. This war has been and will continue-assuming NATO remains-to be a long-term engagement that will go on for at least a generation. Under this scenario, beginning withdrawal in July 2011 is a ludicrous political ploy that is militarily untenable. War, by its very nature, is a messy business that does not neatly fit into schedules-even ones thought up and imposed by Washington.

How then can a general ethically ask his troops to put their lives on the line daily for a noble cause knowing that in July 2011 that cause will cease to be and that troops' sacrifices may be all in vain?  The simple answer is that no general can ethically do that.  And generals tend to be a lot more ethical than politicians. Unlike most politicians, generals know the cost of war in blood and experienced the sheer horror of combat.  Generals, thus, are less likely than politicians to engage in political wars.

It makes no military sense to withdraw before victory unless you want defeat on the field of battle. And it makes even less sense to announce your withdrawal plans over a year in advance.  Gen. McChrystal knew that July 2011 will not constitute victory. At best, it will be a milestone of endurance akin to the 10th mile in a 26 mile marathon—sure, it is significant but the race is neither won, nor is it over.

Gen. McChrystal, it seems, concluded that, under this president, the Afghan mission is less a military operation than it is a political hot potato. Many would have simply resigned.  But simple resignation does not come easily to battle-hardened soldiers.  A man of duty would need to tell the American people what the administration wanted him to keep quiet, namely, that the current Afghan strategy has already failed.

It seems Gen. McChrystal chose to do just that, at the expense of his military career.  The administration is of so many minds on Afghanistan that Mr. Obama does not really have an Afghan strategy. Instead, the administration is just muddling through in Afghanistan as it is with the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Americans have witnessed Mr. Obama's leadership at work close to home, in U.S. territorial waters. They are not impressed with the leadership vacuum in the Gulf of Mexico, with the absence of an organized response, and with the mantra which Mr. Obama continues to repeat: "I am in charge."

Was it any different in Afghanistan for Gen. McChrystal?  And, most importantly, will it be the same for Gen. Petraeus?

Democrats repeatedly accused President George W. Bush of weakening the military by "spreading it too thin" around the world. Those Democrats ought to look into what the confused Obama administration is doing to U.S. military leadership: digging a grave for its own generals.