President Obama yesterday fired Gen. Stanley McChrystal as the top US commander in Afghanistan, replac ing him with Gen. David Petraeus.
Obama, as commander-in-chief, had the right both in law and in custom to do so — and, given McChrystal’s injudicious remarks to a Rolling Stone reporter, it’s no surprise that he did just that.
We wish the president had retained McChrystal — a brilliant field commander who is highly regarded by many political leaders in the region.
At the same time, Obama did well in selecting Petraeus to assume battlefield leadership in Afghanistan.
Time and again, Petraeus has proved his effectiveness — most particularly with the successful implementation of the 2007 troop surge that turned the tide of the war in Iraq.
Yet success in Afghanistan will require every bit of Petraeus’ proven military, diplomatic and political skills.
We wish him the very best.
But we’re skeptical.
For one thing, in removing McChrystal, Obama didn’t go nearly far enough.
Let’s be clear: The general may have spoken rashly, but the resentment expressed in Rolling Stone toward a trio of civilian colleagues was not misplaced.
That is, if the administration is to have any hope of achieving victory in Afghanistan, more housecleaning is in order: Richard Holbrooke, Obama’s special envoy in Afghanistan and Pakistan; Karl Eikenberry, the US ambassador in Kabul, and National Security Adviser James Jones must go, too.
Didn’t the president declare yesterday that “this mission demands unity of effort . . . across my national-security team”?
Yes, he did — correctly so (and never mind the odd personalization of national security).
But such unity has never existed — and Obama has tolerated public dissension and undercutting by senior policymakers in Washington for far too long.
Just last week, for example, Vice President Joe Biden said flatly that by next July — Obama’s self-imposed deadline for beginning US withdrawal from Afghanistan — “You are going to see a whole lot of troops moving out.”
But he was quickly, and publicly, contradicted by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who insisted: “That absolutely has not been decided.”
Biden, it should be noted, fiercely opposed McChrystal’s military strategy in Afghanistan — and has continued to argue for a more limited and narrowly focused troop commitment.
Eikenberry, meanwhile, also opposed McChrystal’s counter-insurgency strategy and repeatedly clashed with the now-ousted commander over tactics. Moreover, a memo in which he criticized Hamid Karzai, undermining McChrystal’s position, was leaked to the press.
Karzai, Eikenberry’s disloyalty aside, is no sacred cow. In fact, it’s also time Team Obama finally faced facts about Afghanistan’s dubiously elected, hopelessly corrupt and largely ineffective president.
That is, it’s time to cut Karzai adrift and let the political water in Afghanistan seek its own level — a risky undertaking, to be sure, but unavoidable.
It was refreshing yesterday when Obama laid out what he called America’s “clear goal” in Afghanistan:
* Breaking the Taliban’s momentum.
* Building Afghan capacity.
* Relentlessly applying pressure on al Qaeda and its leadership.
* Strengthening the ability of Afghanistan and Pakistan to do the same.
Whether all this can be accomplished in the next 12 months — when Obama wants to begin pulling out — isn’t clear.
But there is no hope for success if Obama allows the intrigues that so frustrated McChrystal to continue.
And, at this stage, the best way to clean house is to, well, clean house.
In Gen. David Petraeus, Obama has found a leader who can — and will — handle the military side of things.
Now the president needs to take a big broom to the culpable civilians.
If he does, it may turn out that Gen. McChrystal’s principal contribution to victory in Afghanistan will have been bringing this whole sad mess to a head.