August 17, 2010--A Graceful Exit

President Barack Obama, the constitutional commander-in-chief, in July named General David Petraeus commander of American and NATO forces in Afghanistan. This after he fired the previous commander, Stanley McChrystal, for insubordinate comments he made to a Rolling Stone reporter.

Patraeus' job, as defined for him by his commander, Obama, was to defeat Al Qaeda terrorists in the border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan and to begun U.S. troop withdrawals next August.

He said, "Yes sir," and headed over there to pick up the pieces and to carry out his orders.

That was a little more than a month ago. Now he is saying, in a round of media interviews, including with the New York Times (linked below), that he opposes "a hasty pullout." By this he means that "he would resist any large-scale or rapid drawdown of American forces. If the Taliban believes that will happen," he continued, "they are mistaken."

Let's unpack this, holding for a moment who he is disagreeing with and whose call for the drawdown he would "resist." Though I think we already know the answer to that.

First, what's the mission in that miserable corner of the world? To hold off the Taliban and prop up the current pseudo-government in Kabul or defeat Al Qaeda, the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11?

Obama has consistently said it is to render Al Qaeda ineffective, his definition of "defeat."

The Taliban are not terrorists. They are insurgents seeking to once again dominate Afghanistan while other versions of the Taliban are nationalists who want to gain political control of Pakistan. In order to try to resist the Taliban, decidedly bad people who would once again impose their perverse version of Islamic law on the population, especially women, we and our dwindling allies would have to get even more deeply involved than at present in that dreaded nation-building that George W. Bush criticized and mocked during the 2000 presidential campaign. Too bad that he didn't take his own advice.

Yes, the Taliban in Afghanistan allowed Al Qaeda to have a sanctuary for training, but their focus was and continues to be nationalistic and political.

Among other things he doesn't get, General Petraeus sees his mission to very much include keeping the Taliban at bay. In his interview with the Times he pointed to progress on a number of fronts, "including routing Taliban insurgents from their sanctuaries."

When he met with Obama in July, when he was named regional commander, it was reliably reported that Obama drew the distinction for him between counter-terrorism (rendering Al Qaeda ineffective) and counter-insurgency (keeping the Taliban from overthrowing the government of Afghanistan); and commanded him to take on the anti-terrorism mission.

Now, only weeks later, to be meeting with Times reporters and appearing on Meet the Press, he is talking publicly about a very different kind of mission. One that contradicts the goal set for him by his presumed commander-in-chief. I say "presumed" because what he is saying in his media campaign--and make no mistake it is a campaign--is his, not President Obama's definition of the goal in that region.

This is more significantly insubordinate than anything General McChrystal said to Rolling Stone about Joe Biden while in his cups. But just as egocentric.

Again to quote Petraeus, something he said repeatedly over the weekend, "I did not come to Afghanistan to preside over a 'graceful exit.'"

No, he needs to be reminded, he came to Afghanistan because he was ordered to by the nation's commander-in-chief. Not because he decided to. He didn't volunteer, he didn't set conditions on his service. He said a version of "Yes sir." If he didn't like the mission as defined for him, he should have retired and run for the presidency in 2012.

What to do if you are Obama. Smile at Petraeus' round of TV appearances during which he is openly countermanding your policies? Didn't McChrystal begin to get himself in trouble by preemptively calling for more troops for Afghanistan than you were prepared to send to that quagmire?

McChrystal is just McChrystal and firing him was relatively easy. But Patraeus is a whole other matter. He is the darling of all Republicans, Democratic hawks, and the media. Arguably he has more supporters and friends in high places than Obama. He is in effect politically untouchable. Even by his commander-in-chief. He has better poll numbers.

A real commander-in-chief, a Truman type, after Patraeus' appearance on Meet the Press should have fired him this weekend.

We already know what will happen next summer--things on the ground in the border region will not be any more resolved than at present; Patraeus will once again make the rounds of the Sunday talk shows to tell us about the progress he has made; but then he will give his advice about what to do, again in public, and this will be to at least keep our current forces there. I wouldn't be surprised if he called for a further escalation.

Obama, having no choice, confronting a tough reelection campaign of his own (which is the real point of the August 2011 drawdown) will continue to roll over for this can-do-no-wrong general, who, if he doesn't let him have his way, may wind up on the Republican ticket in 2012.

Of course, if Patraeus knows that the situation on the ground is still untenable, he can always retire and run anyway. Especially if things are going badly. He will be looking for a personal exit strategy before his policies collapse entirely.

That would be his version of a "graceful exit."