US policy towards Afghanistan will not change after President Barack Obama replaced the Commander of US and NATO forces there, General Stanley McChrystal, with General David Petraeus, Commander of US military operations Central Command. Indeed, the policy which McChrystal had adopted and for which he had fought against the leaders of the US Administration is the same policy that is being adopted and embraced by Petraeus, who is very close to McChrystal. The military institution in the United States is still in a position of leadership, after it was shaken along with the White House as a result of what was considered a transgression by General McChrystal against the Commander-in-Chief of US forces President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, National Security Advisor Jim Jones and Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry. Barack Obama “passed” the test of leadership into which he was forced by the “Runaway General” when he accepted McChrystal's resignation instead of just accepting his apology for his unfortunate words and misestimation, as well as for his aides. Indeed, his aides described Obama as unaware, unengaged and yielding to fear-mongering in the US's war in Afghanistan. They described Biden as ignorant of the substance of things, calling him “bite me”, and described Jones as a stupid “clown”. Barack Obama's decision to fire the controversial general was necessary to save the President from the impression that, although he is intelligent, he lacks the qualities and elements of leadership. Nevertheless, firing the general will not be sufficient to clear away the doubts that are constantly being shed on Barack Obama's ability to lead in the more profound sense. In fact, there are those who view accepting the general's resignation as an exercise of the easier kind of leadership, guaranteed to succeed at the immediate level. On the other hand, if Barack Obama had exercised the kind of leadership that demands initiative, risk-taking and boldness, he would have unhurriedly accepted McChrystal's resignation, as a matter of principle, then immediately reinstated the skilled general in his post, thus placing the requirements of war and country ahead of political considerations. Those poised to accuse Barack Obama of lacking the qualities of military leadership are the same ones who shed doubt on his civilian leadership, accusing him of “murdering” the banks, of antagonizing Wall Street and of destroying the big companies that are fundamental and necessary to the growth of the US economy. They say that Barack Obama is implementing the promise of “change” in America, not just in terms of color and method of governance, but that the “change” he is forging and implementing is that of changing the US's capitalist identity. Some say that Barack Obama does not understand the requirements of leadership in times of financial crisis like the one the US is going through, while others say that he understands them very well and is recklessly leading America leftwards. What will happen in a country radically divided between right and left, each accusing the other of ignorance and each harboring a deep-seated hatred for the other, with civilian battles and two wars between them tearing up consensus over how they should be waged and when they should be withdrawn from? A large portion of the answer to that question lies in testing Barack Obama's leadership. Such a test today places the American military institution in the forefront of leadership and particularly tests it in the Afghanistan war, which has become foremost of the two US wars, followed by Iraq. At the immediate, apparent and popular level, most Americans will view Obama's decision to fire the “Runaway General” as the only decision that was possible for him, after Stanley McChrystal broke the military traditions and customs based on not transgressing against superiors, and especially against the Commander-in-Chief of the US armed forces, the elected US President. The majority of Americans will view Obama's appointment of General David Petraeus as Commander of US forces in Afghanistan as a “master stroke”, because this will ensure the continuity of US military policy and executive military strategy in the Afghanistan war. Indeed, David Petraeus represents the security valve for undisrupted continuity in the war strategy, as he is the most qualified to implement the strategy of “victory” which McChrystal fought for. And if David Petraeus, along with senior members of the US military institution, may be concerned with the repercussions of President Barack Obama' dismissal of the Commander of US forces in the midst of the war in Afghanistan on the forces waging this war, appointing him to the post is the safest way to contain any division or uprising within the ranks of the military. In other words, David Petraeus, who today seems to be the man most likely to become US President in the future, the man most able to lead militarily and the man most profound in US policy-making, today temporarily represents the safety valve for Barack Obama's presidency. US military forces in Afghanistan will not be comfortable to see their Commander dismissed for criticizing the politicians in Washington, especially as General Stanley McChrystal has clung to the vision and strategy of increasing the number of troops and of effectively strengthening them in the battlefield. McChrystal has challenged Biden's claim that it was possible to reduce the number of troops in Afghanistan and to move forward with a war of limited scope against the Taliban, describing it as tantamount to turning Afghanistan into “Chaostan”, the land of overwhelming chaos. He requested an increase of 45 thousand troops to be able to stop the Taliban from keeping the momentum of initiative and to be victorious in the hotspots of ongoing war in Afghanistan, and he frankly spoke of the balance of US defeat if Washington were to reject the request to increase the number of troops. Washington finally agreed to an increase of 30 thousand troops, and in spite of this, McChrystal refused to pretend that the United States were being victorious against the Taliban, saying instead that “no one” was winning this war today, and that what was required was to break the momentum of any Taliban victories to enable the US to win the war in the end. “The Runaway General”, as Rolling Stone magazine nicknamed him in the article that led to his being removed from his post, is no runaway general in the eyes of leaders of the military institution and of the troops on the field, even if he broke traditions and customs and lacked the sense of estimation when he openly spoke in a language insulting to the presidency and the administration. Indeed, he is that valued general who did not yield to the short-sighted policy sought by politicians, based on a war aimed at ensuring a minimum of stability in Afghanistan then rushing to withdraw militarily in order to avoid the predicament of becoming implicated in a Vietnam-like quagmire. He is also one of the main architects of the Petraeus doctrine, based on the momentum of increasing the number of troops and waging a strong war against the Taliban in Afghanistan and against other extremist movements, who view their victory in Afghanistan as a fundamental starting point for them to export such victories to the five Muslim republics of Central Asia and beyond. Furthermore, McChrystal, like Petraeus, is not infatuated with the deadlines for withdrawal set by Obama's policy, which will most likely turn into fake deadlines in both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, knowing that 2011 is the year of sought-after withdrawal from Iraq's cities and from certain locations in Afghanistan. Indeed, the military institution and its top brass realize perfectly that the US's higher interests lie in ensuring continued US benefit from Iraq's oil and Afghanistan's mineral wealth, and that the US's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would not go to waste in the schedules and deadlines of rushing to withdraw from the battlefield in the two countries. For all these reasons, what the military institution will be looking into, at the level of leaders such as Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen and Commander of Central Command David Petraeus, is how to refute the impression left by General Stanley McChrystal's dismissal with the Taliban, Al-Qaeda and their offshoots. Indeed, these groups are glad to be rid of the four-star general and architect of the strategy of “victory” rather than merely “managing” a temporary war in Afghanistan. Those might also view Petraeus's appointment as Commander of the Afghanistan battlefield to replace McChrystal as a mere demotion of David Petraeus from the post of Commander of Central Command to that of a general running the war. Moreover, they may well consider that the crisis of the “Runaway General” has caused confusion, revealed uneasiness and weakened the US President and US military leadership. Such an impression can be made use of by likes of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda for a broader mobilization of those who want to defeat the United States of America anywhere, and particularly in the Afghanistan battlefield. Barack Obama is facing the repercussions of two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and is waging the tests of leadership and impression on the domestic US scene and with the architects of the policies of subduing the US in Afghanistan. The crisis of the “Runaway General” has placed Barack Obama's leadership under the microscope. And today, Obama may have won a battle but he remains engulfed in the broader leadership war.
