Some choose to view the firing of General McCrystal through the lens of sheer personality conflict. I get it--we are after all, politics buffs of an image-obsessed and media-driven age, and some of us strong Obama devotees. It must be important for Obama to assert himself as a strong leader, to counteract a growing perception (whether real or alleged) of weakness in Obama. He is rehabilitating his image and perhaps even saving himself and the Democrats in 2010/12; how could this be touted as anything but a moment of tactical brilliance?
But frankly, I'm more interested in the success of our foreign policy and the future of Afghanistan than in championing and helping to secure the legacy of a man who I do think is a good president. Only, that president didn't show up in the Rose Garden today.
Obama said he was not motivated by "any sense of personal insult" -- although that alone would have justified the decision. He also said, more than once, that "this is a change in personnel, but it is not a change in policy."
Obama: attacking Change when we actually need it in practice.
Nor did he show up at his news conference with the Russian president:
President Barack Obama says the U.S. will "not miss a beat" in the Afghan war effort because of the change in command.
This is more than troubling, given that we should absolutely be missing beats. In fact, we need to forgo these beats altogether, and ensure that the "heart" of our current Afghanistan policy stops, and then dies a short and sweet death.
Let's be fully clear: What Obama did was a power play, less convincingly meant to suppress an act of 'insubordination' for the sake of military law itself, than it was meant to shore up political support for himself. And what Obama did, as he freely admits, does nothing to further any substantive change. It does nothing to alter the train-wreck of modern imperialism that our Afghanistan approach represents.
Need a refresher? Re-visit the Rolling Stone article. Really. I'd say it laid out McCrystal's mindset and Afghanistan approach pretty well. The problem is: that mindset will persist, thanks in part to the President.
Obama said in response to a question that Petraeus "understands the strategy because he helped shape it."
Obama also said the July 2011 date to begin withdrawing U.S. troops doesn't mean the U.S. will be "switching off the lights and closing the door behind us" at that time.
The heart of our imperialism still beats, and our politicians beat the same drum as they march America down the path of its own demise. (See History Book/Encyclopedia. Look for "imperialist empire". Not satisfied? Okay, look for "Foreign interaction with Afghanistan." Do you see words like "success" anywhere? No?)