Why Obama should keep McChrystal on as Commander of the War In Afghanistan

Since the Rolling Stone article profiling General McChrystal came out, many Washington pundits have been calling for President Obama to fire him for insubordination. Throughout the profile, McChrystal's quotes have shown a man who expressed all too willingly that he felt he lacked support from top administration officials who disagreed with him about the Counter Insurgency strategy (also known as COIN) and the corresponding surge in Afghanistan. Now the ill-timed comments threaten to weaken his status as Commander-In-Chief, and more importantly, weaken the unified resolve to see the mission through.

McChrystal openly mocked officials such as Vice President "Bite Me" Biden and Ambassador Richard Holbrooke for advocating a purer counter-terrorism strategy with more drones and a lighter military footprint.

This is not good.  We have civilian leadership of the Armed Forces for a reason.  Sometimes in the midst of battle the good general thinks that the battle in front of him can always be won whereas the President must ask the question of whether the battle was worth fighting at all.

This flap is surely going to cause hurt feelings between the President and the General and many other Presidents such as President Truman could and did fire their generals for open disagreement.  I would not blame President Obama if he fired General McChrystal, but I think it is the wrong move.  After the lengthy review on Afghanistan's conflict, the President determined that it was a conflict worth fighting and that Counter Insurgency of "Clear, Build, and Hold" with extremely restrictive rules of engagement was the way forward.  General Stanley McChrystal literally wrote the manual.

Here's a chance for President Obama to illustrate that he's a different kind of President, that hurt feelings won't get in the way of seeing the strategy through.  The strategy might still fail, but at least we tried.  And in this era of foreign policy where the opaque goal is to not get 17 year old men with little to no employment prospects mad at you, unfortunately trying is all you can ask.

It's time for Europe and NATO to step up

NATO and I agree with General McChrystal that perhaps the only winnable strategy in Afghanistan is one that involves a major counterinsurgency effort. I also agree that President Obama should approve General McChrystal's troop request of 40,000. However, I do NOT agree that all of those troops should be American.

NATO defense ministers comprising leaders from many of our allies have apparently voiced their support. Here's my message to them:

If you believe this mission is the right one and needs to be resourced more fully, then by all means send in the troops. But nicey nice Barack doesn't come for free. He comes at a price to you, to NATO, to Europe and the rest of the world. If you don't want the U.S. to be a bully single-handedly going around the world telling other countries what to do, then it's time to step up and become a part of the solution - and that includes military help.

The left in Europe agonized over the genocide in Darfur and Rwanda, yet most European countries wouldn't ante up the troops to stop the violence. The U.S. was just as bad on the genocide front but we made the right call in Bosnia and in Somalia (just because we had trouble in Somalia doesn't mean it wasn't the right thing to do).

In his address to Congress in November of 2007, President Nicolas Sarkozy of France said, "Let me tell you solemnly today: France will remain engaged in Afghanistan as long as it takes, because what's at stake in that country is the future of our values and that of the Atlantic Alliance. For me, failure is not an option. Terrorism will not win because democracies are not weak, because we are not afraid of this barbarism. America can count on France."

If the election of President Obama means the era of the unilateral superpower is over, then it's time for Europe to step up and embrace its new role and act on its words.