New Commander, New Challenges

By LI YAN

New Commander, New Challenges

By LI YAN

U.S. General David Petraeus takes command in Afghanistan amid growing uncertainties

Stanley McChrystal came into the spotlight in June 2009 when U.S. President Barack Obama entrusted him with fghting America’s longest war since the end of the Cold War as commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan.

The four-star general made headlines again a year later. In an interview with Rolling Stone, McChrystal and his aides expressed disappointment with Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and the White House security team—a move that soon led to his resignation. Obama named General David Petraeus, Commander of the U.S. Central Command, as his successor.

Change of reins

McChrystal, a graduate from the renowned U.S. Military Academy at West Point, has spent most of his years of military service in the U.S. Special Forces. His career peaked when he commanded the Joint Special Operations Command forces in capturing Saddam Hussein and killing Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq.

Since becoming commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan in 2009, he advocated a shift of strategy from antiterrorism to counterinsurgency. Instead of trying to wipe out terrorists in large numbers, he focused on protecting civilians while frequently deploying Special Forces soldiers to carry out “targeted killings”of terrorist leaders—but the strategy did not make any great difference.

In recent months, terrorist attacks have increased in Afghanistan, and NATO casualties have hit record highs.

At the same time, McChrystal’s tough stance hindered collaboration between U.S. forces and Afghan civilian authorities, resulting in severe military-civilian disagreements. Sluggish progress in Afghanistan, coupled with the unfattering remarks in Rolling Stone about the Obama administration, rendered his departure almost inevitable.

As his predecessor did, Petraeus graduated from West Point and rose to fame in the Iraq War. He led troops in conquering Bagdad in 2003 before being appointed commander of U.S. forces in Iraq. In that capacity, he is credited with successful efforts to forge alliances between U.S. forces and Sunni tribes, in opposition to Al Qaeda terrorists. When George W. Bush sought to resolve the Iraq quagmire through a forces buildup, Petraeus stood frmly behind the former president’s decision, helping relieve him of political pressure at home.

As leader of the U.S. Central Command, a post he assumed in 2008, he not only effectively coordinated military and civilian departments, but also motivated Iraq’s neighboring countries to back U.S. counterinsurgency operations. His latest appointment shows Obama places high hopes on Petraeus quickly turning things around in Afghanistan.

The change of command sparked intense speculation at a time when the war in Afghanistan had hit an impasse. Some U.S. media outlets believe the departure of McChrystal signaled a new round of policy adjustments. Some U.S. experts even called on Obama to take the opportunity to reassess Afghanistan policy.

Though he will continue to carry out the counterinsurgency strategy, Petraeus has suggested different tactics. At a Senate hearing on his nomination, he said the tough situation in Afghanistan has made it imperative for U.S. forces “bringing all assets to bear” to ensure those on the ground have all the support they need. He was addressing concerns among U.S. soldiers McChrystal’s gunfire restrictions in order to limit civilian casualties in Afghanistan would put them in greater danger.

Some analysts in the U.S. military warned the leadership change might disrupt U.S. operational planning in Afghanistan. This is problematic particularly given the fact U.S. forces are running out of time to meet the deadline set by Obama to pull out of Afghanistan by July next year. Other analysts considered McChrystal a scapegoat for Obama’s failed Afghanistan policy.

The sacking of McChrystal could also escalate conflict between U.S. military and civilian officials. Both Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen had recommended McChrystal for the post of top commander in Afghanistan.

The U.S. Government and military have long embroiled themselves in disputes over Afghanistan strategy. In December last year, Obama announced the United States would send 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. At the same time, he set a deadline for withdrawal, in a bid to address anti-war sentiment in the government.

CHRONIC CHAOS: Local residents gather at the site of a bombing in Kandahar in southern Afghanistan on July 10. Afghanistan remains volatile despite U.S. counterinsurgency efforts

STRATEGIC TALKS: General David Petraeus, the new commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, meets with Afghan President Hamid Karzai in Kabul on July 3

The two-pronged policy has not eased government-military conflict. High-ranking military offcials have frequently challenged the government’s authority. Gates, for instance, recently defed the deadline by saying that a large-scale withdrawal by July next year has not been decided. The disagreements will likely take a toll on U.S. operations in Afghanistan.

Missing the deadline

Since assuming office early last year, Obama has introduced dramatic changes to America’s policies on Afghanistan and Pakistan. He frst moved the focus of the U.S. antiterrorism campaign east to Afghanistan, as he set a timetable for U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq. Meanwhile, he proposed a“new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan,”which called for a surge in the number of troops in Afghanistan. After the new strategy proved ineffective, Obama decided to dispatch another 30,000 troops to Afghanistan while setting a deadline for withdrawal.

The president’s decision to replace McChrystal with Petraeus just a year before the deadline is due showed all his new measures are failing to deliver.

Despite an increase of 51,000 troops in a year, the United States has failed to win any strategic victories in Afghanistan. The Marja campaign, for instance, since the beginning of this year, has not made the headway the United States expected. Some experts even claim the campaign has already failed.

While NATO and Afghan Government forces maintain security during daytime, the Taliban is active at night. Terrorists also threaten locals with force so they do not dare to support NATO forces. Against this backdrop, residents in Marja have grown increasingly discontented with the Afghan Government.

Given the standoff of the Marja campaign, tribal leaders in Kandahar categorically oppose launching an offensive in their region, fearing military operations may worsen security. Under this pressure, Afghan President Hamid Karzai has yet to give consent to the proposed offensive, which the U.S. believes will be of critical importance to the war in Afghanistan.

The Kandahar campaign was postponed several times before McChrystal stepped down. It now faces greater uncertainties with a new commander at the helm.

Apart from the military stalemate, reconstruction also tops Obama’s list of concerns. Promoting economic and social reconstruction in Afghanistan and improving the governance of Afghan authorities are among the priorities of Obama’s new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan.

To date, however, efforts in these areas have largely faltered because of the endemic corruption in the Karzai administration. The United States believes corruption has not only undermined the legitimacy of Karzai’s government, but also helped boost Taliban infuence. As a result, it has added to the diffculties of counterinsurgency operations while causing a severe waste of assistance funds.

The United States therefore has raised the stakes for Karzai’s government to combat corruption. But given Afghanistan’s social turmoil and absence of the rule of law, it is almost impossible to eliminate corruption. Moreover, the government in Kabul has always relied on infuential regional leaders. The regime might not be able to function if powerful leaders suspected of corruption are banned from politics.

On top of these factors is dwindling international support. The Obama administration has tried to engage the international community in counterinsurgency and reconstruction programs in Afghanistan, only to be turned down by its few supporters.

Canada and the Netherlands have recently announced they would pull troops out of Afghanistan in the near future. Britain, a strong ally of the United States, also said it would withdraw its soldiers from some of the most dangerous regions in Afghanistan and place those areas under the control of the United States. Anxious for international support, the United States is playing up Afghanistan’s huge reserves of mineral resources.

Under these circumstances, the United States is unlikely to withdraw its troops from Afghanistan by July next year as scheduled. Obama may put off the deadline when reassessing U.S. troop surge in Afghanistan in December.

The author is a researcher with the Institute of American Studies of the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations