Insubordination

It's funny. Bush abused the military. He fought the wrong war. Had 4,000 killed and tens of thousands maimed for no good reason. Did anybody complain? No.

Obama is now talking about "reviewing the strategy in Afghanistan" and suddenly you have insubordination in the ranks. You have a President who is smart and trying to do the right thing, and you have a military that decides it can't live with this kind of "interference" from the civilian authorities. Insane.

Here's a bit from an article by Nancy A. Youssef entitled "Military growing impatient with Obama on Afghanistan":

In the last two weeks, top administration leaders have suggested that more American troops will be sent to Afghanistan, and then called that suggestion "premature." Earlier this month, Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that "time is not on our side"; on Thursday, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates urged the public "to take a deep breath."

The White House didn't respond to requests for comment. Officials willing to speak did so only on the condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to speak publicly.

In Kabul, some members of McChrystal's staff said they don't understand why Obama called Afghanistan a "war of necessity" but still hasn't given them the resources they need to turn things around quickly.

Three officers at the Pentagon and in Kabul told McClatchy Newspapers that the McChrystal they know would resign before he would stand behind a faltering policy that he thought would endanger his forces or the strategy.

"Yes, he'll be a good soldier, but he will only go so far," a senior official in Kabul said. "He'll hold his ground. He's not going to bend to political pressure."

On Thursday, Gates danced around the question of when the administration would be ready to receive McChrystal's request, which was completed in late August. "We're working through the process by which we want that submitted," he said.

The time to resign with honour was when Bush rattled sabers in 2002 and then "pre-emptively" invaded Iraq on false charges. Any honourable military person would have resigned over that.

But no, not then. But now that a sensible President is in place and wants to mold military policy to the real needs of the United States, you have rebellion in the ranks! You have military officers threatening to have a hissy fit because the don't get to fight the war they want to fight.

This military didn't rattle their sabers against Bush when he killed over 4,000 and badly wounded tens of thousands. But McChrystal is slipping comments to the press about his unhsppiness with "a faltering policy that he thought would endanger his forces or the strategy". Think about that. None in the military had worries about a "faltering policy" or any "endangering his forces" when it came to Bush. But for Obama, suddenly we have a military that is concerned about clarity of policy and setting the right strategic agenda. Bush created a trillion dollar hole in the federal budget and nearly decimated the military, but not a squeak. Obama calls for thoughtful reflection and suddenly the pride of the military demands that swords be broken and epaulets ripped to show displeasure. Nuts!

What these hotheads in the military aren't considering is...

The cost of the war also soared. According to Defense Department figures, the Afghan war was costing the Pentagon $2 billion a month as of last October. By June, that cost had climbed to $6.7 billion a month - and that was before most of the additional troops had arrived.

The Pentagon estimates that maintaining a 134,000-strong Afghan army would cost about $3 billion a year in a country that generates $800 million a year in total revenue, meaning that the United States and its allies may be making an indefinite financial commitment.

Now the administration is fully considering the war costs, in resources and political capital, White House and defense officials said.

...

It is also asking whether it's wise to build an Afghan National Army that's likely to serve President Hamid Karzai, whose administration is riddled with corruption and whose legitimacy would be open to question if he claims victory in the Aug. 20 election whose results still have not been decided amid allegations of fraud.

Something is bad wrong in Dodge City...

Update 2009sep22: Here's a good article by David Wood entitled "Afghanistan: The 'Good War' Gets Complicated"with a down-in-the-trenches look at the fighting in Afghanistan. It makes clear why the US will never succeed.