[THS] Michael Hastings: Stanley McChrystal The Runaway General

[The Harder Stuff in news and commentary]

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25796.htm



The Runaway General

Stanley McChrystal, Obama's top commander in Afghanistan, has seized control of
the war by never taking his eye off the real enemy: The wimps in the White House

By Michael Hastings

This article appears in RS 1108/1109 from July 8-22, 2010, on newsstands Friday,
June 25.

June 22, 2010 "Rolling Stone" -- 'How'd I get screwed into going to this dinner?"
demands Gen. Stanley McChrystal. It's a Thursday night in mid-April, and the
commander of all U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan is sitting in a four-star suite at
the Hôtel Westminster in Paris. He's in France to sell his new war strategy to our
NATO allies – to keep up the fiction, in essence, that we actually have allies. Since
McChrystal took over a year ago, the Afghan war has become the exclusive property
of the United States. Opposition to the war has already toppled the Dutch
government, forced the resignation of Germany's president and sparked both Canada
and the Netherlands to announce the withdrawal of their 4,500 troops. McChrystal is
in Paris to keep the French, who have lost more than 40 soldiers in Afghanistan, from
going all wobbly on him.

"The dinner comes with the position, sir," says his chief of staff, Col. Charlie Flynn.

McChrystal turns sharply in his chair.

"Hey, Charlie," he asks, "does this come with the position?"

McChrystal gives him the middle finger.

On the ground with the Runaway General: Photos of Stanley McChrystal at work.

The general stands and looks around the suite that his traveling staff of 10 has
converted into a full-scale operations center. The tables are crowded with silver
Panasonic Toughbooks, and blue cables crisscross the hotel's thick carpet, hooked up
to satellite dishes to provide encrypted phone and e-mail communications. Dressed in
off-the-rack civilian casual – blue tie, button-down shirt, dress slacks – McChrystal is
way out of his comfort zone. Paris, as one of his advisers says, is the "most anti-
McChrystal city you can imagine." The general hates fancy restaurants, rejecting any
place with candles on the tables as too "Gucci." He prefers Bud Light Lime (his
favorite beer) to Bordeaux,
Talladega Nights

(his favorite movie) to Jean-Luc Godard. Besides, the public eye has never been a
place where McChrystal felt comfortable: Before President Obama put him in charge
of the war in Afghanistan, he spent five years running the Pentagon's most secretive
black ops.

The Spill, The Scandal and the President: How Obama let BP get away with murder.

"What's the update on the Kandahar bombing?" McChrystal asks Flynn. The city has
been rocked by two massive car bombs in the past day alone, calling into question
the general's assurances that he can wrest it from the Taliban.

"We have two KIAs, but that hasn't been confirmed," Flynn says.

McChrystal takes a final look around the suite. At 55, he is gaunt and lean, not unlike
an older version of Christian Bale in Rescue Dawn. His slate-blue eyes have the
unsettling ability to drill down when they lock on you. If you've fucked up or
disappointed him, they can destroy your soul without the need for him to raise his
voice.

Looting Main Street: Matt Taibbi on how the nation's biggest banks are ripping off
American cities.

"I'd rather have my ass kicked by a roomful of people than go out to this dinner,"
McChrystal says.

He pauses a beat.

"Unfortunately," he adds, "no one in this room could do it."

With that, he's out the door.

"Who's he going to dinner with?" I ask one of his aides.

"Some French minister," the aide tells me. "It's fucking gay."

Get more Rolling Stone political coverage.

The next morning, McChrystal and his team gather to prepare for a speech he is
giving at the École Militaire, a French military academy. The general prides himself on
being sharper and ballsier than anyone else, but his brashness comes with a price:
Although McChrystal has been in charge of the war for only a year, in that short time
he has managed to piss off almost everyone with a stake in the conflict. Last fall,
during the question-and-answer session following a speech he gave in London,
McChrystal dismissed the counterterrorism strategy being advocated by Vice
President Joe Biden as "shortsighted," saying it would lead to a state of "Chaos-
istan." The remarks earned him a smackdown from the president himself, who
summoned the general to a terse private meeting aboard Air Force One. The
message to McChrystal seemed clear: Shut the fuck up, and keep a lower profile

Now, flipping through printout cards of his speech in Paris, McChrystal wonders aloud
what Biden question he might get today, and how he should respond. "I never know
what's going to pop out until I'm up there, that's the problem," he says. Then,
unable to help themselves, he and his staff imagine the general dismissing the vice
president with a good one-liner.

"Are you asking about Vice President Biden?" McChrystal says with a laugh. "Who's
that?"

"Biden?" suggests a top adviser. "Did you say: Bite Me?"

When Barack Obama entered the Oval Office, he immediately set out to deliver on his
most important campaign promise on foreign policy: to refocus the war in
Afghanistan on what led us to invade in the first place. "I want the American people
to understand," he announced in March 2009. "We have a clear and focused goal: to
disrupt, dismantle and defeat Al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan." He ordered
another 21,000 troops to Kabul, the largest increase since the war began in 2001.
Taking the advice of both the Pentagon and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he also fired
Gen. David McKiernan – then the U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan – and
replaced him with a man he didn't know and had met only briefly: Gen. Stanley
McChrystal. It was the first time a top general had been relieved from duty during
wartime in more than 50 years, since Harry Truman fired Gen. Douglas MacArthur at
the height of the Korean War.

Even though he had voted for Obama, McChrystal and his new commander in chief
failed from the outset to connect. The general first encountered Obama a week after
he took office, when the president met with a dozen senior military officials in a room
at the Pentagon known as the Tank. According to sources familiar with the meeting,
McChrystal thought Obama looked "uncomfortable and intimidated" by the roomful of
military brass. Their first one-on-one meeting took place in the Oval Office four
months later, after McChrystal got the Afghanistan job, and it didn't go much better.
"It was a 10-minute photo op," says an adviser to McChrystal. "Obama clearly didn't
know anything about him, who he was. Here's the guy who's going to run his fucking
war, but he didn't seem very engaged. The Boss was pretty disappointed."

From the start, McChrystal was determined to place his personal stamp on
Afghanistan, to use it as a laboratory for a controversial military strategy known as
counterinsurgency. COIN, as the theory is known, is the new gospel of the Pentagon
brass, a doctrine that attempts to square the military's preference for high-tech
violence with the demands of fighting protracted wars in failed states. COIN calls for
sending huge numbers of ground troops to not only destroy the enemy, but to live
among the civilian population and slowly rebuild, or build from scratch, another
nation's government – a process that even its staunchest advocates admit requires
years, if not decades, to achieve. The theory essentially rebrands the military,
expanding its authority (and its funding) to encompass the diplomatic and political
sides of warfare: Think the Green Berets as an armed Peace Corps. In 2006, after
Gen. David Petraeus beta-tested the theory during his "surge" in Iraq, it quickly
gained a hardcore following of think-tankers, journalists, military officers and civilian
officials. Nicknamed "COINdinistas" for their cultish zeal, this influential cadre believed
the doctrine would be the perfect solution for Afghanistan. All they needed was a
general with enough charisma and political savvy to implement it.

As McChrystal leaned on Obama to ramp up the war, he did it with the same
fearlessness he used to track down terrorists in Iraq: Figure out how your enemy
operates, be faster and more ruthless than everybody else, then take the fuckers out.
After arriving in Afghanistan last June, the general conducted his own policy review,
ordered up by Defense Secretary Robert Gates. The now-infamous report was leaked
to the press, and its conclusion was dire: If we didn't send another 40,000 troops –
swelling the number of U.S. forces in Afghanistan by nearly half – we were in danger
of "mission failure." The White House was furious. McChrystal, they felt, was trying to
bully Obama, opening him up to charges of being weak on national security unless
he did what the general wanted. It was Obama versus the Pentagon, and the
Pentagon was determined to kick the president's ass.

Last fall, with his top general calling for more troops, Obama launched a three-month
review to re-evaluate the strategy in Afghanistan. "I found that time painful,"
McChrystal tells me in one of several lengthy interviews. "I was selling an unsellable
position." For the general, it was a crash course in Beltway politics – a battle that
pitted him against experienced Washington insiders like Vice President Biden, who
argued that a prolonged counterinsurgency campaign in Afghanistan would plunge
America into a military quagmire without weakening international terrorist networks.
"The entire COIN strategy is a fraud perpetuated on the American people," says
Douglas Macgregor, a retired colonel and leading critic of counterinsurgency who
attended West Point with McChrystal. "The idea that we are going to spend a trillion
dollars to reshape the culture of the Islamic world is utter nonsense.

In the end, however, McChrystal got almost exactly what he wanted. On December
1st, in a speech at West Point, the president laid out all the reasons why fighting the
war in Afghanistan is a bad idea: It's expensive; we're in an economic crisis; a
decade-long commitment would sap American power; Al Qaeda has shifted its base
of operations to Pakistan. Then, without ever using the words "victory" or "win,"
Obama announced that he would send an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan,
almost as many as McChrystal had requested. The president had thrown his weight,
however hesitantly, behind the counterinsurgency crowd.

Today, as McChrystal gears up for an offensive in southern Afghanistan, the
prospects for any kind of success look bleak. In June, the death toll for U.S. troops
passed 1,000, and the number of IEDs has doubled. Spending hundreds of billions of
dollars on the fifth-poorest country on earth has failed to win over the civilian
population, whose attitude toward U.S. troops ranges from intensely wary to openly
hostile. The biggest military operation of the year – a ferocious offensive that began
in February to retake the southern town of Marja – continues to drag on, prompting
McChrystal himself to refer to it as a "bleeding ulcer." In June, Afghanistan officially
outpaced Vietnam as the longest war in American history – and Obama has quietly
begun to back away from the deadline he set for withdrawing U.S. troops in July of
next year. The president finds himself stuck in something even more insane than a
quagmire: a quagmire he knowingly walked into, even though it's precisely the kind
of gigantic, mind-numbing, multigenerational nation-building project he explicitly said
he didn't want.

Even those who support McChrystal and his strategy of counterinsurgency know that
whatever the general manages to accomplish in Afghanistan, it's going to look more
like Vietnam than Desert Storm. "It's not going to look like a win, smell like a win or
taste like a win," says Maj. Gen. Bill Mayville, who serves as chief of operations for
McChrystal. "This is going to end in an argument."

The night after his speech in Paris, McChrystal and his staff head to Kitty O'Shea's, an
Irish pub catering to tourists, around the corner from the hotel. His wife, Annie, has
joined him for a rare visit: Since the Iraq War began in 2003, she has seen her
husband less than 30 days a year. Though it is his and Annie's 33rd wedding
anniversary, McChrystal has invited his inner circle along for dinner and drinks at the
"least Gucci" place his staff could find. His wife isn't surprised. "He once took me to a
Jack in the Box when I was dressed in formalwear," she says with a laugh.

The general's staff is a handpicked collection of killers, spies, geniuses, patriots,
political operators and outright maniacs. There's a former head of British Special
Forces, two Navy Seals, an Afghan Special Forces commando, a lawyer, two fighter
pilots and at least two dozen combat veterans and counterinsurgency experts. They
jokingly refer to themselves as Team America, taking the name from the South Park-
esque sendup of military cluelessness, and they pride themselves on their can-do
attitude and their disdain for authority. After arriving in Kabul last summer, Team
America set about changing the culture of the International Security Assistance
Force, as the NATO-led mission is known. (U.S. soldiers had taken to deriding ISAF as
short for "I Suck at Fighting" or "In Sandals and Flip-Flops.") McChrystal banned
alcohol on base, kicked out Burger King and other symbols of American excess,
expanded the morning briefing to include thousands of officers and refashioned the
command center into a Situational Awareness Room, a free-flowing information hub
modeled after Mayor Mike Bloomberg's offices in New York. He also set a manic pace
for his staff, becoming legendary for sleeping four hours a night, running seven miles
each morning, and eating one meal a day. (In the month I spend around the
general, I witness him eating only once.) It's a kind of superhuman narrative that has
built up around him, a staple in almost every media profile, as if the ability to go
without sleep and food translates into the possibility of a man single-handedly
winning the war.

By midnight at Kitty O'Shea's, much of Team America is completely shitfaced. Two
officers do an Irish jig mixed with steps from a traditional Afghan wedding dance,
while McChrystal's top advisers lock arms and sing a slurred song of their own
invention. "Afghanistan!" they bellow. "Afghanistan!" They call it their Afghanistan
song.

McChrystal steps away from the circle, observing his team. "All these men," he tells
me. "I'd die for them. And they'd die for me."

The assembled men may look and sound like a bunch of combat veterans letting off
steam, but in fact this tight-knit group represents the most powerful force shaping
U.S. policy in Afghanistan. While McChrystal and his men are in indisputable
command of all military aspects of the war, there is no equivalent position on the
diplomatic or political side. Instead, an assortment of administration players compete
over the Afghan portfolio: U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, Special Representative
to Afghanistan Richard Holbrooke, National Security Advisor Jim Jones and Secretary
of State Hillary Clinton, not to mention 40 or so other coalition ambassadors and a
host of talking heads who try to insert themselves into the mess, from John Kerry to
John McCain. This diplomatic incoherence has effectively allowed McChrystal's team
to call the shots and hampered efforts to build a stable and credible government in
Afghanistan. "It jeopardizes the mission," says Stephen Biddle, a senior fellow at the
Council on Foreign Relations who supports McChrystal. "The military cannot by itself
create governance reform."

Part of the problem is structural: The Defense Department budget exceeds $600
billion a year, while the State Department receives only $50 billion. But part of the
problem is personal: In private, Team McChrystal likes to talk shit about many of
Obama's top people on the diplomatic side. One aide calls Jim Jones, a retired four-
star general and veteran of the Cold War, a "clown" who remains "stuck in 1985."
Politicians like McCain and Kerry, says another aide, "turn up, have a meeting with
Karzai, criticize him at the airport press conference, then get back for the Sunday talk
shows. Frankly, it's not very helpful." Only Hillary Clinton receives good reviews from
McChrystal's inner circle. "Hillary had Stan's back during the strategic review," says
an adviser. "She said, 'If Stan wants it, give him what he needs.'?"

McChrystal reserves special skepticism for Holbrooke, the official in charge of
reintegrating the Taliban. "The Boss says he's like a wounded animal," says a
member of the general's team. "Holbrooke keeps hearing rumors that he's going to
get fired, so that makes him dangerous. He's a brilliant guy, but he just comes in,
pulls on a lever, whatever he can grasp onto. But this is COIN, and you can't just
have someone yanking on shit."

At one point on his trip to Paris, McChrystal checks his BlackBerry. "Oh, not another
e-mail from Holbrooke," he groans. "I don't even want to open it." He clicks on the
message and reads the salutation out loud, then stuffs the BlackBerry back in his
pocket, not bothering to conceal his annoyance.

"Make sure you don't get any of that on your leg," an aide jokes, referring to the e-
mail.

By far the most crucial – and strained – relationship is between McChrystal and
Eikenberry, the U.S. ambassador. According to those close to the two men,
Eikenberry – a retired three-star general who served in Afghanistan in 2002 and 2005
– can't stand that his former subordinate is now calling the shots. He's also furious
that McChrystal, backed by NATO's allies, refused to put Eikenberry in the pivotal role
of viceroy in Afghanistan, which would have made him the diplomatic equivalent of
the general. The job instead went to British Ambassador Mark Sedwill – a move that
effectively increased McChrystal's influence over diplomacy by shutting out a powerful
rival. "In reality, that position needs to be filled by an American for it to have weight,"
says a U.S. official familiar with the negotiations.

The relationship was further strained in January, when a classified cable that
Eikenberry wrote was leaked to The New York Times. The cable was as scathing as it
was prescient. The ambassador offered a brutal critique of McChrystal's strategy,
dismissed President Hamid Karzai as "not an adequate strategic partner," and cast
doubt on whether the counterinsurgency plan would be "sufficient" to deal with Al
Qaeda. "We will become more deeply engaged here with no way to extricate
ourselves," Eikenberry warned, "short of allowing the country to descend again into
lawlessness and chaos."

McChrystal and his team were blindsided by the cable. "I like Karl, I've known him for
years, but they'd never said anything like that to us before," says McChrystal, who
adds that he felt "betrayed" by the leak. "Here's one that covers his flank for the
history books. Now if we fail, they can say, 'I told you so.'?"

The most striking example of McChrystal's usurpation of diplomatic policy is his
handling of Karzai. It is McChrystal, not diplomats like Eikenberry or Holbrooke, who
enjoys the best relationship with the man America is relying on to lead Afghanistan.
The doctrine of counterinsurgency requires a credible government, and since Karzai
is not considered credible by his own people, McChrystal has worked hard to make
him so. Over the past few months, he has accompanied the president on more than
10 trips around the country, standing beside him at political meetings, or shuras, in
Kandahar. In February, the day before the doomed offensive in Marja, McChrystal
even drove over to the president's palace to get him to sign off on what would be the
largest military operation of the year. Karzai's staff, however, insisted that the
president was sleeping off a cold and could not be disturbed. After several hours of
haggling, McChrystal finally enlisted the aid of Afghanistan's defense minister, who
persuaded Karzai's people to wake the president from his nap.

This is one of the central flaws with McChrystal's counterinsurgency strategy: The
need to build a credible government puts us at the mercy of whatever tin-pot leader
we've backed – a danger that Eikenberry explicitly warned about in his cable. Even
Team McChrystal privately acknowledges that Karzai is a less-than-ideal partner.
"He's been locked up in his palace the past year," laments one of the general's top
advisers. At times, Karzai himself has actively undermined McChrystal's desire to put
him in charge. During a recent visit to Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Karzai met
three U.S. soldiers who had been wounded in Uruzgan province. "General," he called
out to McChrystal, "I didn't even know we were fighting in Uruzgan!"

Growing up as a military brat, McChrystal exhibited the mixture of brilliance and
cockiness that would follow him throughout his career. His father fought in Korea and
Vietnam, retiring as a two-star general, and his four brothers all joined the armed
services. Moving around to different bases, McChrystal took solace in baseball, a sport
in which he made no pretense of hiding his superiority: In Little League, he would
call out strikes to the crowd before whipping a fastball down the middle.

McChrystal entered West Point in 1972, when the U.S. military was close to its all-time
low in popularity. His class was the last to graduate before the academy started to
admit women. The "Prison on the Hudson," as it was known then, was a potent mix
of testosterone, hooliganism and reactionary patriotism. Cadets repeatedly trashed
the mess hall in food fights, and birthdays were celebrated with a tradition called "rat
fucking," which often left the birthday boy outside in the snow or mud, covered in
shaving cream. "It was pretty out of control," says Lt. Gen. David Barno, a classmate
who went on to serve as the top commander in Afghanistan from 2003 to 2005. The
class, filled with what Barno calls "huge talent" and "wild-eyed teenagers with a
strong sense of idealism," also produced Gen. Ray Odierno, the current commander
of U.S. forces in Iraq.

The son of a general, McChrystal was also a ringleader of the campus dissidents – a
dual role that taught him how to thrive in a rigid, top-down environment while
thumbing his nose at authority every chance he got. He accumulated more than 100
hours of demerits for drinking, partying and insubordination – a record that his
classmates boasted made him a "century man." One classmate, who asked not to be
named, recalls finding McChrystal passed out in the shower after downing a case of
beer he had hidden under the sink. The troublemaking almost got him kicked out,
and he spent hours subjected to forced marches in the Area, a paved courtyard
where unruly cadets were disciplined. "I'd come visit, and I'd end up spending most
of my time in the library, while Stan was in the Area," recalls Annie, who began
dating McChrystal in 1973.

McChrystal wound up ranking 298 out of a class of 855, a serious underachievement
for a man widely regarded as brilliant. His most compelling work was extracurricular:
As managing editor of The Pointer, the West Point literary magazine, McChrystal
wrote seven short stories that eerily foreshadow many of the issues he would
confront in his career. In one tale, a fictional officer complains about the difficulty of
training foreign troops to fight; in another, a 19-year-old soldier kills a boy he
mistakes for a terrorist. In "Brinkman's Note," a piece of suspense fiction, the
unnamed narrator appears to be trying to stop a plot to assassinate the president. It
turns out, however, that the narrator himself is the assassin, and he's able to infiltrate
the White House: "The President strode in smiling. From the right coat pocket of the
raincoat I carried, I slowly drew forth my 32-caliber pistol. In Brinkman's failure, I
had succeeded."

After graduation, 2nd Lt. Stanley McChrystal entered an Army that was all but broken
in the wake of Vietnam. "We really felt we were a peacetime generation," he recalls.
"There was the Gulf War, but even that didn't feel like that big of a deal." So
McChrystal spent his career where the action was: He enrolled in Special Forces
school and became a regimental commander of the 3rd Ranger Battalion in 1986. It
was a dangerous position, even in peacetime – nearly two dozen Rangers were killed
in training accidents during the Eighties. It was also an unorthodox career path: Most
soldiers who want to climb the ranks to general don't go into the Rangers. Displaying
a penchant for transforming systems he considers outdated, McChrystal set out to
revolutionize the training regime for the Rangers. He introduced mixed martial arts,
required every soldier to qualify with night-vision goggles on the rifle range and
forced troops to build up their endurance with weekly marches involving heavy
backpacks.

In the late 1990s, McChrystal shrewdly improved his inside game, spending a year at
Harvard's Kennedy School of Government and then at the Council on Foreign
Relations, where he co-authored a treatise on the merits and drawbacks of
humanitarian interventionism. But as he moved up through the ranks, McChrystal
relied on the skills he had learned as a troublemaking kid at West Point: knowing
precisely how far he could go in a rigid military hierarchy without getting tossed out.
Being a highly intelligent badass, he discovered, could take you far – especially in the
political chaos that followed September 11th. "He was very focused," says Annie.
"Even as a young officer he seemed to know what he wanted to do. I don't think his
personality has changed in all these years."



By some accounts, McChrystal's career should have been over at least two times by
now. As Pentagon spokesman during the invasion of Iraq, the general seemed more
like a White House mouthpiece than an up-and-coming commander with a reputation
for speaking his mind. When Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld made his infamous
"stuff happens" remark during the looting of Baghdad, McChrystal backed him up. A
few days later, he echoed the president's Mission Accomplished gaffe by insisting that
major combat operations in Iraq were over. But it was during his next stint –
overseeing the military's most elite units, including the Rangers, Navy Seals and Delta
Force – that McChrystal took part in a cover-up that would have destroyed the career
of a lesser man.

After Cpl. Pat Tillman, the former-NFL-star-turned-Ranger, was accidentally killed by
his own troops in Afghanistan in April 2004, McChrystal took an active role in creating
the impression that Tillman had died at the hands of Taliban fighters. He signed off
on a falsified recommendation for a Silver Star that suggested Tillman had been killed
by enemy fire. (McChrystal would later claim he didn't read the recommendation
closely enough – a strange excuse for a commander known for his laserlike attention
to minute details.) A week later, McChrystal sent a memo up the chain of command,
specifically warning that President Bush should avoid mentioning the cause of
Tillman's death. "If the circumstances of Corporal Tillman's death become public," he
wrote, it could cause "public embarrassment" for the president.

"The false narrative, which McChrystal clearly helped construct, diminished Pat's true
actions," wrote Tillman's mother, Mary, in her book Boots on the Ground by Dusk.
McChrystal got away with it, she added, because he was the "golden boy" of
Rumsfeld and Bush, who loved his willingness to get things done, even if it included
bending the rules or skipping the chain of command. Nine days after Tillman's death,
McChrystal was promoted to major general.

Two years later, in 2006, McChrystal was tainted by a scandal involving detainee
abuse and torture at Camp Nama in Iraq. According to a report by Human Rights
Watch, prisoners at the camp were subjected to a now-familiar litany of abuse: stress
positions, being dragged naked through the mud. McChrystal was not disciplined in
the scandal, even though an interrogator at the camp reported seeing him inspect
the prison multiple times. But the experience was so unsettling to McChrystal that he
tried to prevent detainee operations from being placed under his command in
Afghanistan, viewing them as a "political swamp," according to a U.S. official. In May
2009, as McChrystal prepared for his confirmation hearings, his staff prepared him
for hard questions about Camp Nama and the Tillman cover-up. But the scandals
barely made a ripple in Congress, and McChrystal was soon on his way back to Kabul
to run the war in Afghanistan.

The media, to a large extent, have also given McChrystal a pass on both
controversies. Where Gen. Petraeus is kind of a dweeb, a teacher's pet with a
Ranger's tab, McChrystal is a snake-eating rebel, a "Jedi" commander, as Newsweek
called him. He didn't care when his teenage son came home with blue hair and a
mohawk. He speaks his mind with a candor rare for a high-ranking official. He asks
for opinions, and seems genuinely interested in the response. He gets briefings on
his iPod and listens to books on tape. He carries a custom-made set of nunchucks in
his convoy engraved with his name and four stars, and his itinerary often bears a
fresh quote from Bruce Lee. ("There are no limits. There are only plateaus, and you
must not stay there, you must go beyond them.") He went out on dozens of
nighttime raids during his time in Iraq, unprecedented for a top commander, and
turned up on missions unannounced, with almost no entourage. "The fucking lads
love Stan McChrystal," says a British officer who serves in Kabul. "You'd be out in
Somewhere, Iraq, and someone would take a knee beside you, and a corporal would
be like 'Who the fuck is that?' And it's fucking Stan McChrystal."

It doesn't hurt that McChrystal was also extremely successful as head of the Joint
Special Operations Command, the elite forces that carry out the government's darkest
ops. During the Iraq surge, his team killed and captured thousands of insurgents,
including Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq. "JSOC was a killing
machine," says Maj. Gen. Mayville, his chief of operations. McChrystal was also open
to new ways of killing. He systematically mapped out terrorist networks, targeting
specific insurgents and hunting them down – often with the help of cyberfreaks
traditionally shunned by the military. "The Boss would find the 24-year-old kid with a
nose ring, with some fucking brilliant degree from MIT, sitting in the corner with 16
computer monitors humming," says a Special Forces commando who worked with
McChrystal in Iraq and now serves on his staff in Kabul. "He'd say, 'Hey – you fucking
muscleheads couldn't find lunch without help. You got to work together with these
guys.'?"

Even in his new role as America's leading evangelist for counterinsurgency,
McChrystal retains the deep-seated instincts of a terrorist hunter. To put pressure on
the Taliban, he has upped the number of Special Forces units in Afghanistan from
four to 19. "You better be out there hitting four or five targets tonight," McChrystal
will tell a Navy Seal he sees in the hallway at headquarters. Then he'll add, "I'm
going to have to scold you in the morning for it, though." In fact, the general
frequently finds himself apologizing for the disastrous consequences of
counterinsurgency. In the first four months of this year, NATO forces killed some 90
civilians, up 76 percent from the same period in 2009 – a record that has created
tremendous resentment among the very population that COIN theory is intent on
winning over. In February, a Special Forces night raid ended in the deaths of two
pregnant Afghan women and allegations of a cover-up, and in April, protests erupted
in Kandahar after U.S. forces accidentally shot up a bus, killing five Afghans. "We've
shot an amazing number of people," McChrystal recently conceded.

Despite the tragedies and miscues, McChrystal has issued some of the strictest
directives to avoid civilian casualties that the U.S. military has ever encountered in a
war zone. It's "insurgent math," as he calls it – for every innocent person you kill, you
create 10 new enemies. He has ordered convoys to curtail their reckless driving, put
restrictions on the use of air power and severely limited night raids. He regularly
apologizes to Hamid Karzai when civilians are killed, and berates commanders
responsible for civilian deaths. "For a while," says one U.S. official, "the most
dangerous place to be in Afghanistan was in front of McChrystal after a 'civ cas'
incident." The ISAF command has even discussed ways to make not killing into
something you can win an award for: There's talk of creating a new medal for
"courageous restraint," a buzzword that's unlikely to gain much traction in the gung-
ho culture of the U.S. military.

But however strategic they may be, McChrystal's new marching orders have caused
an intense backlash among his own troops. Being told to hold their fire, soldiers
complain, puts them in greater danger. "Bottom line?" says a former Special Forces
operator who has spent years in Iraq and Afghanistan. "I would love to kick
McChrystal in the nuts. His rules of engagement put soldiers' lives in even greater
danger. Every real soldier will tell you the same thing."

In March, McChrystal traveled to Combat Outpost JFM – a small encampment on the
outskirts of Kandahar – to confront such accusations from the troops directly. It was a
typically bold move by the general. Only two days earlier, he had received an e-mail
from Israel Arroyo, a 25-year-old staff sergeant who asked McChrystal to go on a
mission with his unit. "I am writing because it was said you don't care about the
troops and have made it harder to defend ourselves," Arroyo wrote.

Within hours, McChrystal responded personally: "I'm saddened by the accusation
that I don't care about soldiers, as it is something I suspect any soldier takes both
personally and professionally – at least I do. But I know perceptions depend upon
your perspective at the time, and I respect that every soldier's view is his own." Then
he showed up at Arroyo's outpost and went on a foot patrol with the troops – not
some bullshit photo-op stroll through a market, but a real live operation in a
dangerous war zone.

Six weeks later, just before McChrystal returned from Paris, the general received
another e-mail from Arroyo. A 23-year-old corporal named Michael Ingram – one of
the soldiers McChrystal had gone on patrol with – had been killed by an IED a day
earlier. It was the third man the 25-member platoon had lost in a year, and Arroyo
was writing to see if the general would attend Ingram's memorial service. "He started
to look up to you," Arroyo wrote. McChrystal said he would try to make it down to pay
his respects as soon as possible.

The night before the general is scheduled to visit Sgt. Arroyo's platoon for the
memorial, I arrive at Combat Outpost JFM to speak with the soldiers he had gone on
patrol with. JFM is a small encampment, ringed by high blast walls and guard towers.
Almost all of the soldiers here have been on repeated combat tours in both Iraq and
Afghanistan, and have seen some of the worst fighting of both wars. But they are
especially angered by Ingram's death. His commanders had repeatedly requested
permission to tear down the house where Ingram was killed, noting that it was often
used as a combat position by the Taliban. But due to McChrystal's new restrictions to
avoid upsetting civilians, the request had been denied. "These were abandoned
houses," fumes Staff Sgt. Kennith Hicks. "Nobody was coming back to live in them."



One soldier shows me the list of new regulations the platoon was given. "Patrol only
in areas that you are reasonably certain that you will not have to defend yourselves
with lethal force," the laminated card reads. For a soldier who has traveled halfway
around the world to fight, that's like telling a cop he should only patrol in areas
where he knows he won't have to make arrests. "Does that make any fucking sense?"
asks Pfc. Jared Pautsch. "We should just drop a fucking bomb on this place. You sit
and ask yourself: What are we doing here?"

The rules handed out here are not what McChrystal intended – they've been
distorted as they passed through the chain of command – but knowing that does
nothing to lessen the anger of troops on the ground. "Fuck, when I came over here
and heard that McChrystal was in charge, I thought we would get our fucking gun
on," says Hicks, who has served three tours of combat. "I get COIN. I get all that.
McChrystal comes here, explains it, it makes sense. But then he goes away on his
bird, and by the time his directives get passed down to us through Big Army, they're
all fucked up – either because somebody is trying to cover their ass, or because they
just don't understand it themselves. But we're fucking losing this thing."

McChrystal and his team show up the next day. Underneath a tent, the general has a
45-minute discussion with some two dozen soldiers. The atmosphere is tense. "I ask
you what's going on in your world, and I think it's important for you all to understand
the big picture as well," McChrystal begins. "How's the company doing? You guys
feeling sorry for yourselves? Anybody? Anybody feel like you're losing?" McChrystal
says.

"Sir, some of the guys here, sir, think we're losing, sir," says Hicks.

McChrystal nods. "Strength is leading when you just don't want to lead," he tells the
men. "You're leading by example. That's what we do. Particularly when it's really,
really hard, and it hurts inside." Then he spends 20 minutes talking about
counterinsurgency, diagramming his concepts and principles on a whiteboard. He
makes COIN seem like common sense, but he's careful not to bullshit the men. "We
are knee-deep in the decisive year," he tells them. The Taliban, he insists, no longer
has the initiative – "but I don't think we do, either." It's similar to the talk he gave in
Paris, but it's not winning any hearts and minds among the soldiers. "This is the
philosophical part that works with think tanks," McChrystal tries to joke. "But it
doesn't get the same reception from infantry companies."

During the question-and-answer period, the frustration boils over. The soldiers
complain about not being allowed to use lethal force, about watching insurgents they
detain be freed for lack of evidence. They want to be able to fight – like they did in
Iraq, like they had in Afghanistan before McChrystal. "We aren't putting fear into the
Taliban," one soldier says.

"Winning hearts and minds in COIN is a coldblooded thing," McChrystal says, citing
an oft-repeated maxim that you can't kill your way out of Afghanistan. "The Russians
killed 1 million Afghans, and that didn't work."

"I'm not saying go out and kill everybody, sir," the soldier persists. "You say we've
stopped the momentum of the insurgency. I don't believe that's true in this area. The
more we pull back, the more we restrain ourselves, the stronger it's getting."

"I agree with you," McChrystal says. "In this area, we've not made progress,
probably. You have to show strength here, you have to use fire. What I'm telling you
is, fire costs you. What do you want to do? You want to wipe the population out here
and resettle it?"

A soldier complains that under the rules, any insurgent who doesn't have a weapon is
immediately assumed to be a civilian. "That's the way this game is," McChrystal says.
"It's complex. I can't just decide: It's shirts and skins, and we'll kill all the shirts."

As the discussion ends, McChrystal seems to sense that he hasn't succeeded at
easing the men's anger. He makes one last-ditch effort to reach them,
acknowledging the death of Cpl. Ingram. "There's no way I can make that easier,"
he tells them. "No way I can pretend it won't hurt. No way I can tell you not to feel
that. . . . I will tell you, you're doing a great job. Don't let the frustration get to you."
The session ends with no clapping, and no real resolution. McChrystal may have sold
President Obama on counterinsurgency, but many of his own men aren't buying it.



When it comes to Afghanistan, history is not on McChrystal's side. The only foreign
invader to have any success here was Genghis Khan – and he wasn't hampered by
things like human rights, economic development and press scrutiny. The COIN
doctrine, bizarrely, draws inspiration from some of the biggest Western military
embarrassments in recent memory: France's nasty war in Algeria (lost in 1962) and
the American misadventure in Vietnam (lost in 1975). McChrystal, like other advocates
of COIN, readily acknowledges that counterinsurgency campaigns are inherently
messy, expensive and easy to lose. "Even Afghans are confused by Afghanistan," he
says. But even if he somehow manages to succeed, after years of bloody fighting
with Afghan kids who pose no threat to the U.S. homeland, the war will do little to
shut down Al Qaeda, which has shifted its operations to Pakistan. Dispatching
150,000 troops to build new schools, roads, mosques and water-treatment facilities
around Kandahar is like trying to stop the drug war in Mexico by occupying Arkansas
and building Baptist churches in Little Rock. "It's all very cynical, politically," says
Marc Sageman, a former CIA case officer who has extensive experience in the
region. "Afghanistan is not in our vital interest – there's nothing for us there."

In mid-May, two weeks after visiting the troops in Kandahar, McChrystal travels to the
White House for a high-level visit by Hamid Karzai. It is a triumphant moment for the
general, one that demonstrates he is very much in command – both in Kabul and in
Washington. In the East Room, which is packed with journalists and dignitaries,
President Obama sings the praises of Karzai. The two leaders talk about how great
their relationship is, about the pain they feel over civilian casualties. They mention the
word "progress" 16 times in under an hour. But there is no mention of victory. Still,
the session represents the most forceful commitment that Obama has made to
McChrystal's strategy in months. "There is no denying the progress that the Afghan
people have made in recent years – in education, in health care and economic
development," the president says. "As I saw in the lights across Kabul when I landed
– lights that would not have been visible just a few years earlier."

It is a disconcerting observation for Obama to make. During the worst years in Iraq,
when the Bush administration had no real progress to point to, officials used to offer
up the exact same evidence of success. "It was one of our first impressions," one
GOP official said in 2006, after landing in Baghdad at the height of the sectarian
violence. "So many lights shining brightly." So it is to the language of the Iraq War
that the Obama administration has turned – talk of progress, of city lights, of metrics
like health care and education. Rhetoric that just a few years ago they would have
mocked. "They are trying to manipulate perceptions because there is no definition of
victory – because victory is not even defined or recognizable," says Celeste Ward, a
senior defense analyst at the RAND Corporation who served as a political adviser to
U.S. commanders in Iraq in 2006. "That's the game we're in right now. What we
need, for strategic purposes, is to create the perception that we didn't get run off.
The facts on the ground are not great, and are not going to become great in the
near future."

But facts on the ground, as history has proven, offer little deterrent to a military
determined to stay the course. Even those closest to McChrystal know that the rising
anti-war sentiment at home doesn't begin to reflect how deeply fucked up things are
in Afghanistan. "If Americans pulled back and started paying attention to this war, it
would become even less popular," a senior adviser to McChrystal says. Such realism,
however, doesn't prevent advocates of counterinsurgency from dreaming big:
Instead of beginning to withdraw troops next year, as Obama promised, the military
hopes to ramp up its counterinsurgency campaign even further. "There's a possibility
we could ask for another surge of U.S. forces next summer if we see success here," a
senior military official in Kabul tells me.

Back in Afghanistan, less than a month after the White House meeting with Karzai
and all the talk of "progress," McChrystal is hit by the biggest blow to his vision of
counterinsurgency. Since last year, the Pentagon had been planning to launch a
major military operation this summer in Kandahar, the country's second-largest city
and the Taliban's original home base. It was supposed to be a decisive turning point
in the war – the primary reason for the troop surge that McChrystal wrested from
Obama late last year. But on June 10th, acknowledging that the military still needs to
lay more groundwork, the general announced that he is postponing the offensive
until the fall. Rather than one big battle, like Fallujah or Ramadi, U.S. troops will
implement what McChrystal calls a "rising tide of security." The Afghan police and
army will enter Kandahar to attempt to seize control of neighborhoods, while the U.S.
pours $90 million of aid into the city to win over the civilian population.

Even proponents of counterinsurgency are hard-pressed to explain the new plan.
"This isn't a classic operation," says a U.S. military official. "It's not going to be Black
Hawk Down. There aren't going to be doors kicked in." Other U.S. officials insist that
doors are going to be kicked in, but that it's going to be a kinder, gentler offensive
than the disaster in Marja. "The Taliban have a jackboot on the city," says a military
official. "We have to remove them, but we have to do it in a way that doesn't alienate
the population." When Vice President Biden was briefed on the new plan in the Oval
Office, insiders say he was shocked to see how much it mirrored the more gradual
plan of counterterrorism that he advocated last fall. "This looks like CT-plus!" he said,
according to U.S. officials familiar with the meeting.

Whatever the nature of the new plan, the delay underscores the fundamental flaws
of counterinsurgency. After nine years of war, the Taliban simply remains too strongly
entrenched for the U.S. military to openly attack. The very people that COIN seeks to
win over – the Afghan people – do not want us there. Our supposed ally, President
Karzai, used his influence to delay the offensive, and the massive influx of aid
championed by McChrystal is likely only to make things worse. "Throwing money at
the problem exacerbates the problem," says Andrew Wilder, an expert at Tufts
University who has studied the effect of aid in southern Afghanistan. "A tsunami of
cash fuels corruption, delegitimizes the government and creates an environment
where we're picking winners and losers" – a process that fuels resentment and
hostility among the civilian population. So far, counterinsurgency has succeeded only
in creating a never-ending demand for the primary product supplied by the military:
perpetual war. There is a reason that President Obama studiously avoids using the
word "victory" when he talks about Afghanistan. Winning, it would seem, is not really
possible. Not even with Stanley McChrystal in charge.

This article originally appeared in RS 1108/1109 from July 8-22, 2010.

Copyright 2010 Rolling Stone; Jann S. Wenner, editor and publisher