What do we have in common with Stanley McChrystal?

Dr. Bouthaina Shaaban

Despite the international media’s preoccupation with the world cup, news of the rupture in the relationship between commander of the US forces in Afghanistan, Stanley McChrystal, and the American administration, and then his dismissal, occupied a significant share of media attention. Most of the media, however, avoided raising the real questions and were only satisfied with responding to curiosity about the dispute between Joseph Biden and McChrystal and the “deep disappointment” expressed by US Chief of Staff, Michael Mullen over the issue. The media focused on what was called McChrystal’s criticism of President Obama, although the focus should be, from a purely American perspective, and as expressed by head of the Senate foreign affairs committee, John Kerry, “our first priority should be our mission in Afghanistan and our ability to proceed with skill”.

The controversy came after an interview with McChrystal in the Rolling Stones which headlined its cover with “The Run Away General”. The more accurate headline should have been “The Realistic General”, particularly that McChrystal’s comments coincided with the early departure of the British special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, Sherard Cowper-Coles, which confirms the break-up of the “coalition” forces and the failure of the Obama strategy in Afghanistan.

The controversy also coincided with the scene of General Petraeus passing out while giving his testimony to the US Senate, which also brought back to mind his famous question about Iraq: “How would this war end?” Maybe this is the most important question which everybody should have the courage to ask about Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Middle East instead of sinking under the analysis of criticism here and there and considering what is being said about this or that official a disaster instead of focusing on the real causes behind such statements.

If we stop and think a moment about the reputation of Generals Petraeus and McChrystal in areas of conflict compared with their reputation today in the United States, we might be able to detect the real gist of the question. They have both acquired a reputation based on their reluctance to allow their soldiers to be killed daily in a battle they know would only lead to losses to themselves and to others, and will be extremely difficult to achieve its objectives. The way they are treated – reminiscent of the way Helen Thomas was treated, by silencing them instead of providing solutions, serves a small influential elite, but does not serve the United States or its army and people.

What distinguishes McChrystal from those sitting in their comfortable offices in the White House, the Pentagon or the Congress is that he is a field commander who knows reality and its complications on the ground and consequently more capable of knowing the results which can be achieved. Is it not odd that the two most important generals in the American army are more realistic and more keen on ending the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq than the politicians who are supposed, by nature, to be against wars and more capable of ending them? If these military leaders are known for a history of courage, honor and integrity, what is the purpose of undermining their credibility now instead of adopting their visions to save the United States from a morass caused by the neo-conservatives which damaged the reputation and credibility of the United States and the lives of its people, let alone the economic crisis which was one result of unjustified spending. All of this can be seen if looked at from a purely American perspective. However, if we look at the human price paid by the people of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq in terms of blood, pain and displacement, these wars are tantamount to historical wars whose consequences will continue to haunt the United States for years and maybe decades.

We, in the countries suffering as a result of these policies in the Middle East and Asia, understand the views of General McChrystal, and understand the departure of the British envoy Sherard Cowper-Coles because we know the complexity of the situation and the importance of addressing it in a manner different from that offered by those who think only of their reputation and positions and of pleasing their superiors and are not prepared to sacrifice anything to tell the truth or raise the alarm.

This is our problem with those dealing with the Arab-Israeli conflict and who seem to us as if living on a different planet. I read recently that US Vice-President, Joe Biden, calls the Israeli war minister, Ehud Barak, weekly and tries through his relationship with Barak to overcome the negative impacts of the relationship between President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, as if the problem here is one of public relations and who speaks to whom and who cannot stand whom. Is it not odd for people who have the power to influence the lives of thousands, even millions, of people to descend this low.

Who will bring to account those responsible for demolishing beautiful Arab houses, which are architectural masterpieces and part of world heritage and civilization, and displacing their owners? Does the US Vice-President address such issues in his calls to Ehud Barak? Who is responsible for depriving millions of Palestinians of seeing their relatives and getting toys for their children, and of their rights to education, freedom and dignified life? Isn’t this the goal of governments and rulers; or has politics been degraded to silencing and punishing those who dare to point to errors, whether it is Helen Thomas, Noam Chomsky or General McChrystal?

The people who deserve to be dismissed from their positions are those who drum up war and sacrifice the children of others. If the soldier who dares to tell the truth is called the “run-away General”, where would those who caused his dismissal lead the world in these regions? This is the more important and serious question which needs to be pondered.