Mission Unfinished

"In this age," he said, "I don’t care how tactically or operationally brilliant you are, if you cannot create harmony—even vicious harmony—on the battlefield based on trust across service lines, across coalition and national lines, and across civilian/military lines, you need to go home, because your leadership is obsolete. We have got to have officers who can create harmony across all those lines."

The quote above was spoken in May of this year, at the United States Naval Institute EAST conference sponsored by JFCOM. The speaker was General James Mattis.

The President had no choice; he absolutely had to accept General McCrystal's resignation. With that said, I am reluctant to praise the Presidents decision today to name General Petraeus as General McCrystal's replacement, and it is far too early to hand out any praise regarding how seriously the President is taking the military - civilian unity of command issues surrounding the Afghanistan war. It is a bizarre world we must live in that some can unequivocally suggest that by firing one General and demoting another General we have somehow made progress for civilian - military relations - even if it may be true.

If we understand the complexities that required General McCrystal to be fired, and General Petraeus to be demoted, at most we can highlight that the administration understands the challenges the nation faces in Afghanistan. That really isn't much to build praise from though.

When I watched the speech given by the President today in the Rose Garden, I heard President Obama's voice - but I also felt like I was hearing Secretary Gates words. For me, and I may be wrong, what I witnessed was the Pentagon leadership dealing with a military specific problem surrounding a Pentagon approved General, and the President merely showed up to deliver the message. General McCrystal may have offered his resignation to President Obama, but I am left with the impression Secretary Gates insured that action and had he been assigned to deal with the issue - would have fired General McCrystal himself. I find it as simplistic as a political sound bite to suggest that today was bold civilian leadership by the President to reign in control of the military, because more likely the civilian was Secretary Gates and action was more akin to the military taking decisive action to clean their own house.

I find it interesting that with the sole exception of General McKiernan, the Obama administration has never held anyone accountable for their actual job performance. However, General McKiernan was fired by Gates, not President Obama, so in effect the political side of the Obama administration has never actually fired anyone in their administration. Adjusting deck chairs on the civilian side of the Afghanistan war will become - in effect - a first for this administration. I have concerns that the Obama administration will be unable to take swift action on the civilian side of the war effort, because grading someone on performance is quite frankly - something the Obama administration has never done. The oil spill is a perfect example of how government under the Obama administration is held unaccountable for performance in crisis.

Maybe I am cynical, but I don't believe Obama intended to fire General McCrystal until Secretary Gates came along and insisted otherwise. All of the benefits to be gained by refusing General McCrystal's resignation were political in nature, while all of the benefits of accepting General McCrystal's resignation favored civilian control in the Pentagon. One of the politically appealing sound bites of the last 24 hours is the phrase that "the war is about more than one man."

Does anyone believe for a minute that the Afghanistan war policy would remain the same if it wasn't for one man - Secretary Gates? The war itself may be about more than one man, but how the war is conducted is primarily because of one man.

I find it very disturbing how little depth our nation has in the bullpen when the President has to demote our most decorated military leader of this generation - General Petraeus - in order to find someone willing and able to execute the existing administration policy for Afghanistan and simultaneously save political face for the Commander in Chief in the midst of a civil - military relations crisis. How effective is the policy itself when the President must borrow the prestige and respect of the nations finest General in order to reclaim civilian control? Color me concerned.

Start the clock, because dealing with the civilian side of the Afghanistan war issue may take some time. On Wednesday the President started something, but the timetable that matters isn't how long it takes for General Petraeus to pick up General McCrystal's fumble and start moving the ball down the field - rather how long it takes for the rest of the command structure - specifically the civilian side but also the CENTCOM replacement - to get sorted out.

The CENTCOM replacement will be interesting to watch, because as a premier military position directly responsible for the way the war is conducted, the list of names will again reveal how short the bullpen of Secretary Gates actually is.

General Petraeus addresses half of the military - civilian equation that General Mattis is quoted discussing above - the easy half. Until the civilian half of that equation is addressed and conforms to the quote by General Mattis - the President has a mission unfinished in Afghanistan - and that mission has always been the hard part; the part his predecessor never got right in Afghanistan.