Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Gen. McChrystal, Grim Reaper: Obama's New Afghan Commander Will Send Death Toll Soaring

By Tom Engelhardt, Tomdispatch.com. Posted May 22, 2009.


Stanley McChrystal comes from a world where killing by any means is the norm and a blanket of govt. secrecy provides the necessary protection.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Yes, Stanley McChrystal is the general from the dark side (and proud of it). So the recent sacking of Afghan commander General David McKiernan after less than a year in the field and McChrystal's appointment as the man to run the Afghan War seems to signal that the Obama administration is going for broke. It's heading straight into what, in the Vietnam era, was known as "the big muddy."

General McChrystal comes from a world where killing by any means is the norm and a blanket of secrecy provides the necessary protection. For five years he commanded the Pentagon's super-secret Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), which, among other things, ran what Seymour Hersh has described as an "executive assassination wing" out of Vice President Cheney's office. (Cheney just returned the favor by giving the newly appointed general a ringing endorsement: "I think you'd be hard put to find anyone better than Stan McChrystal.")

McChrystal gained a certain renown when President Bush outed him as the man responsible for tracking down and eliminating al-Qaeda-in-Mesopotamia leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. The secret force of "manhunters" he commanded had its own secret detention and interrogation center near Baghdad, Camp Nama, where bad things happened regularly, and the unit there, Task Force 6-26, had its own slogan: "If you don't make them bleed, they can't prosecute for it." Since some of the task force's men were, in the end, prosecuted, the bleeding evidently wasn't avoided.

In the Bush years, McChrystal was reputedly extremely close to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. The super-secret force he commanded was, in fact, part of Rumsfeld's effort to seize control of, and Pentagonize, the covert, on-the-ground activities that were once the purview of the CIA.

Behind McChrystal lies a string of targeted executions that may run into the hundreds, as well as accusations of torture and abuse by troops under his command (and a role in the cover-up of the circumstances surrounding the death of Army Ranger and former National Football League player Pat Tillman). The general has reportedly long thought of Afghanistan and Pakistan as a single battlefield, which means that he was a premature adherent to the idea of an Af-Pak -- that is, expanded -- war. While in Afghanistan in 2008, the New York Times reported, he was a "key advocate... of a plan, ultimately approved by President George W. Bush, to use American commandos to strike at Taliban sanctuaries in Pakistan." This end-of-term Bush program provoked such anger and blowback in Pakistan that it was reportedly halted after two cross-border raids, one of which killed civilians.

All of this offers more than a hint of the sort of "new thinking and new approaches" -- to use Secretary of Defense Robert Gates's words -- that the Obama administration expects General McChrystal to bring to the devolving Af-Pak battlefield. He is, in a sense, both a legacy figure from the worst days of the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld era and the first-born child of Obama-era Washington's growing desperation and hysteria over the wars it inherited.

Hagiography

And here's the good news: We luv the guy. Just luv him to death.

We loved him back in 2006, when Bush first outed him and Newsweek reporters Michael Hirsh and John Barry dubbed him "a rising star" in the Army and one of the "Jedi Knights who are fighting in what Cheney calls 'the shadows.'"

It's no different today in what's left of the mainstream news analysis business. In that mix of sports lingo, Hollywood-ese, and just plain hyperbole that makes armchair war strategizing just so darn much fun, Washington Post columnist David Ignatius, for instance, claimed that Centcom commander General David Petraeus, who picked McChrystal as his man in Afghanistan, is "assembling an all-star team" and that McChrystal himself is "a rising superstar who, like Petraeus, has helped reinvent the U.S. Army." Is that all?

When it came to pure, instant hagiography, however, the prize went to Elisabeth Bumiller and Mark Mazzetti of the New York Times, who wrote a front-pager, "A General Steps from the Shadows," that painted a picture of McChrystal as a mutant cross between Superman and a saint.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: afghanistan, pakistan, af-pak, stanley mcchrystal

Tom Engelhardt, editor of Tomdispatch.com, is co-founder of the American Empire Project and author of The End of Victory Culture.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from World! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Pretty Words, Ugly Deeds
Posted by: DrBrian on May 22, 2009 1:20 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama's recent platitude-laden speech surely won't deceive any intelligent observer. Aside from building a legal firewall around himself by theoretically banning torture, he's shown the same disregard for the Constitition, laws, Geneva and Torture Conventions as Bush and Cheney. His choice of an action-movie character to carry on the crusade in Afghanistan speaks volumes, and his reactions during a recent meeting with human rights advocates were anything but reassuring.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Tom, you can stop the war.........expose 9/11 as the lie that it is.
Posted by: pfgetty on May 22, 2009 3:07 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Tom, you have been against this war from the very beginning, and I've been reading your articles since then. You are a great writer and have a big following.

But you have avoided the one topic that could stop the war in Afghanistan: 9/11 truth.
Why have you censored yourself on this topic? Do you not know the overwhelming facts that prove, PROVE, that the 9/11 official story is a fairytale? How could you be so smart and not know? Are you threatened, or pressured somehow by a group that would be harmed by the truth of 9/11? Or are you PART of a group like that?
Or do you simply not know the facts? If so, please learn. Start with www.911truth.org or www.ae911truth.org or to see thousands of distinguished people from many professions (almost uniquely journalists are not here) who have signed onto 9/11 truth, see www.patriotsquestion911.org.

But bring us the truth of 9/11. Complaining about the war will not stop it. As long as people think that 9/11 was brought to us by those people in caves there, we will continue fighting.

Please, Tom. Tell us what you REALLY know.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Dear Walk-in-Storms Posted by: bonapartist
» RE: Dear Walk-in-Storms Posted by: Walks-in-Storms
» RE: Dear Walk-in-Storms Posted by: bonapartist
It's all about controlling the gas and oil resources
Posted by: obamapawn on May 22, 2009 4:06 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Where is the outrage of those people who voted for Obama when they see that he is not ending the war in the Middle East but just changing its location somewhat.
Since John F. Kennedy was killed by the CIA and possibly the private international private bankers i.e. the Federal Reserve Bank, all presidents have been pawns of the military-industrial oil private central banking complex. Some like Clinton and Obama give the illusion of being of good character, goodwill and good intentions.
Presidents like this are put in place to assuage the people who have been outraged by the agenda of those presidents who are outright obvious pawns. These presidents are in a certain way much more dangerous than the obviously corrupt.
Until people become informed and as a result are not willing to take it anymore will anything change.

Go to 911insidejob.net for more articles and videos.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Who Done It?
Posted by: Rip Tragle on May 22, 2009 5:21 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oh Tom, why don't you tell us who REALLY torched the Hindenburg
pleeeeeseee.
I used to think the term "conspiracy nut" was a tad unfair.
I have changed my mind.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» The Hindenburg? Posted by: grindermonkey
» RE: The Hindenburg? Posted by: Rip Tragle
» The Hindenburg? Posted by: grindermonkey
So what's the plan . . .?
Posted by: Walks-in-Storms on May 22, 2009 6:27 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We should pull out and leave Afghanistan to the Taliban and or Al Qaeda? We should negotiate with the Taliban and Osama bin Laden?

Maybe we should try rubber bullets? Judo and Karate? Maybe we could put something in the water supply, something that will make the Taliban more passive.

Come on, all you (supposed) humanists, liberals, and pacifists, what's the plan?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The plan is. . . Posted by: fearn
» RE: The plan is. . . Posted by: Walks-in-Storms
» Walks-Under-Soggy-Skies Posted by: leafsong1
» RE: So what's the plan . . .? Posted by: bonapartist
» RE: So what's the plan . . .? Posted by: Walks-in-Storms
» RE: So what's the plan . . .? Posted by: Walks-in-Storms
» The decision to invade Iraq... Posted by: leafsong1
» RE: So what's the plan . . .? Posted by: woodford54
» RE: So what's the plan . . .? Posted by: Walks-in-Storms
Ok Armchair Analyst Give US your Best Plan
Posted by: Purple Girl on May 22, 2009 6:34 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Much like the clusterfuck of Wall Street I hear a lot of rehashing of the current situation and criticism- but no alternative plan to actually solving the problem, and certainly no guarantees that it would work either.
although I will give a minor Kudo for at least providing some slight evidence this new commander (far better than the last Hack who wrote an article republished here) is someone to be concerned with- but since there is no direct hard evidence, and our form of justice contends one is innocent until proven guilty- It only warrants an eyebrow raise at this point. Give US something to sink our teeth into and prosecute for, otherwise it's pure conjecture.
As you so aptly pointed out this fiasco began 2 decades ago- and we left the Afghani's at the mercy of AQ and the Taliban- great way to make friends and influence people ah? Not to mention the various forms of Support for India we have provided over the years, which has left our influence with Pakistani's in the toilet.
That's why anyone with half a brain knew putting boots on the Ground in Afghanistan to begin with was a suicide mission. Why is it the Almighty CIA was incapble of filter money into the real afghani citizenship- by passing AQ and the Taliban- winning over 'hearts and minds' following the Russian invasion? Oh that's right they were too busy giving Our Tax dollars to AQ insurgency and the Taliban- so they could oppresss the people and grow their profittable crop of poppies to fund their Jihad.So Dr Frankenstien who is responsible for 9/11? So why should we be surprised that the average Afghani now hates US? Or even the average pakistani?Frankly I not only want the activities of the CIA and Congress exposed for the lst 8 yrs- but 20, 30, 40...There aren't just Crimes involving Treason and war crimes but Crimes against Humanity these Public Servants must answer for.
Want to knock the legs out from under the Terrorist, show them we are willing to prosecute the ones who have created these international clusterfucks of oppression and conflicts that have unjustly earned OUR country the title of the 'Evil Empire'. I don't give a shit about the cave Dwellers -I want the ones in Corner office in DC who gave them the Reason to hate US.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: "innocent until proven guilty- " Posted by: oregoncharles
Why?
Posted by: oregoncharles on May 22, 2009 8:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why would O. nominate someone with this kind of record? It's not like he isn't in a position to know. It's bad politics, giving your opponents all this red meat, and one thing O. is good at is politics.

Anybody out there got some good ideas what purpose is served? There are lots of generals; why this one?

Unless, of course, he LIKES the idea of his own personal hit men.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Why? Posted by: woodford54
Warmonger's logic
Posted by: bonapartist on May 22, 2009 10:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I got you into the war you didn't want and it’s going badly but We cannot leave now or They win. "They" of course being evil incarnate while "We" being all time good guys and heros.

Perfect win-win option, once US starts a war only traitors quit. Boys and girls, you are to fight the war you don't want or you are a liberal/pacifist/humanist (read - a lowlife).

Yes, precisely that, people who didn't want to get involved in the war wants for US to pull out. The world didn't implode for Britain after they pulled out of India, nor did the French explode after pulling out of Vietnam. The US didn't go down the drain and Reds didn't take over the World despite the hysterical antics of McArthur in Korea (Nuke China!) and Westmoreland in Vietnam (The Red Scare!).

So the plan is to (to name just a few options):

#1 Pull out of Afghanistan.
#2 Isolate and contain Afghanistan.
#3 Stabilize Pakistan.
#4 Open negotiations with main suppliers of Afghani insurgency – China, Russia and Iran.
#5 Build intelligence anti-terrorist networks after the models used by, for example, Spain dealing with ETA or UK dealing with IRA.
#6 Support stabilizing elements in Afghanistan via the economic and humanitarian aid.

The most important part is to shape the foreign policy with focus on long-term consequences, Bin Laden for example was armed and trained by US (with short-term goals in mind) to kill Soviets. McCrystal just happen to have experience in training the 'native' forces which are notoriously unreliable in the long run and naturally serve their own interests.

Nothing of the above is likely to happen because:

#1 There is no clear-cut winner.
#2 It would require an overhaul in US foreign policy thereby providing a proof that current policy is flawed and unworkable.

For a good measure you can also claim that American ruling oligarchy needs a war to maintain itself in power and Obama is just their spokesperson, like Bush was before him albeit in a harder form.

Not to mention the diplomatic/covert/indirect approach would cut short the pissing contest US military seems to love and want. It is also conveniently forgotten that combined potential foes (for example Russia, Iran, and China) have more guns, men, territory, tanks, and nuclear warheads. They probably also have more money at this point and a common wisdom would dictate that one picks its fights carefully. Probably too subtle of an idea for McCrystal & Co, interestingly enough MacArthur and Westmoreland before him were also not inclined to subtlety.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Warmonger's logic Posted by: Walks-in-Storms
» RE: Warmonger's logic Posted by: bonapartist
» RE: Warmonger's logic Posted by: Walks-in-Storms
The plan is to try a different approach
Posted by: bonapartist on May 22, 2009 10:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The big club didn't work, the bigger club didn't work, the bigger still club didn't work.

How about changing the approach instead searching for the bigger yet club?

Novel idea for the neanderthals, big clubs don't always work.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I guess you have a Crystal Ball
Posted by: jaglover on May 22, 2009 10:22 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I guess the author can see into the future. If you can't then you shouldn't make such statements. Give the damn guy a chance!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Good Article Tom, But 9/11 was the Starting Point
Posted by: edgar_michel on May 22, 2009 10:30 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The information you provide on the escalation of the war is enlightening and important, but when you do write articles remember always to put these new escalations in the context of 9/11. That way we can see the progression of brutality that 9/11 fostered first on innocent American citizens as it began to expand globally.

This way the war becomes reframed in terms of multinational corporations that have no more regard for the lives of Americans than they do for the Taliban. When you frame all these wars in the context of 9/11 you see a progressive cheapening of human life regardless of the country of origin.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Graveyard of alliances
Posted by: Hans B on May 22, 2009 12:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Afghanistan may not this time be the graveyard of an empire, but I think it's well possible it becomes the graveyard of Nato. This is no way to run an allied effort. And then complain that we Europeans won't send more forces to be slaughtered somewhere between the Taliban and a blind-folded but well-armed Rambo.

I don't even begin to understand how one can appoint a special ops commander to run an occupation. It implicitly means Obama considers Afghanistan - the whole country - to be hostile territory. That kind of mentality tends to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. My prediction: Europeans will want out. Fast.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

BulldogRedemer
Posted by: BulldogRedeemer on May 22, 2009 1:00 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Finally, a formula for eventual victory and safety for Americans at home and abroad. Wish that it wasn't necessary, but those are the facts. We live in an evil world that hates Israel and anyone who will not worship Allah and live under sheria law. I know that I am one of those, and thank God for someone who will do everything he can do to protect me. I know most people who visit AlterNet will not see the obvious threat until the knife is cutting their throats, but I am not so blinded by idealogy. Why do I feel like we are reliving the 1930s with Iran replacing Germany, the Western democracies sitting on their hands (mostly Europe and the left in this country) and a depression on the horizon?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Welcome to America Posted by: edgar_michel
» RE: BulldogRedemer Posted by: osd
» BulldogWhippedpuppy Posted by: leafsong1
Duke Wayne McChrystal
Posted by: Jaffe on May 22, 2009 5:23 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Even Obama falls for the American macho hero bullshit.

What next? Stallone as Grandpa Rambo with a fresh face-lift and heavy dose of steroids returned to killing the bad guys in Afghanistan?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Duke Wayne McChrystal Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: Duke Wayne McChrystal Posted by: Jaffe
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement