McChrystal, Harman, McCain, Lieberman & Li'l Lindsey Put The Squeeze On Obama Over Afghanistan

An even worse appointment than Rahm Emanuel or Larry Summers?

Many people who knew, even vaguely, who Stanley McChrystal was (and is), were shocked that Obama picked him to head up the U.S. effort in Afghanistan. At the time, one of my friends said, "He's not going to be Douglas MacArthur; he's going to be Curtis LeMay." Prescient! And "vaguely" because, as the Times piece linked above points out, "Most of what General McChrystal has done over a 33-year career remains classified, including service between 2003 and 2008 as commander of the Joint Special Operations Command, an elite unit so clandestine that the Pentagon for years refused to acknowledge its existence. But former C.I.A. officials say that General McChrystal was among those who, with the C.I.A., pushed hard for a secret joint operation in the tribal region of Pakistan in 2005 aimed at capturing or killing Ayman al-Zawahri, Osama bin Laden’s deputy." He also engineered the coverup of Pat Tillman's very questionable death. Yesterday he let it be known that if Obama doesn't give him his way-- escalating the war in Afghanistan-- he'll resign and make a big stink. Obama should fire him immediately. I doubt he will, at least not immediately. Instead Obama says he's reassessing the strategy for Afghanistan. Most Democrats-- and most Americans-- want to just leave Afghanistan for the Afghans.

Many fear that although Obama claims to be considering Biden's recommendation that he get out while he still can, others suspect that "Obama might ultimately just be testing assumptions-- and assuring liberals in his own party that he was not rushing into a further expansion of the war-- before ultimately agreeing to the anticipated troop request from General McChrystal.

Obama is under tremendous pressure from neo-conservatives to go all in-- and pressure is building from an American public that wants him to pull out... now. In fact, it isn't just progressives who want to see the occupation of Afganistan end. Most Republican members of Congress will just try to use the war debate to lash out at Obama (regardless of what he does) but plenty of regular citizens across the political spectrum absolutely oppose the war. Yesterday Rep Tim Johnson (R-IL) was speaking for plenty of fellow Republicans when he said he will sponsor legislation to end the war.

Monday Andrea Mitchell asked Jane Harman, who combines breathtaking duplicity with incredibly tragic naïveté. Asked about the lack of political support for war in Afghanistan from the public, she veers off to talk about election fraud and corruption. It's none of her business and it's none of our business. We have no business in Afghanistan other than safely getting our fighting men and women the hell out of there. But Jane Harman, like McCain, Lieberman and Graham want to expand the war and send more young men and women into a meatgrinder that will never see a victory unless we kill every person in the country.

Derrick Crowe, an Afghan policy expert, explained several layers of McChrystal's strategy and concludes, as I did, that he is in the midst of an operation "being directed at the American people with the purpose of forcing the President’s hand." Crowe put together the helpful video at the bottom of this post.

Tomorrow No Means No! will officially launch an effort to help progressives come up with a positive strategy for ending the occupation. Congressman Alan Grayson (D-FL), one of the 32 House members to vote against the June 16th supplemental war funding bill, will be joining us for a live session at Crooks and Liars at 6pm (EST), 3pm (PT).