Relations low now – withdrawal timeline proves
Feaver 10 (Peter, writer for Foreign Policy, 6/30, http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/06/30/tom_ricks_gets_the_mcchrystal_affair_mostly_rightbut_not_entirely) PJ
Establishing the provenance of the timeline is useful not merely for the historical record but also as an antidote to a potentially dangerous gambit that some of Obama's political advisors may have been attempting. According to Jonathan Alter's account of the Fall 2009 Afghan Strategy Review, the White House sought to pin the military down on the timeline so as to give the White House political cover to abandon the Afghanistan surge; they wanted to be able to pin the blame for any failure on the military and the timeline played a key role to this end. This kind of gamesmanship is bad strategy and makes for bad civil-military relations. Identifying who proposed what and why is helpful.
Relations low now – they’ve been eroding for years
The Washington Post 6/23 (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/06/after_mcchrystal_time_to_chang.html) PJ
Gen. Stanley McChrystal has submitted his resignation. Or he's been fired. In any case, it was time for him to go. His departure will help slow the increasing erosion in civil-military relations -- aided by both political parties over the last 20 years -- which has threatened civilian control of the military. It also means we can now turn to a more fundamental exit debate: How do we change course and craft a responsible strategy to end the war in Afghanistan? It is critical we have this debate. Here's one good reason: McChrystal's top aide believes this war is unwinnable. In the most important quote in Rolling Stones' fascinating article, Maj. Gen. Bill Mayville argues that the only way we win in Afghanistan is to redefine failure as victory: "It's not going to look like a win, smell like a win or taste like a win. This is going to end in an argument."
Relations low now – McChrystal proves
Kabalan 9 (Marwan Al, writer for Gulf News, 12/20, http://gulfnews.com/opinions/columnists/us-civil-military-relations-are-strained-1.529859) PJ
Civil-military relations in the US have always been a matter of hot debate. Outside the US, however, the topic has rarely been discussed. The widely held belief that in democracies the military salute and obey has made it almost impossible for foreign observers to see how complicated the relationship between elected officials and army officers is. Tension in civil-military relations is perceived, hence, as a peculiar characteristic of non-democratic countries. A closer look at the issue shows a different picture, however. Earlier this month, analysts throughout the region were surprised by the souring relationship between the Obama administration and the military establishment. It all started when General Stanley McChrystal, commander of the US forces in Afghanistan, in an address in London described as "short-sighted" Vice President Joseph Biden's preferred strategy of using Predator and cruise-missile strikes to cut US losses in Afghanistan. Furthermore, McChrystal leaked his assessment of the situation there to the press. He advised that the US should shift its strategy to population security and dedicate up to 40,000 additional troops to the war. Days later, he revealed that he had spoken to US President Barack Obama only once since his appointment as commander of US troops in Afghanistan. Unsurprisingly, McChrystal's public statements offended the Obama administration, drawing bitter criticisms from senior officials. National security adviser General James Jones told CNN that it is "better for military advice to come up the chain of command". Secretary of Defence Robert Gates reinforced this message when he said, "It is imperative that all of us taking part in these deliberations — civilians and military alike — provide our best advice to the president candidly but privately". This was not, however, the first time that tension has risen between civilian and military officials in the US. In 2003, former Army chief of staff Eric Shinseki criticised in public the Bush administration's proposed force levels for the invasion of Iraq, describing them as too low. There are many other occasions in which relations between generals and civilians in the US government turned sour, especially in times of war.
NU – Relations Low
Relations low now and leading to disaster
Leon 6/27 (Michael, writer for Veterans Today, http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/06/27/nothing-is-going-right-for-usa-in-final-phase-in-afghanistan/)
Although Gen McChrystal has been sacked and replaced with Gen David Petraeus but not without creating tension in civil-military relations. In case the situation in Afghanistan spins out of control and coalition forces are forced to hurriedly exit in disgrace, or fatalities mount up, it is bound to further aggravate civil-military relations in USA. However, prompt action by Obama has dispelled the lingering impression that Pentagon has become more powerful than White House. He has reasserted his authority by this act and demonstrated that he is in full command. Replacement of military commanders is not the solution to the problem particularly when Petraeus and McChrystal were on one frequency. At no stage there was any difference of opinion between the two. Petraeus task will be more arduous since he will have to hop between his two offices of CENTCOM and US-NATO Command HQ in Kabul . Unless the US leadership undertakes some revolutionary and well meaning steps to get rid of weak areas, the US will not be able to overcome its host of problems and final phase will end up in complete disaster.
Share with your friends: |