President Obama's decision to replace Gen. Stanley McChrystal in Afghanistan with Gen. David Petraeus will do little to reassert civilian control over the U.S. mission there, according to the former No. 2 U.N. official in Afghanistan.

Announcing the move today in front of the White House, Obama said that U.S. democracy "depends upon institutions that are stronger than individuals. That includes strict adherence to the military chain of command, and respect for civilian control over that chain of command."

But Amb. Peter Galbraith, who was fired from his role as deputy of the U.N. mission in Kabul last year after privately raising concerns about the widespread fraud perpetrated by Afghan President Hamid Karzai in the presidential election, told The Cable in an exclusive interview that Obama's decision to change commanders in Afghanistan ignores the need to have the diplomats, not the generals, in the lead. 

"The president needs to make clear that it is the ambassador that speaks for the U.S. and the commanding general is not the one who is making U.S. policy," Galbraith said.

Galbraith argues that in the aftermath of the dispute between Special Representative Richard Holbrooke and Karzai following last year's presidential election and the revelation that Amb. Karl Eikenberry did not see Karzai as a credible partner, Obama allowed McChrystal to become the primary connection to the Afghan leader. Meanwhile, the top two civilian officials were marginalized.

"Unfortunately, as part of his love offensive, Obama made a mistake in letting Karzai choose his interlocutor," Galbraith said.

Holbrooke was delivering a "tough love" message before he was pushed to the side. Now Karzai, who "heads a mafia state," according to Galbraith, has no incentive to make the reforms that would allow his government to achieve the credibility it needs.

"Eikenberry was right," Galbraith said, referring to the ambassador's leaked memos, which were published by the New York Times in January "He said the strategy wouldn't work because we don't have a credible partner and the strategy is not working."

As for McChrystal, Galbraith gave him credit for changing the tactics of the military operations in Afghanistan, but gave him low marks for the diplomatic role he was playing with Karzai and his government.

"He understood that you can't win the war by just killing lots of Taliban, but there's no evidence that he understood the key flaw with his strategy, which is that you need a credible partner, which we don't have," he said.

The president was totally justified in sacking McChrystal, Galbraith said. But if there's no credible partner in Afghanistan, there's only one policy option left to him.

"Withdraw most of the troops," he said. "There's no point having thousands of troops there pursuing an objective that can't be achieved."

 

SURESH SHETH

8:38 PM ET

June 23, 2010

Can Petraeus tame Kayani's Pakistan?

With his close connection to Pakistani General Kayani, let us see if General Petraeus can interdict and stop the flow of Afghan Taliban traffic along the Durand line. All American officers in southern Afghanistan know that they cannot prevail in the ongoing military operations, unless Taliban strongholds across the Durand Line in North Waziristan and Baluchistan are neutralized. Now if General Patraeus want US Afghan mission under his command to succeed, he is going to find out first hand how important it is to stop that traffic of radicals, armed and trained across the Durand Line. This is where rubber meets the road for the famed General.

 

ASHOK2718

2:43 PM ET

June 24, 2010

Clearthinking

You are clearly an Indian. Tell me which of 'our boys' have you sent to Afghanistan ? Why do you care if US soldiers are dying ? Let them die. It is none of your business. It is none of India's business.

No Indian has ever given me a straight answer to why their govt. is so desperate to be in a hot scorching hell hole ? From what I know they have plenty at home.

 

ASHOK2718

1:09 AM ET

June 25, 2010

thinking even terrorists are americans today

Why are you taking side of India when you know you can win or safely back out only with Pakistan's support.

And it is not about help it is about religion. Why are you trying to deform a system that already existed there ? Americans should care about their woman not other women. Why don't you go care for Sudanese or Somalian women ?

 

QPZMGR

6:12 AM ET

July 14, 2010

The Pathans will

The Pathans will NEVER allow American, Russian or Indian Invader/Occupiers to dictate any terms on them; NEVER.

There are no military solutions to political problems.

The Pathans must be given a fair share of their voice in the Afghan politics.

But the Pathans will never join the government till the American Invader/Occupier is present in Afghanistan.

The Taliban and al Qaeda are not the same. The Pathans speak Pushto whilst al Qaeda speaks Arabic. They need interpreters for even have a basic conversation.

al Qaeda was present in Afghanistan before the Taliban came into power.

The Taliban want to have a an Islamic state in Afghanistan, they do not have an international agenda.

al Qaeda has an international agenda but there is hardly any presence of al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Even in their heyday, around 2001, there were less than a 1000 al Qaeda present in Afghanistan.

Why is America in Afghanistan then?

The more Americans stay there the more bloodshed will ensue.

Are Americans Occupying Afghanistan to keep an eye of Pakistani nuclear weapons should the Jihadis take over?

If Americans invade Pakistan then the Pakistani army will split, remove their uniforms and fight the luxury rolex watches Americans. American invasion of Pakistan will make Pakistan a Jihadistan with nuclear weapons.

 

John Hudson reports on national security and foreign policy from the Pentagon to Foggy Bottom, the White House to Embassy Row, for The Cable.

Enter your email address to get The Cable delivered to your inbox each night:

Delivered by FeedBurner