McChrystal resignation connected to his pessimistic assessment of conditions in Afghanistan

Here are excerpts from an article by Jonathan Owen and Brian Brady printed in The Independent (UK) online site, and my interpretations or comments preceding the excerpted sections (in red).

The last post: McChrystal's bleak outlook
President Obama lost patience with Runaway General's failed strategy
By Jonathan Owen and Brian Brady

Sunday, 27 June 2010
The Independent – http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/the-last-post-mcchrystals-bleak-outlook.html

The real reason General McChrystal resigned his position as military head of the U.S.-led occupation and war in Afghanistan is that McChrystal assessed the situation in Afghanistan as going poorly.

Sacked US General Stanley McChrystal issued a devastatingly critical assessment of the war against a "resilient and growing insurgency" just days before being forced out.

Using confidential military documents, copies of which have been seen by the IoS, the "runaway general" briefed defence ministers from Nato and the International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) earlier this month, and warned them not to expect any progress in the next six months. During his presentation, he raised serious concerns over levels of security, violence, and corruption within the Afghan administration.

General McChystal made gave a pessimistic presentation at the G8 summit in Toronto. The G8 subsequently

...called for "concrete progress" within five years on improving the justice system and for Afghan forces to assume greater responsibility for security. The implication here is that a large contingent of allied troops will remain in Afghanistan for at least five more years, and that the G8 members agreed with McChrystal's assessment.

Specific points made by McChrystal in his assessment, or "campaign overview":

...only a fraction of the areas key to long-term success are "secure", governed with "full authority", or enjoying "sustainable growth". He warned of a critical shortage of "essential" military trainers needed to build up Afghan forces – of which only a fraction is classed as "effective".

...pinpointed an "ineffective or discredited" Afghan government and a failure by Pakistan "to curb insurgent support" as "critical risks" to success. "Waning" political support and a "divergence of coalition expectations and campaign timelines" are among the key challenges faced, according to the general.

According to "informed sources," McChrystal's assessment was as important in convincing President Obama to call for the general's resignation as the article in the Rolling Stone article.

[....]

Obama may have a political motivation as well.

General McChrystal's presentation to Nato defence ministers and Isaf representatives provided an uncompromising obstacle to Mr Obama's plan to bring [some] troops home in time to give him a shot at a second term, according to senior military sources. The general was judged to be "off message" in his warning to ministers not to expect quick results and that they were facing a "resilient and growing insurgency".

[....]

The reality, according to a senior military source, is that General McChrystal's candour about the reality of the situation was an obstacle to Mr Obama's search for an "early, face-saving exit" to help his chances in the 2012 presidential elections. "Stan argued for time, and would not compromise. Rolling Stone provided an excuse for Obama to fire the opposition to his plan without having to win an intellectual argument," he said (or being put in a situation where Obama had to provide more details about his plan to withdraw troops by next summer).

[....]

U.S. Afghan policy will continue as before.

Admiral Mike Mullen met with President Karzai yesterday to assure him that the new Nato commander will pursue the same strategy followed by his predecessor. He pledged that General
Petraeus would also do his best to reduce civilian casualties.

McChrystal was too frank about his position that a successful occupation in Afghanistan will take more than six months and, implictly, some years rather than some months.

General McChrystal said progress in the next six months was unlikely. He raised serious concerns over levels of security, violence, and corruption within the Afghan administration. Only five areas out of 116 assessed were classed as "secure" – the rest suffering various degrees of insecurity and more than 40 described as "dangerous" or "unsecure".

[....]

A strategic assessment referred to in the presentation revealed just how close the strategy in Afghanistan is to failing. It stated that the campaign was "on track temporarily" – but this was defined as meaning that there was "a low level of confidence that positive trends will be sustained over the next six-month period".

[....]