He's the boss

So Stan let his ego get in his way. I'm talking about General Stanley McChrystal, the commander of US and NATO forces in Afghanistan. You see, first he headed US Special Forces in Iraq, operating beyond the law, and then he realised that to get a promotion he needs to play the politics and adopt General Petraeus's "surge" strategy. Everything was working to plan. All he needed to do was implement a "proven" strategy and get his extra star and become the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Simples. Those Civs are easy to manage, aren't they? Well, so he thought and, in a moment of boredom (he couldn't fly back to Afghanistan because of Eyjafjallajökull) said as much to the Rolling Stones' journalist Michael Hastings.

Whilst obviously in admiring awe of Stan the Man Hastings is still a good journo and did the unexpected: he published McChrystal's (and his crew) comments suggesting he has only limited respect for the constitutional subordination of the US military to the US government in general and the Commander in Chief - the US President - in particular. More importantly, McChrystal was under the illusion that he is so important to the US strategy that he can get away with it. And boy he got that wrong. Within 24 hours he found his backside firmly on the White House pavement. For those of you (that's you Big Stan) who thought Obama is a lily-livered pushover, I guess it is now clear who's the boss.

But what does that mean to the US strategy in Afghanistan? Obama is sticking by his decisions. He decided to try the tough way with the 'surge'. He said he will review the strategy after 12 months. Nothing has changed. He will review it in December. What can we expect then? My guess is a strategic u-turn or, as they call it in politics, a pragmatic response to changed circumstances.

Why? The key problem is that the American people have no idea what they are in Afghanistan for. Catching Osama Bin Laden? 9 years, at least $500bn and more importantly, costing the lives of more than 1,000 American soldiers looks like a steep price. Destroying Al-Queda? They've already moved to operate from other countries, most worryingly Pakistan. Beat the Taliban? Clearly the US has failed in that. They are now stronger than in 2004. Nation re-building? For that you need to have had a nation to re-build. Afghanistan has never really qualified as a nation.

I can think of only two explanations. The first is that the US is in Afghanistan to save face. After 9 years, at least $500bn and costing the lives of more than 1,000 American soldiers, just leaving with one's tail between one's legs is not a great result. The second, and only rational explanation I can think of, is that the US is in Afghanistan to ensure that Pakistan does not collapse and its nuclear weapons end up at the hands of terrorists. The problem is that the current strategy, which pushed Al-Queda and the Taliban deeper and deeper into Pakistan, is in all likelihood accelerating its disintegration rather than preventing it.

So, if a strategic a u-turn can avert this catastrophic outcome, it is in my book better than a failed attempt at saving face.

PS 545km down. 455km to go.