Will a McChrystal Dismissal Be Bad News for War Critics?

Just two days ago I was complaining in this space that "the $100 billion-per-year war in Afghanistan usually attracts little media notice or political debate. It's not often on the front pages, and it's barely a blip on the cable news radar screen." All it took was a few choice words in Rolling Stone about President Obama and his national security team from Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, and his aides and -- pow! -- Afghanistan hit the top of the charts. In the blogs. On cable. In the tweets. On Tuesday night, I was at a book party loaded with prominent journalists (who were celebrating Charles Peters' new book on Lyndon Johnson), and the Obama-McChrystal face-off was being consumed more passionately than the delicious Greek and Indian food.

This is the perfect Washington episode -- and I don't mean that in an entirely snarky manner. It involves top-level personalities (a president and a general). The stakes are high (a war). There is plenty of drama. And, best of all, the situation lends itself to infinite analysis. Would Obama fire McChrystal? Should he do so? Would the war effort be hindered if he booted the general? Would the president come across as a wimp if he did not? Everyone and anyone could weigh in immediately. (As of this writing, there was no telling if Obama would fire McChrystal, though White House press secretary Robert Gibbs did set the stage for a possible dismissal with a series of harsh comments at the Tuesday afternoon White House briefing.)

It did seem clear that this was a firing offense. A general can't make derisive comments about the commander in chief to a reporter and, worse, allow his staff to do the same about the president, the vice president, and their national security crew. This loose talk indicated a profound lack of judgment -- and the person in charge of perhaps the most important and difficult government endeavor ought to possess loads of judgment. Many, if not most, Washington pundits and pols, quickly placed themselves in the he-should-go category -- as did opponents of Obama's expand-the-war policy.

But I wonder if a McChrystal dismissal could actually be bad for the war's critics. If Obama cans the general, the president will want to make it clear that he did this because he considers McChrystal's actions to be unacceptable insubordination -- and that he is not acting out of spite or to gain ground in any policy disagreement. Consequently, he will be inclined to demonstrate his full support for the current policy in Afghanistan -- which is predicated on waging an extensive counterinsurgency operation. This is, of course, McChrystal's policy. Without McChrystal as the frontman, Obama will own the war even more so than he does now.

More Stanley McChrystal Coverage:

- - McChrystal Relieved of Duty; Petraeus to Take Command in Afghanistan
- Transcript of President Obama's Remarks on Gen. Stanley McChrystal
- Walter Shapiro: McChrystal, Afghanistan, and the Era of Foreign Policy Austerity
- David Wood: Washington Weighs Gen. McChrystal Replacement
- David Wood: Combat Troops Rally Behind McChrystal
- David Corn: Will a McChrystal Dismissal Be Bad News for War Critics?

Continuing with the speculation: This could cause Obama to be less open to alternatives -- just as his policy is approaching crunch time. Obama has vowed that he will begin to withdraw troops in a year, yet it hardly appears likely that the inept and corrupt Afghan government and its security forces will be ready to take over the fight against the Taliban by then. If there is not a surprising and unprecedented amount of progress in the next 12 months, how will Obama chose between the two conflicting ideas animating his policy: winning and leaving? Firing McChrystal could lead to less flexibility for Obama, should such a dramatic move compel him to affirm his unwavering support for the present course.

Then again -- as several of those journalists at the party pointed out -- if Obama were to fire McChrystal, he might have more room to maneuver in the critical months ahead. This is why the McChrystal Affair is perfect grist for Washington. It can be gamed out by D.C. denizens like a three-dimensional chess match. Yet behind this true-life drama, there is a war. And after the Obama-McChrystal showdown is settled, that war is likely to return to B-list status.

You can follow David Corn's postings and media appearances via Twitter.