My CNAS colleague Matthew Irvine wandered over to Capitol
Hill on Tuesday to watch Gen. McChrystal and Amb. Eikenberry testify. This is
his report:
Tuesday morning I went to see the
House Armed Services Committee question General Stanley McChrystal. For most of
the session, that is just what the hearing titled "Afghanistan: Results of the
Strategic Review, Part II" seemed to be. The high-profile testimony was an
opportunity for the 63 members of the committee to hear from the top American
officials in Afghanistan.
Together, General Stanley
McChrystal and Ambassador Karl Eikenberry brought a total of seven stars and
nearly a decade of command experience in Afghanistan to the House Visitor
Center. However, the Armed Services Committee appeared to only recognize half
of this portfolio. Most of the committee forgot about Ambassador Eikenberry.
(Perhaps because his grey suit lacked four polished stars?)
The committee devoted its time to
General McChrystal at Ambassador Eikenberry's expense, asking the commander
three times the number of questions and giving him countless more compliments.
My informal question tally: McChrystal 69, Eikenberry 23. This number even
gives the committee credit for questions the ambassador posed to himself.
The attention
given to McChrystal is understandable given the nature of the audience, the armed services committee. Regardless,
only one member, Chairman Ike Skelton, mentioned the leaked cables written by
Ambassador Eikenberry just weeks ago that expressed a high level of doubt of a
troop surge, given the state of Afghan governance. Some members did ask
Eikenberry about Afghan corruption but failed to link it to General
McChrystal's stated campaign goal of "governance and security." Effective
counterinsurgency is said to require civil-military integration at every level;
it'd be nice if Congress led by example.
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
Read More
(11)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE