General McChrystal was obviously outspoken, un-diplomatic and egoist. His ‘insubordination' was also noted. He annoyed civilian associates and also President Obama, the Commander-in-Chief. He had to go as rightly, in a democratic set-up the armed forces function under the civilian authority. However, that becomes a serious issue in times of war. The conflict if not handled properly can mean victory or defeat. The way the wars such as Iraq, and more so, Afghanistan, are conducted and now the McChrystal episode might determine the result in none-too-distant future.

The civil and military wings of a nation are two important pillars of a nation, both complementing each other but in several ways, and to a certain extent, working independently. One sets up the broad policy according to its vision and ideology, the other implements it according to its own perception and judgment based on the ground situation.

There have been conflicts between the two in the past also and the results have been disastrous when, for various reasons, civilians asserted their authority and did not heed the military.

Remember World War II, Korea and Vietnam, Jammu & Kashmir and now Afghanistan.

President Harry S. Truman's order firing General of the Army, Douglas MacArthur as Supreme Commander, Allied Powers, Commander in Chief, Far East; and Commanding General, U.S. Army, Far East was such a disaster. The consequences of ignoring MacArthur's assessment of the Chinese threat and his recommendations about taking the fight to the Communists in Manchuria are evident with the Chinese military super threat and the North Korean stubbornness. Had the US civil authority heeded MacArtheu, the North Korean and the Chinese might not have been so arrogant and stubborn.

The Eighth Army had then pressed north, inflicting heavy casualties and recaptured Seoul in March 1951. MacArthur wanted to push further and defeat the North Koreans and the Chinese who had sent 100,000 ‘volunteers' to help the North Korean Communists. His aggressive stand was too much for the US President and those uninterested in extending the war.

MacArthur's letter had clearly said:

"It seems strangely difficult for some to realize that here in Asia is where the Communist conspirators have elected to make their play for global conquest, and that we have joined the issue thus raised on the battlefield; that here we fight Europe's war with arms while the diplomats there still fight it with words; that if we lose the war to Communism in Asia the fall of Europe is inevitable, win it and Europe most probably would avoid war and yet preserve freedom. We must win. There is no substitute for victory."

The Democratic President, Truman and his civilian advisers did not agree and General MacArthur was fired. Thus ended all hopes of a firm stand against North Korea and China, the consequences of that folly are before us to see, realize, regret and lament.

The Armistice Agreement was signed in July 1953. The Cancer was not removed and the stalemate was allowed to continue.

In Vietnam also General Westmoreland wanted more troops but President Johnson disagreed. The war took a heavy toll on American military (58,000 were killed) and the US had to retreat dishonorably. The war was half-hearted, reluctantly pursued and the military was restricted.

I remember when I was in Vietnam in January 1966 and touring the military bases in Da Nang, Can Tho, Pleiku etc I saw and heard first hand the situation. The Colonel escorting me in the border area between South and North Vietnam was a little upset. Pressed by me he blurted out: We cannot win this war. Our hands are tied at the back and we are asked to fight.

He was right. The civilians laying down policy about the war were reluctant, undecided, half-hearted and incompetent to wage and win the war; they were trying to do what the military was supposed to do. The armed forces were handicapped because the restriction imposed on them. Due to the false ego of civilian authorities and civilian Democratic Presidents in the US half of Korea was lost, China was allowed to become a virtual super power and Vietnam was also lost. That's not how wars are waged and won.

In Jammu & Kashmir Indian government headed by Jawaharlal Nehru ordered and accepted a cease fire leaving a third of that state's area in the possession of invading Pakistani army. The consequences are still there for everyone to see. The ‘Kashmir problem' persists and despite three wars (again restricted) the solution is still far away.

President Obama, from another point of view, did the right thing by asserting the right of a civil authority to impose its decisions on the military. But what are you aiming at? The saying that "If we are in it, let's win it" has certain meaning and that should have to be clearly understood. Wars cannot be won by those who don't know anything about it, are anti-war (Obama had opposed Iraq war and also the ‘surge' in Iraq) and have weird ideological constraints. McChrystal might have been undiplomatic, blunt and ‘loose-tounged' but he had a splendid record as a military officer and was widely admired by his troops. His views about Obama's envoys were not, necessarily, wrong. His conflict with the civil reps was real but he was the man on the ground, not in plush office trying to control the direction the Afghan war. However, Obama called him to his office and gave him a piece of his mind.

Civilian control of the military is theoretically correct but civilians have not won any wars. They can give leadership, only if they are competent, clear, and aggressively committed to win the war.

McChrystal is on the way to retire, and with the White House reacting the way it did, this was the only honorable option with him. Nothing is certain now if the General would consider joining politics and contesting at least a Senate seat. He might have a good chance but it's a little too early to start serious planning about it, not at least by the General's side.

For Petraeus, who has been nominated by Obama to replace McChrystal, this is a demotion. Petraeus was the overall commanding officer (Central Command) for both Iraq and Afghanistan; now he will be confined to Afghanistan. He has a difficult assignment but there might be a change of tactics by the White House and he might get more leeway than his predecessor.

Petraeus is the nation's best-known military man, having risen to prominence as the commander who turned around the Iraq war in 2007, applying a counterinsurgency strategy that has been adapted for Afghanistan. In the hearing the previous week Petraeus had told Congress he would recommend delaying the pullout of U.S. forces from Afghanistan beginning in July 2011 if need be. That's a view contrary to Obama's decision and recent endorsement by Vice President Joe Biden. But the General might have his way now in the changed scenario; in any case deciding on a time table for withdrawal of American forces is a clear signal to the enemy to wait for it and then strike.

According to AP report: In the controversial Rolling Stone magazine article, McChrystal called the period last fall when the President was deciding whether to approve more troops "painful" and said the President appeared ready to hand him an "unsellable" position. McChrystal also said he was "betrayed" by Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, the man the White House chose to be his diplomatic partner in Afghanistan and Special Envoy Richard Holbrooke.

He also accused Eikenberry of raising doubts about Karzai only to give himself cover in case the U.S. effort failed. "Now, if we fail, they can say ‘I told you so,' " McChrystal told the magazine. And he was quoted mocking Vice President Joe Biden.

McChrystal later had issued an apology.

Despite McChrystal's military achievements, he has a history of making waves and this was not his first brush with Obama's anger. Last fall as Obama was weighing how to adjust Afghanistan policy, McChrystal spoke bluntly and publicly about his desire for more troops - earning a scolding from the President, who felt the General was trying to box him into a corner.

Waheed Omar, spokesman for Afghan President Hamid Karzai, said Petraeus "will also be a trusted partner." Karzai had been a lonely voice in speaking out in support of McChrystal. But Omar said of Petraeus: "He is the most informed person and the most obvious choice for this job."

strategists advising McChrystal regarded as an arbitrary deadline.
The magazine profile, titled "The Runaway General" emerged from several weeks of interviews and travel with McChrystal's tight circle of aides this spring.

It includes a list of administration figures said to back McChrystal, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, and puts Biden at the top of a list of those who don't. The article claims McChrystal has seized control of the war "by never taking his eye off the real enemy: The wimps in the White House.

McChrystal said he felt "betrayed" and accused Ambassador Eikenberry giving himself cover. "Here's one that covers his flank for the history books," McChrystal told the magazine.

Eikenberry remains in his post in Kabul, and although both men publicly say they are friends, their rift is on full display.