Obama über Bildung

Der Lack ist zwar schon ein Bisschen ab und seine Nah-Ost-Politik ist mir zu teilnahmslos, aber Obama beweist mal wieder, dass er trotzdem ein exzellenter Redner ist. Bildung ist drüber wie hier ein wichtiges Thema, dem zuwenig Aufmerksamkeit geschenkt wird.

Obamas Rede zum Truppenabzug

Im Irak wohlgemerkt.

Obama feuert "The Runaway General" McChrystal

The Runaway General
Stanley McChrystal, Obama's top commander in Afghanistan, has seized control of the war by never taking his eye off the real enemy: The wimps in the White House

By Michael Hastings
Jun 22, 2010 10:00 AM EDT

This article appears in RS 1108/1109 from July 8-22, 2010, on newsstands Friday, June 25.


'How'd I get screwed into going to this dinner?" demands Gen. Stanley McChrystal. It's a Thursday night in mid-April, and the commander of all U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan is sitting in a four-star suite at the Hôtel Westminster in Paris. He's in France to sell his new war strategy to our NATO allies – to keep up the fiction, in essence, that we actually have allies. Since McChrystal took over a year ago, the Afghan war has become the exclusive property of the United States. Opposition to the war has already toppled the Dutch government, forced the resignation of Germany's president and sparked both Canada and the Netherlands to announce the withdrawal of their 4,500 troops. McChrystal is in Paris to keep the French, who have lost more than 40 soldiers in Afghanistan, from going all wobbly on him.

"The dinner comes with the position, sir," says his chief of staff, Col. Charlie Flynn.

McChrystal turns sharply in his chair.

"Hey, Charlie," he asks, "does this come with the position?"

McChrystal gives him the middle finger.

The general stands and looks around the suite that his traveling staff of 10 has converted into a full-scale operations center. The tables are crowded with silver Panasonic Toughbooks, and blue cables crisscross the hotel's thick carpet, hooked up to satellite dishes to provide encrypted phone and e-mail communications. Dressed in off-the-rack civilian casual – blue tie, button-down shirt, dress slacks – McChrystal is way out of his comfort zone. Paris, as one of his advisers says, is the "most anti-McChrystal city you can imagine." The general hates fancy restaurants, rejecting any place with candles on the tables as too "Gucci." He prefers Bud Light Lime (his favorite beer) to Bordeaux, Talladega Nights (his favorite movie) to Jean-Luc Godard. Besides, the public eye has never been a place where McChrystal felt comfortable: Before President Obama put him in charge of the war in Afghanistan, he spent five years running the Pentagon's most secretive black ops.

"What's the update on the Kandahar bombing?" McChrystal asks Flynn. The city has been rocked by two massive car bombs in the past day alone, calling into question the general's assurances that he can wrest it from the Taliban.

"We have two KIAs, but that hasn't been confirmed," Flynn says.

McChrystal takes a final look around the suite. At 55, he is gaunt and lean, not unlike an older version of Christian Bale in Rescue Dawn. His slate-blue eyes have the unsettling ability to drill down when they lock on you. If you've fucked up or disappointed him, they can destroy your soul without the need for him to raise his voice.

"I'd rather have my ass kicked by a roomful of people than go out to this dinner," McChrystal says.

He pauses a beat.

"Unfortunately," he adds, "no one in this room could do it."

With that, he's out the door.

"Who's he going to dinner with?" I ask one of his aides.

"Some French minister," the aide tells me. "It's fucking gay."

The next morning, McChrystal and his team gather to prepare for a speech he is giving at the École Militaire, a French military academy. The general prides himself on being sharper and ballsier than anyone else, but his brashness comes with a price: Although McChrystal has been in charge of the war for only a year, in that short time he has managed to piss off almost everyone with a stake in the conflict. Last fall, during the question-and-answer session following a speech he gave in London, McChrystal dismissed the counterterrorism strategy being advocated by Vice President Joe Biden as "shortsighted," saying it would lead to a state of "Chaos-istan." The remarks earned him a smackdown from the president himself, who summoned the general to a terse private meeting aboard Air Force One. The message to McChrystal seemed clear: Shut the fuck up, and keep a lower profile

Now, flipping through printout cards of his speech in Paris, McChrystal wonders aloud what Biden question he might get today, and how he should respond. "I never know what's going to pop out until I'm up there, that's the problem," he says. Then, unable to help themselves, he and his staff imagine the general dismissing the vice president with a good one-liner.

"Are you asking about Vice President Biden?" McChrystal says with a laugh. "Who's that?"

"Biden?" suggests a top adviser. "Did you say: Bite Me?"

When Barack Obama entered the Oval Office, he immediately set out to deliver on his most important campaign promise on foreign policy: to refocus the war in Afghanistan on what led us to invade in the first place. "I want the American people to understand," he announced in March 2009. "We have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat Al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan." He ordered another 21,000 troops to Kabul, the largest increase since the war began in 2001. Taking the advice of both the Pentagon and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he also fired Gen. David McKiernan – then the U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan – and replaced him with a man he didn't know and had met only briefly: Gen. Stanley McChrystal. It was the first time a top general had been relieved from duty during wartime in more than 50 years, since Harry Truman fired Gen. Douglas MacArthur at the height of the Korean War.

Even though he had voted for Obama, McChrystal and his new commander in chief failed from the outset to connect. The general first encountered Obama a week after he took office, when the president met with a dozen senior military officials in a room at the Pentagon known as the Tank. According to sources familiar with the meeting, McChrystal thought Obama looked "uncomfortable and intimidated" by the roomful of military brass. Their first one-on-one meeting took place in the Oval Office four months later, after McChrystal got the Afghanistan job, and it didn't go much better. "It was a 10-minute photo op," says an adviser to McChrystal. "Obama clearly didn't know anything about him, who he was. Here's the guy who's going to run his fucking war, but he didn't seem very engaged. The Boss was pretty disappointed.

From the start, McChrystal was determined to place his personal stamp on Afghanistan, to use it as a laboratory for a controversial military strategy known as counterinsurgency. COIN, as the theory is known, is the new gospel of the Pentagon brass, a doctrine that attempts to square the military's preference for high-tech violence with the demands of fighting protracted wars in failed states. COIN calls for sending huge numbers of ground troops to not only destroy the enemy, but to live among the civilian population and slowly rebuild, or build from scratch, another nation's government – a process that even its staunchest advocates admit requires years, if not decades, to achieve. The theory essentially rebrands the military, expanding its authority (and its funding) to encompass the diplomatic and political sides of warfare: Think the Green Berets as an armed Peace Corps. In 2006, after Gen. David Petraeus beta-tested the theory during his "surge" in Iraq, it quickly gained a hardcore following of think-tankers, journalists, military officers and civilian officials. Nicknamed "COINdinistas" for their cultish zeal, this influential cadre believed the doctrine would be the perfect solution for Afghanistan. All they needed was a general with enough charisma and political savvy to implement it.

As McChrystal leaned on Obama to ramp up the war, he did it with the same fearlessness he used to track down terrorists in Iraq: Figure out how your enemy operates, be faster and more ruthless than everybody else, then take the fuckers out. After arriving in Afghanistan last June, the general conducted his own policy review, ordered up by Defense Secretary Robert Gates. The now-infamous report was leaked to the press, and its conclusion was dire: If we didn't send another 40,000 troops – swelling the number of U.S. forces in Afghanistan by nearly half – we were in danger of "mission failure." The White House was furious. McChrystal, they felt, was trying to bully Obama, opening him up to charges of being weak on national security unless he did what the general wanted. It was Obama versus the Pentagon, and the Pentagon was determined to kick the president's ass.

Last fall, with his top general calling for more troops, Obama launched a three-month review to re-evaluate the strategy in Afghanistan. "I found that time painful," McChrystal tells me in one of several lengthy interviews. "I was selling an unsellable position." For the general, it was a crash course in Beltway politics – a battle that pitted him against experienced Washington insiders like Vice President Biden, who argued that a prolonged counterinsurgency campaign in Afghanistan would plunge America into a military quagmire without weakening international terrorist networks. "The entire COIN strategy is a fraud perpetuated on the American people," says Douglas Macgregor, a retired colonel and leading critic of counterinsurgency who attended West Point with McChrystal. "The idea that we are going to spend a trillion dollars to reshape the culture of the Islamic world is utter nonsense.

In the end, however, McChrystal got almost exactly what he wanted. On December 1st, in a speech at West Point, the president laid out all the reasons why fighting the war in Afghanistan is a bad idea: It's expensive; we're in an economic crisis; a decade-long commitment would sap American power; Al Qaeda has shifted its base of operations to Pakistan. Then, without ever using the words "victory" or "win," Obama announced that he would send an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan, almost as many as McChrystal had requested. The president had thrown his weight, however hesitantly, behind the counterinsurgency crowd.

Today, as McChrystal gears up for an offensive in southern Afghanistan, the prospects for any kind of success look bleak. In June, the death toll for U.S. troops passed 1,000, and the number of IEDs has doubled. Spending hundreds of billions of dollars on the fifth-poorest country on earth has failed to win over the civilian population, whose attitude toward U.S. troops ranges from intensely wary to openly hostile. The biggest military operation of the year – a ferocious offensive that began in February to retake the southern town of Marja – continues to drag on, prompting McChrystal himself to refer to it as a "bleeding ulcer." In June, Afghanistan officially outpaced Vietnam as the longest war in American history – and Obama has quietly begun to back away from the deadline he set for withdrawing U.S. troops in July of next year. The president finds himself stuck in something even more insane than a quagmire: a quagmire he knowingly walked into, even though it's precisely the kind of gigantic, mind-numbing, multigenerational nation-building project he explicitly said he didn't want.

Even those who support McChrystal and his strategy of counterinsurgency know that whatever the general manages to accomplish in Afghanistan, it's going to look more like Vietnam than Desert Storm. "It's not going to look like a win, smell like a win or taste like a win," says Maj. Gen. Bill Mayville, who serves as chief of operations for McChrystal. "This is going to end in an argument."

The night after his speech in Paris, McChrystal and his staff head to Kitty O'Shea's, an Irish pub catering to tourists, around the corner from the hotel. His wife, Annie, has joined him for a rare visit: Since the Iraq War began in 2003, she has seen her husband less than 30 days a year. Though it is his and Annie's 33rd wedding anniversary, McChrystal has invited his inner circle along for dinner and drinks at the "least Gucci" place his staff could find. His wife isn't surprised. "He once took me to a Jack in the Box when I was dressed in formalwear," she says with a laugh.

The general's staff is a handpicked collection of killers, spies, geniuses, patriots, political operators and outright maniacs. There's a former head of British Special Forces, two Navy Seals, an Afghan Special Forces commando, a lawyer, two fighter pilots and at least two dozen combat veterans and counterinsurgency experts. They jokingly refer to themselves as Team America, taking the name from the South Park-esque sendup of military cluelessness, and they pride themselves on their can-do attitude and their disdain for authority. After arriving in Kabul last summer, Team America set about changing the culture of the International Security Assistance Force, as the NATO-led mission is known. (U.S. soldiers had taken to deriding ISAF as short for "I Suck at Fighting" or "In Sandals and Flip-Flops.") McChrystal banned alcohol on base, kicked out Burger King and other symbols of American excess, expanded the morning briefing to include thousands of officers and refashioned the command center into a Situational Awareness Room, a free-flowing information hub modeled after Mayor Mike Bloomberg's offices in New York. He also set a manic pace for his staff, becoming legendary for sleeping four hours a night, running seven miles each morning, and eating one meal a day. (In the month I spend around the general, I witness him eating only once.) It's a kind of superhuman narrative that has built up around him, a staple in almost every media profile, as if the ability to go without sleep and food translates into the possibility of a man single-handedly winning the war.

By midnight at Kitty O'Shea's, much of Team America is completely shitfaced. Two officers do an Irish jig mixed with steps from a traditional Afghan wedding dance, while McChrystal's top advisers lock arms and sing a slurred song of their own invention. "Afghanistan!" they bellow. "Afghanistan!" They call it their Afghanistan song.

McChrystal steps away from the circle, observing his team. "All these men," he tells me. "I'd die for them. And they'd die for me."

The assembled men may look and sound like a bunch of combat veterans letting off steam, but in fact this tight-knit group represents the most powerful force shaping U.S. policy in Afghanistan. While McChrystal and his men are in indisputable command of all military aspects of the war, there is no equivalent position on the diplomatic or political side. Instead, an assortment of administration players compete over the Afghan portfolio: U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, Special Representative to Afghanistan Richard Holbrooke, National Security Advisor Jim Jones and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, not to mention 40 or so other coalition ambassadors and a host of talking heads who try to insert themselves into the mess, from John Kerry to John McCain. This diplomatic incoherence has effectively allowed McChrystal's team to call the shots and hampered efforts to build a stable and credible government in Afghanistan. "It jeopardizes the mission," says Stephen Biddle, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations who supports McChrystal. "The military cannot by itself create governance reform."

Part of the problem is structural: The Defense Department budget exceeds $600 billion a year, while the State Department receives only $50 billion. But part of the problem is personal: In private, Team McChrystal likes to talk shit about many of Obama's top people on the diplomatic side. One aide calls Jim Jones, a retired four-star general and veteran of the Cold War, a "clown" who remains "stuck in 1985." Politicians like McCain and Kerry, says another aide, "turn up, have a meeting with Karzai, criticize him at the airport press conference, then get back for the Sunday talk shows. Frankly, it's not very helpful." Only Hillary Clinton receives good reviews from McChrystal's inner circle. "Hillary had Stan's back during the strategic review," says an adviser. "She said, 'If Stan wants it, give him what he needs.' "

McChrystal reserves special skepticism for Holbrooke, the official in charge of reintegrating the Taliban. "The Boss says he's like a wounded animal," says a member of the general's team. "Holbrooke keeps hearing rumors that he's going to get fired, so that makes him dangerous. He's a brilliant guy, but he just comes in, pulls on a lever, whatever he can grasp onto. But this is COIN, and you can't just have someone yanking on shit."

At one point on his trip to Paris, McChrystal checks his BlackBerry. "Oh, not another e-mail from Holbrooke," he groans. "I don't even want to open it." He clicks on the message and reads the salutation out loud, then stuffs the BlackBerry back in his pocket, not bothering to conceal his annoyance.

"Make sure you don't get any of that on your leg," an aide jokes, referring to the e-mail.

By far the most crucial – and strained – relationship is between McChrystal and Eikenberry, the U.S. ambassador. According to those close to the two men, Eikenberry – a retired three-star general who served in Afghanistan in 2002 and 2005 – can't stand that his former subordinate is now calling the shots. He's also furious that McChrystal, backed by NATO's allies, refused to put Eikenberry in the pivotal role of viceroy in Afghanistan, which would have made him the diplomatic equivalent of the general. The job instead went to British Ambassador Mark Sedwill – a move that effectively increased McChrystal's influence over diplomacy by shutting out a powerful rival. "In reality, that position needs to be filled by an American for it to have weight," says a U.S. official familiar with the negotiations.

The relationship was further strained in January, when a classified cable that Eikenberry wrote was leaked to The New York Times. The cable was as scathing as it was prescient. The ambassador offered a brutal critique of McChrystal's strategy, dismissed President Hamid Karzai as "not an adequate strategic partner," and cast doubt on whether the counterinsurgency plan would be "sufficient" to deal with Al Qaeda. "We will become more deeply engaged here with no way to extricate ourselves," Eikenberry warned, "short of allowing the country to descend again into lawlessness and chaos."

McChrystal and his team were blindsided by the cable. "I like Karl, I've known him for years, but they'd never said anything like that to us before," says McChrystal, who adds that he felt "betrayed" by the leak. "Here's one that covers his flank for the history books. Now if we fail, they can say, 'I told you so.' "

The most striking example of McChrystal's usurpation of diplomatic policy is his handling of Karzai. It is McChrystal, not diplomats like Eikenberry or Holbrooke, who enjoys the best relationship with the man America is relying on to lead Afghanistan. The doctrine of counterinsurgency requires a credible government, and since Karzai is not considered credible by his own people, McChrystal has worked hard to make him so. Over the past few months, he has accompanied the president on more than 10 trips around the country, standing beside him at political meetings, or shuras, in Kandahar. In February, the day before the doomed offensive in Marja, McChrystal even drove over to the president's palace to get him to sign off on what would be the largest military operation of the year. Karzai's staff, however, insisted that the president was sleeping off a cold and could not be disturbed. After several hours of haggling, McChrystal finally enlisted the aid of Afghanistan's defense minister, who persuaded Karzai's people to wake the president from his nap.

This is one of the central flaws with McChrystal's counterinsurgency strategy: The need to build a credible government puts us at the mercy of whatever tin-pot leader we've backed – a danger that Eikenberry explicitly warned about in his cable. Even Team McChrystal privately acknowledges that Karzai is a less-than-ideal partner. "He's been locked up in his palace the past year," laments one of the general's top advisers. At times, Karzai himself has actively undermined McChrystal's desire to put him in charge. During a recent visit to Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Karzai met three U.S. soldiers who had been wounded in Uruzgan province. "General," he called out to McChrystal, "I didn't even know we were fighting in Uruzgan!"

Growing up as a military brat, McChrystal exhibited the mixture of brilliance and cockiness that would follow him throughout his career. His father fought in Korea and Vietnam, retiring as a two-star general, and his four brothers all joined the armed services. Moving around to different bases, McChrystal took solace in baseball, a sport in which he made no pretense of hiding his superiority: In Little League, he would call out strikes to the crowd before whipping a fastball down the middle.

McChrystal entered West Point in 1972, when the U.S. military was close to its all-time low in popularity. His class was the last to graduate before the academy started to admit women. The "Prison on the Hudson," as it was known then, was a potent mix of testosterone, hooliganism and reactionary patriotism. Cadets repeatedly trashed the mess hall in food fights, and birthdays were celebrated with a tradition called "rat fucking," which often left the birthday boy outside in the snow or mud, covered in shaving cream. "It was pretty out of control," says Lt. Gen. David Barno, a classmate who went on to serve as the top commander in Afghanistan from 2003 to 2005. The class, filled with what Barno calls "huge talent" and "wild-eyed teenagers with a strong sense of idealism," also produced Gen. Ray Odierno, the current commander of U.S. forces in Iraq.

The son of a general, McChrystal was also a ringleader of the campus dissidents – a dual role that taught him how to thrive in a rigid, top-down environment while thumbing his nose at authority every chance he got. He accumulated more than 100 hours of demerits for drinking, partying and insubordination – a record that his classmates boasted made him a "century man." One classmate, who asked not to be named, recalls finding McChrystal passed out in the shower after downing a case of beer he had hidden under the sink. The troublemaking almost got him kicked out, and he spent hours subjected to forced marches in the Area, a paved courtyard where unruly cadets were disciplined. "I'd come visit, and I'd end up spending most of my time in the library, while Stan was in the Area," recalls Annie, who began dating McChrystal in 1973.

McChrystal wound up ranking 298 out of a class of 855, a serious underachievement for a man widely regarded as brilliant. His most compelling work was extracurricular: As managing editor of The Pointer, the West Point literary magazine, McChrystal wrote seven short stories that eerily foreshadow many of the issues he would confront in his career. In one tale, a fictional officer complains about the difficulty of training foreign troops to fight; in another, a 19-year-old soldier kills a boy he mistakes for a terrorist. In "Brinkman's Note," a piece of suspense fiction, the unnamed narrator appears to be trying to stop a plot to assassinate the president. It turns out, however, that the narrator himself is the assassin, and he's able to infiltrate the White House: "The President strode in smiling. From the right coat pocket of the raincoat I carried, I slowly drew forth my 32-caliber pistol. In Brinkman's failure, I had succeeded."

After graduation, 2nd Lt. Stanley McChrystal entered an Army that was all but broken in the wake of Vietnam. "We really felt we were a peacetime generation," he recalls. "There was the Gulf War, but even that didn't feel like that big of a deal." So McChrystal spent his career where the action was: He enrolled in Special Forces school and became a regimental commander of the 3rd Ranger Battalion in 1986. It was a dangerous position, even in peacetime – nearly two dozen Rangers were killed in training accidents during the Eighties. It was also an unorthodox career path: Most soldiers who want to climb the ranks to general don't go into the Rangers. Displaying a penchant for transforming systems he considers outdated, McChrystal set out to revolutionize the training regime for the Rangers. He introduced mixed martial arts, required every soldier to qualify with night-vision goggles on the rifle range and forced troops to build up their endurance with weekly marches involving heavy backpacks.

In the late 1990s, McChrystal shrewdly improved his inside game, spending a year at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government and then at the Council on Foreign Relations, where he co-authored a treatise on the merits and drawbacks of humanitarian interventionism. But as he moved up through the ranks, McChrystal relied on the skills he had learned as a troublemaking kid at West Point: knowing precisely how far he could go in a rigid military hierarchy without getting tossed out. Being a highly intelligent badass, he discovered, could take you far – especially in the political chaos that followed September 11th. "He was very focused," says Annie. "Even as a young officer he seemed to know what he wanted to do. I don't think his personality has changed in all these years."



By some accounts, McChrystal's career should have been over at least two times by now. As Pentagon spokesman during the invasion of Iraq, the general seemed more like a White House mouthpiece than an up-and-coming commander with a reputation for speaking his mind. When Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld made his infamous "stuff happens" remark during the looting of Baghdad, McChrystal backed him up. A few days later, he echoed the president's Mission Accomplished gaffe by insisting that major combat operations in Iraq were over. But it was during his next stint – overseeing the military's most elite units, including the Rangers, Navy Seals and Delta Force – that McChrystal took part in a cover-up that would have destroyed the career of a lesser man.

After Cpl. Pat Tillman, the former-NFL-star-turned-Ranger, was accidentally killed by his own troops in Afghanistan in April 2004, McChrystal took an active role in creating the impression that Tillman had died at the hands of Taliban fighters. He signed off on a falsified recommendation for a Silver Star that suggested Tillman had been killed by enemy fire. (McChrystal would later claim he didn't read the recommendation closely enough – a strange excuse for a commander known for his laserlike attention to minute details.) A week later, McChrystal sent a memo up the chain of command, specifically warning that President Bush should avoid mentioning the cause of Tillman's death. "If the circumstances of Corporal Tillman's death become public," he wrote, it could cause "public embarrassment" for the president.

"The false narrative, which McChrystal clearly helped construct, diminished Pat's true actions," wrote Tillman's mother, Mary, in her book Boots on the Ground by Dusk. McChrystal got away with it, she added, because he was the "golden boy" of Rumsfeld and Bush, who loved his willingness to get things done, even if it included bending the rules or skipping the chain of command. Nine days after Tillman's death, McChrystal was promoted to major general.

Two years later, in 2006, McChrystal was tainted by a scandal involving detainee abuse and torture at Camp Nama in Iraq. According to a report by Human Rights Watch, prisoners at the camp were subjected to a now-familiar litany of abuse: stress positions, being dragged naked through the mud. McChrystal was not disciplined in the scandal, even though an interrogator at the camp reported seeing him inspect the prison multiple times. But the experience was so unsettling to McChrystal that he tried to prevent detainee operations from being placed under his command in Afghanistan, viewing them as a "political swamp," according to a U.S. official. In May 2009, as McChrystal prepared for his confirmation hearings, his staff prepared him for hard questions about Camp Nama and the Tillman cover-up. But the scandals barely made a ripple in Congress, and McChrystal was soon on his way back to Kabul to run the war in Afghanistan.

The media, to a large extent, have also given McChrystal a pass on both controversies. Where Gen. Petraeus is kind of a dweeb, a teacher's pet with a Ranger's tab, McChrystal is a snake-eating rebel, a "Jedi" commander, as Newsweek called him. He didn't care when his teenage son came home with blue hair and a mohawk. He speaks his mind with a candor rare for a high-ranking official. He asks for opinions, and seems genuinely interested in the response. He gets briefings on his iPod and listens to books on tape. He carries a custom-made set of nunchucks in his convoy engraved with his name and four stars, and his itinerary often bears a fresh quote from Bruce Lee. ("There are no limits. There are only plateaus, and you must not stay there, you must go beyond them.") He went out on dozens of nighttime raids during his time in Iraq, unprecedented for a top commander, and turned up on missions unannounced, with almost no entourage. "The fucking lads love Stan McChrystal," says a British officer who serves in Kabul. "You'd be out in Somewhere, Iraq, and someone would take a knee beside you, and a corporal would be like 'Who the fuck is that?' And it's fucking Stan McChrystal."

It doesn't hurt that McChrystal was also extremely successful as head of the Joint Special Operations Command, the elite forces that carry out the government's darkest ops. During the Iraq surge, his team killed and captured thousands of insurgents, including Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq. "JSOC was a killing machine," says Maj. Gen. Mayville, his chief of operations. McChrystal was also open to new ways of killing. He systematically mapped out terrorist networks, targeting specific insurgents and hunting them down – often with the help of cyberfreaks traditionally shunned by the military. "The Boss would find the 24-year-old kid with a nose ring, with some fucking brilliant degree from MIT, sitting in the corner with 16 computer monitors humming," says a Special Forces commando who worked with McChrystal in Iraq and now serves on his staff in Kabul. "He'd say, 'Hey – you fucking muscleheads couldn't find lunch without help. You got to work together with these guys.' "

Even in his new role as America's leading evangelist for counterinsurgency, McChrystal retains the deep-seated instincts of a terrorist hunter. To put pressure on the Taliban, he has upped the number of Special Forces units in Afghanistan from four to 19. "You better be out there hitting four or five targets tonight," McChrystal will tell a Navy Seal he sees in the hallway at headquarters. Then he'll add, "I'm going to have to scold you in the morning for it, though." In fact, the general frequently finds himself apologizing for the disastrous consequences of counterinsurgency. In the first four months of this year, NATO forces killed some 90 civilians, up 76 percent from the same period in 2009 – a record that has created tremendous resentment among the very population that COIN theory is intent on winning over. In February, a Special Forces night raid ended in the deaths of two pregnant Afghan women and allegations of a cover-up, and in April, protests erupted in Kandahar after U.S. forces accidentally shot up a bus, killing five Afghans. "We've shot an amazing number of people," McChrystal recently conceded.

Despite the tragedies and miscues, McChrystal has issued some of the strictest directives to avoid civilian casualties that the U.S. military has ever encountered in a war zone. It's "insurgent math," as he calls it – for every innocent person you kill, you create 10 new enemies. He has ordered convoys to curtail their reckless driving, put restrictions on the use of air power and severely limited night raids. He regularly apologizes to Hamid Karzai when civilians are killed, and berates commanders responsible for civilian deaths. "For a while," says one U.S. official, "the most dangerous place to be in Afghanistan was in front of McChrystal after a 'civ cas' incident." The ISAF command has even discussed ways to make not killing into something you can win an award for: There's talk of creating a new medal for "courageous restraint," a buzzword that's unlikely to gain much traction in the gung-ho culture of the U.S. military.

But however strategic they may be, McChrystal's new marching orders have caused an intense backlash among his own troops. Being told to hold their fire, soldiers complain, puts them in greater danger. "Bottom line?" says a former Special Forces operator who has spent years in Iraq and Afghanistan. "I would love to kick McChrystal in the nuts. His rules of engagement put soldiers' lives in even greater danger. Every real soldier will tell you the same thing."

In March, McChrystal traveled to Combat Outpost JFM – a small encampment on the outskirts of Kandahar – to confront such accusations from the troops directly. It was a typically bold move by the general. Only two days earlier, he had received an e-mail from Israel Arroyo, a 25-year-old staff sergeant who asked McChrystal to go on a mission with his unit. "I am writing because it was said you don't care about the troops and have made it harder to defend ourselves," Arroyo wrote.

Within hours, McChrystal responded personally: "I'm saddened by the accusation that I don't care about soldiers, as it is something I suspect any soldier takes both personally and professionally – at least I do. But I know perceptions depend upon your perspective at the time, and I respect that every soldier's view is his own." Then he showed up at Arroyo's outpost and went on a foot patrol with the troops – not some bullshit photo-op stroll through a market, but a real live operation in a dangerous war zone.

Six weeks later, just before McChrystal returned from Paris, the general received another e-mail from Arroyo. A 23-year-old corporal named Michael Ingram – one of the soldiers McChrystal had gone on patrol with – had been killed by an IED a day earlier. It was the third man the 25-member platoon had lost in a year, and Arroyo was writing to see if the general would attend Ingram's memorial service. "He started to look up to you," Arroyo wrote. McChrystal said he would try to make it down to pay his respects as soon as possible.

The night before the general is scheduled to visit Sgt. Arroyo's platoon for the memorial, I arrive at Combat Outpost JFM to speak with the soldiers he had gone on patrol with. JFM is a small encampment, ringed by high blast walls and guard towers. Almost all of the soldiers here have been on repeated combat tours in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and have seen some of the worst fighting of both wars. But they are especially angered by Ingram's death. His commanders had repeatedly requested permission to tear down the house where Ingram was killed, noting that it was often used as a combat position by the Taliban. But due to McChrystal's new restrictions to avoid upsetting civilians, the request had been denied. "These were abandoned houses," fumes Staff Sgt. Kennith Hicks. "Nobody was coming back to live in them."



One soldier shows me the list of new regulations the platoon was given. "Patrol only in areas that you are reasonably certain that you will not have to defend yourselves with lethal force," the laminated card reads. For a soldier who has traveled halfway around the world to fight, that's like telling a cop he should only patrol in areas where he knows he won't have to make arrests. "Does that make any fucking sense?" asks Pfc. Jared Pautsch. "We should just drop a fucking bomb on this place. You sit and ask yourself: What are we doing here?"

The rules handed out here are not what McChrystal intended – they've been distorted as they passed through the chain of command – but knowing that does nothing to lessen the anger of troops on the ground. "Fuck, when I came over here and heard that McChrystal was in charge, I thought we would get our fucking gun on," says Hicks, who has served three tours of combat. "I get COIN. I get all that. McChrystal comes here, explains it, it makes sense. But then he goes away on his bird, and by the time his directives get passed down to us through Big Army, they're all fucked up – either because somebody is trying to cover their ass, or because they just don't understand it themselves. But we're fucking losing this thing."

McChrystal and his team show up the next day. Underneath a tent, the general has a 45-minute discussion with some two dozen soldiers. The atmosphere is tense. "I ask you what's going on in your world, and I think it's important for you all to understand the big picture as well," McChrystal begins. "How's the company doing? You guys feeling sorry for yourselves? Anybody? Anybody feel like you're losing?" McChrystal says.

"Sir, some of the guys here, sir, think we're losing, sir," says Hicks.

McChrystal nods. "Strength is leading when you just don't want to lead," he tells the men. "You're leading by example. That's what we do. Particularly when it's really, really hard, and it hurts inside." Then he spends 20 minutes talking about counterinsurgency, diagramming his concepts and principles on a whiteboard. He makes COIN seem like common sense, but he's careful not to bullshit the men. "We are knee-deep in the decisive year," he tells them. The Taliban, he insists, no longer has the initiative – "but I don't think we do, either." It's similar to the talk he gave in Paris, but it's not winning any hearts and minds among the soldiers. "This is the philosophical part that works with think tanks," McChrystal tries to joke. "But it doesn't get the same reception from infantry companies."

During the question-and-answer period, the frustration boils over. The soldiers complain about not being allowed to use lethal force, about watching insurgents they detain be freed for lack of evidence. They want to be able to fight – like they did in Iraq, like they had in Afghanistan before McChrystal. "We aren't putting fear into the Taliban," one soldier says.

"Winning hearts and minds in COIN is a coldblooded thing," McChrystal says, citing an oft-repeated maxim that you can't kill your way out of Afghanistan. "The Russians killed 1 million Afghans, and that didn't work."

"I'm not saying go out and kill everybody, sir," the soldier persists. "You say we've stopped the momentum of the insurgency. I don't believe that's true in this area. The more we pull back, the more we restrain ourselves, the stronger it's getting."

"I agree with you," McChrystal says. "In this area, we've not made progress, probably. You have to show strength here, you have to use fire. What I'm telling you is, fire costs you. What do you want to do? You want to wipe the population out here and resettle it?"

A soldier complains that under the rules, any insurgent who doesn't have a weapon is immediately assumed to be a civilian. "That's the way this game is," McChrystal says. "It's complex. I can't just decide: It's shirts and skins, and we'll kill all the shirts."

As the discussion ends, McChrystal seems to sense that he hasn't succeeded at easing the men's anger. He makes one last-ditch effort to reach them, acknowledging the death of Cpl. Ingram. "There's no way I can make that easier," he tells them. "No way I can pretend it won't hurt. No way I can tell you not to feel that. . . . I will tell you, you're doing a great job. Don't let the frustration get to you." The session ends with no clapping, and no real resolution. McChrystal may have sold President Obama on counterinsurgency, but many of his own men aren't buying it.



When it comes to Afghanistan, history is not on McChrystal's side. The only foreign invader to have any success here was Genghis Khan – and he wasn't hampered by things like human rights, economic development and press scrutiny. The COIN doctrine, bizarrely, draws inspiration from some of the biggest Western military embarrassments in recent memory: France's nasty war in Algeria (lost in 1962) and the American misadventure in Vietnam (lost in 1975). McChrystal, like other advocates of COIN, readily acknowledges that counterinsurgency campaigns are inherently messy, expensive and easy to lose. "Even Afghans are confused by Afghanistan," he says. But even if he somehow manages to succeed, after years of bloody fighting with Afghan kids who pose no threat to the U.S. homeland, the war will do little to shut down Al Qaeda, which has shifted its operations to Pakistan. Dispatching 150,000 troops to build new schools, roads, mosques and water-treatment facilities around Kandahar is like trying to stop the drug war in Mexico by occupying Arkansas and building Baptist churches in Little Rock. "It's all very cynical, politically," says Marc Sageman, a former CIA case officer who has extensive experience in the region. "Afghanistan is not in our vital interest – there's nothing for us there."

In mid-May, two weeks after visiting the troops in Kandahar, McChrystal travels to the White House for a high-level visit by Hamid Karzai. It is a triumphant moment for the general, one that demonstrates he is very much in command – both in Kabul and in Washington. In the East Room, which is packed with journalists and dignitaries, President Obama sings the praises of Karzai. The two leaders talk about how great their relationship is, about the pain they feel over civilian casualties. They mention the word "progress" 16 times in under an hour. But there is no mention of victory. Still, the session represents the most forceful commitment that Obama has made to McChrystal's strategy in months. "There is no denying the progress that the Afghan people have made in recent years – in education, in health care and economic development," the president says. "As I saw in the lights across Kabul when I landed – lights that would not have been visible just a few years earlier."

It is a disconcerting observation for Obama to make. During the worst years in Iraq, when the Bush administration had no real progress to point to, officials used to offer up the exact same evidence of success. "It was one of our first impressions," one GOP official said in 2006, after landing in Baghdad at the height of the sectarian violence. "So many lights shining brightly." So it is to the language of the Iraq War that the Obama administration has turned – talk of progress, of city lights, of metrics like health care and education. Rhetoric that just a few years ago they would have mocked. "They are trying to manipulate perceptions because there is no definition of victory – because victory is not even defined or recognizable," says Celeste Ward, a senior defense analyst at the RAND Corporation who served as a political adviser to U.S. commanders in Iraq in 2006. "That's the game we're in right now. What we need, for strategic purposes, is to create the perception that we didn't get run off. The facts on the ground are not great, and are not going to become great in the near future."

But facts on the ground, as history has proven, offer little deterrent to a military determined to stay the course. Even those closest to McChrystal know that the rising anti-war sentiment at home doesn't begin to reflect how deeply fucked up things are in Afghanistan. "If Americans pulled back and started paying attention to this war, it would become even less popular," a senior adviser to McChrystal says. Such realism, however, doesn't prevent advocates of counterinsurgency from dreaming big: Instead of beginning to withdraw troops next year, as Obama promised, the military hopes to ramp up its counterinsurgency campaign even further. "There's a possibility we could ask for another surge of U.S. forces next summer if we see success here," a senior military official in Kabul tells me.

Back in Afghanistan, less than a month after the White House meeting with Karzai and all the talk of "progress," McChrystal is hit by the biggest blow to his vision of counterinsurgency. Since last year, the Pentagon had been planning to launch a major military operation this summer in Kandahar, the country's second-largest city and the Taliban's original home base. It was supposed to be a decisive turning point in the war – the primary reason for the troop surge that McChrystal wrested from Obama late last year. But on June 10th, acknowledging that the military still needs to lay more groundwork, the general announced that he is postponing the offensive until the fall. Rather than one big battle, like Fallujah or Ramadi, U.S. troops will implement what McChrystal calls a "rising tide of security." The Afghan police and army will enter Kandahar to attempt to seize control of neighborhoods, while the U.S. pours $90 million of aid into the city to win over the civilian population.

Even proponents of counterinsurgency are hard-pressed to explain the new plan. "This isn't a classic operation," says a U.S. military official. "It's not going to be Black Hawk Down. There aren't going to be doors kicked in." Other U.S. officials insist that doors are going to be kicked in, but that it's going to be a kinder, gentler offensive than the disaster in Marja. "The Taliban have a jackboot on the city," says a military official. "We have to remove them, but we have to do it in a way that doesn't alienate the population." When Vice President Biden was briefed on the new plan in the Oval Office, insiders say he was shocked to see how much it mirrored the more gradual plan of counterterrorism that he advocated last fall. "This looks like CT-plus!" he said, according to U.S. officials familiar with the meeting.

Whatever the nature of the new plan, the delay underscores the fundamental flaws of counterinsurgency. After nine years of war, the Taliban simply remains too strongly entrenched for the U.S. military to openly attack. The very people that COIN seeks to win over – the Afghan people – do not want us there. Our supposed ally, President Karzai, used his influence to delay the offensive, and the massive influx of aid championed by McChrystal is likely only to make things worse. "Throwing money at the problem exacerbates the problem," says Andrew Wilder, an expert at Tufts University who has studied the effect of aid in southern Afghanistan. "A tsunami of cash fuels corruption, delegitimizes the government and creates an environment where we're picking winners and losers" – a process that fuels resentment and hostility among the civilian population. So far, counterinsurgency has succeeded only in creating a never-ending demand for the primary product supplied by the military: perpetual war. There is a reason that President Obama studiously avoids using the word "victory" when he talks about Afghanistan. Winning, it would seem, is not really possible. Not even with Stanley McChrystal in charge.

This article appears in in RS 1108/1109 from July 8-22, 2010, on newsstands Friday, June 25.

Rolling Stone

Obama besucht Mexiko

Obama zur Öl-Pest und dem vereitelten NY-Anschlag

Obamas Ansprache zum Earth Day

Die neue US-Nuklearstrategie

Abrüstung ist eine gute Sache. Sie bietet den Atommächten die Chance ihre veralteten Raketen durch moderne Waffensysteme zu ersetzen.

US-Nuklearstrategie
Abbau von Atomwaffen: Ja - Option auf Erstschlag: Ja

US-Präsident Obama hat seine neue Atomwaffenstrategie vorgestellt. Einen generellen Verzicht auf den Ersteinsatz lehnt er ab.


Die USA schränken ihre atomare Abwehrstrategie ein

Die US-Regierung hat ihre neue Doktrin für den Einsatz von Atomwaffen veröffentlicht. Demnach werden die Bedingungen, unter denen Amerika Gebrauch von diesen Massenvernichtungswaffen machen würde, deutlich eingeschränkt. Die Veränderungen gehen jedoch nicht so weit, wie die Abrüstungsfraktion gehofft hatte. Präsident Barack Obama hatte vor einem Jahr in einer Rede in Prag eine atomwaffenfreie Welt zu seinem Ziel erklärt.
Anzeige

Er ist jetzt aber zum Beispiel nicht bereit zu garantieren, dass die USA niemals als erste Atomwaffen einsetzen. US-Medien analysieren, er beschreite einen moderaten Mittelweg, um die Anhänger einer starken US-Militärmacht, die jedem anderen Land überlegen sein müsse, nicht zu verärgern. Er brauche die Stimmen republikanischer Senatoren für die Ratifizierung des Start-Vertrags über die Reduzierung der strategischen Atomwaffen, den er am Donnerstag in Prag mit dem russischen Präsidenten Dmitrij Medwedjew unterzeichnen möchte. Mindestens 67 der 100 Senatoren müssen zustimmen.

Das Weiße Haus veröffentlicht die neue "Nuclear Posture Review" zum Auftakt einer Sieben-Tage-Periode, die die Welt besser vor atomaren Bedrohungen schützen soll. Auf den neuen Start-Vertrag mit Russland folgt am Montag ein Gipfel in Washington, zu dem Obama 40 Staats- und Regierungschefs eingeladen hat, um die unkontrollierte Verbreitung spaltbaren Materials aus zivilen Atomanlagen zu verhindern. Die politischen Offensiven sollen den Nonproliferation Treaty (NPR) stärken.

Sein Ziel ist es, die Zahl der Atomwaffenstaaten einzufrieren und zu verhindern, dass weitere Länder Atomwaffen entwickeln. Die Unterzeichner dürfen unter internationaler Kontrolle spaltbares Material für die zivile Nutzung der Atomkraft produzieren. Sie müssen aber versprechen, keine Nuklearwaffen zu bauen und jederzeit Inspektionen der Internationalen Atomenergiebehörde IAEO zuzulassen.

Diesen Vertrag haben einige Staaten umgangen oder gebrochen. Das aktuellste Beispiel ist Iran. Offiziell gibt es fünf Nuklearstaaten innerhalb des NPR: China, Frankreich, Großbritannien, Russland und die USA. Drei Länder haben den NPR nicht unterzeichnet, um Atomwaffen zu entwickeln: Indien, Israel und Pakistan. Nordkorea ist 2003 aus dem NPR ausgetreten, nachdem es vertragswidrig an der Bombe baute. Iran gehört dem NPR an und wird beschuldigt, rechtswidrig Bombentechnik zu entwickeln, bestreitet das aber.

Die USA erklären, dass sie Atomwaffen künftig nicht gegen Staaten einsetzen, die selbst keine Atomwaffen haben. Obamas Vorgänger hatten sich vorbehalten, Angriffe mit biologischen oder chemischen Waffen nuklear zu beantworten. Die neue Zusage steht jedoch unter einer Bedingung: Der potenzielle Feindstaat muss den NPR einhalten. Ganz praktisch hieße das zum jetzigen Zeitpunkt, dass die Zusage der USA, keine Atomwaffen einzusetzen, weder gegenüber den offiziellen Atommächten noch gegenüber Iran und Nordkorea gilt.

Zu den enttäuschten Hoffnungen, Obama werde den generellen Verzicht auf den Ersteinsatz von Atomwaffen erklären, sagte das Weiße Haus, man habe das aus Rücksicht auf jene Nato-Verbündeten unterlassen, die sich auf die Zusage verlassen, dass die USA auch einen Angriff auf sie mit allen Mitteln beantworten würden. Nach der neuen Doktrin bleibt die Abschreckung durch die Drohung mit dem nuklearen Gegenschlag der Hauptzweck der US-Atomwaffen.

Das Papier regelt zudem praktische Fragen wie die Bevorratung und technische Erneuerung der Sprengköpfe sowie Investitionen in Waffenlabore und die verschiedenen Trägersysteme von U-Booten bis landgestützten Raketen. Im Wahlkampf hatte Obama gesagt, er wolle mit Russland verhandeln, wie man einen Teil der Atomwaffen aus der Alarmbereitschaft herausnehmen könne. Das wurde in der neuen Doktrin fallen gelassen, laut US-Medien aus Rücksicht auf die Anhänger der traditionellen Verteidigungspolitik.

Deutschland und andere Nato-Staaten können weiter darauf vertrauen, dass die USA sie im Falle eines Angriffs von außen schützen – und diese Drohung bleibt die beste Verteidigung. Die neue Doktrin macht keine Angaben zur Zukunft der amerikanischem Atomwaffen, die in Deutschland gelagert sind und deren Abzug Außenminister Guido Westerwelle und andere anstreben. Obama sagt in einem Interview mit der New York Times, er wünsche sich Gespräche über "weitere Reduzierungen unserer Atomarsenale, im Tandem mit Russland und der Nato insgesamt".

Aus US-Sicht sind nicht die etwa 150 bis 200 amerikanischen taktischen Atomwaffen, die im Kalten Krieg einen sowjetischen Angriff mit weit überlegenen Kräften stoppen sollten, das Hauptproblem, sondern die mehr als 2000 russischen taktischen Nuklearwaffen, die im Konfliktfall in Polen und Deutschland zum Einsatz kämen. Nach amerikanischer Analyse liegt es im Interesse aller Nato-Staaten, die US-Waffen nicht im Zuge einer einseitigen Vorleistung abzuziehen, sondern als Gegenleistung, wenn auch Russland seine taktischen Nuklearwaffen aufgibt.

Weder die Nukleardoktrin noch der Start-Vertrag enthalten Beschränkungen der US-Pläne zum Aufbau einer begrenzten Raketenabwehr in Europa, die vor Iran schützen soll. Anderslautende russische Behauptungen haben sich als falsch herausgestellt. Moskau hatte lange eine solche Klausel verlangt und den Abschluss des seit Dezember ausgehandelten Start-Vertrags mehrfach verzögert in der Hoffnung, Obama werde einknicken.

Nach US-Darstellung sagte Obama Medwedjew bei einem Telefonat im Februar, es werde gar keinen Vertrag geben, wenn Moskau darauf beharre. Der Vertrag enthält nun ein Kündigungsrecht, falls Russland zur Einschätzung komme, die Raketenabwehr bedrohe die Rüstungsbalance.

Zeit Online

Obama boxt die Gesundheitsreform durch

Endlich kann Barack Obama einen politischen Erfolg vorweisen, wenn auch einen sehr knappen: Die Gesundheitsreform ist mit knapper Mehrheit vom Senat bestätigt worden. Jetzt hat jeder Amerikaner die Pflicht, sich krankenversichern zu lassen. Erstens ist es zweifelsohne besser (arme Menschen sind bislang dreckig verreckt) für das amerikanische Volk, zweites dürfte es Obamas Position stärken und die Chancen einer Wiederwahl erhöhen.

Reform durchgeboxt
Obama feiert historischen Gesundheitstriumph

Bis zuletzt bangten, feilschten, kämpften die Demokraten um die nötigen Stimmen - und es reichte tatsächlich: Das US-Repräsentantenhaus hat die umstrittene Gesundheitsreform abgesegnet. Es ist eine historische Entscheidung. Und ein wichtiger Sieg für Präsident Obama.

Washington - Nach einem Jahr heftiger Auseinandersetzung hat es Barack Obama trotz aller Widerstände geschafft: Mit der Verabschiedung der Gesundheitsreform im Kongress konnte der US-Präsident sein wichtigstes innenpolitisches Ziel umsetzen. Das Gesetz wurde am Sonntagabend im Repräsentantenhaus mit 219 zu 212 Stimmen gebilligt. Der Senat, die zweite Kammer des US-Kongresses, hatte bereits im Dezember zugestimmt.

Das sind die Eckpunkte der Reform:

* Eine Grundversicherung wird für die allermeisten Amerikaner zur Pflicht: 32 Millionen bislang unversicherte Amerikaner sollen eine Absicherung im Krankheitsfall bekommen. Die bisherige Gesundheitsversicherung für Bedürftige, Medicaid, wird erheblich ausgeweitet. So soll erreicht werden, dass am Ende 95 Prozent der US-Bürger versichert sind. Derzeit sind es 83 Prozent.
* Versicherungen dürfen Versicherungsnehmer nicht mehr wegen deren Krankengeschichte ablehnen oder bestehende Verträge kündigen, wenn eine mit hohen Kosten verbundene Krankheit eintritt. Die Konzerne dürfen auch keine Aufschläge mehr wegen des Geschlechts oder des Gesundheitszustands von Versicherten verlangen.
* Staatliche Unterstützung erhalten auch Familien mit einem Jahreseinkommen bis 88.000 Dollar (65.000 Euro). Eltern können ihre Kinder bis zu einem Alter von 26 Jahren in ihrer Familienversicherung einbeziehen.
* Die Kosten der Reform für den Staat: 940 Milliarden Dollar (696 Milliarden Euro) über zehn Jahre. Finanziert werden die Ausgaben zum Teil mit einer höheren Abgabenlast für Haushalte mit einem Einkommen von mehr als 200.000 Dollar (147.600 Euro) bei Ledigen oder 250.000 Dollar (184.500 Euro) bei Verheirateten.

Obama trat schon rasch nach der Entscheidung erleichtert vor die Kameras: "Wir haben bewiesen, dass wir immer noch ein Volk sind, das Großes leisten kann", sagte er. Mit der "radikalen Reform" habe die Regierung bewiesen, dass sie für die Menschen da sei.

Knappe Mehrheit

Bis zuletzt hatte der Präsident um noch wankelmütige Abgeordnete in den eigenen Reihen geworben. Das ganze Wochenende über hatten Obama und die Parteispitze daran gearbeitet, skeptische Parlamentarier in den eigenen Reihen zu einem Ja zu bewegen. So kam der Präsident am Vorabend der Abstimmung eigens ins Washingtoner Kapitol, um Wackelkandidaten auf seine Linie zu bringen. "Es liegt in Ihren Händen", beschwor er seine Parteifreunde."Es ist an der Zeit, die Gesundheitsreform zu verabschieden. Ich bin überzeugt davon, dass wir sie am Sonntag verabschieden. Lasst uns die Sache zu Ende bringen."

Mit drei Stimmen über der erforderlichen absoluten Mehrheit fiel die Abstimmung denn auch denkbar knapp aus. In den Reihen der demokratischen Regierungspartei schlossen sich 34 Abgeordnete den oppositionellen Republikanern an und stimmten gegen das Gesetz. Ein in letzter Minute erzielter Kompromiss in der Frage der Finanzierung von Abtreibungen verhinderte, dass sich noch mehr Demokraten des konservativen Flügels dem Weißen Haus widersetzten.

Das Gesetz kann nun zur Unterzeichnung ans Weiße Haus gehen. Es wird erwartet, dass der Präsident die Reform bereits am Dienstag in Kraft setzt.

Unabhängig davon findet noch ein Gesetzgebungsverfahren mit Änderungen an der gerade verabschiedeten Reform statt. Das Repräsentantenhaus verabschiedete die entsprechende Vorlage mit 220 zu 211 Stimmen. Dieses Gesetz geht nun noch an den Senat.

Kosten von mehr als 900 Milliarden Dollar

Zum Abschluss der teilweise emotional geführten Diskussion hatte Parlamentspräsidentin Nancy Pelosi die Abgeordneten der demokratischen Mehrheitspartei aufgerufen, "Geschichte für unser Land zu schreiben". Die Republikaner bekräftigten bis zuletzt ihre Ablehnung des Reformwerks. Sie kritisierten vor allem die hohen Kosten von mehr als 900 Milliarden Dollar und das Vordringen staatlicher Regulierung in einen bisher privat geregelten Bereich.

Außerdem warnten sie davor, dass die Gesundheitsreform zu Kürzungen bei der bisherigen Krankenversicherung für Senioren mit der Bezeichnung Medicare führen werde. "Wir haben versagt, auf Amerika zu hören", sagte der republikanische Minderheitsführer John Boehner.

Die Wende bei der Debatte im Repräsentantenhaus kam, als eine Gruppe konservativer Demokraten um den Abgeordneten Bart Stupak ihre Ablehnung des Reformwerks aufgab. Im Gegenzug musste Obama eine Anordnung zusagen, die finanzielle Hilfen des Bundes für Abtreibungen ausdrücklich untersagt. Das ist zwar bereits geltendes Gesetz. Nun sollen aber "zusätzliche Sicherheiten" verankert werden, dass das auch tatsächlich geschehe und künftig auch nicht geändert werde, hieß es vom Weißen Haus. "Wir haben eine Einigung gefunden, durch die die Unantastbarkeit des Lebens in der Gesundheitsreform respektiert wird", sagte Stupak.

Tumulte vor der Abstimmung

Vor dem Kapitol demonstrierten lautstark Gegner der Reform. Einige drangen in das Parlamentsgebäude ein und wurden von Sicherheitskräften festgenommen.

Demokraten betonten die historische Tragweite des Gesetzes: "Jeder Präsident des vergangenen Jahrhunderts sagte, dass dies für eine große Nation eine Notwendigkeit ist", sagte der demokratische Mehrheitsführer im Abgeordnetenhaus, Steny Hoyer. Die konservative Opposition hingegen kritisierte abermals die Kosten der Reform und warnte vor zu großen Eingriffen des Staates. "Werden wir den Pfad der Freiheit wählen oder den Pfad der Regierungstyrannei?", fragte der republikanische Abgeordnete Ted Poe. Sein Parteikollege Paul Ryan nannte das Gesetz einen "haushaltspolitischen Frankenstein".

Spiegel Online

Obama - Iran, Iranisches Regime - Obama

Nouruz ist das altiranische Neujahrsfest, zu dessen Anlass Barack Obama ein Grußbotschaft an das iranische Volk, wie auch in das iranische Regime (er drückte es diplomatischer als "leaders" aus) gesandt hat. Wiederholt buhlt er um die Sympathie der Bevölkerung und um ein Einlenken der Mullahs. Das Volk, besser gesagt die Opposition, würde davon profitieren, wenn er sich konsequent hinter sie stellen würde. Von Chamenei und Ahmadinedschad kann Obama ohnehin keinen Centimeter Entgegenkommen erwarten, wie der untere Artikel zeigt.

Iran
Ajatollah Chamenei greift US-Präsident Obama an


Ajatollah Chamenei: "In der Praxis haben sie das Gegenteil getan"

Irans geistliches Oberhaupt Ajatollah Ali Chamenei hat Barack Obama in einer Rede vorgeworfen, eine Verschwörung gegen sein Land zu planen. Mit dieser Reaktion schlug er das jüngste Dialogangebot des US-Präsidenten aus.

Teheran - Das geistliche Oberhaupt des Iran, Ajatollah Ali Chamenei, hat den USA falsches Spiel vorgeworfen. In Widerspruch zu seinem Gesprächsangebot schmiede US-Präsident Barack Obama ein "Komplott" gegen die Islamische Republik, erklärte Chamenei am Sonntag in seiner Neujahrsrede an die Nation, die vom Staatsfernsehen übertragen wurde.

"Die neue Regierung und der neue Präsident behaupten, sie haben ein Interesse an gerechten und fairen Beziehungen", sagte Chamenei. "Sie haben Briefe geschrieben und Mitteilungen geschickt, in denen sie sagten, sie wollten die Beziehungen zur Islamischen Republik normalisieren. Aber in der Praxis haben sie das Gegenteil getan." Obama hatte dem Golfstaat vor einem Jahr einen Neuanfang im diplomatischen Verhältnis angeboten.

"Sie können nicht Ihren Wunsch nach Frieden und Freundschaft ausdrücken und sich gleichzeitig gegen uns verschwören und glauben, dass Sie der iranischen Nation schaden können", sagte Chamenei in Maschhad im Nordosten des Landes an Obama gerichtet. Die USA hätten schon bei den Unruhen nach der Präsidentenwahl im Juni vergangenen Jahres die "schlechtestmögliche Position" eingenommen, indem Washington "Randalierer" als "Bürgerrechtler" bezeichnet habe.

Zuvor hatte sich Obama anlässlich des persischen Neujahrsfestes an das iranische Volk gewandt. "Auch wenn wir weiterhin Differenzen mit der iranischen Regierung haben, werden wir uns für eine hoffnungsvollere Zukunft für das iranische Volk einsetzen", erklärte Obama in einer am Samstag vom Weißen Haus veröffentlichten Botschaft.

So werde er sich für einen Internetzugang "ohne Angst vor Zensur" für die Iraner engagieren. Die Opposition im Iran hatte während der Proteste nach der umstrittenen Präsidentschaftswahl ausgiebig den Internet-Kurznachrichtendienst Twitter und Sozialnetzwerke wie Facebook oder das Internetportal Youtube genutzt, um sich zu organisieren.

Zugleich bekräftigte Obama seine Dialogbereitschaft gegenüber Teheran. Iran müsse jedoch dafür verantwortlich gemacht werden, dass es seine Verpflichtungen im Atomstreit nicht eingehalten habe, so der US-Präsident.

Spiegel Online

Im Nahen Osten nichts Neues

Obama kommt mit seinem Kuschelkurs nicht wirklich voran. Amerikanische Konservative werden ihm Unfähigkeit und Schlimmeres vor (siehe Video unten, siehe auch hier) und der Nahe Osten kommt wie immer nicht zur Ruhe. Wo bleiben die richtigen Sanktionen gegen den Iran, wo die Unterstützung der Revolutionsbewegung? Und das nicht nur von amerikanischer, sondern auch von europäischer Seite? Lesenswert auch die beiden unteren Artikel.

Leitartikel: Die verheerende Bilanz der amerikanischen Nahost-Politik
Obama versteht die Israelis nicht

Man wird sich schnell darauf einigen können, dass Israels Entscheidung, 1600 Wohneinheiten in Ostjerusalem zu bauen, nicht nur schlecht getimt war, sondern auch in der Substanz wenig hilfreich.Die wütende, gegenüber Verbündeten geradezu unerhörte Reaktion aus Washington ist aber nicht nur weit übertrieben.Sie verrät auch, wie viel Frust sich in der Obama-Regierung angesammelt hat. Man möchte nur zu gerne Israel verantwortlich machen für die mangelnden Resultate der obamaschen Nahost-Politik.

Dabei sind viele Misserfolge das Ergebnis einer gefährlich naiven Politik Washingtons.

Um den Nahost-Friedensprozess wieder flottzumachen, hatte Obama allen Seiten etwas versprochen. In seiner Kairoer Rede hatte er sich für einen israelischen Siedlungsstopp eingesetzt. Die Palästinenser sollten an den Verhandlungstisch zurückkehren, und den Israelis stellte man Gesten des guten Willens und der Annäherung vonseiten arabischer Staaten in Aussicht. Unter erheblichem Druck hat Israel dann einem neunmonatigen Moratorium beim Siedlungsbau im Westjordanland zugestimmt. Das war nicht ganz so viel, wie Obama sich erhofft hatte, aber weit mehr, als jeder Regierungschef vor Benjamin Netanjahu zu geben bereit war. Bekommen haben die Israelis dafür kaum etwas. Die Palästinenser erklärten sich zu "indirekten" Gesprächen bereit, was lächerlich ist, wenn man bedenkt, wer hier eigentlich einen Staat haben will. Das ist nicht zuletzt die Schuld der US-Regierung. Sie hatte den Mund sehr voll genommen mit der Forderung nach einem kompletten Siedlungsstopp. Da konnte Abbas sich nicht nachgiebiger zeigen als die Amerikaner.

Aus der Annäherung der arabischen Staaten wurde gar nichts, sie haben nur ein altes Angebot erneuert. Warum sollten sie sich aus dem Fenster lehnen, wenn Obama ihnen die israelischen Konzessionen frei Haus liefert? Da ist es kein Wunder, wenn die Israelis das Gefühl haben, ihre Zugeständnisse zögen nur Forderungen nach immer neuen Zugeständnissen nach sich, ohne dass sie eine Gegenleistung bekommen.

Sicher: Israel hat dazu beigetragen, das Verhältnis zu belasten, und sollte die kontraproduktive Siedlungspolitik auch in Ostjerusalem beenden. Es ist aber bezeichnend, dass die Wortwahl der US-Regierung gegenüber den friedensfeindlichen Autokratien der Region weit freundlicher ist als gegenüber dem demokratischen Verbündeten. Weder beim Iran noch bei Syrien sind die Amerikaner jedoch vorangekommen. Die Position der Mullahs im Atomstreit hat sich verhärtet. Und auch die Entsendung eines US-Botschafters als Zeichen der Einbindungspolitik gegenüber Syrien wurde nicht honoriert. Stattdessen organisierte Hafis al-Assad in Damaskus ein öffentlichkeitswirksames Treffen mit Irans Mahmud Ahmadinedschad und dem Chef der libanesischen Terrororganisation Hisbollah, um zu zeigen, dass die Terror- und Ablehnungsfront weiter steht.

Das alles sind mehr als Anfängerfehler. Es hat sich gezeigt, dass die Grundannahmen obamascher Nahost-Politik nicht funktionieren. Vor allem hat der Präsident ignoriert, dass dort eine simple Schulhoflogik regiert. Das Abrücken der USA von seinem Bündnispartner führt nicht etwa zu Zugeständnissen von Israels Feinden. Im Gegenteil: Die wittern Morgenluft und sehen sich in ihrer Unbeugsamkeit bestätigt. Obama hat also einen treuen Verbündeten in die Ecke gedrängt, ohne damit etwas voranzubringen. Inzwischen ist gar der Eindruck entstanden, ein "regime change" in Jerusalem sei Obama wichtiger als einer in Teheran oder Damaskus.

Man könnte die Härte Obamas gegenüber Israel vielleicht verstehen, wenn er einen Plan hätte, wie es weitergehen soll. Tatsächlich handelt es sich aber um Politik im virtuellen Raum. Solange die Palästinensergebiete weiter in Fatahstan in der Westbank und Hamastan in Gaza geteilt sind, ist eine Friedenslösung ohnehin undenkbar. Warum sollte Israel einem Palästinenserstaat zustimmen, wenn es dafür nur einen halben Frieden bekommt? Zumal sich auch die Palästinenserführung in der Westbank nicht stark genug fühlt für einen Friedensschluss. Der US-Präsident hat die strategische Position Israels also geschwächt, ohne einen echten Weg zum Frieden aufzeigen zu können. Das ist mehr als nur naiv, es ist fahrlässig.

Welt.de

-----

Verratene Freiheit: Geleitwort von Henryk Broder
von Henryk M. Broder

Seit Jahren spielt der Iran mit dem Rest der Welt »Katz und Maus«, genau genommen seit mehr als 30 Jahren. Was mit dem Sturz des Schahs und der Rückkehr des Ajatollahs Khomeini aus seinem Pariser Exil nach Teheran begann, wird nun von Mahmud Ahmadinedschad und seinem Regime vollendet: der Aufbau einer Diktatur im Inneren und der Aufstieg des Landes zu einer Atommacht, die nicht nur mit ihren regionalen Nachbarn offene Rechnungen begleichen möchte.

Die europäischen Regierungen, die ihre bilateralen Beziehungen zu Österreich einfroren, als in Wien ein Kabinett unter Beteiligung der »Freiheitlichen« von Jörg Haider gebildet wurde, sehen der Entwicklung im Iran mit der Gelassenheit von Horror-Fans zu, die sich beim Zuschauen ein wenig gruseln, aber hoffen, die Geschichte werde schon irgendwie gut enden. Die einen aus ökonomischen Überlegungen, die anderen aus Rücksicht auf gewachsene historische Beziehungen, wie sie z.B. zwischen Deutschland und dem Iran seit über 100 Jahren gepflegt werden. Die europäische Friedensbewegung bzw. der klägliche Rest, der von ihr übrig geblieben ist, verteidigt das Recht des Iran auf die »friedliche Nutzung der Kernkraft « mit derselben Heftigkeit, mit der sie den Bau von Kernkraftwerken vor der eigenen Haustür bekämpft. Sie verurteilt nicht die Regierung des Iran wegen ihrer brutalen Innen- und aggressiven Außenpolitik, sondern rät den eigenen Regierungen von Sanktionen gegen den Iran ab, die nur zu einer »Eskalation« der Lage führen würden. Die hauptamtlichen Kaffeesatzanalysten, also die Politikberater und die Politikerklärer, betätigen sich gerne als Verharmloser, die über der Wirklichkeit schweben.

Der Nah- und Mittelostexperte Udo Steinbach beispielsweise hat im Jahre 2007 in seiner Eigenschaft als Präsident des Deutschen Orientinstituts in einem Zeitungsinterview erklärt, falls der Iran wirklich nach Atomwaffen strebe, dann nicht, um sie einzusetzen, sondern »um mit dem Westen auf gleicher Augenhöhe verhandeln zu können «. Vor allem ein Satz aus diesem Interview verdient es, für alle Zeiten festgehalten zu werden: »Europa wäre sicher das letzte Ziel, das dem Iran einfallen würde, falls er wirklich aggressive Absichten verfolgen sollte. Wenn eine Atommacht Iran entstünde und für irgendjemanden zur Bedrohung würde, dann eher für seine Nachbarn. Zum Beispiel für eine säkulare Türkei und natürlich für Israel. Ich glaube, dass Europa sich vom Iran in keiner Weise bedroht fühlen müsste.« Wenn es dem Iran also gelingen sollte, die säkulare Türkei oder Israel atomar zu pulverisieren, wäre das der natürliche Gang der Dinge, und solange der nukleare Fallout einen Bogen um das Ferienhaus von Udo Steinbach in der Holsteinischen Schweiz macht, müssen sich auch die übrigen Europäer keine Sorgen um ihr Wohlergehen machen.

Leute wie Steinbach bekommen Flankenschutz von Feuilletonisten wie der Schriftstellerin Katajun Amirpur, die nach sorgfältigem Studium der Ahmadinedschad-Reden zu der Überzeugung gekommen ist, der iranische Präsident wolle mitnichten Israel von der Landkarte austilgen, es würde ihm schon reichen, wenn das zionistische Regime »von den Seiten der Geschichte verschwinden« würde. Geht es um den Iran und seine Politik, scheint der Common Sense aufgehoben, beweist der gemeine Stammtisch oft mehr Sinn für Realitäten als die gebildeten Stände aus Wissenschaft und Politik, die gerne an Konferenzen und Tagungen mit Vertretern des Iran teilnehmen, um zu demonstrieren, dass sie sich »in keiner Weise« bedroht fühlen. Das alles findet vor dem Hintergrund einer politischen Moral statt, die für sich den Anspruch erhebt, aus der Geschichte gelernt zu haben, und den Ruf »Wehret den Anfängen!« zu ihrem Credo erhoben hat. Wird aber der Vergleich zwischen Ahmadinedschad und Hitler gezogen, geht die Antifa sofort in Kampfstellung: Damit werde Hitler verharmlost! In der Bundesrepublik steht zwar die Holocaustleugnung unter Strafe, aber das gilt nur für den letzten, nicht für den nächsten Holocaust. Der wirkliche Unterschied zwischen dem Dritten Reich und dem Iran von heute wird dabei geflissentlich übersehen: Es gab zur Zeit der Nazis kein Internet, keine Handys, mit denen man Filme machen und verschicken konnte, keine E-Mails und kein Skype. An den Rampen der Konzentrationslager standen keine Webcams, um die Ankunft der Transporte live zu übertragen. Der Widerstand war auf Kuriere angewiesen, die ihr Leben riskierten, um Nachrichten von Polen nach England oder umgekehrt zu bringen. Heute hingegen erleben wir alles in Echtzeit: Wir sind dabei, wenn die Twin Towers kollabieren und wenn die Demonstranten in Teheran auf die Straße gehen; wir nehmen an Erhängungen von Homosexuellen und an Steinigungen von Ehebrecherinnen teil. Niemand kann sich darauf berufen, dass die Untaten des Regimes im Halbdunkel unter Ausschluss der Öffentlichkeit stattfinden, denn sie finden bei hellem Tageslicht vor unser aller Augen statt. Mögen die Mullahs auch keine Autobahnen und keine Gaskammern bauen – für das aufgeklärte, historisch alerte Europa müsste es reichen, wie sie die Baha’i behandeln und dass sie nach der Atombombe streben, um – wie Udo Steinbach sagt – »mit dem Westen auf gleicher Augenhöhe verhandeln zu können«.

Dieses Ziel haben sie bereits erreicht. Der Westen droht zwar seit Jahren mit Sanktionen, geht aber jedes Mal in die Knie, wenn die Mullahs zum Gebet rufen. Und so ist er auch der iranischen Protestbewegung in den Rücken gefallen, indem er ihr Freiheitsbedürfnis mit salbungsvollen Worten gewürdigt hat, um es anschließend zu verraten. Gernot Erler etwa, in der Großen Koalition Staatsminister im Auswärtigen Amt, verurteilte das Verhalten der iranischen Autoritäten, lobte den »unglaublichen Mut« der Demonstranten und forderte Maßnahmen, um die »Wahlmanipulation aufzuklären«. Zugleich aber sprach er sich dagegen aus, die diplomatischen Beziehungen zu Teheran abzubrechen: »Das wäre eine völlig falsche Reaktion, denn wir müssen gerade jetzt unsere Kontakte, unsere Möglichkeiten und auch unsere Einflusschancen nutzen, um das Schlimmste zu verhindern.« Was das in der Praxis bedeutet, machte Erler in einem Interview deutlich: »Das Einzige, was die Bevölkerung im Iran, die da so mutig ist, von uns erwarten kann, ist, dass wir das zur Kenntnis nehmen, was da passiert, dass wir darüber reden, dass wir das anprangern.« Das waren klare Worte, wie weit die Bundesrepublik zu gehen bereit ist, um das Teheraner Regime politisch abzumahnen – die Freiheit der Iraner war der deutschen Regierung nicht einmal eine zivile Sanktion wert. Wenn die lange Nacht der Ohnmacht und des Terrors eines Tages vorbei ist, werden sich manche Iraner daran erinnern, dass Gernot Erler im Auftrag der deutschen Regierung ihre Situation »zur Kenntnis« genommen hat.

Ein Auszug aus:
Verratene Freiheit - Der Aufstand im Iran und die Antwort des Westens
Thomas von der Osten-Sacken, Oliver M. Piecha, Alex Feuerherdt
Verbrecher Verlag, 2010

Cicero.de