Frederick Kagan, the neoconservative think-tanker best known as the architect of the surge in Iraq, continues to have access to Gen. Stanley McChrystal as an adviser after serving as part of a team producing the recent assessment of the Afghan war, a spokesman for the general tells us.
It had been reported that Kagan and his wife, military historian Kimberly Kagan, were part of the group that advised McChrystal on the high-profile assessment that warns of "mission failure" if more troops are not sent. But it wasn't previously known that Kagan's work with McChrystal extended beyond the review.
It's striking that Kagan, who writes for the Weekly Standard, guest blogs at National Review, and advised the Bush Administration on Iraq, is now advising President Obama's top commander in Afghanistan.
Some of the advisers who worked on the assessment "including the Kagans occasionally exchange correspondence with General McChrystal, who appreciates a diversity of views on the issues he confronts in Afghanistan," McChrystal spokesman Tadd Sholtis told TPMmuckraker in an e-mail.
We followed up by asking if it was accurate to describe the Kagans as "McChrystal advisers" -- as the AP and NPR have in recent days (AP mentions both Kagans, NPR only Fred). Sholtis responded:
"If you're just going to say they're advisers in some kind of neutral way, then yes. If by saying they're advisers you're going to imply that we're in some kind of neocon thrall, then no. Like I said, he takes advice from all sides."
It's been observed that no one who advised McChrystal on the review "thinks the war effort is adequately resourced." This list of the dozen advisers gives a sense of how "all sides" is defined. Besides AEI, other organizations represented include: the RAND Corporation, Brookings, the Center for Strategic & International Studies, and the Center for a New American Security.
There's little doubt the Kagans were strong proponents within the assessment team of sending more American troops to Afghanistan. They argue in a co-bylined Washington Post op-ed and a new report for the American Enterprise Institute, where Fred is a resident scholar, for 40,000 to 45,000 new U.S. troops in 2010. Fred also signed on to a letter from conservatives to Obama beseeching the president to approve an escalation in Afghanistan.
He held forth at an AEI panel earlier this year on Iraqis' tolerance, relative to Afghans, for civilian deaths caused by American forces, saying that Iraqis were "not bitching about collateral damage." Reducing civilian deaths in Afghanistan has been declared a priority by McChrystal.
McChrystal, for his part, has followed up the strategic assessment with a request asking for somewhere between 10,000 and 40,000 extra troops, Bob Woodward reported Sunday. That would be on top of the 21,000 new troops Obama has ordered to Afghanistan, for a total of 68,000, plus tens of thousands of non-US NATO troops, and somewhere in the neighborhood of 70,000 contractors.
Neither Fred nor Kimberly Kagan, who were each out of their offices Friday, responded to requests for comment. We'll update this post if they do.

TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com

fbacon2
September 28, 2009 12:04 PM
Check the C-Span tapes from this weekend. Kim Kagan was on Book TV for a fairly long interview.
The thought of anyone named Kagan advising a commanding general is still frightening.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kaylaspop
September 28, 2009 12:19 PM
If Gen. McChrystal is consulting with Kagan &/or AEI, he needs to be fired immediately! No more neocon war-mongering. Problem is McChrystal knows he'll never get a 5th star during peacetime.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Former Federal Employee
September 28, 2009 1:08 PM in reply to kaylaspop
The fifth star for flag officers died with Omar Bradley, in 1981.
However self-aggrandizing General McChrystal may be (and I'm not saying he is, because I know nothing about him except that he came from Special Forces and was the titular head of Pat Tillman's fratricide investigation), he's gone as far as he can possibly go in terms of rank.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
George C
September 28, 2009 1:14 PM
I think this is unproductive. If McChrystal's analysis is flawed, that should be apparent and pointed out. If the only way we can evaluate it is to presume the input of one of "them", that may make the analysis easier but is intellectually fatuous.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bushie
September 28, 2009 2:02 PM
Why does Obama obfuscate so much he preaches on? Rory Stewart, director of the Carr Center for Human Rights at Harvard Kennedy School of Government was interviewed for Bill Moyers journal by reporter Lynn Sherr. Stewart basically said Obama, while initially going for mission creep and increased US presence, is using McChrystals paper as smoke screen to show due diligence and statesmanship after the recent reverses in Afghanistan, including the rigged election and rampant political and police corruption.
His take; how can you do, what you can not possibly do. We can never "win" in Afghanistan so why try. Put 10,000 special forces in country to hunt Al-Qaeda. Many Taliban fight the foreign invader and would return to their day jobs if it's clear the US has no interest to stay in country (well except an oil pipe line). Pakistan is the problem child, not Afghanistan.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Love America OWBY
September 28, 2009 2:33 PM
You know when ever anyone talks about war I think they are dead wrong!
1. We are in a war. What America has done for the last 8+ year just made us a target (collateral damage KILLING CIVILIANS hurts when they are related to you)kind make you want to strike back.
2. Lets get out! if we can't (LETS BE SMART)Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal is smart
3. Once again Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal IS SMART he is the first General that changed the rules! (HE SAID WE WILL NEVER WIN IF WE KEEP KILLING CIVILIANS HE IS RIGHT!)
info 60 min interview worth the watch
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5345009n
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acanuck
September 28, 2009 3:06 PM
Wow. So it isn't bad enough that corporate shills and lobbyists draft most of the country's legislation. Now they're drafting military strategy too.
Shouldn't McChrystal be seeking advice from his commanders in the field and leaving it up to Gates and Obama to consult the civilian "experts" they want? I hold out the vague hope the Kagans would not be the first ones they'd turn to.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dndobson
September 28, 2009 5:03 PM in reply to acanuck
Yeah, really.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
George C
September 28, 2009 4:04 PM
McChrystal is smart, but his job is carry out policy, not to make policy. Policy is a civilian job.
It can't be as easy as going in whole hog or getting out. The polar extremes are almost always a false choice.
Frank Rich's column in the NYTimes yesterday noted that JFK was faced precisely with this choice when he took over VietNam. The military was all over him to escalate our presence, but JFK declined, probably because he had already been burned by the military with the Bay of Pigs. Only after his death did LBJ listen to the military. The results are hard to ignore.
You can understand that the choices here are unappetizing. If we pull back, we run the risk of having the Taliban overrun Afghanistan, making it a safe haven for Al Qaeda again. If we go in, it's probably a waste of resources with no positive outcome, McChrystal notwithstanding. The middle ground is probably to do in Afghanistan what we're doing in Pakistan: patrolling with these drones getting the bad guys when they move about. That may continue to crimp the Taliban and Al Qaeda without putting more troops at risk.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dndobson
September 28, 2009 5:11 PM in reply to George C
It's worth remembering that the Taliban offered to give Bin Laden to the International Court and Bush turned them down. There is no reason to presume that the Taliban would necessarily welcome Al-Qaeda back if they took control of the country again.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
johnnydoughey
September 28, 2009 11:07 PM
Don't forget... BOTH sides cower to those in power in Washington. Why? Because Both Dems and Reps get reelected by those folks...
Too bad they share the same beds, because the nation is pretty much a lost cause as long as this continues, and history has shown no nation is capable of lasting too long while such decay exists... IMHO
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?