Posted on 05/12/2009 10:07:49 PM PDT by garyhope
It seems harsh to suggest the Pentagon top brass don't know what they're doing. But those who care to read the transcript of the press conference at which the sacking of the top American general in Afghanistan was announced may find that conclusion hard to resist. "In some ways we're learning as we go here," said Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the joint chiefs. It was not a reassuring admission.
The public defenestration of General David McKiernan, a distinguished career officer who took command in Kabul less than one year ago, was brutal in that cold, callous way peculiar to American officialdom. More to the point, it remains largely unexplained. "We can and must do better ... We have a new policy set by our president, a new strategy, a new mission ... I believe new military leadership is also needed," said Robert Gates, the defence secretary.
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
I was studying the map of the m.e. last night and of course noted that Iran is flanked on one side by Afghanistan and on the other by Iraq. I can only speculate, and thus could be wrong, but my sense is that both of those flanks have become less stable since Zer0 took charge. I think Afghanistan was never real stable anyway. I was not a happy camper with some things W did, but I think he clearly understood that controlling territory on either side of Iran was important to making it easier to engage Iran if necessary, a pragmatic approach perhaps. He could never convey his strategy openly because the anti-american marginal stream media and their hollywierd allies would crucify him more. Sometimes, the C-in-C has to look long term and I don't think Maobama is capable of such a world view. These are frightening times. I'm not sure if this is Zer0's Viet Nam, or our second Viet Nam with a marxist president again escalating the action and body bags flowing home.
So did Cheney, FWIW
Hey 0bama...you’re gonna need a BIGGER BUS!
I’ve been reading “No True Glory” about the battle for Fallujah. If that book can be believed, the American military is incredibly careful about not creating collateral damage among the civilians in order to avoid the fallout that it creates.
It seems more than the usual change of command process. I wonder if we will soon see McKiernan on the speaking tour as a retired General giving his side of what happened?
I’m certain there are unfortunate incidents of civilian innocents losing their lives accidentally caught up in this war comprised of exploding ordnance, and lead, however there is also a quantity disinformation that is disseminated from the region.
I have read often over the years of Karzai’s use of those civilian casualties for financial gain. Apparently he claims inflated numbers of such civilian casualties, and uses those numbers, and the grief of “the families of those innocents” to wrench funding allegedly for their families from our Treasury.
It’s difficult to be such a cynic due the topic, but as many times as I’ve read about Karzai approaching our Government with inflated numbers contrary to the statistics provided by our own military, and our Government caving to the apparent faux outrage of Karzai due the necessity of his assistance in the area, providing large monitary contributions each event then I haven’t a choice but to be a cynic.
>> You might have it right, but why did Gates use the terminology “asked for his resignation” and foster the widespread use of the characterization that he was “fired.” <<
Maybe it was all an act, carried out so as to calm the Afghans — who seem highly agitated by the recent spate of civilian deaths due to collateral damage. Behind the scenes, Gates and General Mac may still be on good terms.
On the other hand, McK may have been a clone of Wesley Clark — who has been overly reluctant to follow orders from above.
(Let’s not forget that it was PØTUS Clinton who was forced to sack Wes, after complaints from SecDef Cohen. Gates and/or Petraeus may have had the same sorts of problems with McK.)
Right or wrong decision, I don’t know
But I do know if this was Bush the press would be all over him like he won’t listen to his General so he fires opposing voices.
Not to defend Barry but after a LOT of reading the change in Command makes sense.
Couldn't ask for better is the impression I came away with after watching that segment.
uk.guardian, meh.
The current Commander had asked for MORE troops that zer0bama indicated would be provided.
I think that the change up was because they wanted someone who would think like Gen. Petreaus and employ new/different tactics similar to the Surge seen in Iraq. For Iraq - with 135,000 troops already there - the addition of 25,000 troops was far less significant that the tactic of clean and hold, and embed troops in the neighborhoods that they were trying to re-claim and protect.
Since the present Commander is a 4 star General, with no further assignment being considered - this means essentially a forced retirement (with 37 years of very honorable service ....nothing to snear at!)
Replacing a convential warfighter with a Special Forces experienced warfighter is probably one of the only good things that the zer0bama has done thus far.
I think rivers of blood are going to flow in Iraq, and then “that man” will say that the war was never won anyway, and that it’s all Bush’s fault.
It sounds like both McKiernan and McCrystal are good generals, with terrific careers and reputations. It also sounds like the DoD personnel (Gates & Petraus) are on board with this change, so I’m not sure that I would read any Obama interference into this particular move. McKiernan may not have done anything wrong, it may come down to simply the fact that General Petraus simply wants that McCrystal offers a slight advantage in some aspect of the job and he wants to make the change.
One of the great things about our military is that it can be a ruthless meritocracy. When lives are on the line, the guy in charge doesn’t have to wait for a screw-up or loss to change personnel. The success of the mission is bigger than any one General’s career.
The trouble is that if we don’t kill the civilians, the towelies do it anyway and blame it on us. THAT is the counter-insurgency problem we have to deal with.
Remember, the hajis use a variation of the “kill’em all, let God sort ‘em out” approach. They think if the victim was righteous, he/she will go to paradice, if not, to hell with ‘em.
I’ve heard good things about the new guy, but Gates is a political butt-boy. He would cheerfully fire someone for political reasons.
That’s the problem. Barry doesn’t make good moves. If Barry makes a good move, you have to question his motives.
I know about the blind squirrel and all, but something about it is still fishy.
I’m guessing this is the most accurate analysis:
“McKiernan warned last year that a satisfactory outcome would take a decade, perhaps 14 years. For his political bosses, that was way too long.
The changes in command underscore the impression that Obama, abandoning long-term nation-building goals, is looking for quick, minimalist results in Afghanistan, chiefly containing and deflating the insurgency. His aides don’t want the war dragging on when he stands for re-election in 2012.”
Anyone who ever served in the military wouldn't think that was harsh at all.
Afghanistan is a quagmire and something has to change. This may well turn out to be a Petraeus-for-Casey kind of swap, and if that's so then Gates and Obama will deserve the credit. If it turns out to be a mistake then they'll deserve the blame. But regardless, the troops in country deserve our hopes that McChrystal has the same kind of positive impact on the war in Afghanistan that Petraeus had on the war in Iraq.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.