U.S. Afghanistan Commander Releived/Replaced
Posted by Larry Bradley at 5/12/2009 11:01 AM 
Categories: National Defense
Tags: Secretary Gates Gen Petraeus Gen McKiernan CENTCOM Afghanistan
Categories: National Defense
Tags: Secretary Gates Gen Petraeus Gen McKiernan CENTCOM Afghanistan
Today's NY Times reports the replacement of Gen David D. Mckiernan at the halfway point of what was expected to be a two year tour.
His replacement was LTG Stanley L. McChrystal, a former Special Operations Command (SOC) commander.
The article does not comment on, but lightly hints at the reasons for the change. Here are the questions I would be interested in trying to answer.
McKiernan was a conventional warfare specialist. That means he may have been seen as someone with only the ability to use a meat cleaver when a scalpel was needed.
McKiernan was vocal about the need for more troops. Is this a retribution for being so vocal.
Was there bad blood between Petraeus and McKiernan based on past associations or the fact Petraeus was leap frogged over Mckiernan for promotion?
Or was there simply a need for a Commander with a different skill set given the circumstances on the ground in Afghanistan?
I'll be looking for the answers over the next few days.
Here is the link to the article.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/world/asia/12military.html?_r=1&th&emc=th
His replacement was LTG Stanley L. McChrystal, a former Special Operations Command (SOC) commander.
The article does not comment on, but lightly hints at the reasons for the change. Here are the questions I would be interested in trying to answer.
McKiernan was a conventional warfare specialist. That means he may have been seen as someone with only the ability to use a meat cleaver when a scalpel was needed.
McKiernan was vocal about the need for more troops. Is this a retribution for being so vocal.
Was there bad blood between Petraeus and McKiernan based on past associations or the fact Petraeus was leap frogged over Mckiernan for promotion?
Or was there simply a need for a Commander with a different skill set given the circumstances on the ground in Afghanistan?
I'll be looking for the answers over the next few days.
Here is the link to the article.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/world/asia/12military.html?_r=1&th&emc=th
You say you will be looking for answers. Here's one answer.
"Think about President Obama’s new strategy for Afghanistan. He’s put in place a reputable new commander in preparation for a broad counterinsurgency campaign. He’s dispatching over 20,000 additional soldiers to help bring security to the country and is putting pressure on the country’s neighbors to crack down on those trying to destabilize Afghanistan and kill our soldiers.
Sound familiar?
McChrystal’s selection is an unstated admission that the surge in Iraq, which President Obama opposed as a senator and presidential candidate, worked; now he intends to use that formula to win in Afghanistan."
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obamas-afghanistan-strategy-copies-bushs-surge/
Reply to this
Interesting link, especially the commentary afterwards exposing the shortcomings of the original reasoning.
I suggest looking within the National Defense postings on this Blog and/or reading the Chapter on National Defense in the book this Blog is based on.
Larry
Reply to this
I can't find any commentary exposing the shortcomings of the original reasoning. What are you talking about?
Don't you see the inconsistency of Obama's position on the surge during the campaign and what he is doing now?
Bush Haters seem to lack the objectivity to acknowledge that George Bush did something right.
Reply to this
If you will go back through the postings on this blog you will find our detailed analysis of the Surge.
What we know is that Bush rolled the dice and won. The reason the Surge was necessary was because he was such an incompetent CIC. Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while.
We have noted repeatedly we did not have enought troops in Afghanistan. Obama is attempting to correct that.
Other postings have noted that a surge strategy is less likely to work in Afghanistan because of differing circumstances.
While we are glad of the results Bush managed to obtain in Iraq, the facts remain the numbers sent were inadequate for the task and only succeeded because the Sunnis decided to snitch on Al Qaeda and get rid of them.
Once again, this is not a matter of Bush Haters not being able to acknowledge Bush did something right. This is more a matter of Bush supporters being unable to recognize what a total disaster Bush was as CIC.
Obama now inherits our being corkscrewed into one of the most awful cluster f__ks imaginable. Getting out of it will take years.
At least Obama is willing to acknowledge how bad it is and try to salvage the situation in a way that will not come back to bite us 10 or 15 years from now. Because his intentions are proper, I'm willing to cut him some slack for a while longer.
Reply to this
"Bush Haters seem to lack the objectivity to acknowledge that George Bush did something right."
Suspicions confirmed.
I wonder if they can find some objectivity reading this article.
http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/05/21/cheney_speech_aei_terror/
Reply to this