Thoughts & Commentary on the Obama Administration

[Tribesman]

When Generals get pink-slipped in the US, it's not usually for something they've done, rather a failure to achieve some goal.

so its business as usual which makes this a non-issue xiahou posted , shocking eh .

[rory_20_uk]

I'm confused. Isn't showing willingness to try new tactics a good thing, as opposed to refusing that a strategy isn't working? Again getting someone in who has more experience with the latter in hand seems to be sensible.

Is there a party based element I'm missing?

[KukriKhan]

I hope not (and I think this might be what Xiahou feared). Our uniformed guys are supposed to be distinctly a-political, party-wise. I'd hate to see that change.

Rather, I think it's as you say, a change in strategy and tactics, ushered in with a fresh face. That the old guy is retiring from service is, I hope, merely a happy coincidence.

Afghanistan's Karzai was here last week, making the rounds of the TV talk shows, where he was drilled on how ready Afghan forces were to take the lead - a point on which he kinda waffled, calling for more US influence, while decrying civilian losses to bombing attacks.

I suspect that may have been the motivator for the switch in Generals: less bombing, more ground ops.

[Lemur]

A counterinsurgency expert comments on the general switch:

Now there is a lot of stuff at work here. First, I heard rumors that McChrystal might replace McKiernan only last Friday, when a senior U.S. policy-maker cornered me and asked me what I thought of McChrystal. That's kinda like asking a rifleman in the French Army what he thinks of Napoleon. Although I indeed served under McChrystal's command in both Iraq and Afghanistan, I do not know him personally and was but one cog in a giant machine at the time.

I do know that many policy-makers and journalists think that McChrystal's work as the head of the super-secret Joint Special Operations Command was the untold success story of the Surge and the greater war on terror campaigns. I also know that McChrystal and David Petraeus forged a close working relationship in Iraq in 2007 and have much respect for one another. (Prior to 2007, the relations between the direct-action special operations task force and the overall command in Iraq were strained at best.)

Second, let's not beat around the bush: Gen. McKiernan was fired -- and fired in a very public manner. Secretary Gates' exact words: "I have asked for the resignation of General David McKiernan."

Damn.

This tells me that President Obama, Secretary Gates, and Gen. Petraeus are as serious as a heart attack about a shift in strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This was ruthless, and they were not about to do the George Casey thing whereby a commander is left in the theater long after he is considered to have grown ineffective.

The sad truth of the matter is that people have been calling for McKiernan's head for some time now. Many of the people with whom I have spoken do not think that McKiernan "gets" the war in Afghanistan -- or counterinsurgency warfare in general. There was very little confidence that -- with McKiernan in charge in Afghanistan -- we the United States had the varsity squad on the field.

That all changed today. I do not know if the war in Afghanistan is winnable. But I do know that Stan McChrystal is an automatic starter in anyone's line-up.

Game on.

-edit-

This topic is too meaty for this thread; I'm spinning it out on its own.