US fires top general in Afghanistan as war worsens

[waraich66]

US fires top general in Afghanistan as war worsens
Buzz Up Send
Email IM .Share
Delicious Digg Facebook Fark Newsvine Reddit StumbleUpon Technorati Yahoo! Bookmarks .Print .Featured Topics: Barack Obama
. Play Video AP – U.S. Troops caught in firefight with militants
. Slideshow:Afghanistan .
Play Video Video:Gates replaces top general in Afghanistan AP .
Play Video Video:Healing Hands FOX News .
Reuters – U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates (L) and U.S. Army General David McKiernan (R), Commander of U.S. …
By PAULINE JELINEK and ANNE GEARAN, Associated Press Writers Pauline Jelinek And Anne Gearan, Associated Press Writers – 15 mins ago
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama fired the top U.S. general in Afghanistan on Monday, replacing him with a former special forces commander in a quest for a more agile, unconventional approach in a war that has gone quickly downhill. With the Taliban resurgent, Obama's switch from Gen. David McKiernan to Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal suggests the new commander in chief wants major changes in addition to the additional troops he's ordering into Afghanistan to shore up the war effort.

McKiernan, on the job for less than a year, has repeatedly pressed for more forces. Although Obama has approved more than 21,000 additional troops this year, he has warned that the war will not be won by military means.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates echoed that view at a grim Pentagon news conference announcing the leadership overhaul. "As I have said many times before, very few of these problems can be solved by military means alone," he said. "And yet, from the military perspective, we can and must do better."

"It's time for new leadership and fresh eyes."

A new team of commanders will now be charged with applying Obama's revamped strategy for challenging an increasingly brutal and resourceful insurgency. The strategy, still a work in progress, relies on the kind of special forces and counterinsurgency tactics McChrystal knows well, as well as nonmilitary approaches to confronting the Taliban. It would hinge success in the seven-year-old war to political and other conditions across the border in Pakistan.

McKiernan, named to his post by former President George W. Bush, had expected to serve into next year but was told he was out during Gates' visit to Afghanistan last week.

Gates said he asked for McKiernan's resignation "with the approval of the president." The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, and McKiernan's military boss, Gen. David Petraeus, both said they supported the switch.

The White House said the recommended change came from the Pentagon.

"The president agreed with the recommendation of the secretary of defense and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that the implementation of a new strategy in Afghanistan called for new military leadership," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said in a statement.

McChrystal is a former special forces chief credited with nabbing one of the most-wanted fugitives in Iraq. Taking a newly created No. 2 slot under his command will be Lt. Gen. David Rodriguez, a veteran of the Afghanistan fight who has been Gates' military shadow, the top uniformed aide who travels with him everywhere.

By year's end, the United States will have more than 68,000 troops in the sprawling country — about double the total at the end of Bush's presidency but still far fewer than the 130,000 still in Iraq.

McKiernan and other U.S. commanders have said resources they need in Afghanistan are tied up in Iraq.

Although Obama had pledged to add forces in Afghanistan while shutting down the Iraq war, his new administration has sought firmer control over the pace and scope of any new deployments. Gates and Mullen have both warned Obama that a very large influx of U.S. troops would be self-defeating.

Asked if McKiernan's resignation would end his military career, Gates said, "Probably." But he praised the general's long service, and when pressed to name anything McKiernan had failed to do, Gates demurred.

"Nothing went wrong, and there was nothing specific," he said.

Gates, too, was appointed to his position by former President George W. Bush. He noted that the Afghan campaign has long lacked people and money in favor of the Bush administration's focus since 2003 on the Iraq war.

"But I believe, resources or no, that our mission there requires new thinking and new approaches from our military leaders," he said. "Today we have a new policy set by our new president. We have a new strategy, a new mission and a new ambassador. I believe that new military leadership also is needed."

McKiernan issued a short statement in Kabul.

"All of us, in any future capacity, must remain committed to the great people of Afghanistan," McKiernan said. "They deserve security, government that meets their expectations, and a better future than the last 30 years of conflict have witnessed."

In June 2006 Bush congratulated McChrystal for his role in the operation that killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq. As head of the special operations command, McChrystal's forces included the Army's clandestine counterterrorism unit, Delta Force.

He drew criticism for his role in the military's handling of the friendly fire shooting of Army Ranger Pat Tillman — a former NFL star — in Afghanistan. An investigation at the time found that McChrystal was "accountable for the inaccurate and misleading assertions" contained in papers recommending that Tillman get a Silver Star award.

McChrystal acknowledged he had suspected several days before approving the Silver Star citation that Tillman might have died by fratricide, rather than enemy fire. He sent a memo to military leaders warning them of that, even as they were approving Tillman's Silver Star. Still, he told investigators he believed Tillman deserved the award.

___

Associated Press writers Pauline Jelinek in Washington and Jason Straziuso in Kabul contributed to this report.


frequent change in cammand is sign of defeat ?

 

[S-2]

There ARE issues here. A sign of defeat? A sign of unhappiness. Gates will have his commanders and has no qualms about shedding blood to see his vision implemented.

It's o.k. McKiernan is a big boy and the ultimate purpose of any general is to fall on his sword for the greater good. Further, it's important to understand the leverage that Gates exerts. He is a cabinet holdover at one of the pre-eminent power positions in America. There's a reason for this.

The man is not infallible and may yet fall to achieve his objectives but Gates is tireless in the pursuit of such. Remember that while 30,000 troops have been called for by McKiernan and others and the President has suggested as much himself, Gates has largely declared that final 10,000 as over his dead body-meaning that any increase will come with him leaving DoD.

To some extent, I believe that's why we haven't seen a further commitment of 10,000 this year. B.O. may not yet be ready to select a new SECDEF and doesn't wish to precipitate a cabinet crisis right now.

JMHO.

 

[Luftwaffe]

no frequent change in command is not a sign of defeat its the objectives and the visions...you can read about General Wesley Clark and how he was relieved....

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

The U S army can do so much with the current number of troops at hand---but Gates does not want to hear that---instead of supporting his general and giving him the well needed troops---he turns around and fires him.

Would Gates have done the same thing with Norman Schwartzkopf---I doubt it very much---but then Norman had to deal with a better and more receptive sec def than Gates.

The only thing that will make the difference in afghanistan is the feet on the ground----afghanistan needs atleast 100k to 150k troops at hand----it is not iraq.

 

[pakomar]

Still not enough there should be thousands of cases of war crimes against US military.

 

[S-2]

It'll be interesting to read what transpires in the next few days. I suspect McKiernan will keep his mouth shut until retirement. I'd guess that shall be expedited. After that, he'll speak.

At that point, however recent, it'll be history. Gates and Petraeus are looking for a certain chemistry and, no doubt, Petraeus has a bevy of acolytes at this point from which to select.

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

Why the Pentagon Axed Its Afghan Warlord

By Mark Thompson / Washington
Tuesday, May. 12, 2009

Public beheadings in Afghanistan are usually associated with the Taliban, but on Monday it was Defense Secretary Robert Gates metaphorically wielding the axe from the Pentagon platform. Gates announced that he had asked for and requested the resignation of his top commander in Afghanistan, Army General David McKiernan, after only 11 months in that theater. The 37-year veteran will be replaced by Army Lieutenant General Stanley McChrystal. Army Lieutenant General David Rodriguez, the Defense Secretary's own top military aide, is to serve in a newly created post as McChrystal's deputy.
The move was yet another dose of accountability from Gates, who has previously cashiered officers for failing to tend to hospitalized troops or to secure nuclear weapons. But Monday's action was more momentous: It marked the first time a civilian has fired a wartime commander since President Harry Truman ousted General Douglas MacArthur in 1951 for questioning Truman's Korean War strategy. (See pictures of U.S. troops fighting in Afghanistan)

The Obama Administration has made Afghanistan the central front in the war on terror over the past month, it had concluded that McKiernan's tenure there had involved too much wheel-spinning even as the Taliban extended its reach. There was not enough of the "new thinking" demanded by Gates. "It's time for new leadership and fresh eyes," Gates said, refusing to elaborate. He noted that Joints Chiefs of Staff chairman Admiral Mike Mullen, and General David Petraeus, who as chief of U.S. Central Command oversees the Afghan war, had endorsed the move. Officers have typically served about 24 months in the slot, meaning McKiernan had served less than half his expected tour.

Military experts anticipate that U.S. policy in Afghanistan more militarily pointed as well as politically deft, once McChrystal and Rodrigues, his 1976 West Point classmate and fellow Afghan vet, are confirmed by the Senate. "McKiernan did his best — he was just the wrong guy," says retired Army officer and military analyst Ralph Peters. "McChrystal will ask for more authority, not more troops." By the end of this year, the U.S. expects to have close to 70,000 troops in Afghanistan, including 21,000 ordered there by Obama. While that's just half the 130,000 troops the U.S. maintains in Iraq, Gates has been leery of sending further reinforcements.

McChrystal proved adept at using intelligence to multiply the impact of the troops at his disposal when he commanded U.S. Special Forces in Iraq as they hunted down and killed al-Qaeda leaders such as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. And unlike what some call McKiernan's "shy" demeanor and his desire — in Army parlance — to "stay inside his lane," McChrystal is eager to take the spotlight. He's also expected to challenge behavior of the Afghan government that undermines the war effort: One official on the Joint Chiefs of Staff expects McChrystal to warn President Hamid Karzai to shut down drug running operations that fund the Taliban, even when their networks run uncomfortably close to his government. "[McChrystal] will tell him: 'If you don't clean this up, I will.' "

Not everyone welcomed the change, however. Some viewed McKiernan's firing as unfair, noting that he had inherited command of an under-resourced Afghan theater that had been a secondary priority to Iraq. "In Afghanistan, we do what we can," Mullen himself had said in December 2007. "In Iraq, we do what we must." And while McKiernan was given his Afghan command during the Bush Administration, it had been Gates who had appointed him — at Mullen's recommendation.

Gates took pains on Monday to avoid criticizing McKiernan. He told the four-star general that his Army career was effectively over during a face-to-face meeting in Afghanistan last week. "This was a kick in the teeth, but McKiernan took it extraordinarily well," a senior Pentagon official said. Other military officials were less courteous. "I still can't figure out why they put an armored guy with no Afghan experience in charge" one said. A second senior official said "Dave McKiernan is clearly part of the Army's old guard — he led troops in [1991's] Desert Storm, for pete's sake. But if things were going better over there, he'd be staying."

Gates has long demonstrated an impatience with war-time commanders who passively wait for the military hierarchy to give them what they need. He was stunned at the military's foot-dragging when he ordered additional armored vehicles and drone aircraft to the Afghan and Iraq wars.Even though McKiernan's dismissal had been in the works prior to Gates' trip to Afghanistan last week (Mullen had warned McKiernan two weeks ago that it was coming), Gates was incensed by some of what he witnessed during that visit. Several troops complained that they lacked basic gear after arriving in Afghanistan. "It is a considerable concern to me," he said last Thursday, brushing off a suggestion that the Taliban or the priority given to Iraq had been to blame for the Afghan shortfalls. "It's more, really, a logistical challenge than it is anything else," Gates said. That, one of the defense chief's top aides said, is an unacceptable failure in a theater of war. "McKiernan never quite figured out how to ensure that he would succeed — he was still too dependent on the organization coming to his rescue," he said. "Sadly, this institution doesn't always do that."

Why the Pentagon Axed Its Afghan Warlord - TIME

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

The only thing that will make the difference in afghanistan is the feet on the ground----afghanistan needs atleast 100k to 150k troops at hand----it is not iraq.

When the Sovits were in Afghanistan their 40th Army had a strength of 115k-150k. They were even supported by the reasonable numbers of Armord Units and Gunships. But they still lost the battle.
The point is Afghanistan is a theatre which dosent supports conventional warfare. Its more an information and logistical war than a conventional one.

Lets hope the new general comes in better BOOTS than the previous one.

 

[JK!]

When the Sovits were in Afghanistan their 40th Army had a strength of 115k-150k. They were even supported by the reasonable numbers of Armord Units and Gunships. But they still lost the battle.
The point is Afghanistan is a theatre which dosent supports conventional warfare. Its more an information and logistical war than a conventional one.

Lets hope the new general comes in better BOOTS than the previous one.

Yes but to fight the asymetric terrosrist fighters you need asymetric troops and thats what it seems General McCrystal specialises in.

The Soviet army as you have stated consisted of armoured columns mainly but Spetnatz units deployed by the hind gunships did have successes against the mujahideen.

Lets hope this guy can deliver.

 

[SQ8]

They can deploy terminators down there for all I care.. History is testament to the Afghan terrain.. It has destroyed countless empires.. and brought down mighty armies.
The best thing for the Americans to do.. is find a poor afghan.. nip & tuck him into looking like Bin laden.. do another Mission accomplished.. and get the Heck outta there before it becomes another Vietnam. Btw.. does anyone remember what happened to Cambodia during that war.. hmm??

 

[S-2]

"...Gates has been leery of sending further reinforcements."

This is key. For those who've tracked this story, they know that Gates contenanced the 21,000 new troops. However, he's basically said the last 10,000 would be over his dead body.

I predict that will come next year when we look to move those troops in-country. In the interim, I think Gates is correct that a fresh look is needed. There's little point to adding troops until you know where, what, and why they're being added.

I know the knee-jerk reaction to my above comment but Gates, I believe, is saying,

"Get your operational approach really firmed up and optimize the troops you have before reaching for more. Train the ANA to accountable standards if you wish for troops. There they are."

This is absolutely necessary if there's going to be an enduring solution to Afghanistan. To that end, a former SOF commander with long operational and host-nation training support might be valuable.

Finally, Lincoln ran through a bevy of generals to find one with whom he could feel comfortable- McDowell, McClellan, Burnside, Hooker, Meade and, finally, Grant. They're expendable and since bullets don't kill them, unless a SECDEF does now and again, these guys might think they walk on water.

I really like Gates even when I'm not sure I agree with him. He doesn't fcuk around nor does he needlessly throw his weight around. He's not afraid to do so, though, and he does so looking for improvement. Always improvement.

He's a very effective executive in my view.

 

[fatman17]

Why the Pentagon Axed Its Afghan Warlord

By MARK THOMPSON / WASHINGTON Mark Thompson / Washington

Public beheadings in Afghanistan are usually associated with the Taliban, but on Monday it was Defense Secretary Robert Gates metaphorically wielding the axe from the Pentagon platform. Gates announced that he had asked for and requested the resignation of his top commander in Afghanistan, Army General David McKiernan, after only 11 months in that theater. The 37-year veteran will be replaced by Army Lieutenant General Stanley McChrystal. Army Lieutenant General David Rodriguez, the Defense Secretary's own top military aide, is to serve in a newly created post as McChrystal's deputy.


The move was yet another dose of accountability from Gates, who has previously cashiered officers for failing to tend to hospitalized troops or to secure nuclear weapons. But Monday's action was more momentous: It marked the first time a civilian has fired a wartime commander since President Harry Truman ousted General Douglas MacArthur in 1951 for questioning Truman's Korean War strategy. (See pictures of U.S. troops fighting in Afghanistan.)


The Obama Administration has made Afghanistan the central front in the war on terror over the past month, it had concluded that McKiernan's tenure there had involved too much wheel-spinning even as the Taliban extended its reach. There was not enough of the "new thinking" demanded by Gates. "It's time for new leadership and fresh eyes," Gates said, refusing to elaborate. He noted that Joints Chiefs of Staff chairman Admiral Mike Mullen, and General David Petraeus, who as chief of U.S. Central Command oversees the Afghan war, had endorsed the move. Officers have typically served about 24 months in the slot, meaning McKiernan had served less than half his expected tour.


Military experts anticipate that U.S. policy in Afghanistan more militarily pointed as well as politically deft, once McChrystal and Rodrigues, his 1976 West Point classmate and fellow Afghan vet, are confirmed by the Senate. "McKiernan did his best - he was just the wrong guy," says retired Army officer and military analyst Ralph Peters. "McChrystal will ask for more authority, not more troops." By the end of this year, the U.S. expects to have close to 70,000 troops in Afghanistan, including 21,000 ordered there by Obama. While that's just half the 130,000 troops the U.S. maintains in Iraq, Gates has been leery of sending further reinforcements. (Read TIME's 2-Min. Bio of McChrystal.)


McChrystal proved adept at using intelligence to multiply the impact of the troops at his disposal when he commanded U.S. Special Forces in Iraq as they hunted down and killed al-Qaeda leaders such as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. And unlike what some call McKiernan's "shy" demeanor and his desire - in Army parlance - to "stay inside his lane," McChrystal is eager to take the spotlight. He's also expected to challenge behavior of the Afghan government that undermines the war effort: One official on the Joint Chiefs of Staff expects McChrystal to warn President Hamid Karzai to shut down drug running operations that fund the Taliban, even when their networks run uncomfortably close to his government. "[McChrystal] will tell him: 'If you don't clean this up, I will.' "


Not everyone welcomed the change, however. Some viewed McKiernan's firing as unfair, noting that he had inherited command of an under-resourced Afghan theater that had been a secondary priority to Iraq. "In Afghanistan, we do what we can," Mullen himself had said in December 2007. "In Iraq, we do what we must." And while McKiernan was given his Afghan command during the Bush Administration, it had been Gates who had appointed him - at Mullen's recommendation.


Gates took pains on Monday to avoid criticizing McKiernan. He told the four-star general that his Army career was effectively over during a face-to-face meeting in Afghanistan last week. "This was a kick in the teeth, but McKiernan took it extraordinarily well," a senior Pentagon official said. Other military officials were less courteous. "I still can't figure out why they put an armored guy with no Afghan experience in charge" one said. A second senior official said "Dave McKiernan is clearly part of the Army's old guard - he led troops in [1991's] Desert Storm, for pete's sake. But if things were going better over there, he'd be staying."


Gates has long demonstrated an impatience with war-time commanders who passively wait for the military hierarchy to give them what they need. He was stunned at the military's foot-dragging when he ordered additional armored vehicles and drone aircraft to the Afghan and Iraq wars.Even though McKiernan's dismissal had been in the works prior to Gates' trip to Afghanistan last week (Mullen had warned McKiernan two weeks ago that it was coming), Gates was incensed by some of what he witnessed during that visit. Several troops complained that they lacked basic gear after arriving in Afghanistan. "It is a considerable concern to me," he said last Thursday, brushing off a suggestion that the Taliban or the priority given to Iraq had been to blame for the Afghan shortfalls. "It's more, really, a logistical challenge than it is anything else," Gates said. That, one of the defense chief's top aides said, is an unacceptable failure in a theater of war. "McKiernan never quite figured out how to ensure that he would succeed - he was still too dependent on the organization coming to his rescue," he said. "Sadly, this institution doesn't always do that."


View this article on Time.com

 

[waraich66]

My question is what newly appointed general could do now which his predessor failed to do in last seven years.

Remember after 2011 US can not enjoy support of NATO countries declared withdraw of forces before by 2011.

Now success of failure of US depend on Pakistan sucess againt talaban to restore supply line of US .

It means ball is in our court ,Pakistan should play it wisely, best chance to get rides of 40 Bill USD debt?

 

[MastanKhan]

When the Sovits were in Afghanistan their 40th Army had a strength of 115k-150k. They were even supported by the reasonable numbers of Armord Units and Gunships. But they still lost the battle.
The point is Afghanistan is a theatre which dosent supports conventional warfare. Its more an information and logistical war than a conventional one.

Lets hope the new general comes in better BOOTS than the previous one.

Hi,

Members should understand by now how wars are fought----just winging it is not good enough---.

The afghans sent russians packing because of he weapons support and training from the u s of a---there is no weapons support for the taliban now except for small arms---you can have resistance---but you can't win wars with them.

The mujahideen cause was dead---the russians were about to wipe off all the afghan resistance---the americans gave them another life.

Whatever is happening in afghanistan today, is something totally different than what happened in the past. There is a totally different kind of game being played now.

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

Hi,

Members should understand by now how wars are fought----just winging it is not good enough---.

The afghans sent russians packing because of he weapons support and training from the u s of a---there is no weapons support for the taliban now except for small arms---you can have resistance---but you can't win wars with them.

The mujahideen cause was dead---the russians were about to wipe off all the afghan resistance---the americans gave them another life.

Whatever is happening in afghanistan today, is something totally different than what happened in the past. There is a totally different kind of game being played now.

Yup i do understand your point. But whatever hapenin out there is seriously affecting Pakistan. And Our nation has been draged in this game . But i would ask one thing how long would this game will continue some day its gona end?

The Asymtric Enemy is at our doorsteps watchin our every move weakening us day by day so that it could start the final adventure.