McChrystal to replace McKiernan

Those generals have a tough job in Afghanistan. McKiernan never had enough boots on the ground.

Best of luck to Generals McCrystal and Rodriguez. Weren't they classmates at West Point, class of 1976?
 
Here is an interesting article at Time.com:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1897555,00.html

I found this particularly interesting -
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 MacArthur in 1951 for questioning Truman's Korean War strategy
Click to expand...

Inlinelast - You could be right - McKiernan didn't have enough boots on the ground as Afghanistan has been largely ignored to concentrate on Iraq. It appears there are differences in leadership that Gates and Petraeus wanted to correct. The firing was indeed publically humiliating for McKiernan. It does send the message that the current administration is ready to get serious about Afghanistan.

Funny you should mention that McChrystal and Rodrigues were classmates at West Point. In fact, it occured to me last night that our wars are being lead by West Pointers:
Petraeus - Commander of US Central Command; Class of 1974
Odierno - Commanding General Multi-National Force Iraq, Class of 1976
McChrystal - selected for Commander; International Security Assistance Force and Commander, USFOR-A; Class of 1976
Rodriguez - selected for Deputy Commander, USFOR-A; Class of 1976


Almost looks like General Petraeus is the "big brother", it also makes me further question if Tom Ricks knew what he was talking about. I guess writing a piece about why we should continue to support West Point and the other Service Academies would be boring.
 
An interesting Blog from Michael Yon on the relief of Gen McKiernan.
It's interesting - It is not all that clear why McKiernan was relieved- he had been on the ground about 10 months I think - did ask for significantly more troops than the Administration provided. That doesn't really seem like a cause for relief though- I suspect that it is more related to President Karzai's comments the other day about friendly casualties undermining the civilian loyalty. Don't guess we're gonna know for sure. LTG McChrystal is a special ops guy who commanded JSOC so this may be an indicator that Gen Petreaous is looking at a less conventional approach despite the increase in conventional units in country.
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/gates-petraeus-mckiernan-mcchrystal-and-rodriguez.htm
 
This thread caught my eye and I felt it was important to note that GEN David Mckiernan was perhaps one of the most respected armor officers and general officers on active duty throughout his years of service. Military officers and the public at large had a deep sense of sympathy for the general because they all knew that he deserved much better than this. The move was all political. He was clearly a victim of the Bush/Cheney Administration and a victim ignorance with the new administration. Thankfully General Mckiernan enjoyed full military honors in his retirement ceremony. The Chief of Staff of the Army and the Secretary of Defense were both present to list his great accomplishments.

"Sympathy ran high for McKiernan among Army officers because, they said, the relative shortage of U.S. troops in Afghanistan had tied his hands in combating a deepening insurgency.

McKiernan "was running a very under-resourced theater and doing as well as anyone could expect," said one senior officer. This officer and others would discuss their views only on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak for the record.

Moreover, officers said, McKiernan, who was admired as a solid commander and one with integrity, did not deserve to have his career ended by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates requesting his resignation.
ad_icon

"I am disappointed for General McKiernan to go out this way," the officer said. "I don't think that this sort of an ending to his career is fair."

-Washington Post
Click to expand...


Another article by Paul Farnan - Defending General David Mckiernan

Defending Gen. McKiernan


KABUL, Afghanistan -- Since the sudden announcement by Defense Secretary Robert Gates that the United States was changing commanders in Afghanistan, much has been written about the "inadequacies" of the departing commander, Gen. David McKiernan. The charges include that he is overly conventional, that he is too focused on big-army tactics, and that he does not understand the nature of the insurgency and what is required to defeat it. I have spent the past year in Afghanistan working directly for McKiernan. I have seen his tactics and his beliefs in action. America deserves to know what David McKiernan has accomplished here.
This Story

*
Defending Gen. McKiernan
*
Remember Them, Too
*
Memorial Day

Over the past year, I have seen our focus in Afghanistan shift from kinetic military operations to one of engaging the population, building the capacity of the Afghan government, and ensuring that the military's top priority is the training and mentoring of the Afghan army and police. Integrated strategic planning with the United Nations and the Afghan government is now the rule rather than the exception, as it was when McKiernan arrived last June. The general has traveled around the country and has held countless forums, known as shuras, with Afghans in various localities. He has engaged local and provincial leaders one on one to hear their concerns and ensure that they understood the intentions of the international coalition. All of our Special Forces operations combined cannot win the support of the Afghan people the way these shuras do.

As important as these conversations are, talk goes only so far, and Afghans have heard endless talk over the past 7 1/2 years. McKiernan has followed talk with action. He issued a tactical directive last year emphasizing the strategic victory gained by avoiding civilian casualties over a tactical victory that may or may not advance our long-term cause. He stressed the need for soldiers to obey traffic laws and to stop running Afghans off roads but still maintained the force protection measures necessary to safeguard our troops. To some, traffic laws may seem inconsequential in a combat zone, but to Afghans this is home. These are their roads, and how we behave on them matters. McKiernan realized that after more than seven years, our small, everyday actions count as much to the Afghan people as our bigger actions do. All the while, he continued to direct the necessary military operations and ensured that operations were focused on securing the population for the long term, not just increasing the body count of our enemies.
ad_icon

Gen. McKiernan has said many times that we will never win the "hearts and minds" of the Afghan people but we can win their support, though we will not do that through military operations alone.

This struggle is not about killing insurgents. We have killed more insurgents than we can count over the past seven years and have moved no closer to victory by doing so. This struggle is about the Afghan population. Afghans must believe that their government will provide them greater security and opportunity for prosperity than the insurgency will. We are not naive; we know that military operations must continue and that some people must be killed -- but under McKiernan a more holistic approach to winning the peace has been our focus. These are the "conventional" tactics he has been employing.

To those who say we have moved too slowly, to those looking for the quick fix or fast score that will enable our forces to come home, I urge caution.

This will take time. A new society cannot be established overnight, and the United States cannot build a society for the Afghans. In a country that has lost a generation to 30 years of war, it will take longer than many may have the patience for, but we must take the time if we are to succeed so that our children will not have to return one day to finish the work on which we gave up. This long-term outlook may not have won McKiernan much support back home, but it has guided his actions for the past year, and therein lies the best hope for both the Afghan and American people.

Those of us who have had the privilege to work with him here believe in Gen. David McKiernan and what he has accomplished. We have seen the difference he has made. But, more important, we believe in the mission.

The reasons we came here after Sept. 11, 2001, still exist, and if we fail, we do so at the peril of our nation. I am sad to see Gen. McKiernan go; his departure will be a great loss to our mission. But I wish Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal and his team success, and I stand by to support them in any way I can. This mission is too important to our nation and the world to do any less.
Click to expand...


The appointment of GEN McChrystal as the commander of Afghanistan is perhaps one of the more controversial moves that this administration could have made...especially with his highly dark and questionable record. On another note, I don't think it is amazing that West Point grads now dominate the Wars in the Middle East either. As CENTCOM commander, I'm sure GEN Petraeus had some say in who got appointed to these positions. If he is playing the "big brother" role with his classmates, then there is something seriously wrong since sources of commissioning shouldn't matter in today's Army. I hope this is not the case.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top