View Full Version : Pentagon's Top Commander in Afghanistan to be Replaced
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/11/pentagons-commander-afghanistan-replaced/
Gen. David McKiernan is out as the Defense Department implements a new strategy for Afghanistan, a senior defense official told FOX News on Monday.
The announcement is expected to be made by Defense Secretary Robert Gates at an afternoon Pentagon briefing.
McKiernan has been the top general for NATO and U.S. forces in Afghanistan. The official who spoke on condition of anonymity as the announcement had not yet been made characterized the decision as one that was not McKiernan's and said McKiernan is not stepping down, but is being replaced.
"We have a new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan and with that it is appropriate to have a fresh set of eyes, new leadership to execute that strategy," the official said.
Gen. Stanley McChrystal, current head of Special Operations Command, is said to be the replacement, according to this official. Some role may also be offered to Lt. Gen. David M. Rodriguez, Gates' top military adviser.
McKiernan was named the top commander in Afghanistan in June 2008. Prior to that he led all U.S. and coalition forces in the ground war in Iraq in March 2003. Afterward he became commander of all U.S. forces in Europe.
The Reaper
05-11-2009, 12:30
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/11/pentagons-commander-afghanistan-replaced/
Gen. David McKiernan is out as the Defense Department implements a new strategy for Afghanistan, a senior defense official told FOX News on Monday.
The announcement is expected to be made by Defense Secretary Robert Gates at an afternoon Pentagon briefing.
McKiernan has been the top general for NATO and U.S. forces in Afghanistan. The official who spoke on condition of anonymity as the announcement had not yet been made characterized the decision as one that was not McKiernan's and said McKiernan is not stepping down, but is being replaced.
"We have a new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan and with that it is appropriate to have a fresh set of eyes, new leadership to execute that strategy," the official said.
Gen. Stanley McChrystal, current head of Special Operations Command, is said to be the replacement, according to this official. Some role may also be offered to Lt. Gen. David M. Rodriguez, Gates' top military adviser.
McKiernan was named the top commander in Afghanistan in June 2008. Prior to that he led all U.S. and coalition forces in the ground war in Iraq in March 2003. Afterward he became commander of all U.S. forces in Europe.
I was unaware that LTG McChrystal was the commander of Special Operations Command.
Someone better tell Admiral Olson to get out of his office.
TR
Bordercop
05-11-2009, 12:40
NAME _ Lt. Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal
EXPERIENCE _ Director of The Joint Staff, August 2008-present; Commander, Joint Special Operations Command and commander, Joint Special Operations Command Forward, 2006-2008; commanding general, Joint Special Operations Command, 2003-06; vice director for operations, J-3 The Joint Staff, 2002-03; chief of staff, XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg, 2001-02; assistant division commander for operations, 82d Airborne Divisionp; commander, 75th Ranger Regiment, 1997-99.
EDUCATION _ B.S., U.S. Military Academy; M.A. in national security and strategic studies, U.S. Naval War College; M.S. in international relations, Salve Regina University.
Slantwire
05-11-2009, 12:51
I was unaware that GEN McChrystal was the commander of Special Operations Command.
Someone better tell Admiral Olsen to get out of his office.
TR
Reporter probably got that little nugget from Wikipedia.
I knew Stan as an ODA CDR in 1-7th (he had A-714 and I had A-726) - his father was a three star, too, and Stan's eyes were always focused on reaching for the stars - Stan was more conventional/DA than UW minded and was in SF minimal time before moving off - wonder what this means for the OEF crowd if it's true.
His full bio: http://www.jcs.mil/biography.aspx?ID=15
Richard's $.02 :munchin
A little over a year as a Team Leader and then, for the most part, back to the Rangers.
The Reaper
05-11-2009, 13:31
I knew Stan as an ODA CDR in 1-7th (he had A-714 and I had A-726) - his father was a three star, too, and Stan's eyes were always focused on reaching for the stars - Stan was more conventional/DA than UW minded and was in SF minimal time before moving off - wonder what this means for the OEF crowd if it's true.
His full bio: http://www.jcs.mil/biography.aspx?ID=15
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Hmm, I had no idea he was SF at all.
I have seen him a half-dozen times, but do not recall seeing him with an SF Tab. Maybe it was because he was the Ranger Regimental CO at the time. He surely has done SF no favors (and quite a few slights) that I can recall.
I agree, a very political animal, and not a friend of SF.
TR
I was unaware that GEN McChrystal was the commander of Special Operations Command.
Someone better tell Admirtal Olsen to get out of his office.
TR
Should have caught that in the initial post.
I wonder what part of the "new strategy" the old set of eyes didn't agree with?
The Reaper
05-11-2009, 13:37
IMHO, LTG McChrystal's strategy will be to try and kill his way to success, and screw the hearts and minds business. DA all day, every day.
This should create an interesting dynamic with GEN Petraeus.:munchin
TR
IMHO, LTG McChrystal's strategy will be to try and kill his way to success, and screw the hearts and minds business. DA all day, every day.
This should create an interesting dynamic with GEN Petraeus.:munchin
TR
On the surface that's what his bio suggests. That though, is against the rhetoric that we've heard coming out of the administration. And we have been fairly kinetic in Afghanistan at least in the South and on the East coast.
I wouldn't think that the "new" strategy would be to be MORE kinetic.:confused:
The President says he's out - by the recommendation of the Pentagon Crowd.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090511/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_us_afghanistan
I guess you can say "He owns it now."
"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...."
The Reaper
05-11-2009, 16:58
The President says he's out - by the recommendation of the Pentagon Crowd.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090511/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_us_afghanistan
I guess you can say "He owns it now."
"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...."
Someone may be learning the difference between Special Forces, and SOF.
TR
MARSOC0211
05-11-2009, 18:29
I hope this is not a result of actions taken by our guys in Farrah. Definately not something we need now. As far as the comments pertaining to DA all the time, well...
We'll see how this plays out.
Hopefully he won't repeat mistakes of the past conflicts.
DA all the time is NOT the answer. There must be a balance which leads to DA based on certain things happening first. These things take time, in some cases decades.
If all you want to do is DA, there are openings with the Rangers.
Someone may be learning the difference between Special Forces, and SOF.
TR
SF....SOF... whatever. It's all the same. Right?:rolleyes: In all seriousness it is all the same in the eyes of "Big Army" where I think this message was directed.
"Conventional Commander replaced with a Special Operator" sends a message to the establishment. This is the same "contra-conventional" message sent by putting a airlift guy in charge of the air-force. curtailing the big fighter buys, reducing the total planned number of carriers, etc. etc.
Whether the General is the right guy for the job or not, I'm not qualified to say.
I do, however find it interesting.
charlietwo
05-11-2009, 19:53
Whether the General is the right guy for the job or not, I'm not qualified to say.
I do, however find it interesting.
Nothing better than high-level entertainment :)
MARSOC0211
05-11-2009, 19:57
We'll see how this plays out.
Hopefully he won't repeat mistakes of the past conflicts.
DA all the time is NOT the answer. There must be a balance which leads to DA based on certain things happening first. These things take time, in some cases decades.
If all you want to do is DA, there are openings with the Rangers.
I completly concur, I just wish we would focus on some of the other mission sets besides DA and SR. It is just hard for most jarheads to understand the BW&T concept of UW and the overall importance of FID. For whatever reason all they really think about is the "sexy" DA aspect.
Surgicalcric
05-11-2009, 20:13
...It is just hard for most jarheads to understand the BW&T concept of UW and the overall importance of FID...
Its a mindset issue that plagues the military as a whole, not just Marines. Some have the mindset to think outside the box, others not so much.
Hopefully LTG McChrystal will fix some of the issues thats been holding us (SF) back over the past few years having a conventionally minded/risk-averse commander at the helm... We shall see.
bailaviborita
05-11-2009, 23:03
According to STRATFOR: http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20090511_afghanistan_and_u_s_strategic_debate there is a battle between Patreus and Gates/Pres Obama.
If Stratfor is right, and Gates wants to cut a deal with the Taliban and keep pounding AQ- then McChrystal might make sense. Stratfor posits that the new strategy has a very limited goal: denial of AQ bases. That means kinetic strikes.
This may be realpolitik at its most extreme- the thought being we messed up by putting our money on a central govt. and now we have to be happy with a more limited and realistic goal. Stopping drugs, securing the border, and building an effective central government just won't work- so better to redefine success and eventually get out.
I just hope the new team doesn't follow the JFK/Johnson doctrine of ignoring mil advice (Patreus in this case) and trying to manage things overseas in favor of focusing on domestic issues. Not that I disagree that reframing strategic goals isn't a good thing- or that the ones they've supposedly established are bad- but this will be interesting to see how it plays out: just when SOCOM had started to embrace COIN over DA it looks like the new NCA might have trumped them...
SMcC has always been a fair-haired son with strong rabbi's within the DOD. This appointment will give him his fondest wish - to trump his father's three stars and attain four stars. Beyond that, time will tell. I have doubts as to whether or not he'll be a David Petraeus type theater-level commander - but somebody obviously thinks so.
Richard's $.02 :munchin
SMcC has always been a fair-haired son with strong rabbi's within the DOD. This appointment will give him his fondest wish - to trump his father's three stars and attain four stars. Beyond that, time will tell. I have doubts as to whether or not he'll be a David Petraeus type theater-level commander - but somebody obviously thinks so.
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Richard
You are so right. I have known him since he was a 1LT and he is a Political animal. He has always had stars in his future and he will not rock the boat if it means 4 stars or say the right thing.
I think he could do good but only time will tell. He should not be sonsidered SF as 1 yr in group means nothing and he went to the Ranger side and climbed the ladder where he thought it would get him his stars.
Good Luck Stan.......
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.
Ain't that special.
The Reaper
05-12-2009, 08:10
Ain't that special.
The Commissar.
TR
Ret10Echo
05-12-2009, 08:16
The Commissar.
TR
Concur,
The "Political Officer"....how Soviet of them.
Warrior-Mentor
05-12-2009, 08:58
Thought you might find this interesting:
http://experts.foreignpolicy.com/blog/7054
Foreign Policy
Andrew Exum's blog
McKiernan out, McChrystal in
Make no mistake, McKiernan was fired to put the varsity team on the field.
By Andrew Exum
[Yesterday], I delivered a lunchtime talk on the evolution of U.S. counterinsurgency doctrine to a group of visiting officers and diplomats hailing from various countries across the Middle East and Central Asia. When I stepped out of my talk, I was then ushered into the office of LTG (Ret.) David Barno, the former commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, a god of the light infantry and Ranger communities, and a man for whom I have a lot of respect -- and all the time in the world.
"There, uh, was some news that was announced while you were in class," the general said to me. I'll say!
_______________
WASHINGTON - The Pentagon is replacing the top American commander in Afghanistan, Gen. David McKiernan, less than a year after he took over, marking a major overhaul in military leadership of a war that has presented President Obama with a worsening national security challenge.
Defense officials said that General McKiernan was removed because of what they described as a conventional approach to what has become one of the most complicated military challenges in American history. He is to be replaced by Lt. Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, a former commander of the Joint Special Operations Command who recently ran all special operations in Iraq.
The decision reflects a belief that the war in Afghanistan has grown so complex that it needs a commander drawn from the military's unconventional warfare branch.
"Our mission there requires new thinking and new approaches by our military leaders," said Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates at a news conference this afternoon announcing General McKiernan's dismissal.
Mr. Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, offered few reasons for General McKiernan's ouster beyond generalities that "fresh eyes" were needed. "Nothing went wrong and there was nothing specific," Mr. Gates said. It was simply his conviction, he added, "that a new approach was probably in our best interest."
In February, Mr. Obama announced a new strategy, a troop increase and a broader commitment to civilian instruction for the war in Afghanistan.
General McKiernan had served in his current command for only 11 months, while such tours are usually two years or more.
General McChrystal, a West Point graduate who served in Afghanistan as chief of staff of the military operations there in 2001 and 2002, also commanded the 75th Ranger Regiment and served tours in Saudi Arabia during the Persian Gulf war in 1991."
_______________
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 kind of 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.
Defender968
05-12-2009, 09:16
He has always had stars in his future and he will not rock the boat if it means 4 stars or say the right thing.
I don't mean to highjack this thread, but this statement brings to mind a question I've been trying to find an answer to. I'm new to the Army, I left the AF for lots of reasons one of which was that ALL of the leaders in the AF I interacted with were risk averse, self centered, had no idea about the current fights in either Iraq or Afghanistan, and were too concerned with not rocking the boat to make any decisions 99% of the time, they simply kicked the can down the road so to speak so as to not upset anyone and jeopardize promotions.
Now I am not so young or naive to think the Army will not suffer from it's fair share of political officers, but I wonder how many are of the don't rock the boat mentality. The reason I ask is I've always been the guy calling the baby ugly (as politely as I can) and as such I've gotten kicked for it (several times). I don't think I'm ever going to be the political tow the party line kind of guy. If something is broken I'm the kind of guy who wants to fix the problem even if that's unpleasant. I realize that rocking the boat will likely limit my promotion potential (and I'm ok with that), but what I'm wondering is what is the best way to do what's right for my troops if and when I find myself working for a don't rock the boat kind of officer in the Army. In the past I've found that pushing for what's right can and often did put not just me but my squadron/troops in the dog house because I as an officer was creating waves to do what was right.
Any thoughts would be appreciated.
If this needs to be broken off into a seperate thread I apologize.
The reason I ask is I've always been the guy calling the baby ugly (as politely as I can)...
Honesty can be admirable, but be careful not to fall into the trap of believing everybody's baby is ugly except yours.
bluenote
05-12-2009, 19:16
The Tillman family doesn't want McChrystal in Afghanistan. The story is here:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090512/ap_on_go_ot/us_afghanistan_general
WASHINGTON – The parents of slain Army Ranger and NFL star Pat Tillman voiced concerns Tuesday that the general who played a role in mischaracterizing his death could be put in charge of military operations in Afghanistan.
In a brief interview with The Associated Press, Pat Tillman Sr. accused Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal of covering up the circumstances of the 2004 slaying.
"I do believe that guy participated in a falsified homicide investigation," Pat Tillman Sr. said.
Separately, Mary Tillman called it "imperative" that McChrystal's record be carefully considered before he is confirmed.
Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said Defense Secretary Robert Gates has complete confidence in McChrystal, whom he hopes can be confirmed by the Senate before month's end.
"We feel terrible for what the Tillman family went through, but this matter has been investigated thoroughly by the Pentagon, by the Congress, by outside experts, and all of them have come to the same conclusion: that there was no wrongdoing by Gen. McChrystal," Morrell said.
Aides to the top Democrat and Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, which will consider the nomination, said they were unaware of any opposition to McChrystal.
McChrystal, a former "black ops" special forces chief credited with nabbing one of the most-wanted fugitives in Iraq, was tapped Monday to lead U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan. If confirmed by the Senate, he would replace Gen. David McKiernan, who was fired in an unusual wartime shake-up.
In April 2004, McChrystal approved paperwork awarding Tillman a Silver Star after he was killed by enemy fire — even though he suspected the Ranger had died by fratricide, according to Pentagon testimony later obtained by the AP.
The testimony showed that McChrystal sent a memo to top generals imploring "our nation's leaders," specifically the president, to avoid cribbing the "devastating enemy fire" explanation from the award citation for their speeches. In 2007, the Army overruled a Pentagon recommendation that McChrystal be held accountable for his "misleading" actions.
In a book published last year, Mary Tillman accused McChrystal of helping create the false story line that she said "diminished Pat's true actions."
Her one-sentence e-mail to the AP on Tuesday said: "It is imperative that Lt. General McChrystal be scrutinized carefully during the Senate hearings."
Last year, however, the Senate unanimously approved promoting McChrystal from a two-star general to a three-star general as director of the Pentagon's Joint Staff.
Similarly, this time around, Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., "does not foresee any problems with Gen. McChrystal's confirmation" with the committee, a Levin aide said Tuesday.
Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the committee's top Republican, backs the decision to change leadership in Afghanistan and will support McChrystal's nomination, said Brooke Buchanan, a McCain spokeswoman.
McCain was highly critical of the Army's handling of the Tillman investigation, and in April 2007 he called the service's actions "inexcusable and unconscionable."
Tillman's parents want general's record reviewed
Lara Jakes, AP, 11 May 2009
The parents of slain Army Ranger and NFL star Pat Tillman voiced concerns Tuesday that the general who played a role in mischaracterizing his death could be put in charge of military operations in Afghanistan.
And here we go...:(
Richard's $.02 :munchin
I was wondering how long it would take her to chime in.....
bailaviborita
05-12-2009, 20:43
I'm wondering is what is the best way to do what's right for my troops if and when I find myself working for a don't rock the boat kind of officer in the Army. In the past I've found that pushing for what's right can and often did put not just me but my squadron/troops in the dog house because I as an officer was creating waves to do what was right.
Any thoughts would be appreciated.
I'd say you have to first acknowledge these facts:
- that there is a system
- the system is part-political
- the system has morphed into a complex bureaucracy
- you serve at the pleasure of the nation- not your troops
- the pleasure of the nation is what the political leaders say it is
So, if you are to be a leader in the military, you must understand that politics is how the system operates. If you fail to understand that and don't pick your fights wisely, you will do your troops a disservice. Many a leader decides to fall on his sword for every cause and ends up getting fired and/or his troops getting screwed. So, first lesson would be to pick your fights wisely. Stand up when it really means something, but not all the time.
Second lesson to learn is that what you think is in the interest of your troops might not always be in the overall interest of ALL troops- or the American people. The lower you are, the less you can sometimes see the overall picture. Sometimes you have to trust that your perception isn't always the most applicable in all situations. In short, being a team player sometimes feels like being political- but in reality it is just being a team player. Don't be a conspiracy theorist- there are a "few" good officers still in... ;)
Last lesson I'd offer is that if you really do have a "political" officer over you- who doesn't care about anything else, then you have to play your cards right. You can still many times avoid screwing the troops and still accomplish the mission. It means you have to be a step ahead of higher, you have to be on top of your game, you have to care, you can't be lazy, and you have to build informal relationships with higher staffs- at multiple levels.
By understanding the politics involved you can navigate your way around them, support your subordinates, and get the mission accomplished. Some may say you are playing politics- and even accuse you of it. Screw them. Your guys will know who you are, and if you get things done, you'll come out on top.
But, go ahead and forget the notion that every leader lives and breathes the Army values 24/7. Reality is much more complicated. Don't get frustrated- take it as a challenge and learn from them.
And so it goes...;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Why the Pentagon Axed Its Afghanistan Warlord
Mark Thompson, Time, 11 May 2009
Public beheadings in Afghanistan are usually associated with the Taliban, but on Monday it was Defense Secretary Robert Gates metaphorically wielding the ax from the Pentagon platform. Gates announced that he had asked for and received the resignation of his top commander in Afghanistan, Army General David McKiernan, after McKiernan spent only 11 months in that theater. The 37-year veteran will be replaced by Army Lieut. General Stanley McChrystal. Army Lieut. 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.
The Obama Administration has made Afghanistan the central front in the war on terrorism over the past month. It concluded that McKiernan's tenure there involved too much wheel-spinning, even as the Taliban extended its reach, and that there was not enough of the "new thinking" as demanded by Gates. "It's time for new leadership and fresh eyes," Gates said, refusing to elaborate. He noted that Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Admiral Mike Mullen and General David Petraeus, who as chief of U.S. Central Command oversees the Afghanistan war, both endorsed the move. Officers typically serve about 24 months in the slot, meaning McKiernan served less than half his expected tour.
Military experts anticipate that U.S. policy in Afghanistan will become more militarily pointed as well as politically deft once McChrystal and Rodriguez, his 1976 West Point classmate and fellow Afghanistan 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 President Barack 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 increase 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 like Abu Mousab al-Zarqawi. And despite what some call McKiernan's shy demeanor and his previous desire to — in Army parlance — "stay inside his lane," McChrystal is eager to take the spotlight. He will also be expected to challenge the Afghan government when it comes to behavior that undermines the war effort. An official with 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 Karzai's government. "[McChrystal] will tell him, 'If you don't clean this up, I will,' " says the official.
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 said in December 2007. "In Iraq, we do what we must." And while McKiernan was given his Afghanistan command during the Bush Administration, it was Gates who 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 wartime commanders who passively wait for the military hierarchy to give them what they need. He was stunned by the military's foot-dragging when he ordered additional armored vehicles and drone aircraft to the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Even though McKiernan's dismissal had been in the works prior to Gates' trip to Afghanistan last week (Mullen 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 on May 7, brushing off a suggestion that the Taliban or the priority given to Iraq were to blame for the Afghanistan 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," the aide said. "Sadly, this institution doesn't always do that."
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1897555,00.html
bailaviborita
05-12-2009, 23:12
So, according to this reporter, the good general will just tell Karzai to clean it up or "he will". Geesh. Why didn't we think of that in Colombia? :confused:
W.T. Sherman put it this way in a letter to his brother, Senator John Sherman.
Don’t ever give any person the least encouragement to think I can be used for political ends. I have seen it poison so many otherwise good characters, that I am really more obstinate than ever.... Let those who are trained to it keep the office, and keep the Army and Navy as free from politics as possible.*
_____________________________
* W.T. Sherman, letter to John Sherman, 28 August 1874, as printed in Rachel Sherman Thorndike, ed., The Sherman Letters: Correspondence Between General Sherman and Senator Sherman from 1837 to 1891, The American Scene: Comments and Commentators (A Da Capo Press Reprint Series), Wallace D. Farnham, general editor (New York: Da Capo Press, 1969), p. 340.
What really annoy's me is that because of all his time in SOF unit's everyone is saying he is an expert at counter insurgency operations. The unit's that he worked with are good at one thing. COIN is a little different. I hope and pray he does well, but only time will tell.
I think many of the skeptics will be very pleased with LTG McCrystal.
I think many of the skeptics will be very pleased with LTG McCrystal.
Thanks. He always was smart - he must listen well, too.
Richard's $.02 :munchin
BMT (RIP)
05-13-2009, 06:59
VIRGINIA BEACH, Va., May 12, 2009 – The Army will require a different type of leader in the fight against terrorism and other kinds of irregular warfare, the Army’s top troop trainer said here today.
Not too many years ago, senior Army leaders were taught to combine speed with massed conventional forces to beat a similarly equipped, conventional enemy, Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, commander of U.S. Training and Doctrine Command, told attendees at the 2009 Joint Warfighting Conference, held here today through May 14.
The object of battle strategy then was to quickly defeat the enemy through attrition of his forces, Dempsey explained.
Consequently, he said, leaders’ training scenarios of that time “were designed to challenge leaders to understand an enemy who was predictably arrayed on the battlefield and to master the factors of time and distance,” Dempsey said.
With the advent of terrorism and other types of irregular warfare, he said, the U.S. military now “must develop leaders who are effective in the context of ill-defined problems against an enemy likely to migrate among operational themes.”
Terrorists’ decentralized command structure and hit-and-run tactics are designed to exploit slower-acting, more-controlled conventional military forces, Dempsey said. Also, he continued, weaker states may seek to use hybrid warfare, combining conventional forces with irregular troops, to confront a stronger foe.
All of this, Dempsey said, creates complexity on the battlefield that, in turn, requires a different kind of leadership and a decentralized command structure that pushes down decision-making authority to more junior leaders.
“We must prepare leaders for the shifting balance of operational and tactical art due to complexity and decentralization [on the battlefield],” Dempsey said. “As the operational environment becomes more complex, commanders at much-lower echelons of command must gain an appreciation of the operational art.”
BMT
Defender968
05-13-2009, 09:50
I'd say you have to first acknowledge these facts:
- that there is a system
- the system is part-political
- the system has morphed into a complex bureaucracy
- you serve at the pleasure of the nation- not your troops
- the pleasure of the nation is what the political leaders say it is
So, if you are to be a leader in the military, you must understand that politics is how the system operates. If you fail to understand that and don't pick your fights wisely, you will do your troops a disservice. Many a leader decides to fall on his sword for every cause and ends up getting fired and/or his troops getting screwed. So, first lesson would be to pick your fights wisely. Stand up when it really means something, but not all the time.
Second lesson to learn is that what you think is in the interest of your troops might not always be in the overall interest of ALL troops- or the American people. The lower you are, the less you can sometimes see the overall picture. Sometimes you have to trust that your perception isn't always the most applicable in all situations. In short, being a team player sometimes feels like being political- but in reality it is just being a team player. Don't be a conspiracy theorist- there are a "few" good officers still in... ;)
Last lesson I'd offer is that if you really do have a "political" officer over you- who doesn't care about anything else, then you have to play your cards right. You can still many times avoid screwing the troops and still accomplish the mission. It means you have to be a step ahead of higher, you have to be on top of your game, you have to care, you can't be lazy, and you have to build informal relationships with higher staffs- at multiple levels.
By understanding the politics involved you can navigate your way around them, support your subordinates, and get the mission accomplished. Some may say you are playing politics- and even accuse you of it. Screw them. Your guys will know who you are, and if you get things done, you'll come out on top.
But, go ahead and forget the notion that every leader lives and breathes the Army values 24/7. Reality is much more complicated. Don't get frustrated- take it as a challenge and learn from them.
Thanks Bailaviborita, I appreciate the words of wisdom.
armymom1228
05-13-2009, 11:21
I think many of the skeptics will be very pleased with LTG McCrystal.
Would you elaborate please? That is a rather obtuse statement Sir.
Thanks.
Buffalobob
05-15-2009, 09:59
With the advent of terrorism and other types of irregular warfare, he said, the U.S. military now “must develop leaders who are effective in the context of ill-defined problems against an enemy likely to migrate among operational themes.”
He was commissioned in 1974, so I guess there were no lessons to be learned from the type of war the US had just been involved in. Always amazes me how when the wheel is reinvented it is still round.
The Economist offers its take on the transition here (http://www.economist.com/world/asia/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=13649351). Readers looking for a nuanced understanding of SOF and SF will not find it in this article. The political analysis may be more useful.
The war in Afghanistan
A general's marching orders
May 14th 2009
From The Economist print edition
Why America’s commander in Afghanistan was fired
THE hit was carried out with all the speed and ruthlessness of a Delta Force night raid. On May 11th the Pentagon said that General David McKiernan, the NATO commander in Afghanistan, had been fired. Many in his staff expressed surprise. Asked whether the sacking would end the general’s career, Robert Gates, the defence secretary, replied: “Probably”.
This harsh dismissal of a general well-liked by many in Kabul is odd, as the fighting season gets under way with plans for a big American offensive in the south. General McKiernan’s star had seemed to be rising. His demand to strengthen operations in Afghanistan became orthodoxy under President Barack Obama, and he was given control of all forces there: NATO, American troops and special forces.
So what did he do wrong? Mr Gates said only that he wanted “fresh eyes”; with a new president, new forces, a new strategy and a new American ambassador, it was time to have a new commander (if not a new defence secretary). Pentagon officials said the sacking was unrelated to the killing of 100 or more civilians, allegedly by American forces, in Farah province this month. Some insiders complain that General McKiernan lacked dynamism.
Part of the answer lies in rivalries among America’s top brass: General McKiernan had led ground forces during the invasion of Iraq in 2003. His then subordinate, General David Petraeus, later celebrated for salvaging the mission in Iraq, is now his boss as head of Central Command. The new American ambassador to Kabul, Karl Eikenberry, a former general who had served in Afghanistan, was said by diplomats to have reservations about working with General McKiernan.
The new commander will be General Stanley McChrystal, until last year the head of the Joint Special Operations Command. His “black” operations to find and kill senior terrorist and insurgent figures were a vital part of General Petraeus’s success in Iraq, and General McChrystal is said to get on well with Mr Eikenberry.
The Pentagon wants to copy a winning formula from Iraq: a strong partnership between the ambassador and military commander to oversee a civil-military strategy, with day-to-day operations delegated to a powerful three-star deputy. This will be General David Rodriguez, who had a successful tour in Afghanistan as the head of the 82nd airborne division.
General McChrystal’s background raises questions about America’s intentions. Special forces have scored important military successes, for instance killing senior Taliban commanders. But they have also figured in some of the worst mishaps, in which large numbers of civilians have been killed in air strikes.
Some worry that General McChrystal’s arrival might herald a more aggressive approach, perhaps even across the border in Pakistan. Kai Eide, the UN envoy to Kabul, was quick to warn him that General McKiernan’s new rules to limit civilian deaths must be “respected”. “I hope they are not looking for a silver bullet; there isn’t one,” says one senior NATO commander.
Yet the change does reflect a determination, perhaps desperation, to show quick results. A Taliban spokesman said it was a sign of the Americans losing “patience and hope”. John Nagl, president of the Center for a New American Security, a think-tank, says: “McKiernan is a competent guy. But McChrystal is simply the best player in the field. It’s late in the innings—any team would use him.”
FWIW, (and at the risk of sounding like a broken record) I think the co-mingling of sports and martial metaphors is bad form. The practice critically undermines civilians' respect for and appreciation of the expertise and character of armed service professionals.
Latest update - using the Petraeus model for staffing.
Richard's $.02 :munchin
U.S. Commander in Afghanistan Is Given More Leeway
Thom Shanker and Eric Schmitt, NYT, 10 Jun 2009
The new American commander in Afghanistan has been given carte blanche to handpick a dream team of subordinates, including many Special Operations veterans, as he moves to carry out an ambitious new strategy that envisions stepped-up attacks on Taliban fighters and narcotics networks.
The extraordinary leeway granted the commander, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, underscores a view within the administration that the war in Afghanistan has for too long been given low priority and needs to be the focus of a sustained, high-level effort.
General McChrystal is assembling a corps of 400 officers and soldiers who will rotate between the United States and Afghanistan for a minimum of three years. That kind of commitment to one theater of combat is unknown in the military today outside Special Operations, but reflects an approach being imported by General McChrystal, who spent five years in charge of secret commando teams in Iraq and Afghanistan.
With his promotion approved by the Senate late on Wednesday, General McChrystal and senior members of his command team were scheduled to fly from Washington within hours of the vote, stopping in two European capitals to confer with allies before landing in Kabul, the Afghan capital.
General McChrystal’s confirmation came only after the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, went to the floor to make an impassioned plea for Republicans to allow the action to proceed, fearing that political infighting would delay approval of the appointment. He told of a phone call on Wednesday from Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Mr. Reid said that Admiral Mullen had told him that there was a sense of urgency that General McChrystal be able to go to Afghanistan that very night. He said that according to Admiral Mullen, “McChrystal is literally waiting by an airplane” to go to Afghanistan as the new commander.
Almost a dozen senior military officers provided details about General McChrystal’s plans in interviews after his nomination. The officers insisted on anonymity because of the sensitivity of the effort, and insisted that their comments not be used until the Senate vote, so as not to preempt lawmakers.
For the first time, the American commander in Afghanistan will have a three-star deputy. Picked for the job of running day-to-day combat operations was Lt. Gen. David M. Rodriguez, who has commanded troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Generals McChrystal and Rodriguez have been colleagues and friends for more than 30 years, beginning when both were Ranger company commanders as young captains.
General McChrystal also has picked the senior intelligence adviser to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Maj. Gen. Michael T. Flynn, to join him in Kabul as director of intelligence there. In Washington, Brig. Gen. Scott Miller, a longtime Special Operations officer now assigned to the Joint Chiefs of Staff but who had served previously under General McChrystal, is now organizing a new Pakistan-Afghanistan Coordination Cell.
Admiral Mullen said that he personally told General McChrystal that “he could have his pick from the Joint Staff. His job, the mission he’s going to command, is that important. Afghanistan is the main effort right now.”
Just how this new team will grapple with the increasingly violent Taliban militancy in Afghanistan is unclear, although General McChrystal has said he will focus on classic counterinsurgency techniques, in particular protecting the population.
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has asked General McChrystal to report back within 60 days of taking command with an assessment of the mission and plans for carrying out President Obama’s new strategy.
“Success will be difficult to define but will come in reduction in I.E.D.’s, reduction in poppy, more interdiction of Taliban crossing the border, some anticorruption arrests/exiles, and greater civilian effort possible as a result of a reduction in the threat,” said Maj. Gen. Peter Gilchrist, a retired British officer and a former deputy commander of allied forces in Afghanistan who praised General McChrystal’s appointment.
At the Pentagon, under General McChrystal’s direction, a large area of the Defense Department’s underground, round-the-clock emergency operations facility — called the National Military Command Center — has already been shifted to the Afghan war effort.
The makeover in the American military command is not the only major set of personnel changes in Afghanistan.
The Obama administration has surrounded the new United States ambassador to Kabul, Karl W. Eikenberry, a recently retired three-star Army general, with three former ambassadors to bolster diplomatic efforts in the country.
Francis J. Ricciardone Jr., a former ambassador to Egypt and the Philippines, has been tapped as General Eikenberry’s deputy. Earl Anthony Wayne, a former ambassador to Argentina, is heading up economic development initiatives in the embassy. Joseph A. Mussomeli, the former ambassador to Cambodia, will be an assistant ambassador in Kabul.
As director of intelligence on the Joint Staff, General Flynn holds a position, called the J-2, that has often been a springboard to a senior executive position across the alphabet soup of American intelligence agencies. But General Flynn, who was General McChrystal’s intelligence boss at the Joint Special Operations Command, has chosen to return to the combat zone.
In a sign of the importance being given to explaining the new strategy to Afghans, across the region and the world, General McChrystal will also be taking the first flag officer to serve as chief of public affairs and communications for the military in Afghanistan.
Rear Adm. Gregory J. Smith, who has served as director of communications and spokesman in Iraq during the troop increase under Gen. David H. Petraeus, had been scheduled to retire this summer. But officials said he received a personal request from Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to serve in the same capacity for General McChrystal.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/11/world/asia/11command.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
Latest update - using the Petraeus model for staffing.
Richard's $.02 :munchin
This sounds very good,, I am hopeful for a precise execution..
bailaviborita
06-29-2009, 16:46
In light of the new ROE, was wondering if "protecting the people" just got harder- or at least making the new ROE so public. The "new" safehaven could well be the population's houses. I submit the answer will be in the timeframe of our objectives. Are we going for a longterm win?
I would submit that President Obama wants progress before he starts running for reelection. Doesn't that mean that GEN McChrystal has about 18 months? And will progress mean some sort of downsizing?
US General Stanley McChrystal, the new ISAF commander, has ordered his soldiers to pursue a new strategy. Whenever you do anything that harms people, he recently told troops, you are probably forfeiting the sympathy of the local population. McChrystal has said that foreign troops would be better off not requesting aerial bombardment and should withdraw when there is a threat of collateral damage.
This came out of the latest edition of Der Spiegel - I posted the full article under the Bundeswehr gets spanked forum.
http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23755
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Richard,
Missed that earlier thread. Thanks for posting that.
Very interesting.