What's new

McCHRYSTAL IN TROUBLE !

Soldiers question the price of high-risk doctrine

By Matthew Green in Marjah

Published: June 23 2010 19:18 | Last updated: June 23 2010 19:18

A marine knelt before an up-turned rifle, muttered a prayer and clutched the dog tags dangling from the grip. Another followed, then another, until dozens of young men, some shedding tears, had shared a final act of reverence for their fallen comrade.

The ceremony took place under camouflage netting at an outpost north of Marjah, where Gavin Brummund, a lance-corporal, had been stationed until he was killed at the age of 22 by shrapnel from a home-made bomb targeting his foot patrol.

The gathering on Monday was a moment of release for his Lima Company and a reminder of the growing death toll for Nato in Afghanistan, where some 1,858 coalition soldiers have been killed during the nine-year war, including more than 1,132 Americans and 302 British, according to icasualties.org. Another marine from Lima Company was shot dead in a fight with insurgents on the day of the memorial.

Stanley McChrystal, the former US and Nato general in Afghanistan, has staked his strategy on the assumption that the west’s best chance of containing the Taliban is by winning over the locals, even if that sometimes means greater risks for his troops.

Anger in the White House sparked by comments by his aides mocking administration officials, reported by Rolling Stone magazine, will stir fresh debate over whether the results of Gen McChrystal’s doctrine justify the cost.

Shawn Mcrae, a 24-year-old lance-corporal from a platoon that lost a man to enemy fire in Marjah on May 6, summed up the questions many people are posing: “Get me to General McChrystal and I’d ask him, ‘How do you measure progress?’ and ‘How much worse is it going to get before it gets better?’ ” he said. “How many more lives are they willing to sacrifice?”

Marjah has come to be regarded as a litmus test of Gen McChrystal’s approach since marines seized the town in a highly publicised assault in February. A perception of slower-than-expected progress here has thrown the weakest link in his strategy – its reliance on rapid reform of the Afghan state – into starker relief. The “government in a box” he promised before the offensive has been slow to arrive.

Last month, Gen McChrystal referred to Marjah as a “bleeding ulcer”. US commanders say Marjah is on course to experience the kinds of noticeable improvements in security they say are being felt in other districts in Helmand, such as Garmsir and Nawa, where marines have been in place for almost a year.

Philip Hatton, a UK official based in Marjah, said that a rise in the number of elders attending a meeting at the district centre to more than 350 in early June from about 100 in late April was an indicator of growing confidence. But marines who risk their lives mounting patrols designed to reassure locals find that change is often slow to materialise.

Civilian officials seeking to build Marjah’s district government almost from scratch cite a chronic shortage of high-calibre Afghan administrators who are willing to risk Taliban reprisals to help.

Milling around a pair of armoured vehicles, a small group of marines voiced their frustrations. “More than 75 per cent of Marjah, they don’t want us here, some of the people say they prefer the Taliban way,” said Corporal Luis Lorenzo, 22. “They’re still fighting – one second you don’t focus, one second you’re not doing your job, you can be out of this world altogether.”

Gen McChrystal succeeded in reducing civilian casualties with a range of measures, notably limiting the use of air strikes. But his strategy inevitably exposes his own troops in a conflict where insurgents and farmers are often interchangeable.

Lieutenant-Colonel Brian Christmas, commanding officer of the 3/6 battalion of the US Marines, responsible for northern Marjah, aims to put McChrystal’s words into practise. His unit uses PowerPoint slides to help them recognise notable elders and he urges his men to meet the locals.

At the memorial, Jacob Gray, a 23-year-old sergeant, could have been speaking for Gen McChrystal when he said: “You can’t just come into a Taliban area and people feel that the shackles are off them,” he said. “It takes time.”

FT.com / Asia-Pacific / Afghanistan - Soldiers question the price of high-risk doctrine
 
Obama on McChrystal: Nothing Personal

By Susan Davis

In announcing that Gen. Stanley McChrystal would no longer be serving as the top commander in Afghanistan, President Barack Obama sought to make one thing clear: It wasn’t personal.

Obama_Petraeus_D_20100623141724.jpg

President Barack Obama stands with Gen. David Petraeus and Vice President Joe Biden in the Rose Garden of the White House Wednesday to announce that Petraeus will replace Gen. Stanley McChrystal as top commander in Afghanistan. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)

“I don’t make this decision based on any difference in policy with Gen. McChrystal, as we are in full agreement about our strategy. Nor do I make this decision out of any sense of personal insult,” the president said, flanked at his news conference by Gen. David Petraeus, who will assume McChrystal’s duties as soon as he is approved by the U.S. Senate.

In the Rolling Stone article that forced his resignation, McChrystal and his aides made it very personal with comments that were critical of several members of Obama’s national security team, including Vice President Joe Biden. The vice president stood by the president’s side today, but did not speak.

“The conduct represented in the recently published article does not meet the standard that should be set by a commanding general, it undermines the civilian control of the military that is at the core of our democratic system and it erodes the trust that is necessary for our team to work together to achieve our objectives in Afghanistan,” Obama said.

Obama on McChrystal: Nothing Personal - Washington Wire - WSJ
 
Such outstanding career ended so badly, well folks thats what afghanistan can do to you..!!!

Wrong..that is what stupidity can do to you. How can someone be this stupid is beyond me..call in a reporter and then make fun of your leadership?
 
Wrong..that is what stupidity can do to you. How can someone be this stupid is beyond me..call in a reporter and then make fun of your leadership?

What is wrong? He was a key General!
He had best credentials under his belt.
His performance in Iraq war was comended by same President.

You can't call him stupid.... his comments in interview session needed not to be so highlighted.....no one knows for sure what's cooking.
 
What is wrong? He was a key General!
He had best credentials under his belt.
His performance in Iraq war was comended by same President.

You can't call him stupid.... his comments in interview session needed not to be so highlighted.....no one knows for sure what's cooking.

common man, that was a stupid, stupid comment by the general. Doesn't make any sense for him to call in reporters and start blabbering nonsense about his commender in chief. Obama was put in a very difficult position, a highly decorated general who's become very air headed and conceited. Obama made the right choice of removing McChrystal, if he hadn't he wouldn't have the respect of his many subordinates, both civilians and military. Every thing here is clear as the day, the only thing doubtful is the generals recognition. I'll bet that McChrystal was told to resign or face miss conduct charges and risk loosing pension benefits and such.
 
Why are you so sure!!! and who you are? some thing uncommon?

Calling Mc Crystal a highly stupid person is not correct either.
A stupid person can't assume such demanding and responsible position.
Their could be much more behind the scene, building up much before the interview.
BTW, no court can strip of General from his benifits!!! for a simple remark for an ambassador in that too in given situation and demand.
Only, positive thing from this out come is that it shows President is the responsible person for all American deeds, good and bad, civil and military. all operations have his node and understanding.

On a lighter note... i suggest McChrystal a long march for restoration of his job ;)
 
We are seeing a new republican leader in making , soon he will be in Republican party which is desperately looking for Leadership
 
Wrong..that is what stupidity can do to you. How can someone be this stupid is beyond me..call in a reporter and then make fun of your leadership?

the guy was uttering the truth, how ever he was put in the most difficult situation ,Such a move will have a demoralizing effect on the troops fighting on ground .
 
the guy was uttering the truth, how ever he was put in the most difficult situation ,Such a move will have a demoralizing effect on the troops fighting on ground .

He was not put in a difficult position..he put himself in a difficult position by opening his big mouth.

If he was not fired then it would have send the wrong impression to the troops.The commander in chief is the President not any general. The troops and generals serve at the President's pleasure.
 
The troops and generals serve at the President's pleasure.
They work with President's permission but US constitution does not allow President to invade soverign foreign states.
US president is usually advised by his office.
Apparently, hawks have hijacked an opportune moment.
 
They work with President's permission but US constitution does not allow President to invade soverign foreign states.
US president is usually advised by his office.
Apparently, hawks have hijacked an opportune moment.

Says who...the President can't declare war on anyone but the Congress can.

The afghan war was authorized by Congress.
 
Last edited:
the guy was uttering the truth, how ever he was put in the most difficult situation ,Such a move will have a demoralizing effect on the troops fighting on ground .

I agree... US ambassador and administration is profiting from legalising private security contractors.
Now those are private security suppliers are no more than northern alliance and TTP.
TTP has in past killed CIA officers but still US ambassadors is indirectly supporting the very same elements which are killing US soldiers.
Now you send McCrystal an arm yofficer to win an impossible war... while elements in US administration are criminally supporting terrorists!!!
So.. how to describe it?

Few days back, i have opened a thread on this madness and now this development!

Link:
http://www.defence.pk/forums/pakistans-war/62355-northern-alliance-may-supply-arms-taliban.html
 
Last edited:
McChrystal is history - Petreaus takes over as US commander in Afghanistan - Q: does Petreaus give up his centcom job?
 
Back
Top Bottom