McCHRYSTAL IN TROUBLE !
- Thread starter GUNNER
- Start date
fatman17
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 32,563
- Reaction score
- 98
- Country
- Location
EDITORIAL: Hara-kiri through interview?
In a classic example of what can only be termed a curious blunder, General Stanley A McChrystal the commander of all US and NATO forces in Afghanistan and his aides have offered some very candid, very scathing remarks to Rolling Stone magazine. Remarks that have resulted in him being summoned to the White House and subsequently relieved of his duties. General Petraeus has replaced him.
A profile of the general for this leftist, anti-war magazine has raised many eyebrows. In defiance of the military code, which states that a general cannot criticise his commander-in-chief, McChrystals remarks are aimed at some of the highest authorities in Washington, which include President Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and Special Envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke. How a general with a breast full of medals and a highly successful track record he is largely attributed with turning things around against al Qaeda in Iraq could ignore such a basic rule of military ethics and behaviour is baffling.
The interview, titled The Runaway General, sees McChrystal and those in his official circle make fun of Biden by likening his last name to the derogatory slang bite me. Only last year McChrystal dismissed Bidens counterinsurgency strategy as short-sighted and one that would lead to a state of Chaos-istan. It was after this rather public retort at the vice president that Obama gave the outspoken general a dressing down. However, instead of keeping a low profile, McChrystal has once again voiced his views about powerful people in the US administration in the widely read magazine.
He cites his first meeting with newly appointed President Obama last year as disappointing, where Obama felt intimidated in a room full of the military top brass. One of the generals aides even went as far as saying that Obama did not seem engaged enough in the Afghan war. Needless to say, the president is not amused. It is no secret that the parameters set by Washington to win the war in Afghanistan are not to McChrystals liking. Last fall, McChrystal asked for a hefty troop surge as his war strategy is based on the military weakening of the Taliban, paving the way for a political negotiation/settlement a lengthy and tedious process. The people-centric approach accompanying this strategy is in direct contradiction to the less troops, more drones strategy favoured by Biden. It is because of these policy collisions that McChrystal states he was selling an unsellable position. However, in December last year, the general did receive an additional 30,000 troops after lengthy deliberations within the US administration.
However, for all his efforts at effective counterinsurgency, the war in Afghanistan has surpassed the Vietnam War in length and is a war that McChrystal himself has referred to as a bleeding ulcer. In the interview, the generals harshest criticism was reserved for Holbrooke, whom he termed a wounded animal.
It must be said that in todays world, top military commanders are not just instructed in the art of warfare but also on the finer points of diplomacy McChrystal is a graduate of West Point. It is perplexing that a man of his record and stature could issue such damaging statements. He has publicly apologised and offered his resignation, which has now been accepted.
The entire episode reminds one just how important for the democratic process civilian control of the military is. In developed democracies such as the US, this is a long and well established rule. We in Pakistan could learn some lessons from this episode. In true democracies, one cannot be a military leader and issue such outlandish statements without having to answer to the democratically elected leadership.
http://www.thedailytimes.com.pk
In a classic example of what can only be termed a curious blunder, General Stanley A McChrystal the commander of all US and NATO forces in Afghanistan and his aides have offered some very candid, very scathing remarks to Rolling Stone magazine. Remarks that have resulted in him being summoned to the White House and subsequently relieved of his duties. General Petraeus has replaced him.
A profile of the general for this leftist, anti-war magazine has raised many eyebrows. In defiance of the military code, which states that a general cannot criticise his commander-in-chief, McChrystals remarks are aimed at some of the highest authorities in Washington, which include President Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and Special Envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke. How a general with a breast full of medals and a highly successful track record he is largely attributed with turning things around against al Qaeda in Iraq could ignore such a basic rule of military ethics and behaviour is baffling.
The interview, titled The Runaway General, sees McChrystal and those in his official circle make fun of Biden by likening his last name to the derogatory slang bite me. Only last year McChrystal dismissed Bidens counterinsurgency strategy as short-sighted and one that would lead to a state of Chaos-istan. It was after this rather public retort at the vice president that Obama gave the outspoken general a dressing down. However, instead of keeping a low profile, McChrystal has once again voiced his views about powerful people in the US administration in the widely read magazine.
He cites his first meeting with newly appointed President Obama last year as disappointing, where Obama felt intimidated in a room full of the military top brass. One of the generals aides even went as far as saying that Obama did not seem engaged enough in the Afghan war. Needless to say, the president is not amused. It is no secret that the parameters set by Washington to win the war in Afghanistan are not to McChrystals liking. Last fall, McChrystal asked for a hefty troop surge as his war strategy is based on the military weakening of the Taliban, paving the way for a political negotiation/settlement a lengthy and tedious process. The people-centric approach accompanying this strategy is in direct contradiction to the less troops, more drones strategy favoured by Biden. It is because of these policy collisions that McChrystal states he was selling an unsellable position. However, in December last year, the general did receive an additional 30,000 troops after lengthy deliberations within the US administration.
However, for all his efforts at effective counterinsurgency, the war in Afghanistan has surpassed the Vietnam War in length and is a war that McChrystal himself has referred to as a bleeding ulcer. In the interview, the generals harshest criticism was reserved for Holbrooke, whom he termed a wounded animal.
It must be said that in todays world, top military commanders are not just instructed in the art of warfare but also on the finer points of diplomacy McChrystal is a graduate of West Point. It is perplexing that a man of his record and stature could issue such damaging statements. He has publicly apologised and offered his resignation, which has now been accepted.
The entire episode reminds one just how important for the democratic process civilian control of the military is. In developed democracies such as the US, this is a long and well established rule. We in Pakistan could learn some lessons from this episode. In true democracies, one cannot be a military leader and issue such outlandish statements without having to answer to the democratically elected leadership.
http://www.thedailytimes.com.pk
fatman17
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 32,563
- Reaction score
- 98
- Country
- Location
Barack Obama’s McChrystal move divides US lawmakers
WASHINGTON: US President Barack Obama’s decision to change Afghan war commanders divided US lawmakers on Wednesday, as some predicted victory and others warned the conflict was still not worth fighting. “We can’t expect a different outcome from a new general with the same old strategy,” Democratic Representative Dennis Kucinich, said after Obama replaced General Stanley McChrystal with General David Petraeus. “The only way to repair this mess is to get out of Afghanistan,” said Kucinich, a leading critic of the war, who praised Petraeus’s service but pleaded: “Bring our troops home.” Republican Senator John Cornyn said McChrystal had served “with great distinction in Afghanistan, Iraq and around the world” and praised Petraeus as the right commander for the increasingly unpopular war. afp
WASHINGTON: US President Barack Obama’s decision to change Afghan war commanders divided US lawmakers on Wednesday, as some predicted victory and others warned the conflict was still not worth fighting. “We can’t expect a different outcome from a new general with the same old strategy,” Democratic Representative Dennis Kucinich, said after Obama replaced General Stanley McChrystal with General David Petraeus. “The only way to repair this mess is to get out of Afghanistan,” said Kucinich, a leading critic of the war, who praised Petraeus’s service but pleaded: “Bring our troops home.” Republican Senator John Cornyn said McChrystal had served “with great distinction in Afghanistan, Iraq and around the world” and praised Petraeus as the right commander for the increasingly unpopular war. afp
McChrystal: Gone and Soon Forgotten
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Wednesday, June 23, 2010, at 4:36 PM ET
President Barack Obama has accomplished what many might have thought impossible just a few hours earlier. He has fired Gen. Stanley McChrystal, his combat commander in Afghanistan, in such a way that not only will the general go unmissed but his name will likely soon be forgotten.
Obama's decision to replace McChrystal with Gen. David Petraeus is a stroke of brilliance, an unassailable move, politically and strategically.
On a political level, McChrystal has many fans inside Congress and the military, but Petraeus has orders of magnitude more. No one could accuse Obama of compromising the war effort, knowing that Petraeus is stepping in.
On a strategic level, while McChrystal designed the U.S. military policy in Afghanistan, Petraeus is its ur-architect. Petraeus literally wrote the book on counterinsurgency strategy while McChrystal was still running the black-bag hunter-killers of the special-ops command.
Petraeus has also spent the last year and a half as head of U.S. Central Command, supervising military operations throughout the Persian Gulf and central Asia, including Afghanistan. McChrystal has built relations with political and military leaders in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Petraeus has been building the same relations, plus some.
Those who might have expected a scaling back in the U.S. commitment to Afghanistan will, and should, be disappointed. In his Rose Garden speech this afternoon, Obama made the point explicitly: "This is a change in personnel," he said, "but it is not a change in policy."
One of those who might be disappointed in this remark—and in the naming of Petraeus as McChrystal's replacement—is Michael Hastings, the author of the Rolling Stone article that triggered this chain of events.
The last, and less-noticed, part of the article, which was called "The Runaway General," not only amounted to a critique of the whole idea of counterinsurgency but also suggested that President Obama bought into the concept, ensnared by the wily Gen. McChrystal, without grasping its full implications.
Hastings made this claim explicitly in an interview aired Tuesday on NPR's The Takeaway. "President Obama has lost control of the Afghan war policy, and I believe he lost control of it almost a year ago," Hastings said. Obama, he continued, "did not know what he was getting into when he announced the hiring of McChrystal and then also the sending of 21,000 troops, because immediately months later, he was asked to send 40,000 more. … And that, obviously, was shocking to President Obama because last year it took his, you know, there was this three-month review period."
I have heard from some on the inside that Obama hadn't focused so deeply on Afghanistan when he decided in March 2009 to send in 21,000 extra troops. Hastings is also right that Obama was initially surprised to receive the request for another 40,000. However, during the "three-month review period," which climaxed in his approval of 30,000 additional troops and a new counterinsurgency strategy, Obama came to understand fully what he was getting into, its risks, and its opportunity. It's absurd to suggest that McChrystal or anybody else maneuvered him onto the road he wound up taking.
For better or for worse, this is Obama's war. His differences with McChrystal had nothing to do with policy.
The war and the counterinsurgency strategy are, clearly, not going very well. Yet it was always extremely unlikely that Obama would change course, at least not until December, when his commanders are scheduled to conduct a comprehensive assessment of their progress. Firing McChrystal was bound to make many important players—U.S. troops and their officers, allied commanders, and the leaders of Afghanistan and Pakistan—wonder about Obama's commitment to the strategy. Replacing McChrystal with Petraeus should allay those worries, as well as frustrate the strategy's critics and perhaps the Taliban insurgents, too.
Petraeus is taking a demotion, from commander of the entire region, to take this post. One can imagine Obama's sales pitch, telling the general that he's the only American who could take over from McChrystal without any need to work up to speed and, therefore, without causing further delays in the (already much-slowed-down) military operation. It's the sort of pitch that Petraeus would have a hard time turning down, in part out of a sense of duty, in part because he, too, has a personal and professional stake in the mission's success.
By taking the assignment, Petraeus also gains enormous leverage, should he decide to use it. A year ago, Obama, at the urging of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, relieved Gen. David McKiernan of command in Afghanistan in order to hire Gen. McChrystal, who seemed more suitable for the new strategy. Obama would find it extremely difficult to fire Petraeus, who is much more of a household name, a year hence, even if he had good reason to do so.
The good news is that Petraeus and his entourage have displayed, over the years, nothing of the contempt for civilian control that the Rolling Stone piece revealed was running rampant in McChrystal's shop. (One Pentagon official, who knows both generals, said yesterday, well before it was clear that McChrystal would go, much less who would replace him, "It's unimaginable that Petraeus and his people would act this way, even without a reporter standing around.") Petraeus is much more disciplined, much more politically attuned, in every sense of the phrase.
One question still open is whether McChrystal's is but the first shoe to drop. In his Rose Garden speech, Obama emphasized the need for "unity of effort" within the U.S. national-security team and across the multinational alliance. Given McChrystal's trash talk toward both, Obama said he couldn't achieve that unity, and thus couldn't meet success in Afghanistan, "without making this change."
Still, canning McChrystal doesn't end the dysfunctional disunity that has plagued the war effort for many months. The U.S. ambassador, Gen. Karl Eikenberry, is on record as stating that Afghan President Hamid Karzai is an unsuitable partner for a counterinsurgency campaign. He may be right—he almost certainly is right—but, since counterinsurgency cannot succeed without a suitable partner heading the national government, Eikenberry is in essence disagreeing with the policy. His relations with McChrystal were exacerbated by the fact that the two men are longtime rivals; but those personal animosities clouded a professional tension that is probably untenable. If U.S. policy isn't going to change, Eikenberry, too, should go.
Richard Holbrooke should be sent packing, as well. He's the U.S. envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, but after he screamed at Karzai at one of their meetings, he's no longer welcome at the palace in Kabul. (It took a trip by Sen. John Kerry and 300 cups of tea to settle the Afghan president down.) Holbrooke would have been canned a while ago, were it not for special pleading by his immediate boss and longtime friend, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. But, as Obama said today, "War is bigger than any one man or woman, whether a private, a general, or a president." He should expand the list to include "a special envoy."
A final word: On Tuesday, I predicted that Obama would stick with McChrystal, in part because the general's dissings of civilian authority didn't extend to a dispute over policy, in part because losing him as commander might be seen as jeopardizing the mission. It turns out that the president took his constitutional responsibilities, and his obligations as commander in chief, more seriously than I thought he might—and figured out a way to do so without compromising the mission in the slightest. Who wouldn't be impressed?
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Wednesday, June 23, 2010, at 4:36 PM ET
President Barack Obama has accomplished what many might have thought impossible just a few hours earlier. He has fired Gen. Stanley McChrystal, his combat commander in Afghanistan, in such a way that not only will the general go unmissed but his name will likely soon be forgotten.
Obama's decision to replace McChrystal with Gen. David Petraeus is a stroke of brilliance, an unassailable move, politically and strategically.
On a political level, McChrystal has many fans inside Congress and the military, but Petraeus has orders of magnitude more. No one could accuse Obama of compromising the war effort, knowing that Petraeus is stepping in.
On a strategic level, while McChrystal designed the U.S. military policy in Afghanistan, Petraeus is its ur-architect. Petraeus literally wrote the book on counterinsurgency strategy while McChrystal was still running the black-bag hunter-killers of the special-ops command.
Petraeus has also spent the last year and a half as head of U.S. Central Command, supervising military operations throughout the Persian Gulf and central Asia, including Afghanistan. McChrystal has built relations with political and military leaders in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Petraeus has been building the same relations, plus some.
Those who might have expected a scaling back in the U.S. commitment to Afghanistan will, and should, be disappointed. In his Rose Garden speech this afternoon, Obama made the point explicitly: "This is a change in personnel," he said, "but it is not a change in policy."
One of those who might be disappointed in this remark—and in the naming of Petraeus as McChrystal's replacement—is Michael Hastings, the author of the Rolling Stone article that triggered this chain of events.
The last, and less-noticed, part of the article, which was called "The Runaway General," not only amounted to a critique of the whole idea of counterinsurgency but also suggested that President Obama bought into the concept, ensnared by the wily Gen. McChrystal, without grasping its full implications.
Hastings made this claim explicitly in an interview aired Tuesday on NPR's The Takeaway. "President Obama has lost control of the Afghan war policy, and I believe he lost control of it almost a year ago," Hastings said. Obama, he continued, "did not know what he was getting into when he announced the hiring of McChrystal and then also the sending of 21,000 troops, because immediately months later, he was asked to send 40,000 more. … And that, obviously, was shocking to President Obama because last year it took his, you know, there was this three-month review period."
I have heard from some on the inside that Obama hadn't focused so deeply on Afghanistan when he decided in March 2009 to send in 21,000 extra troops. Hastings is also right that Obama was initially surprised to receive the request for another 40,000. However, during the "three-month review period," which climaxed in his approval of 30,000 additional troops and a new counterinsurgency strategy, Obama came to understand fully what he was getting into, its risks, and its opportunity. It's absurd to suggest that McChrystal or anybody else maneuvered him onto the road he wound up taking.
For better or for worse, this is Obama's war. His differences with McChrystal had nothing to do with policy.
The war and the counterinsurgency strategy are, clearly, not going very well. Yet it was always extremely unlikely that Obama would change course, at least not until December, when his commanders are scheduled to conduct a comprehensive assessment of their progress. Firing McChrystal was bound to make many important players—U.S. troops and their officers, allied commanders, and the leaders of Afghanistan and Pakistan—wonder about Obama's commitment to the strategy. Replacing McChrystal with Petraeus should allay those worries, as well as frustrate the strategy's critics and perhaps the Taliban insurgents, too.
Petraeus is taking a demotion, from commander of the entire region, to take this post. One can imagine Obama's sales pitch, telling the general that he's the only American who could take over from McChrystal without any need to work up to speed and, therefore, without causing further delays in the (already much-slowed-down) military operation. It's the sort of pitch that Petraeus would have a hard time turning down, in part out of a sense of duty, in part because he, too, has a personal and professional stake in the mission's success.
By taking the assignment, Petraeus also gains enormous leverage, should he decide to use it. A year ago, Obama, at the urging of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, relieved Gen. David McKiernan of command in Afghanistan in order to hire Gen. McChrystal, who seemed more suitable for the new strategy. Obama would find it extremely difficult to fire Petraeus, who is much more of a household name, a year hence, even if he had good reason to do so.
The good news is that Petraeus and his entourage have displayed, over the years, nothing of the contempt for civilian control that the Rolling Stone piece revealed was running rampant in McChrystal's shop. (One Pentagon official, who knows both generals, said yesterday, well before it was clear that McChrystal would go, much less who would replace him, "It's unimaginable that Petraeus and his people would act this way, even without a reporter standing around.") Petraeus is much more disciplined, much more politically attuned, in every sense of the phrase.
One question still open is whether McChrystal's is but the first shoe to drop. In his Rose Garden speech, Obama emphasized the need for "unity of effort" within the U.S. national-security team and across the multinational alliance. Given McChrystal's trash talk toward both, Obama said he couldn't achieve that unity, and thus couldn't meet success in Afghanistan, "without making this change."
Still, canning McChrystal doesn't end the dysfunctional disunity that has plagued the war effort for many months. The U.S. ambassador, Gen. Karl Eikenberry, is on record as stating that Afghan President Hamid Karzai is an unsuitable partner for a counterinsurgency campaign. He may be right—he almost certainly is right—but, since counterinsurgency cannot succeed without a suitable partner heading the national government, Eikenberry is in essence disagreeing with the policy. His relations with McChrystal were exacerbated by the fact that the two men are longtime rivals; but those personal animosities clouded a professional tension that is probably untenable. If U.S. policy isn't going to change, Eikenberry, too, should go.
Richard Holbrooke should be sent packing, as well. He's the U.S. envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, but after he screamed at Karzai at one of their meetings, he's no longer welcome at the palace in Kabul. (It took a trip by Sen. John Kerry and 300 cups of tea to settle the Afghan president down.) Holbrooke would have been canned a while ago, were it not for special pleading by his immediate boss and longtime friend, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. But, as Obama said today, "War is bigger than any one man or woman, whether a private, a general, or a president." He should expand the list to include "a special envoy."
A final word: On Tuesday, I predicted that Obama would stick with McChrystal, in part because the general's dissings of civilian authority didn't extend to a dispute over policy, in part because losing him as commander might be seen as jeopardizing the mission. It turns out that the president took his constitutional responsibilities, and his obligations as commander in chief, more seriously than I thought he might—and figured out a way to do so without compromising the mission in the slightest. Who wouldn't be impressed?
ejaz007
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 6,533
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
Gen Petraeus to lead Afghan war
Obama fires McChrystal
* US president says McChrystals remarks about administration officials undermine civilian control of military, erode needed trust on presidents war team
* Decision not made over any disagreement in policy or out of any sense of personal insult
WASHINGTON: US President Barack Obama ousted General Stanley McChrystal as the top US commander in Afghanistan on Wednesday, saying that his scathing published remarks about administration officials undermine civilian control of the military and erode the needed trust on the presidents war team.
Obama named McChrystals direct boss - Gen David Petraeus to take over the troubled 9-year-old war in Afghanistan. He asked the Senate to confirm Petraeus for the new post as swiftly as possible.
The president said he did not make the decision to accept McChrystals resignation over any disagreement in policy or out of any sense of personal insult. Flanked by Vice President Joe Biden, Defence Secretary Robert Gates and Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in the Rose Garden, he said, I believe it is the right decision for our national security.
Obama hit several gracious notes about McChrystal and his service, saying that he made the decision to sack him with considerable regret. And yet, he said the job in Afghanistan could not be done now under McChrystals leadership, asserting that the critical remarks from the general and his inner circle in the Rolling Stone magazine article displayed conduct that does not live up to the necessary standards for a command-level officer.
Obama seemed to suggest that McChrystals military career is over, including in his praise of the general that the nation should be grateful for his remarkable career in uniform. With the controversy having the effect of refuelling debate over his Afghanistan policy, Obama took pains to emphasise that the strategy was not shifting with McChrystals ouster.
This is a change in personnel but it is not a change in policy, he said.
Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan
Obama fires McChrystal
* US president says McChrystals remarks about administration officials undermine civilian control of military, erode needed trust on presidents war team
* Decision not made over any disagreement in policy or out of any sense of personal insult
WASHINGTON: US President Barack Obama ousted General Stanley McChrystal as the top US commander in Afghanistan on Wednesday, saying that his scathing published remarks about administration officials undermine civilian control of the military and erode the needed trust on the presidents war team.
Obama named McChrystals direct boss - Gen David Petraeus to take over the troubled 9-year-old war in Afghanistan. He asked the Senate to confirm Petraeus for the new post as swiftly as possible.
The president said he did not make the decision to accept McChrystals resignation over any disagreement in policy or out of any sense of personal insult. Flanked by Vice President Joe Biden, Defence Secretary Robert Gates and Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in the Rose Garden, he said, I believe it is the right decision for our national security.
Obama hit several gracious notes about McChrystal and his service, saying that he made the decision to sack him with considerable regret. And yet, he said the job in Afghanistan could not be done now under McChrystals leadership, asserting that the critical remarks from the general and his inner circle in the Rolling Stone magazine article displayed conduct that does not live up to the necessary standards for a command-level officer.
Obama seemed to suggest that McChrystals military career is over, including in his praise of the general that the nation should be grateful for his remarkable career in uniform. With the controversy having the effect of refuelling debate over his Afghanistan policy, Obama took pains to emphasise that the strategy was not shifting with McChrystals ouster.
This is a change in personnel but it is not a change in policy, he said.
Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan
ejaz007
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 6,533
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
McChrystal says resigned for sake of Afghan mission
WASHINGTON: US General Stanley McChrystal on Wednesday said he resigned as commander of NATO-led forces in Afghanistan out of a commitment to troops and to see the mission succeed. This morning the president accepted my resignation as commander of US and NATO coalition forces in Afghanistan, McChrystal said in a statement issued shortly after President Barack Obama announced he was replacing the general. I strongly support the presidents strategy in Afghanistan and am deeply committed to our coalition forces, our partner nations, and the Afghan people, he said. It was out of respect for this commitment and a desire to see the mission succeed that I tendered my resignation. afp
Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan
WASHINGTON: US General Stanley McChrystal on Wednesday said he resigned as commander of NATO-led forces in Afghanistan out of a commitment to troops and to see the mission succeed. This morning the president accepted my resignation as commander of US and NATO coalition forces in Afghanistan, McChrystal said in a statement issued shortly after President Barack Obama announced he was replacing the general. I strongly support the presidents strategy in Afghanistan and am deeply committed to our coalition forces, our partner nations, and the Afghan people, he said. It was out of respect for this commitment and a desire to see the mission succeed that I tendered my resignation. afp
Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan
ejaz007
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 6,533
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
Dismay in Kabul over McChrystal sacking
Updated at: 0800 PST, Thursday, June 24, 2010
KABUL: The sacking of NATO commander General Stanley McChrystal was greeted with dismay in Kabul where Afghan officials and foreign diplomats praised his bold efforts to change the course of the war.
McChrystal's counter-insurgency strategy, which brought sweeping changes aimed at cutting civilian casualties and winning over the population, was widely credited with bringing some order to a chaotic and spriralling conflict.
Afghan President Hamid Karzai's government had publicly urged the White House not to remove McChrystal over disparaging remarks he made about officials in US President Barack Obama's administration in a magazine profile.
A spokesman for Karzai -- whose relations with the White House have been troubled -- praised McChrystal as a "trusted partner of the Afghan people" and said his removal would "not be helpful" at this critical juncture.
Spokesman Waheed Omar, speaking before McChrystal's removal on Wednesday, said Kabul believed the US general had made a mistake but it should not detract from the urgency of trying to bring peace and stability to Afghanistan.
Dismay in Kabul over McChrystal sacking
Updated at: 0800 PST, Thursday, June 24, 2010
KABUL: The sacking of NATO commander General Stanley McChrystal was greeted with dismay in Kabul where Afghan officials and foreign diplomats praised his bold efforts to change the course of the war.
McChrystal's counter-insurgency strategy, which brought sweeping changes aimed at cutting civilian casualties and winning over the population, was widely credited with bringing some order to a chaotic and spriralling conflict.
Afghan President Hamid Karzai's government had publicly urged the White House not to remove McChrystal over disparaging remarks he made about officials in US President Barack Obama's administration in a magazine profile.
A spokesman for Karzai -- whose relations with the White House have been troubled -- praised McChrystal as a "trusted partner of the Afghan people" and said his removal would "not be helpful" at this critical juncture.
Spokesman Waheed Omar, speaking before McChrystal's removal on Wednesday, said Kabul believed the US general had made a mistake but it should not detract from the urgency of trying to bring peace and stability to Afghanistan.
Dismay in Kabul over McChrystal sacking
ejaz007
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 6,533
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
Baiden takes Gilani into confidence over McChrystal issue
Updated at: 0700 PST, Thursday, June 24, 2010
ISLAMABAD: US Vice-President Joe Baiden phoned Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani on Thursday morning and took him into confidence over dismissal of Gen McChrystal, the US and NATO commander in Afghanistan, Geo news reported.
He assured PM Gilani that there will come no-change and no effect in US policy on war against terrorism following removal of NATO commander in Afghanistan.
PM Gilani, on the occasion, assured Baiden of Pakistans all-out cooperation for uprooting militancy from Afghanistan, but said, he will make statement on the issue after consultation with other high-level government officials in Pakistan.
Baiden takes Gilani into confidence over McChrystal issue
Updated at: 0700 PST, Thursday, June 24, 2010
ISLAMABAD: US Vice-President Joe Baiden phoned Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani on Thursday morning and took him into confidence over dismissal of Gen McChrystal, the US and NATO commander in Afghanistan, Geo news reported.
He assured PM Gilani that there will come no-change and no effect in US policy on war against terrorism following removal of NATO commander in Afghanistan.
PM Gilani, on the occasion, assured Baiden of Pakistans all-out cooperation for uprooting militancy from Afghanistan, but said, he will make statement on the issue after consultation with other high-level government officials in Pakistan.
Baiden takes Gilani into confidence over McChrystal issue
GUNNER
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2010
- Messages
- 1,489
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Also,
Will the appointment of Petraeus as commander of Afghan war theatre be considered as a demotion?
As head of ISAF Afghan mission, Petreaus will be reporting to whom? President or Def Sec or CENTCOM ?
gambit
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2009
- Messages
- 28,569
- Reaction score
- 148
- Country
- Location
So far it is still fuzzy as to how is it possible that a Rolling Stone reporter can get that close and for 30+ days with McChrystal and his staff. I doubt that the General was so absorbed in his duties that he totally missed Rolling Stone in his company. Supposedly his PR man, Duncan Boothby, was the one who set it up and it was supposed to be far shorter duration.
Road trip with Stan - Ben Smith - POLITICO.com
If you read the entire article, the only derogatory comment that could be directly attributed to McChrystal was the one about the VP Biden and it was not that 'derogatory'. The most egregious comments came from his staff, which McChrystal had no choice but to fashion into a sword, do the honorable thing and felled upon it via his resignation. McChrystal could be forgiven for being contemptuous of Aikenberry, the President's representative, but not for making fun of the VP, no matter how lightly. Biden is a joke, he knows it and there are already talks of him being replaced by Hillary Clinton in 2012. Not even two years into the administration and the man is being pushed into the street. How pathetic can a VP get?
GUNNER
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2010
- Messages
- 1,489
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
It is also possible that the comments by McChrystal's staffers were off-the-record but were used by the reporter using anonymity.
Also, shouldn't the staff members be punished as well?
gambit
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2009
- Messages
- 28,569
- Reaction score
- 148
- Country
- Location
I have never been unfortunate enough in life to be the focus of a reporter, for whom there is no such thing as 'off the record'. A friend of mine was a reporter for the Tampa Tribune said so. The reporter will not disclose the names but if possible he will use these 'off the record' comments in other ways to convey a message. The problem here is that the more 'off the record' comments he collect from those gullible enough, from drinks or charms, the greater the latitude the reporter has in fashioning the narrative. For the famously anti-war Rolling Stone magazine, this reporter will want as many 'off the record' comments as he can. You think he really want to cultivate these men's long term warm fuzzies to start?
I do not think that McChrystal himself will punish these men but others may. Anyone who has served anytime in the military will know that behind closed doors, no figure of leadership is immune from raw criticisms. The sin here was to express those sentiments in front of a reporter, 'off the record' or not.
waraich66
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2008
- Messages
- 4,641
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
EDITORIAL: McChrystal's final agony
The general's sacking highlights Obama's Afghan incompetence
By THE WASHINGTON TIMES
8:07 p.m., Wednesday, June 23, 2010
MugshotPresident Obama, followed by, from second from left, Gen. David Petraeus, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Michael Mullen, walks to the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington, Wednesday, June 23, 2010, to announce that Gen. Petraeus would replace Gen. Stanley McChrystal. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)
Was President Obama's ouster of General McChrystal over his divisive magazine interview comments a good decision?
Gen. Stanley McChrystal has ended his military career with a self-inflicted wound. He's the victim of a needless crisis in which President Obama seems more defensive than decisive.
Gen. McChrystal was a daring special operator and effective battlefield leader but seemed uncomfortable with some aspects of higher-level command. An informed source told The Washington Times that the political aspects of his job "distracted him from what he would rather be doing, which is killing the enemy."
The statements in the Rolling Stone magazine article that have generated the most buzz are the kind of griping one hears in any organization, but in the military and government, they are best not aired publicly. Gen. McChrystal's error in judgment was allowing strategic communications adviser Duncan Boothby, a reputed "New Media" guru, to give reporter Michael Hastings access to the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) commander's inner circle. The most controversial parts of the story are statements made by anonymous McChrystal aides who were in Paris "getting hammered," according to Mr. Hastings. Someone should have been riding herd on this situation, especially since the men were out of theater blowing off steam. It's no surprise that Mr. Boothby was the first to lose his job because of the public-relations meltdown.
The flap was avoidable. A stronger president could have handled it differently. Gen. McChrystal did not personally make the most egregious comments quoted in the magazine. A commander in chief whose leadership was less in doubt could have made a quip about the article and moved on, but Mr. Obama is exceptionally image-conscious. So, rather than dismiss the article, he dramatically summoned Gen. McChrystal from the battlefront and took his resignation while sympathetic bloggers peddled analogies to Truman and Lincoln and their incorrigible generals that do not bear close scrutiny.
Mr. Obama's exercise in executive leadership aside, the greater narrative is how much of the Rolling Stone report rings true. The article described how the president looked "uncomfortable and intimidated" at a meeting with senior military leaders soon after he took office. He seemed disengaged at his first Oval Office meeting with Gen. McChrystal, months after he took command, and "clearly didn't know anything about [the general], who he was." This meeting was described as a "10 minute photo-op." The article discusses the wariness of anyone in a position of authority in the administration to discuss the concept of "victory" in Afghanistan. It details aspects of the counterproductive interagency competition among U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, Special Representative to Afghanistan Richard Holbrooke, National Security Adviser James L. Jones and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. Mr. Obama chirps that he "won't tolerate division," but he has failed to unify his own Afghan team. The controversial comments from Gen. McChrystal's staff, while impolitic, are rooted in fact.
The article also conveyed the sense among the troops that things are going wrong on the ground in Afghanistan, that the drift at the top is somehow permeating down to their level. The troops are the ones who have lost the most in this sad episode. The United States has an important mission in Afghanistan - and this shake-up is a significant distraction, damaging to the coalition and harmful to the forces on the ground who would like to have a sense that their military and civilian leaders know what they are doing. Our warriors want to know their sacrifices aren't in vain, that their achievements won't be squandered. They can take heart that Gen. David H. Petraeus, with his proven leadership record, is assuming direct responsibility for the war, but whether he can overcome the O Force's dysfunction remains to be seen.
© Copyright 2010 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
