I'm surprised this hasn't been posted yet, what do you guys think?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/world/asia/12military.html?_r=1
QuoteCommander's Ouster Is Tied to Shift in Afghan War
By ELISABETH BUMILLER and THOM SHANKER
Published: May 11, 2009
WASHINGTON — The top American commander in Afghanistan, Gen. David D. McKiernan, was forced out Monday in an abrupt shake-up intended to bring a more aggressive and innovative approach to a worsening seven-year war.
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates announced the decision in terse comments at the Pentagon, saying that "fresh eyes were needed" and that "a new approach was probably in our best interest." When asked if the dismissal ended the general's military career, Mr. Gates replied, "Probably."
The move reflects a belief that the war in Afghanistan, waged against an increasingly strong Taliban and its supporters across a rugged, sprawling country, is growing ever more complex. Defense Department officials said General McKiernan, a respected career armor officer, had been removed primarily because he had brought too conventional an approach to the challenge.
He is to be replaced by Lt. Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, a former commander of the Joint Special Operations Command. He served in Afghanistan as chief of staff of military operations in 2001 and 2002 and recently ran all commando operations in Iraq.
Forces under General McChrystal's command were credited with finding and capturing Saddam Hussein and with tracking and killing Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. His success in using intelligence and firepower to track and kill insurgents, and his training in unconventional warfare that emphasizes the need to protect the population, made him the best choice for the command in Afghanistan, Defense Department officials said.
At the same time, he will be confronted with deep tensions over the conduct of Special Operations forces in Afghanistan, whose aggressive tactics are seen by Afghan officials as responsible for many of the American mistakes that have resulted in the deaths of civilians.
Pentagon officials have begun to describe Afghanistan as the military's top priority, even more important than the war in Iraq. President Obama announced a major overhaul of American strategy in Afghanistan in March. Planned troop levels are expected to reach more than 60,000 Americans.
Pentagon officials said it appeared that General McKiernan was the first general to be dismissed from command of a theater of combat since Douglas MacArthur during the Korean War.
At a Pentagon news conference on Monday, Mr. Gates praised General McKiernan for what he called his "long and distinguished" service, but said of Afghanistan, "Our mission there requires new thinking and new approaches by our military leaders." General McKiernan served in his current command for only 11 months, about half the length of such tours.
Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, joined Mr. Gates in making the announcement.
The change also reflects the influence of Gen. David H. Petraeus, who took over last fall as the top American commander for Iraq and Afghanistan. General Petraeus served under General McKiernan in Iraq only to surpass him quickly in his rise through the ranks. The defense officials said the two men did not develop a bond after General Petraeus inherited General McKiernan as his Afghanistan commander.
While his unblemished record included service in the former Yugoslavia, General McKiernan found himself unable to win support from the two most recent defense secretaries. As the commander of allied ground forces during the invasion of Iraq, General McKiernan differed with the Pentagon leadership and with his commander, Gen. Tommy R. Franks, when he joined a circle of Army officers who advocated many more troops than were ordered to the region.
Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, said Mr. Obama agreed with the recommendation from Mr. Gates and Admiral Mullen that "the implementation of a new strategy in Afghanistan called for new military leadership." The president praised General McKiernan's leadership, but said it was time for a "change of direction in Afghanistan."
The president met with Mr. Gates in the Oval Office on Monday, but aides declined to provide details of their discussions.
A senior administration official said that last week, Mr. Gates asked the president for his approval to remove General McKiernan and the president agreed. Mr. Gates then officially delivered the news of his final decision over dinner last Wednesday night with General McKiernan at Camp Eggers, the American military headquarters in Kabul, Afghanistan.
Mr. Gates said General McChrystal would be assisted by a deputy commander, Lt. Gen. David M. Rodriguez, who is to serve in a new position with responsibility for the day-to-day management of the war. General Rodriguez had a previous tour in eastern Afghanistan as commander of the 82nd Airborne.
A West Point graduate from the class of 1976, General McChrystal is himself a Green Beret and a Ranger, as well as a veteran Special Operations commander. One spot on General McChrystal's generally sterling military record came in 2007, when a Pentagon investigation into the accidental shooting death in 2004 of Cpl. Pat Tillman by fellow Army Rangers in Afghanistan held General McChrystal accountable for inaccurate information provided by Corporal Tillman's unit in recommending him for a Silver Star.
The information wrongly suggested that Corporal Tillman, a professional football player whose decision to enlist in the Army after the Sept. 11 attacks drew national attention, had been killed by enemy fire.
In recent work as director of the Joint Staff, General McChrystal has developed a plan to select a group of some 400 troops and officers to go back and forth from assignments in the region and the United States. While at home, the troops and officers would continue in their military jobs and work on some aspect of Afghan strategy, training or operations. The troops would remain in the cadre for three to five years, depending on the job. The approach is similar to the way General McChrystal ran Special Operations forces.
Most troops now deploy to Afghanistan for about a year or less without any formal training in the region before they go. They often move on to unrelated jobs when their Afghan tours end.
"The idea is to develop a group of people who give you continuity, expertise and relationships. They know each other plus the people they're going to work with," said a senior military official who has worked closely on the plan. "As they build relationships among themselves, relationships with Afghan partners and relationships with Afghan units, their relative effectiveness is just going to go up."
The official said that the program, which Admiral Mullen has approved, should be up and running within 60 days after details are worked out, and its effects would be noticeable in Afghanistan within six months.
Eric Schmitt and Jeff Zeleny contributed reporting.
QuoteWhen asked if the dismissal ended the general's military career, Mr. Gates replied, "Probably."
:face:
Quote from: Alcibiades on May 12, 2009, 09:03:00 PM
QuoteWhen asked if the dismissal ended the general's military career, Mr. Gates replied, "Probably."
:face:
Yeah, pretty cold. :D
Comments like that one just makes this whole business sound political. Tossing this poor bastard to the wolves because things are heading down hill.
Saw this last night and was also wondering when it would be posted. Seems to be a solid pick, as long as we don't send in squads of ex-NFL players on search and recovery missions. :D
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on May 12, 2009, 09:22:34 PM
Comments like that one just makes this whole business sound political. Tossing this poor bastard to the wolves because things are heading down hill.
It is political. War tends to be that way. Better to toss one guy's career away then more dead soldiers.
I like the new guy.
A shame that I am not going to meet him.
Quote from: Alcibiades on May 12, 2009, 09:03:00 PM
QuoteWhen asked if the dismissal ended the general's military career, Mr. Gates replied, "Probably."
:face:
Retirement pay as a General....he won't exactly be living on the street.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 12, 2009, 09:56:22 PM
It is political. War tends to be that way. Better to toss one guy's career away then more dead soldiers.
If you could save soldiers lives by sacking the commander then the decision is not political.
I didn't like the way this was handled.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 12, 2009, 11:48:29 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 12, 2009, 09:56:22 PM
It is political. War tends to be that way. Better to toss one guy's career away then more dead soldiers.
If you could save soldiers lives by sacking the commander then the decision is not political.
I didn't like the way this was handled.
he was fired at dinner. always leaves a bad taste.
Quote from: saskganesh on May 13, 2009, 12:49:34 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 12, 2009, 11:48:29 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 12, 2009, 09:56:22 PM
It is political. War tends to be that way. Better to toss one guy's career away then more dead soldiers.
If you could save soldiers lives by sacking the commander then the decision is not political.
I didn't like the way this was handled.
he was fired at dinner. always leaves a bad taste.
Good way to ensure that nobody accepts his dinner invitations anymore. :lol:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 12, 2009, 11:48:29 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 12, 2009, 09:56:22 PM
It is political. War tends to be that way. Better to toss one guy's career away then more dead soldiers.
If you could save soldiers lives by sacking the commander then the decision is not political.
I didn't like the way this was handled.
Of course it's still political.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 12, 2009, 09:56:22 PM
It is political. War tends to be that way. Better to toss one guy's career away then more dead soldiers.
I have no idea what this means. This decision was as "political" as the decision to replace Fletcher with Halsey as commander of the South Pacific command in WW2; which is to say no more political than any given decision (and you can define politics broadly enough to make pretty much anything political). McKiernan is being replaced by McChrystal because McKiernan doesn't play well with his boss, Petraeus. Why you think Petraeus's desire to have his own guy in the hottest seat in his command is "political" escapes me.
Quote from: grumbler on May 13, 2009, 06:43:54 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 12, 2009, 09:56:22 PM
It is political. War tends to be that way. Better to toss one guy's career away then more dead soldiers.
I have no idea what this means. This decision was as "political" as the decision to replace Fletcher with Halsey as commander of the South Pacific command in WW2; which is to say no more political than any given decision (and you can define politics broadly enough to make pretty much anything political). McKiernan is being replaced by McChrystal because McKiernan doesn't play well with his boss, Petraeus. Why you think Petraeus's desire to have his own guy in the hottest seat in his command is "political" escapes me.
Removing someone because they "don't play well with his boss" is a political removal.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 13, 2009, 07:01:17 AM
Removing someone because they "don't play well with his boss" is a political removal.
may be, but arguing that "removing someone because they "don't play well with his boss" is a political removal" is a political argument, so the word "political' in this context is kinda meaningless. Everything is political.
Quote from: grumbler on May 13, 2009, 08:13:00 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 13, 2009, 07:01:17 AM
Removing someone because they "don't play well with his boss" is a political removal.
may be, but arguing that "removing someone because they "don't play well with his boss" is a political removal" is a political argument, so the word "political' in this context is kinda meaningless. Everything is political.
I suppose we agree.
Quote from: Monoriu on May 13, 2009, 01:08:11 AM
Quote from: saskganesh on May 13, 2009, 12:49:34 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 12, 2009, 11:48:29 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 12, 2009, 09:56:22 PM
It is political. War tends to be that way. Better to toss one guy's career away then more dead soldiers.
If you could save soldiers lives by sacking the commander then the decision is not political.
I didn't like the way this was handled.
he was fired at dinner. always leaves a bad taste.
Good way to ensure that nobody accepts his dinner invitations anymore. :lol:
oh, yeah. I imagine there's huge savings on serving desert.
Good riddance - McKiernan just ripped off Tolkien anyway.
Quote from: The Brain on May 13, 2009, 11:08:16 AM
:yes: To fight the Muslim we must understand the Muslim. We can ill afford another Klendathu.
:lmfao:
Quote from: PDH on May 13, 2009, 10:08:51 AM
Good riddance - McKiernan just ripped off Tolkien anyway.
No kidding. I'm surprised that hack wasn't sued.
Quote from: PDH on May 13, 2009, 10:08:51 AM
Good riddance - McKiernan just ripped off Tolkien anyway.
What do you mean?
I guess I trust Petraeus' and Gates' judgement. If this General needs to be fired so be it.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 13, 2009, 07:01:17 AM
Quote from: grumbler on May 13, 2009, 06:43:54 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 12, 2009, 09:56:22 PM
It is political. War tends to be that way. Better to toss one guy's career away then more dead soldiers.
I have no idea what this means. This decision was as "political" as the decision to replace Fletcher with Halsey as commander of the South Pacific command in WW2; which is to say no more political than any given decision (and you can define politics broadly enough to make pretty much anything political). McKiernan is being replaced by McChrystal because McKiernan doesn't play well with his boss, Petraeus. Why you think Petraeus's desire to have his own guy in the hottest seat in his command is "political" escapes me.
Removing someone because they "don't play well with his boss" is a political removal.
Uhm, no.
Quote from: Martinus on May 13, 2009, 06:22:21 PM
Uhm, no.
Now go and play. We Westerners are talking.
Yes.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 12, 2009, 11:48:29 PM
I didn't like the way this was handled.
There's really no "good way" to handle firing someone. Of course, some ways are worse than others.
The last General who failed was promoted to Army Cief of Staff. Good thing they cashiered this one.
Good thing Gaes doesn't let himself be intimidated by the uniform like most of his predecessors did.
BTW, what happens when you get fired from a military job? Do you get kicked out of the army, or do you get assigned elsewhere?
Quote from: DGuller on May 13, 2009, 11:44:50 PM
BTW, what happens when you get fired from a military job? Do you get kicked out of the army, or do you get assigned elsewhere?
You write memoirs.
Quote from: grumbler on May 13, 2009, 08:13:00 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 13, 2009, 07:01:17 AM
Removing someone because they "don't play well with his boss" is a political removal.
may be, but arguing that "removing someone because they "don't play well with his boss" is a political removal" is a political argument, so the word "political' in this context is kinda meaningless. Everything is political.
Thanks, my head hurts now... but anyway, removing someone for exactly the reason Raz states isn't necessarily a political removal, no. There's nothing wrong with firing someone because they don't integrate well into a team. OTOH, I don't know that this is what really happened here.
Quote from: DGuller on May 13, 2009, 11:44:50 PM
BTW, what happens when you get fired from a military job? Do you get kicked out of the army, or do you get assigned elsewhere?
At his level, jobs come only through selection boards, and if he isn't offered one, he will retire.
It is certain that he will not be offered another job (he is competing for those jobs with a lot of highly-qualified people who haven't been fired from a position), and so he will retire.
Maybe he can be a professor at the Army War College or something?
Quote from: Siege on May 13, 2009, 05:25:50 PM
Quote from: PDH on May 13, 2009, 10:08:51 AM
Good riddance - McKiernan just ripped off Tolkien anyway.
What do you mean?
There was an author by the same name who ripped off JRR. He made his hobbits warrior hobbits though, so I guess that made the trilogy different enough that he wasn't sued into next week.
No, you're not:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2Fc%2Fc5%2FThe_Westerner_1940.jpg&hash=4e392bd7c06b0efd458ce74f55036138d53e55ae)
McKiernan is not the first General since MacArthur to be fired, Clark was fired as well after the disastrous Kosovo campaign, although that was downplayed in the press.
Quote from: Hansmeister on May 14, 2009, 07:03:49 PM
McKiernan is not the first General since MacArthur to be fired, Clark was fired as well after the disastrous Kosovo campaign, although that was downplayed in the press.
Lost an entire army to the Serbs he did.
Quote from: Hansmeister on May 14, 2009, 07:03:49 PM
McKiernan is not the first General since MacArthur to be fired, Clark was fired as well after the disastrous Kosovo campaign, although that was downplayed in the press.
First fired during the campaign since MacArthur.
Quote from: Hansmeister on May 14, 2009, 07:03:49 PM
McKiernan is not the first General since MacArthur to be fired, Clark was fired as well after the disastrous Kosovo campaign, although that was downplayed in the press.
:lmfao: Yeah, "fired" a
year later!
Hans, we are not all as dumb annd credulous as you. Please don't waste our time with this drivel.
Clarke got "retired" as part of the same "old boy" system that forced his successor, Ralston, to also retire before his full three years as SACEUR were up.
I'm sure Hans got them both fired.
Quote from: katmai on May 14, 2009, 08:42:02 PM
I'm sure Hans got them both fired.
Why do you hate freedom? :mad:
Quote from: grumbler on May 14, 2009, 08:19:49 PM
:lmfao: Yeah, "fired" a year later!
Hans, we are not all as dumb annd credulous as you. Please don't waste our time with this drivel.
Clarke got "retired" as part of the same "old boy" system that forced his successor, Ralston, to also retire before his full three years as SACEUR were up.
Interesting fact: When the National Review Online was hacked and it's articles replaced with those from the Huffington Post Hans did an about face attacking Bush, Cheney, the GOP, conservatives in general, and endorsing future president Obama for three days before things were set right.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 15, 2009, 03:42:05 AM
Quote from: grumbler on May 14, 2009, 08:19:49 PM
:lmfao: Yeah, "fired" a year later!
Hans, we are not all as dumb annd credulous as you. Please don't waste our time with this drivel.
Clarke got "retired" as part of the same "old boy" system that forced his successor, Ralston, to also retire before his full three years as SACEUR were up.
Interesting fact: When the National Review Online was hacked and it's articles replaced with those from the Huffington Post Hans did an about face attacking Bush, Cheney, the GOP, conservatives in general, and endorsing future president Obama for three days before things were set right.
Don't be ridiculous. Hans sests his own opinions. Even if you disagree with them, he's not the sort of person who would form all of his opinons on something on the unconsidered consumption of opinion collumns, magazine articles, podcasts and what he saw in movies.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 14, 2009, 07:23:13 PM
the disastrous Kosovo campaign
You mean the campaign we won without suffering a single fatality? :unsure:
Quote from: Valmy on May 15, 2009, 08:25:15 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 14, 2009, 07:23:13 PM
the disastrous Kosovo campaign
You mean the campaign we won without suffering a single fatality? :unsure:
An F-117 was shot down though :ultra:
Quote from: Valmy on May 15, 2009, 08:25:15 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 14, 2009, 07:23:13 PM
the disastrous Kosovo campaign
You mean the campaign we won without suffering a single fatality? :unsure:
It was thought the Serbs could be bombed into submission in a few days. It took a month and arm-twisting from the Russians.
Quote from: Valmy on May 15, 2009, 08:25:15 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 14, 2009, 07:23:13 PM
the disastrous Kosovo campaign
You mean the campaign we won without suffering a single fatality? :unsure:
Except that we didn't win. We gave in to all four of the preconditions the Serbs had offered prior to the war, i.e., we would have gotten the same without the war.
Quote from: Hansmeister on May 18, 2009, 06:33:58 AM
Quote from: Valmy on May 15, 2009, 08:25:15 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 14, 2009, 07:23:13 PM
the disastrous Kosovo campaign
You mean the campaign we won without suffering a single fatality? :unsure:
Except that we didn't win. We gave in to all four of the preconditions the Serbs had offered prior to the war, i.e., we would have gotten the same without the war.
And what preconditions were these?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 18, 2009, 06:36:04 AMAnd what preconditions were these?
1. No referendum on independence within three years
2. No freedom of movement for NATO troops throughout the entirety of Yugoslavia
3. No removal of all yugoslavian authorities from Kosovo
4. Russians need to be part of the peacekeeping force
NATO surrendered on all four demands to bring that fiasco to an end, obviating the whole need for the war in the first place. The Serbs had already conceded the loss of Kosovo to NATO control prior to the war so potraying that as a "victory" was all spin. (It helps when the spokesman for the SecState is married to the chief foreign correspondent of CNN).