It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US sacks top military commander in Afghanistan

page: 1
13

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 11 2009 @ 03:03 PM
link   

US sacks top military commander in Afghanistan


www.timesonline.co.uk

The top US military commander in Afghanistan was sacked today after both the Pentagon and the White House decided that “fresh thinking” was needed to win the war.

General David McKiernan, who has spent just 11 months in charge of Nato forces in Afghanistan, will be replaced by Lieutenant-General Stanley McChrystal who previously led the special operations command and is credited with killing the leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Lieutenant-General David Rodriguez will be handed a new position of deputy commander of US forces in Afghanistan.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on May, 11 2009 @ 03:03 PM
link   
Well here we go. He was let go and now they are spinning it as a fresh approach and a fresh look. I say the one who is replacing him has plenty of experience in Iraq. We will see if he can make a go of this.




"Although the President plans to increase the number of US troops in Afghanistan to around 60,000 later this year, General McKiernan had complained that the international forces would still be at least two battalions short to break what he has described as a "stalemate" in the battle against the Taleban. "


www.timesonline.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)


[edit on 11-5-2009 by SLAYER69]



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 03:18 PM
link   
Unless they are ready to Terra form Afghanistan into a new Iraq i cannot see any progress and that exact statement has already been said from day one. So i would expect massive air and ground operations similar to iraq but with less media coverage this time. You might notice that there are more media points given to events like the Middle East and Pakistan so that would leave the Afghan issue open for Turkey Shoot.



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 03:29 PM
link   
Who is the new guy?


General Stanley McChrystal

No one would have mentioned his name at all if President George W. Bush hadn't singled him out in public. Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, West Point '76, is not someone the Army likes to talk about. He isn't even listed in the directory at Fort Bragg, N.C., his home base. That's not because McChrystal has done anything wrong—quite the contrary, he's one of the Army's rising stars—but because he runs the most secretive force in the U.S. military. That is the Joint Special Operations Command, the snake-eating, slit-their-throats "black ops" guys who captured Saddam Hussein and targeted Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi.



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 03:29 PM
link   


"Although the President plans to increase the number of US troops in Afghanistan to around 60,000 later this year, General McKiernan had complained that the international forces would still be at least two battalions short to break what he has described as a "stalemate" in the battle against the Taleban. "

IMO they'll use the new commander to add even more troops. After all, they WANT to go into Pakistan soon.... and for that they need more troops.

The war on BS continues!



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 03:31 PM
link   
McKiernan is more a conventional forces commander , he is asking for more troops etc. His replacement is more a covert ops man . Does this mean they don't think they can overcome the supply route problem and therefore moving away from a more troops option, to a more specialized operations type of effort ?



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Gun Totin Gerbil
 



Yeah it seems that Black ops may be a more effective way to go. With his background I think this is a smart move on the administrations part.



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 04:46 PM
link   
Seems to me that somebody criticize the President's plan and was sacked for doing so. With a country about the size of Texas, 60,000 isn't going to cut it. Obama will eventually have to send in more. Bush may have started this war, but it is all Obama's now.



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Yep. As Tristar mentioned, precise air campaign with little to no media coverage, small "elite" units on the ground. Black Ops.
It's fair to say we're stretched pretty thin in the Middle East, so if the admininstration decides for more than 20-30,000 (additional) troops to be
sent there, I don't think they can ask/send for more without making our involvement 2 obvious, and keeping it copasetic.
I agree it's the best move for this campaign, from the administration.
It will be hard to keep it on the hush tho.

*and the plot thickens*



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 04:50 PM
link   
Excerpt from a memo written by McChrystal during the operations of Task Force 145 in Iraq. Found in the book, Killer Elite by Michael Smith page 276.



This has been, and will be, a long and serious war. Although initial structures and TTPs [tactics, techniques, and procedures] have evolved tremendously from where they were even two years ago, we are still operating with manning and operating processes that need to be improved to be more effective and professional. We must increasingly be a force of totally focused counterterrorists-that is what we do. This is as complex as developing a Long Term Strategic Debriefing Facility that feeds out in-depth understanding of the enemy, and as simple as losing the casual, 'I'm off at my war adventure,' manner of dressing and grooming. In every case it will not be about what's easy, or even what we normally associate with conventional military standards. It will not even be about what is effective. It will be about what is the MOST effective way to operate-and we will do everything to increase the effectiveness even in small ways. If anyone finds this inconvenient or onerous, there's no place in the force for you. This is about winning-and making as few trips to Arlington Cemetery en route to that objective.



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by spec_ops_wannabe
 


Thanks
I havent read that one before. I'm strangly more optimistic regarding the situation now.



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 08:23 PM
link   
Just a thought.

Do you think he has been put there to help over see the SF ops that are undoubtedly going on in Pakistan? Maybe that will be the strategy for Pakistan, as it was at first in Afghanistan. Small units of SF from various countries with air support in the form of drones, etc... It seems plausible to me at least.



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 08:25 PM
link   
Black ops to me means "little to no moral boundaries"

... sounds about right.
If you're losing while playing by the rules, stop playing by the rules.


Not that that's what I'd do... if I can't win within the law I accept defeat... but some people prefer becoming their enemy, rather than losing.



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by GAOTU789
 


Interesting point. They could be putting somebody that should have been there since the beginning.

Non Conventional warfare.



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 10:31 AM
link   
War complexity led to McKiernan's removal


When he announced Monday that he was seeking McKiernan's resignation, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said "fresh eyes" were needed and that a "new approach" to the war in Afghanistan was in "our best interests."

The leadership change indicates defense officials think the Afghan war is growing more complex, The New York Times reported Tuesday. Defense Department officials said McKiernan was removed mainly because he was conventional in his approach to the 7-year-old war.



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by johnsky
 



Good point Johnsky. Rules for (street) fights are made for those who lose fights. I agree. This is looknig more and more like a street fight.

Ugly.

""Do you think he has been put there to help over see the SF ops that are undoubtedly going on in Pakistan? Maybe that will be the strategy for Pakistan, as it was at first in Afghanistan. Small units of SF from various countries with air support in the form of drones, etc... It seems plausible to me at least.""


I think he's a better candidate, plain and simple. Clearly, we have a (set)strategy, and it seems to more "unconvetional" or less Geneva Convention. Similar to the first bombing campaigns in 01.
As mentioned, a wiser decision from the administration. Let's face it.
We cannot afford this war, bottom line. Atleast legally, and that's the point perhaps.........
I think it has been unconventional from the getco. SF has been instilled in Afghanistan from 2001,(well, since the 80's really) and I think the biggest reason was to train thug-life Taliban (who protoect our heroin and pipelines) and the natives, basically toning down guerilla warfare, and resistance. Our biggest threat.
You can never win with guerilla warfare, as it can last for years, decades, which means more troops and more $$$ to be spent.
I'm not sure how well (compared to Afghanistan) it will work in Pakistan.
My guess is that it won't be nearly as successful. Truly.
They are a more hostile people, with much more animosity towards NATO and US. They (we) would rather see a civil war in Pakistan, and then act a savior amongst the very collapse, and demise.
I think our biggest concern towards "unconventional warfare" in any way, is with Pakistan. DO we really trust Pakistan?
And I think this is where the administration might be playing their cards correctly. Afghanistan is pretty neutralized from our occupance (of SF and unconventional warfare) and Pakistan poses the bigger threat here, especially since they are nuclear capable.
It is crucial Pakistan plays ball. This is where McChrystal comes in.
I think the energy is really focused in Pakistan, while it seems to be focused in "War On Terror, Afghanistan."
Brilliant. Gotta admit.
My wondering is of the Taliban here. What role will the thugs be playing?
As you mentioned in another thread Slay, are they prepping up the Taliban, fear mongering, making them out be be a bad asS Army, and maybe with nucler capabilities? Very interesting.
I think that's what will happen if things don't go as planned, and we need to send more troops, and sink more money. It's how they will get US public approval....in a plan B. That's if McChrytal drops the ball, imo.



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 07:41 PM
link   
Tillman's parents want general's record reviewed


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.



lest we forgot......

He has experience in running a cover-up too.

Peace



new topics

top topics



 
13

log in

join