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 Gen. McChrystal takes command in Afghanistan

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 06:02 AM
link   

US Gen. McChrystal takes command in Afghanistan


news.yahoo.com

KABUL – Gen. Stanley McChrystal, a four-star American general with a long history in special operations, took charge of U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan on Monday, a change of command the Pentagon hopes will turn the tide in an increasingly violent eight-year war.

McChrystal took command from Gen. David McKiernan during a low-key ceremony at the heavily fortified headquarters of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force in central Kabul. McKiernan was fired last month by Defense Secretary Robert Gates one year into a two-year assignment
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 06:02 AM
link   
I guess the new West Point graduates are discovering that a war is a violent activity. The war is getting "increasingly violent" in Afghanistan and some US generals were not taught how to fight a "violent" war.

Russians were much better soldiers then the US troops, but didn't get much of a respect from the local resistance, so there is no reason to believe that any VA-Day (Victory in Afghanistan) would ever take place no matter how many generals would be replaced.

The generals capable to get it over with, like Zhukov, Konev, Rokossovski, Rommel, Guderian, or von Rundstedt are long gone, so there is no one these days in the know how to fight "an increasingly violent war" -- apart from the Afghanistan militarily under-educated resistance.



news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


[edit on 6/15/2009 by stander]



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 06:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by stander
I guess the new West Point graduates are discovering that a war is a violent activity. The war is getting "increasingly violent" in Afghanistan and some US generals were not taught how to fight a "violent" war.

Russians were much better soldiers then the US troops, but didn't get much of a respect from the local resistance, so there is no reason to believe that any VA-Day (Victory in Afghanistan) would ever take place no matter how many generals would be replaced.


I'm curious as to why you believe that, as I don't have an opinion on the matter yet.



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johnmike

Originally posted by stander
I guess the new West Point graduates are discovering that a war is a violent activity. The war is getting "increasingly violent" in Afghanistan and some US generals were not taught how to fight a "violent" war.

Russians were much better soldiers then the US troops, but didn't get much of a respect from the local resistance, so there is no reason to believe that any VA-Day (Victory in Afghanistan) would ever take place no matter how many generals would be replaced.


I'm curious as to why you believe that, as I don't have an opinion on the matter yet.


Do you mean that I should wait till I hear your opinion before expressing my belief regarding the outcome of the war in Afghanistan?

Freedom wears different outfit, my friend. Americans love to talk about freedom, while the Afghans love to fight for it. That makes a strategic difference.




top topics
 
0

log in

join