U.S. Replaces Commander in Afghanistan in War Overhaul

**ghatotkacha** · 11 May 09,, 19:47

The Pentagon is replacing the top American commander in Afghanistan, Gen. David McKiernan, less than a year after he took over, marking a major overhaul in military leadership of a war that has presented President Obama with a worsening national security challenge.

“Our mission there requires new thinking and new approaches by our military leaders,” said Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates at a news conference announcing General McKiernan’s dismissal.

Defense officials said that General McKiernan was being replaced because of what they described as a conventional approach to what has become one of the most complicated military challenges in American history. He is to be replaced by Lt. Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, a former commander of the Joint Special Operations Command who recently ran all special operations in Iraq.

The decision reflects a belief that the war in Afghanistan has grown so complex that it needs a commander drawn from the military’s unconventional warfare branch.

General McKiernan had served in his current command for only 11 months, while such tours are usually two years or more.

....

So what would be the affect of this on the Afghan theatre of operations ?

**Kernow** · 11 May 09,, 22:40

US sacks top Afghanistan general

The US defence secretary has asked the country's commander in Afghanistan to step down, saying the battle against the Taleban needs "new thinking".

Robert Gates confirmed Gen David McKiernan would effectively be sacked less than a year after taking command.

He will be replaced by Gen Stanley McChrystal, who is seen as having a better understanding of the conflict.

The change comes as the US boosts troops numbers in Afghanistan and prepares for a change in strategy.

Gen McKiernan's time as US commander in Afghanistan has coincided with a surge in violence.

His successor currently serves as the director of US Joint Chiefs of Staff, and was previously a director of special operations forces.

)

Jonathan Beale BBC News, Washington Gen McChrystal was in charge of Joint Special Operations in Iraq. His forces were involved in the capture of Saddam Hussein and the killing of al-Qaeda's leader in Iraq - Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Robert Gates has refused to explain why he lost faith in Gen McKiernan. But both he and President Obama have often repeated that the war in Afghanistan will not be won with military strength alone. The inference is that Gen McKiernan was seen as too conventional a military commander. Brilliant at organising a ground war - as he did in Iraq - but less equipped for the complexities of Afghanistan. Gen McChrystal is reported to have adopted an approach of "collaborative warfare" - relying on communication intercepts and human intelligence as well as military force.
Announcing the removal of Gen McKiernan from his role, Mr Gates said new military leadership was needed to go along with a new strategy and a new ambassador.

"This is the right time to make the change," he said.

"Our mission there requires new thinking and new approaches from our military leaders."

He said the decision was in the best interest of US national security and the success of the Afghanistan mission.

It was made after consulting the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, and the commander of the US Central Command, Gen David Petraeus.

The change also had the approval of President Barack Obama.

Correspondents say Gen McChrystal is a specialist in the kind of counter-insurgency strategy the Obama administration plans to implement in Afghanistan.

Strategic goals

The change comes as President Obama's administration prepares to send thousands of extra troops to Afghanistan, and amid pressure on international forces to reduce the numbers of civilians killed by coalition air strikes.

With plans announced for a phased pullout of US troops from Iraq, Afghanistan was recently confirmed as the primary focus of US military operations.

The US is sending 21,000 additional troops to the country, to join an existing force of 38,000.

However, the new strategy is expected to pair non-military methods and reconstruction with a stronger armed force on the ground.

But relations with President Hamid Karzai's Afghan government have been strained by a recent air strike which some Afghan officials say killed as many as 150 people.

On Sunday, Gen Petraeus said "tactical actions" should not undermine strategic goals.

Gen McKiernan, who will also lose his role as head of the Nato-led International Security Assistance Force (Isaf), recently described the situation in the country as a "stalemate".

Story from BBC NEWS:
BBC NEWS | World | Americas | US sacks top Afghanistan general

**Masada** · 12 May 09,, 01:39

I recommend checking out abu muqawama for the real deal on this.

**Kernow** · 12 May 09,, 01:43

Originally Posted by ghatotkacha

Link

So what would be the affect of this on the Afghan theatre of operations ?

The situation should change, in favour of the Coalition Forces there, if this new General is worth his salt; which I believe he will be, having Commanded 'Special Forces Operations'.

)

**Merlin** · 12 May 09,, 11:41

This seems a good Q&A analysis of the change over. Reducing civilian deaths is an important factor.

Q+A: U.S. removes Afghanistan commander

12 May KABUL (Reuters) - The United States has announced that General David McKiernan will be replaced as commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, an unexpected change at a time when thousands of U.S. reinforcements are on their way to deal with a rising Taliban insurgency.

Q. WHAT DID MCKIERNAN DO WRONG?
A. McKiernan is a highly decorated veteran army commander who led ground forces during the successful initial invasion of Iraq in 2003. But Defense Secretary Robert Gates and President Barack Obama appear to have concluded that his approach in Afghanistan was too conventional for the complex counter-insurgency environment. One of the generals who initially served under McKiernan in Iraq is General David Petraeus, now McKiernan's boss and widely credited with using new tactics in Iraq that helped turn around the fortunes of the war. Those tactics emphasized protecting the population, with units pushed off large bases into smaller outposts to work more closely with local security forces. ...

Q. WHAT EXPERIENCE DOES THE NEW COMMANDER BRING?
A. Lieutenant-General Stanley McChrystal is now the director of the military's joint staff and was long seen as a likely candidate to take up a major battlefield command. He is most noted for having led the military's Joint Special Operations Command from 2003-08. U.S. policy makers have said that the little-publicized role of the highly secretive JSOC in Iraq was one of the main factors behind the reduction in violence there. McChrystal's elite forces captured ousted President Saddam Hussein and later tracked down and killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the al Qaeda leader in Iraq who set up and directed suicide bombing networks. Although JSOC was mainly tasked with hunting down and killing enemies, McChrystal is seen as favoring tactics pioneered by Petraeus to focus on protecting the population.

McChrystal will be joined by a deputy, Lieutenant-General David Rodriguez, who will be day-to-day commander of conventional combat troops, a similar set-up to the command structure in Iraq, letting the overall commander spend more time on strategy.

Q. WHAT DO AFGHANS THINK OF THE CHANGE?
A. Under McKiernan, U.S. and NATO forces developed a difficult relationship with the Afghan authorities over the issue of civilian deaths, which have outraged ordinary Afghans and prompted President Hamid Karzai this week to call for a ban on air strikes. The decision to remove McKiernan was probably taken before reports emerged of an incident last week in western Farah province in which Afghan officials say scores of civilians died.

A spokesman for Karzai described the change as a U.S. administrative matter, but said he hoped the new commander would take more steps to reduce civilian deaths. ...

**Red Seven** · 15 May 09,, 12:31

Good decision. The 'Ghan has needed a commander from the SOF side. SOF/SF has had fingers on the pulse since before Day One. They need a facilitator not an obstructionist.

**Merlin** · 03 Jun 09,, 04:54

Originally Posted by Merlin

This seems a good Q&A analysis of the change over. Reducing civilian deaths is an important factor.

Q+A: U.S. removes Afghanistan commander

The new nominated US commander General McChrystal is testifying at the congressional hearing. He calls reducing civilian deaths the critical point in this war.

Civilian deaths jeopardize Afghan war effort: US

1 hr ago WASHINGTON (AFP) — The general chosen to lead US and NATO forces in Afghanistan warned that the war against insurgents could be lost unless civilian casualties were reduced.

Lieutenant General Stanley McChrystal, nominated by President Barack Obama to take over as commander in Afghanistan, told a congressional hearing that civilian deaths from coalition operations risked alienating the Afghan people and undermining the entire war effort.

"If defeating an insurgent formation produces popular resentment, the victory is hollow and unsustainable," McChrystal said at his confirmation hearing.

"This is a critical point. It may be the critical point. This is a struggle for the support of the Afghan people.

"Our willingness to operate in ways that minimize casualties or damage -- even when doing so makes our task more difficult -- is essential to our credibility."

Civilian casualties -- often from US air power -- have caused mounting popular outrage in Afghanistan and friction with the Kabul government, with US and Western officials worried about handing propaganda victories to their Taliban foes.

**Merlin** · 11 Jun 09,, 08:10

McChrystal is confirmed by Senate.

US commander in Afghanistan confirmed by Senate

11 June [EarthTimes] Washington - The commander chosen by US President Barack Obama to lead US and NATO troops in Afghanistan was confirmed by the Senate. The voice vote Wednesday evening for Lieutenant General Stanley McChrystal took place after Senator Harry Reid, leader of the majority Democrats in the chamber, appealed for a quick confirmation so McChrystal could take up his new command as the Obama administration seeks to turn around the conflict in Afghanistan, which has been plagued by rising Taliban and al-Qaeda militancy.

The vote took place after Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, telephoned Reid to urge a speedy decision on McChrystal, who was to leave Washington for Afghanistan Wednesday night, The New York Times reported. ....

**Merlin** · 11 Jun 09,, 08:49

Not only is he changed, he has been given more authority.

More Leeway for New U.S. Commander in Afghanistan

10 June [NYTimes] WASHINGTON — The new American commander in Afghanistan has been given carte blanche to handpick a dream team of subordinates, including many Special Operations veterans, as he moves to carry out an ambitious new strategy that envisions stepped-up attacks on Taliban fighters and narcotics networks.

The extraordinary leeway granted the commander, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, underscores a view within the administration that the war in Afghanistan has for too long been given low priority and needs to be the focus of a sustained, high-level effort.

General McChrystal is assembling a corps of 400 officers and soldiers who will rotate between the United States and Afghanistan for a minimum of three years. That kind of commitment to one theater of combat is unknown in the military today outside Special Operations, but reflects an approach being imported by General McChrystal, who spent five years in charge of secret commando teams in Iraq and Afghanistan. ....

**Merlin** · 20 Jun 09,, 14:20

Sounds good from what we can see so far.

A New Afghanistan Commander Rethinks How to Measure Success

19 June [NYTimes] WASHINGTON — The new American commander in Afghanistan has ordered a 60-day review of the entire military mission to identify better ways to separate the population from insurgents, an assessment that is expected to lead to new economic and military steps to carve fighters off from the Taliban.

Over the next week, the commander, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, is scheduled to crisscross Afghanistan to meet provincial leaders, villagers and American and allied officials, while counterinsurgency experts from inside and outside the government assist in the top-to-bottom review.

Although the review is in its preliminary stages, General McChrystal is already pledging to expand the fight beyond the purely military campaign to defeat the insurgents.

“The measure of effectiveness will not be enemy killed,” General McChrystal told a Senate committee at his confirmation hearing on June 2. “It will be the number of Afghans shielded from violence.” ....

**Ratus Ratus** · 25 Jun 09,, 14:28

This piece floated into my email form Mil.com.

New Rule: No Fighting Near Afghan Homes

June 22, 2009
Associated Press

KABUL - The top U.S. general in Afghanistan will soon formally order U.S. and NATO forces to break away from fights with militants hiding in Afghan houses so the battles do not kill civilians, a U.S. official said Monday.

The order would be one of the strongest measures taken by a U.S. commander to protect Afghan civilians in battle. American commanders say such deaths hurt their mission because they turn average Afghans against the government and U.S. and NATO forces.

Civilian casualties are a major source of friction between Afghan President Hamid Karzai and the U.S. The U.N. says U.S., NATO and Afghan forces killed 829 civilians in the Afghan war last year.

Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who took command of international forces in Afghanistan this month, has said his measure of effectiveness will be the "number of Afghans shielded from violence," and not the number of militants killed.

McChrystal will issue orders within days saying troops may attack insurgents hiding in Afghan houses if the U.S. or NATO forces are in imminent danger and must return fire, said U.S. military spokesman Rear Adm. Greg Smith.

"But if there is a compound they're taking fire from and they can remove themselves from the area safely, without any undue danger to the forces, then that's the option they should take," Smith said. "Because in these compounds we know there are often civilians kept captive by the Taliban."

McChrystal's predecessor, Gen. David McKiernan, issued rules last fall that told commanders to set conditions "to minimize the need to resort to deadly force."

But McChrystal's orders will be more precise and have stronger language ordering forces to break off from battles, Smith said.

In the most recent civilian deaths case, a May 4-5 battle between U.S. and Afghan forces and militants in western Farah province killed dozens of civilians. A U.S. report last week said U.S. forces killed an estimated 26 civilians. However, Karzai's government says 140 were killed, while an Afghan human rights group says the number is about 100.

...

This would appear to be the new direction. To me making such a public statement is only helping the other side. Now they know where their safe houses are .. Everywhere.

But this seems to avoid any reference to the ANA.. The exit clause.

**Merlin** · 10 Jul 09,, 08:20

This is a very different ball game to a normal military operation. It reminds me of Mao's guerrilla forces moving in and expanding their territories in Chiang's China.

But the US soldiers and officers have to change their mind set. They are not hardened guerrilla fighters. It'd be ideal if they have Afghan speaking and more Muslims among their forces.

TIME's Interview with General Stanley McChrystal: 'I Want the Afghan People to Know What We Are About'

8 July [Time] As commander of NATO's International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, United States General Stanley McChrystal has inherited a 7 and a half year war that appears to be getting worse. Yet U.S. congressmen have given him only a year to turn it around. In a wide ranging interview with TIME Magazine on the back porch of his office at ISAF Headquarters in downtown Kabul, McChrystal discussed his new approach to the Afghan fight, why the military alone can't be a solution, and what he's currently reading on his new Kindle.

TIME: Tell me how the operation in Helmand is going.
General McChrystal: It's too early to predict success, they just started.

And how would you define success?
What we are trying to do is change the dynamics in the area where we are operating. The current operations that you are hearing about in the Helmand River Valley are aimed at areas that are major population centers. They were also areas under Taliban control. They are also a nexus of the poppy trade. So if you describe the Helmand River Valley as the breadbasket of the poppy trade, and where the Taliban gets a lot of resources and support, what we are trying to do is take the area away from it.

The operations are not aimed at the enemy force; they are aimed at taking away the population from the enemy. As you know in classic counter insurgency, if they lose access to the population, they lose. That is what we are focusing on.

So how do you measure that?
It takes time. First thing is if you take a very small area, you have to try and figure out what is going on in that area. First you have to understand what's going on. It's like knowing what is going on in your neighborhood. Not just the traffic on the road, but how money is made, who is running rule of law, who do they go to when they have dispute adjudication — do they go to a Taliban shadow court, a government of Afghanistan official entity?

So you try to look at a whole range of things. There are some overt indicators, close of traffic, commerce, people's ability to interact. Then there are many more that are subtle — you have to get at the attitudes of the people. And that is why I say you have to immerse yourself in it and understand it before you can confidently assess it.

The Helmand op was in the works long before you arrived. Did you just rubber stamp it, or did you change it?
I actually don't have a rubber stamp, I have to get one. I went down and sat down with the RC South commander and I didn't put specific changes to timelines or where forces were going, but we talked a lot about the coin intent, and the purposes of the operation, and the importance of the hold and build — we can clear anywhere we want, but holding and building are hard — so ensuring that the ANSF come in with the marines, so that they do the partnership up front and in the hold and build. We talked a lot about that to ensure that we are moving in the right direction there.

There is an awful lot of energy moving towards protecting civilians, but you can't have too much energy. I believe that I have emphasized that across the force, which has probably reached some people, it is my intent to do that. So I think that is a major evolution and shift in the way that we do business.

The P.R. release on Helmand op — no indirect fire, no bombardments? Where did this come from?
I don't know if they are reading my mind, but they are certainly following my intent. If you think about going into an area to protect the population, if you go into an area, and no shots are fired, but you achieve control, the population is going to feel a lot better. On the other hand if you come in and you destroy buildings, homes, you may take the ground, but the population is left impoverished, they may have suffered casualties among their civilians, and then to turn and ask for their support, it will be different. So what we really want is the equivalent of a peaceful take over, where the Taliban are forced out. ....