Did Politics Cost Afghanistan Commander His Job?
In 1943, few American officers had brighter prospects than John Lucas and Haywood “Possum” Hansell. But developments on the battlefield — and other events — derailed their appointment with greatness, leaving them as little more than historical footnotes — two more names on the long list of failed military commanders.
Six decades later, Army Lieutenant General David McKiernan appears destined for the same, historical ash heap. McKiernan was fired earlier this week as commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, amid a surge in Taliban activity and the Obama administration’s desire for a “fresh approach” in that country.
But history also reminds us that the dismissal of senior military leaders is almost inevitably linked to politics. It was true in the days of the Roman legion and the early days of World War II, and it was evident in Washington again this week.
Consider the parallels between McKiernan’s firing and those of his counterparts during the Second World War. Like General McKiernan, John Lucas had a reputation as an outstanding leader, seemingly destined for greater things. He led the Third Infantry Division during the early days of the war. Eighteen months later, Lucas was a corps commander in charge of Operation Shingle, the amphibious landings at Anzio on the Italian coast.
Haywood Hansell enjoyed a similar, rapid rise in the wartime military. One of the Air Corps’ leading planners and strategists, Hansell helped devise and direct the Allied bombing campaign against Hitler’s Germany. He was commander of a medium bomber wing and then the first operational B-17 wing in Europe, leading dozens of missions personally.
Hansell’s impressive accomplishments made him a logical choice to lead the bomber offensive against Japan. In 1944, Hansell (then a brigadier general) was installed as leader of XX Bomber Command, based in the Marianas Islands. Equipped with B-29s, the new command would apply the concepts of strategic bombing, developed in part by Hansell himself, to the Japanese homeland.
But even casual students of military history know that Lucas and Hansell failed at their assigned missions. Despite a successful landing at Anzio, General Lucas failed to seize the initiative. The planned breakout from the beachhead bogged down, leading to months of bloody fighting. Winston Churchill famously summarized the stalemate: “I thought we were hurling a wildcat on the shore, but all we got was a stranded whale.” At the insistence of Churchill (and others), Lucas was relieved of his command in February 1944, barely six weeks into the campaign.
General Hansell was also sacked after early B-29 raids failed to achieve desired results against Japanese cities. Critics pointed to Hansell’s repeated raids against Japan’s aircraft engine industry as justification for his firing. Early intelligence suggested that the attacks were ineffective. Hansell was dismissed in January 1945, only five months after he assumed leadership of XX Bomber Command and just seven weeks after its first bombing mission against Japan.
However, a closer examination of the record suggests that Lucas and Hansell were, to some degree, the victim of intra-service struggles and old-fashioned politics. General Lucas expressed grave misgivings about “Shingle,” noting that invasion forces would be outnumbered by German defenders, limiting their ability to achieve the desired break-out towards Rome. Lucas was further constrained by orders from his superior, General Mark Clark, who told the corps commander “don’t stick your head out.”
Hansell faced similar challenges in getting his bombers into combat. Unlike other commanders in the South Pacific, General Hansell didn’t work for Admiral Chester Nimitz or General Douglas MacArthur. His boss, located eight thousand miles away in Washington, D.C., was none other than the impatient General Arnold.
Making matters worse, the B-29 had severe development problems that followed the aircraft into combat, reducing its early effectiveness. Hansell also faced unforeseen problems like the jet stream, powerful, high-altitude winds that made it difficult for the Superfortresses to reach targets and bomb accurately.
I would estimate that this one was instigated at the top, and conceivably ordered by same.
Afghanistan could require two to three decades
of patient patrolling coupled with establishing
productive enterprises in the tribal regions.
Its closest historical precedent would be the wars against the plains Indians.
“The One” operates on the assumption that his wishes can be commanded into reality overnight.
He is gonna take a fall—–and blame it on others.
Maybe General McKiernan’s problem was that he hadn’t learned how to properly submit himself to Joe Cool in the White House?
Perhaps no General can deliver Obama’s confused world message: Liberating Iraq bad. Liberating Afghanistan good.
Liberating a country which stood up to the terrorists (Iraq) bad.
Liberating one which hasn’t (Afghanistan) good. (Check out the comparative sizes of their reconstituted security forces post liberation.)
Liberating an oil rich country run by a terrorist supporting and harboring, genocidal, ceasefire and U.N Resolution breaking, Stalinist dictator bad.
Liberating an ungovernable country with little strategic value (Afghanistan) good.
But wait, the Euros support the mission in Afghanistan. Sure they do. With their words.
The thought of a general being replaced for political reasons? Not In America. Not on my watch!
“It’s the kind of thankless juggling act that often falls to military leaders in complex contingencies. General McKiernan’s failure in Afghanistan wasn’t pre-ordained, but it became more likely as the Taliban re-gained strength…”
After a helpful article clearly stating historical and contemporary issues that help us to understand what happened in this firing, why suddenly surrender and agree (at least by not using quotes) that it is a failure on General McKiernan’s?
Up until that sentence, I thought the whole point of the article that the firing was not inherently due to any failure on his part but to politics?
I actually wonder if General McKiernan is secretly relieved to be out from the under the pile of crap being generated by this “Commander in Chief” (and the quotation marks there are deliberate).
politics should say goodbye to all that “big commanders” and pay all that people who don´t need weapons to fight for peace in this world.
1. Dave . . . “He is gonna take a fall—–and blame it on others.”
I suggest he blame Clinton.
Another one under the bus!
Basically, the US system for producing military officers is designed to produce average to mediocre flag rank officers. That is because the American body politic fears a military coup more then a defeat by a foreign power.
The 2nd amendment was written to ensure that no power could rule the USA without consent of it’s citizens. Around 300 million firearms are known to be in the hands of private citizens. It might be possible to destroy America, but so long as one person knows what the Constitution is, America is not conquerable.
Flag rank officers have to be confirmed by Congress, which makes them basically political appointments. Great thinkers have for thousands of years noted the connection between military and political affairs. I believe it was Mao that said ‘War is politics with blood and politics is war without blood”. He also said “Political power comes out of a gun barrel”. So he was either confused or misquoted.
I’m of the Col Boyd school. It is all conflict, only the weapons and tactics differ. Naturally politicians will select those officers that lean toward the political side of the conflict resolution equation.
What I find incredible is how many truly outstanding military leaders the system does produce. Sort of like a cat and a hairball, leaders like Lee, Grant, Jackson, MacArthur, Dewey, Nimitz, etc. keep getting spit out.
In this particular case, we are replacing one mediocre General with a slightly less mediocre General.
One a positive note, this war we are in has been going on for almost 1400 years. It won’t end until Islam rules this planet or has been destroyed. So we have lots of time to develop another Lee or MacArthur. We also have an overwhelming technological advantage to prop open that time gate with.
I figure the Usurper will discover the benefits of a war time economy about mid 2010, in time to get the Demonrats thru the mid-terms. Putting 20 or 30 million men (and women) under arms will go a Loooooong way toward lowering unemployment. They will have to be a draft, of course. Which will expand the talent pool quite a bit.
I expect the Usurper to deal with the anti-war protesters the same way Lincoln and FDR did. Give them a rifle and send them to the front. They they either learn to fight or die. Either of which the system will find acceptable.
It’s getting awful crowded under that bus. The sad thing about the Messiah taking a fall, he is taking the country along with him.
One problem the pundits put forth is that they think more troops will be a hinderance. I was in Iraq when we began the surge, and saw how it was applied first hand. More bodies alone would have been ineffective without the proper strategy that General Petreus employed. The amount of troops we asked for was far less than what was needed. However, we used the troops we had to focus on specific sections, vice a general area, and then used the security in those areas to recruit more indigenous forces. Once the sheikhs saw how good their neighbors were doing, they wanted to join in too in order to get the benefits. That’s how we got the forces we needed. You need security before anything else, and you can’t let the enemy hold an inch of ground.
#6 – huh?
“Better to keep your mouth shut and have people think you a fool rather than open it and remove all doubt.”
Silly article: the man had about a year, things got worse not better, and he was replaced. Just what you do with a contractor, lawyer, ghost writer or anyone else that can’t get the job done. His replacement isn’t another lifer skilled in politics but a supposedly unorthodox military man with a history of success. Let’s wish him well and stop wondering “why” an ineffective commander was shelved. We didn’t wonder why Admiral Kimmel and general short were cashiered, the commander at kasserinen pass was let go, etc. (If you want to slam Obama there are things that can genuinely be complained about, but this isn’t one of them).
Of course what you morons are implying also is that General McChrystal is less qualified. This is the guy who 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.
Speaking of politics. I had a survey pop up while I was reading this article. Did you know there’s a BP ad at the top of this page? Along with reading about the politics effecting officers careers, I learned I could get free shipping on an Oreck vacuum but the pop up came up before I saw the BP add. I stopped going to BP stations after they started pimping for global warming in thier advertising.
“(If you want to slam Obama there are things that can genuinely be complained about, but this isn’t one of them).”
You have a valid point. Barack Obama may have done the right thing this time around. Let’s see what happens in the future.
Gee #4, sort of like replacing US Attorneys for political reasons, don’t you think? And look at the furor that caused…
YES!!!!
Politics, lack of resources, excuses, excuses. In war, only one thing matters and that is results. The great commanders, and there are very few of them, overcome all obstacles and find a way to win.
In the Hansel example, his replacement Curtis Lemay came in, looked at the problems, and solved them by sending in his B-29s at relatively low altitude, where their engines performed better, with devastating results. He didn’t wait for direction from Washington. He made his own policy, was successful, and his superiors didn’t say say a word.
In the Lucas example, a bold commander like Patton or Rommel, moving lightning fast from the start, could have cut off the German forces to the south and achieved a major victory. Yes, his boss told him not to stick his neck out. But great commanders like Helson at Copenhagen, or Guderian in 1940 France don’t ask for permission to do what is necessary to win. Forgiveness will come after the victory.
All I know about McKiernan is that he didn’t get it done. If McChrystal doesn’t show big results in a year, then they should replace him too. Like Lincoln durign the Civil War, keep putting in Generals until they find their Grant. I think the odds of McChrystal succeeding are high. The modern day Grant, Petraeus, is his boss, and unlike McKiernan, McChrystal has a special ops background.
typos R Us: “Basically, the US system for producing military officers is designed to produce average to mediocre flag rank officers. That is because the American body politic fears a military coup more then a defeat by a foreign power.”
This is just wrong. You are implyhing that the body politic is deliberately dumbing down the officer corps somehow. Exactly how are they doing this? Let me answer that: they aren’t. In fact, the military officer corps is one of the most respected institutions in this country — far higher rated than politicians or lawyers. I have three close friends who are Flag Officers and they are all incredibly sharp. But would they be good combat commanders? It is impossible to know beforehand. Who will succeed and who will fail will be determined in the crucible of command.
It may be that the change of command is the proper thing to do. We will not know that for sure until a little more time has passed.
However, I cannot help but wonder if future generations will talk about George Armstrong Obama at the Little Big Khandar.
If so, let us hope and pray that another Fred Benteen (he with the soul of vinegar and backbone of steel) will salvage the day.
By the way, 1-stars and 2-stars are not political appointments, only the 3-star and 4-star flag officers require Senate confirmation.
Paying families of Al Queda and taliban killed in drone attacks. Now that may be one of a couple of “political” reasons for the general’s dismissal. Afghanistan’s anger about the drone attacks, called the “hand of Allah” in Iraq, were not healthy, the General could not figure out how to make the situation work. Roggio says it is part of it, I tend to agree. There may be more to it.
His hands may have been tied, and he could not overcome the handicap, like General Lucas. Or he may not have been able to strike strategically with precision for an impatient boss like the article implied was the cause of General Hansell’s troubles.
Replacing and selecting generals in a war, and determining overall strategy, are always tricky questions. Decisions are almost always second-guessed minutes after they’re made, and frankly it’s rare that the second-guessers have any idea of the complexity of what’s going on behind closed doors. Usually we don’t learn the details of that for years afterwords. Lucas was an idiot who lost his nerve under pressure (he made statements to others beforehand that foretold this would happen), and Hansell wasn’t sufficiently innovative for the campaign he was waging. His replacement (LeMay) took all the guns off of the B-29s, had them fly at night, and firebombed the cities. Hansell had insisted on precision bombing attacks from 25,000 feet, in winds that blew the bombs around on their way down. In wars, you reward success and fire the failures.
As to the surge issue, and whether McKiernan or Obama understands what’s going on, I’m still not certain. I was against the surge in Iraq when it was first discussed, by Democrats, and then when Bush advocated it I still was opposed. Later, after it had happened and been successful, it was explained to me how they came to the conclusion that they should do it in the first place. I am not aware of whether this information was made public at the time (I believe not, but I’m not certain). Instead of just advocating more troops, Odierno, the originator, engineered the plan from the other end. He devised a *tactical* plan for each sector of the country, and worked out how many troops he would need to implement the plan he’d worked out. That led to a larger number than he had, so he asked for the difference. That’s significantly different from a soldier just asking for reinforcements: every general in history thought he lacked sufficient troops, and there’s no evidence our current crop is going to be any different.
Counterinsurgency is a weird sort of warfare, however. Having more troops is almost always a good thing in a conventional campaign; in a counterinsurgency it can be either good, or bad, and the latter is often the case. Extra troops gives your army a larger “footprint” which tends to irritate the local civilians more. In a conventional war you try to avoid inflicting civilian casualties, but accept that upsetting them is inevitable, if regrettable. In a counterinsurgency, by contrast, the civilians are essentially the objective: upsetting them is not only not inevitable, it’s actually a bad thing, and can be very bad if it happens too often. This means that troop increases have to be watched *very* carefully, and the employment of troops must also be handled very carefully. Everything, the use of air power, artillery, armor, essentially any heavy equipment or weapon that has any significant range, must be very carefully controlled and supervised. In conventional warfare, tactics leads to strategy. In an insurgency, tactics *are* strategy: everything must be done to further the overall objective.
Thing is, during the Presidential campaign last year, then-Senator Obama repeatedly complained about how the surge in Iraq hadn’t worked (to the point of complaining about the “spin” on the subject from Bush and the Pentagon), but then advocated a surge in Afghanistan. If he thought the surge in one place was a failure, why would he advocate it for the other campaign? If it was a success, why would he refuse for the longest time to say so? And, most importantly, has the issue of increasing troop strength in Afghanistan been engineered from the platoon up, rather than the top down. I gather from the article that McKiernan wanted more troops, but I don’t know what the basis of his request was.
All of the above is at least partially speculative. So, frankly, is the article. Counter-factual history (the discussion of what might have been, had history taken a different course) is usually fraught with speculation and leads to discussions, or even arguments. Whether they made the right choice isn’t going to be clear for a good while, and frankly may never be entirely certain.
“Who will succeed and who will fail will be determined in the crucible of command.”
If the US Officer cops is so good, explain why 90% or more of them are incompetent?
Right now Petraeus is the best we have and by most standards he is average. He managed to combine overwhelming technology with a centuries old counter guerrilla strategy to fight to a draw in Iraq. I’m supposed to get excited about that?
Iraq is far from over. I think now that the terrs have a date certain, they will just lay low until that date, then all ‘ell breaks loose.
During WW2, it was a sad but true fact that the US Navy was fighting Japan but the Enemy was the US Army. It is still that way to a certain extent today.
Remember, the major difference between an average flag officer and a military genius is knowing when to ignore orders. Study any military history and you will see time and time again the great leader is the one who knows when to disobey his political master and snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. Guderian in France in ’40. Hitler told him to stop and Hustlin Heinz kept going. Recon in force, force being an armored Division. Sharon in ’73 invading Egypt by crossing the canal and cutting off the Egyptian 3rd army. The IDF command considered that too dangerous. Zhukov at Moscow, ignoring Stalin’s orders to hold and attacking and driving the Nazis back from Moscow. MacArthur at Ichon was a stroke of Genius. He didn’t have to dia-obey orders because no body had the balls to give him orders. None of the JCS wanted to do Ichon. I forget who the JCS sent out to order Mac ( Gavin? Collins?) to not do Ichon, but they ran out of courage and never gave the order. It wouldn’t have been obeyed anyway. If Truman had fired Mac at that point in time, Mac Arthur would have been president in ’52 instead of that weenie Ike. Ike is the classic example of incompetence raising to the top in the US Military.
“In the US, the term flag officer generally is applied to all general officers (rank O-7 and above) in the US Army, US Air Force, and US Marine Corps (as well as in the US Navy) as general officers are also authorized to fly their own command flags.[4] However, as a matter of law, Title 10 of the United States Code makes a distinction between general officers and flag officers.[3] Non-naval officers usually fly their flags from their headquarters, vessels, or vehicles, typically though only for the most senior officer present.[5][6] In the United States, all flag and general officers must be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate; each subsequent promotion requires renomination and reapproval.”
From here;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_officer
Not sure where you got the notion that only certain ‘flag officers’ need to be appointed and confirmed.
http://www.militaryspot.com/military-rank.htm
O-7 and above. If you look on that link , you will see that O-7 is a Brigadier General in the Army, Air Force AND Marines. That is why they are called “General officers as well as ‘flag ranks’. Flag ranks is more of a naval term. As a former naval person I tend to use that instead of General Officer.
Everyone seems to have forgotten the sacking, by the peanut farmer, of a fine General Officer, John K. Singlaub.
Jack Singlaub’s sin was to tell the truth, in what was supposed to be a “deep background” interview with a reporter.
Singlaub had been given a classified briefing about the North Korean Army’s capabilities and intentions (I know what he heard because I was sitting in the same room – in the back).
When asked if Carter’s putative policy of withdrawing troops from the DMZ was a wise idea he said, “No.” and explained why.
Notice how Zero is following Carter’s flip-flops.
Singlaub was trashed by the peanut and he deserved far better treatment. I guess soldiers simply are not allowed to tell the truth.
Of course he was sacked for political reasons. The president campaigned for change. Then proceeded to do pretty much the exact same strategy in Afghanistan as Bush. Where’s the change?
There’s your change.
With each passing day, Obama shows himself to be the upstart “community organizer” elected Commander-in-Chief. He and his third-string administration are already making such colossal mistakes that the cost will only be more lost American lives, as well as civilian Afghani deaths.
A year ago, a retired American general made it clear we would be facing huge difficulties in Afghanistan. But politics as usual, with its personal agendas over what’s good for America (think Pelosi, Murtha, Reid, Feinstein, Schumer, and the man masquerading as a Republican from Pennsylvania) trumps any of the common sense the retired general offered our country’s leadership — civilian and military.
Congressman and Senators (from both parties) engaging in public fights that rival those of feudal “lords,” the lust for power, and the craven disregard for average Americans is disgusting and will eventually lead to our downfall. At this point, Obama is on the path to making Jimmy Carter looking like a presidential “genius,” and our politicians are making the feudal lords look downright magnanimous.
And people are wondering why there is a shortage of ammunition? Give me a break! Is this administration THAT stupid?
typos_r_US
“90% of the officer cops (sic) (corps) is incompetent” – please provide facts for that. My experience is that the officer and enlisted corp are some of the most educated and experienced citizenry we have. Do you mean incompetent in battle? Again, please provide facts for that – and as compared to who else and/or what time frame.
Other comment:
All officers must pass muster by congress – an officer who has been selected for promotion can be ‘taken off’ the promotion list by the US Congress for political reasons…not just flag officers. I’ve had colleagues have that happen.
Yes, being a general officer also means being politically savvy. Yes, the comment made about having the ability to survive the crucible of combat is right on – some can, some can’t. Yes, there is such a thing as a command temperament – again, some are more capable than others. However, not everyone gets to be a commander and the military needs many more followers than leaders.
Typos_R_Us
It would follow that to state that “90% of the officer corps is incompetent” would require that you personally know at least 90% of the officer corps. Additionally, it would require that you are competent and qualified to judge.
Not knowing your background and abilities, I would still question that you are even close to being correct. I personally speak from the position of being a retired sailor who has worked for and with officers from all services, from O-1′s to the CJCOS. While I have known some losers, they generally didn’t go very far and were weeded out quite soon.
If “90%” was just a throwaway figure that you thought would catch attention – fine, you were correct and we can now discount your hyperbole.
But if you still claim this figure to be correct, please support it with facts and include your military background to validate your assertions.
“It would follow that to state that “90% of the officer corps is incompetent” would require that you personally know at least 90% of the officer corps. Additionally, it would require that you are competent and qualified to judge.”
Only if one was mathematically ignorant. Ever hear of statistical analysis?
Here is an overview;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics
Here are some of the formulas need to calculate the sample size to get a reasonable ( + or – 5%) answer.
http://home.ubalt.edu/ntsbarsh/stat-data/Topics.htm
Since you prolly have excel;
http://home.ubalt.edu/ntsbarsh/excel/excel.htm
Then we have to define ‘incompetent’. I suspect my standards are somewhat higher then yours. I’m looking for more then courage, attention to detail, hard work and the ability to follow the rules. The average American officer has all those qualities in abundance, since the pre-sort removes any potential office that doesn’t. The German Geneal staff system identified 4 types of officers. The US Army system is designed to eliminated the lazy officer. That leaves us with no smart and lazy officer, which are the best commanders and too many stupid and hardworking officers, which are the real fookups.
Are you familiar with the term; “De l’audace, encore de l’audace, et toujours de l’audace”?
One of the more basic military principals, yet one that is antipathetic to the American military, or at least the higher levels of command.
During the ’67 Israeli-Egyptian campaign, Sharon interleaved his MBT’s with fleeing Egyptian armor. A Egyptian tank followed by an IDF tank followed by an egyprtan tank, an IDF tank, etc. Can you imagine an American general giving that order? Sharon did it because getting to the pass was more important then blowing a few more tanks.
The exception was when the 2nd armored (CCB) did it during the palatine campaign in ’45 (IIRC Hinds commanding) and almost got away with it. The Germans did it several times against the US and the brits. I think against the soviets also, although that isn’t as well documented.
No, American politicians want general officers they feel comfortable with, not those that are willing to defy the odds with a calculated risk. Not sure it matters in one regard, since ’44 the American general officer has had such an edge in men and material that they didn’t have to be brilliant to get the job done.
Of course, America has paid the strategic price for that lack of competence. Look at the campaigns we are fighting now. The off again, on again war Islam has been waging against everybody else since 621 AD is in an active phase right now because Schwartzkopf dropped the ball in ’91.
A great commander would have recpgnized that the battle was won and it was time for the pursit phase. With rumors of the ‘highway of death’ making their way thru the remenants of the Iraqi army, there was nothing to prevent the US Army from going anywhere in Iraq it wanted to go and doing anything in Iraq it wanted to do. A competent military leader would have done what Patton, Manstien, Rommel or Sharon would have done and drained enough fuel from some of his vegicles to fill up others and sent them on. 1 Abrams and 3 Bradly’s under an umberlla of Jabo’s driving down the road to Basar would have put an end to Saddam and been met with the cheering masses so obviously missing in ’03.
You NEVER relax the pursuit. Ask General Crook about that. When the enemy is on the run you run them down. The Bear didn’t and we are still paying the price today.
Granted, the Bear would have violated orders, but sometimes that is the job of a general officer. When he gets it right, the politicians take the credit and the general becomes a major historic figure. We he gets it wrong, he gets hung out to dry. That is as it should be. The Bear didn’t have the moral courage to do what thousands of years of military history shows to be the correct course. So now we are fighting the battles that he could have won in ’91 with a little bit of sweat. Patton said a pint of sweat saves a gallon of blood. Or something like that.
“De l’audace, encore de l’audace, et toujours de l’audace”
Rather than the tossing of a General under the bus, I think the focus should be on winning in Afghanistan. Unless this is a prelude to ‘declaring victory and going home’ which is what the left and media want, I think Obama is being forced by reality onto the right course.
I see a lot of fighting ahead, but a lot of destruction of the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
A second key is going to be resources poured into economic development in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. Money well spent if we get results.
Winning has to be defined. That is a political task which means it is the responsibility of every American citizen.
The only people to ever really “win” in afghanistan were the Mongol. They did so by killing 90% of the population.
One hopes a modern state can find a somewhat less drastic solution. The American body politic needs to understand that we cannot turn ‘ganis into US clones, or, god forbid, Parisians.
It seems to me that providing them with the means and motive to hunt down Taliban and wanna be Taliban would be a good outcome. Free ammo and a bounty would be cheap and effective. ‘Ganis have been stalking and killing one another for thousands of years, why not put that to work for us? 10$ and 100 rounds for each head brought in.
The Afghan war will continue to be a ” Light Infantry” War. Up close and personal. It only makes sense that the Commander would be a Special Operations and Infantry Soldier. Rangers, Paratroopers, Marines, Special Forces and Navy Seals will be the front line with Combat support by the 101st Airborne,10Th Mountain and Mechanized Infantry . Not great territory for Tanks and APC vehicles. Helicopters and Airplanes are required for moving troops. 101st Airborne is Air Mobile, best in the Army.
Take the war to the enemy. “Seek out the Enemy, and Engage” Orders to defeat the Terrorist.
I don’t think Obama will want to lose this Afghan war.He does not want to become Jimmy Carter.
Watch for this war theatre to pick up in action and increased killing of the Terrorist and their supporters.
Terry,
I agree with you comments but certainly not the last line.
Many European Servicmen have shed blood and died in Afghanistan,
Brits, Danes, Poles, Romanians to name just a few.
Furthermore, Afghan is the primary source of all Heroin entering the west that is having a massively detrimental effect on our societeies.
The return to governance in Afghan will enormously mitigate this situation.
And besides we didnt invade Afghan, we are there at the behest of the democratially elected government.
Terry Gain:
Perhaps no General can deliver Obama’s confused world message: Liberating Iraq bad. Liberating Afghanistan good.
Liberating a country which stood up to the terrorists (Iraq) bad.
Liberating one which hasn’t (Afghanistan) good. (Check out the comparative sizes of their reconstituted security forces post liberation.)
Liberating an oil rich country run by a terrorist supporting and harboring, genocidal, ceasefire and U.N Resolution breaking, Stalinist dictator bad.
Liberating an ungovernable country with little strategic value (Afghanistan) good.
But wait, the Euros support the mission in Afghanistan. Sure they do. With their words.
Barack Obama may have done the right thing this time around. Let’s see what happens in the future.