tagged w/ Gen. Stanley McChrystal
-
By Russ Wellen
Firing Gen. McChrystal and replacing him with Gen. Petraeus raises many questions. For example, some say that when he accepted the post as top commander in Afghanistan, it was made clear to Gen. Petraeus that he'd come away with no great success like he supposedly had in Iraq with the Surge. On the other hand, did Petraeus take the position on the condition that the United States would send more troops to Iraq and switch back to a counterterrorism strategy from counterinsurgency?
But President Obama has stated that our Afghanistan strategy will remain the same. While that may be an attempt to appear strong and present a united front, will the administration, in fact, use this as an opportunity to begin the Great Drawdown? (After all, McChrystal is a ready-made fall guy for the failure of COIN.)
At IPS News Gareth Porter has an answer to those who fear that the error of COIN is about to be compounded with a new Surge (which always struck me as reinforcements rebranded):
Petraeus's political skills and ability to sell a strategy involving a negotiated settlement offers Obama more flexibility than he has had with McChrystal in command.
Contrary to the generally accepted view that Petraeus mounted a successful counterinsurgency campaign in Iraq, his main accomplishment was to make the first formal accommodation with Sunni insurgents.
Petraeus demonstrated in his command in Iraq a willingness to adjust strategic objectives in light of realities he could not control. He had it made it clear to his staff at the outset that they would make one last effort to show progress, but that he would tell Congress that it was time to withdraw if he found that it was not working.
Do Focal Points readers think the appointment of General Petraeus might portend peace, or another surge?
http://www.fpif.org/blog/petraeus_harbinger_of_peace_not_another_surgeBy Russ Wellen
Firing Gen. McChrystal and replacing him with Gen. Petraeus raises... more
-
-
-
-
-
-
Gen. Stanley McChrystal, head of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, has been ordered to the White House to meet with President Obama over remarks McChrystal made to Rolling Stone magazine about Obama and his administration. Here is a slide show of Obama and McChrystal meeting in the past the what McChrystal said now that has Obama so upset.
http://corksphere.blogspot.com/2010/06/huffington-post-mcchrystals-rolling.htmlGen. Stanley McChrystal, head of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, has been ordered to the... more
-
-
-
Q: Why would U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan go out of their way to smear a journalist?
A: Because he told the truth about a night raid that killed Afghan civilians, including pregnant women.
Last week, I spoke with Afghanistan-based journalist Jerome Starkey about his reporting on special forces raids that killed civilians and NATOs surprising–and disappointing–response. This video contains disturbing images, and an even more disturbing story of violence, and an attempt to silence a truth-teller. It shows why its absolutely essential that we keep pushing back against the Pentagon’s message machine.
Over the past few months, Starkey exposed two incidents where NATO initially claimed to have engaged and killed insurgents, when they’d in fact killed civilians, including school children and pregnant women. In both cases, when confronted with eye-witness accounts obtained by Starkey that clearly rebutted NATO’s initial claims, NATO resisted publicly recanting.
In the first case, NATO officials told him they no longer believed that the raid would have been justified if they’d known what they now know, but no official would consent to direct attribution for this admission.
In the second case, NATO’s initially made sensational claims that they’d discovered during the raid the bodies of pregnant women that had been bound, gagged and executed. Starkey’s reporting forcefully rebutted this claim. Instead of simply retracting their story, NATO went so far as to attempt to damage Starkey’s credibility by telling other Kabul-based journalists that they had proof he’d misquoted ISAF spokesman Rear Adm. Greg Smith. When Starkey demanded a copy of the recording, NATO initially ignored him and eventually admitted that no recording existed. NATO only admitted their story was false in a retraction buried several paragraphs deep in a press release that led with an attack on Starkey’s credibility.
Under Gen. Stanley McChrystal, NATO’s made a big show of apologizing early and often when civilians are killed in broad daylight. But Starkey’s reporting and ISAF’s reaction to it shows that their natural inclination to escape accountability remains strong and operative when they think they can get away with violent mistakes under the cover of darkness.Q: Why would U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan go out of their way to smear a... more
-
-
Asked whether he thought the war in Afghanistan could be won with fewer troops than Gen. McChrystal has reportedly requested, Sen. John McCain said, "I do not."Asked whether he thought the war in Afghanistan could be won with fewer troops than... more
-
