What does John Kerry think of this new General who will command Afghanistan? Bad stuff here:

This guy is directly linked to detainee abuses. And other stuff, that frankly I don't think John Kerry would like.

Andrew Sullivan has done some stellar work on exposing some less covered facts about Stanley McChrystal.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/05/who-is-stanley-mcchrystal.html#more

He gets this quote from a POSITIVE article written by someone who was under his command:



Free fire zones, anyone? Sorry, that sounds REALLY BAD to me.

Sully:



A follow up post is on an elite unit, Task Force 6-26, which Sully refers to as "McChrystal's men". They were good. They got Zarqawi. But bad stuff went down, too:



(NYT quote)

I checked Senator Kerry's Senate site, and there is no statement in response to the whole sacking of the old General, and replacing him with McChrystal. But it seems to me this guy is not going to put a "soft footprint" into Afghanistan. This guy is bad news.

has no statement yet. If it were super clear cut, I bet he would have a statement out. I hope he is pushing on the policies behind the scenes. Those comments you quote seem to be going about 180 degrees from what seemed to be the ideas Kerry has pushed in Afghanistan. This is not the way to win hearts and minds - and it sounds like a lot that he STILL criticizes from Vietnam, because they were wrong and doomed to fail in winning hearts and minds.

It sounds like others influenced Obama more. If this is accurate (both the fear of what he will do based on the articles you include and my perception from things Kerry has said and the SFRC discussions (especially the round table), I'm glad Kerry is NOT SoS, because I doubt that just being in the cabinet would greatly increase his influence. I really hope he stays true to who he is.

we need new methods. This is what Petraeus brought to Iraq and this guy was working with him. As long as the US are not withdrawing from Afghanistan, I would expect they put at the head somebody who understands and believes in the methods they will use. From what I understand and read including in blogs way a lot more progressive and pacifist than Sullivan, McChrystal is the man.

What bugs me with Sullivan post is that he does not seem to wonder what we do in Afghanistan, what is the mission, when it will be over. He attacks the man on his issue of the day (VERY important, obviously, but not the only issue in the world). We hear Holbrooke answer to Feingold he was not sure that more troops would be well received. We know that Kerry has some doubts concerning what the plans are. I hear Democrats speak on TV as if Afghanistan was a country that would become a Western Democracy, as if there was no history. This is what has me troubled, a lot more than what this guy may have done under Bush.

I have read various things concerning this person, some good and some bad, some from sources I do not know at all and therefore cannot totally trust -- some good and bad in this category as well--, so this is far from being an endorsement of the man, far from it. Petraeus is head of CENTCOM. He pushes people he believes in. There is no point going after this guy without going after those who named him.

I think that Yglesias, in this article where reprints another view of the man by Benjamin Friedman, where Friedman raises some concerns, tries to understand this nomination in context: http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/05/stanley-mcchrystal-and-black-special-forces.php


Friedman's view is an interesting view, which once again raises the question that we should be asking: what is the mission?

I think that Yglesias, in this article where reprints another view of the man by Benjamin Friedman, where Friedman raises some concerns, tries to understand this nomination in context: http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/05/stanley-mcchrystal-and-black-special-forces.php

Friedman's view is an interesting view, which once again raises the question that we should be asking: what is the mission?

Not that Sullivan is wrong, but I think, at long term, the question asked by Yglesias and Friedman is a lot more important. We hear Holbrooke answer to Feingold he was not sure that more troops would be well received. We know that Kerry has some doubts concerning what the plans are. I hear Democrats speak on TV as if Afghanistan was a country that would become a Western Democracy, as if there was no history.


Edited to reflect my thoughts better (hopefully). Sullivan tends to drive me crazy half of the time, and this is one of these times. So, ignore my previous post (too late to delete it).

as it would for any commander about to take such an important post.

Sen. Kerry's involvement is political in Afghanistan and it is diplomatic. He is not involved in confirmation of Commanders on the ground.

The more important question is what does Pres Obama think about his new hire. Also, what does this mean about Gen. Petraeus influence in the new Admin and what does this new hire say about the strategy in Afghanistan.

This is purely Obama's call. I sincerely doubt that Sen. Kerry would say anything about it. I actually don't think saying anything in detail about this military appointment would be wise or necessary for someone involved in the political end of things.

when I can. In this instance, McChrystal's hiring is about who can work with David Petraeus and who will fulfill the Afghanistan mission as articulated by SecDef Gates and Petraeus.

Seriously, this is what it is about. There is a battle going on over the direction of the Pentagon. This is a war about war and how it will be waged now and in the future.

Huge amounts of money, huge, are spent on arming and equipping the military. (Remember the story last year about retired military who served as commentators on TV? That scandal was actually about retired military who work for defense companies who were giving advice on TV.) There is a Pentagon-to-Defense-Industry pipeline that explains a lot of where the money goes and why commanders on the ground have to plead for the right equipment.

I am watching this to see how the sides line up here. Gates and Petraeus have been involved in a very different strategy that has focused on diplomacy and protecting the civilian populations. That fits with the philosophy that Pres Obama and Sen. Kerry have stated about engaging in the right way in that region and in other areas.

So, I am waiting to see the sides here and how they line up. I might even do some cross-referencing to see the names in the columns and see if any of them were mentioned in that NYTimes article. This is a fight about many things, and one of those things is the money. Another is control of the Pentagon bureaucracy and who really controls it.

Consider these links:
http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/05/11/on_the_defenstration_of_gen_mckiernan_in_afghanistan

Read the comments here: http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/05/14/obama_twice_rolled_by_his_generals

First off, this guy does not equal Petraeus. What Petraeus did which was risky but ended up helping more than anything else he did was open up diplomatic channels with the Sunnis, which sparked the Sunni Awakening. What McChrystal did was go after AQI guys like Zarqawi. Although it was great to see him dead, please note that killing the head of AQI did NOTHING to stop violence. What Petraeus did was what made violence go down. Also, in a new Vanity Fair article, it ends up Bush could have done this type of diplomacy in 2004, and therefore would have saved 2,000 American lives. Killing, killing, killing, although important as part of a bigger strategy, is NOT the way to win a counterinsurgent war.

Secondly, this guy is Dick Cheney's guy. While Cheney blasted Obama on all the Sunday shows, this was one area where he praised something Obama did. I don't always think one should think everything Cheney says/does is always wrong, BUT I am sorry, if Dick Cheney likes the guy, I am immediately suspicious.

There is new leadership in town, of course. We will have to wait and see. But McChrystal's past does matter, and I am less impressed with him than Petraeus.

As far as Kerry goes, yes it is true that this is a Armed Services jurisdiction. Still, I simply do not think Kerry's ideas are being listened to IF McChrystal does in Afghanistan what he did in Iraq from a leadership POV.

"Clear, Hold, Build" was the strategy developed by Col (now General) McMaster in the violence http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/04/10/060410fa_fact2">torn city of Tal Afar. This was in 2005. Gen. Petraeus was appointed in 2006. Sen. Kerry has rightly pointed out the correct timeline on the adoption of clear,hold, build many times. (See also: testimony at SFRC from former SoS Rice, Nicholas Burns, etc al)

Complaining about McChrystal is complaining about a tree while the forest is on fire. Gen. Odierno, the Commander of the Iraq forces was, at one time, called a brutal butcher for his tactics in the early phases of the war. He later became one of the chief proponents of supporting the rights of the Iraq people. The war was conducted in 2003-2005 much differently than is has been since.

What does McChystal's promotion say about the strategy in Afghanistan? Are we going to send in more troops? Are we going to employ, with local adaptation, the principles of "clear, hold, build" and the concept of protecting the local population and observing their civil and human rights as became policy in Iraq? Has McChrystal changed his views over the years, as other commanders did?

What is SecDef Gates and Petraeus doing in Afghanistan and Pakistan?

Okay remember that roundtable hearing back in early Feb that had Dr. Kilcullen there. (He who authored the coinsurgency strategy that was being used? He who was the favorite of Petraeus? He who understood the importance of involving local people in any struggle?) Dr. Kilcullen had an http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/17/opinion/17exum.html?ref=opinion">OpEd in the NYTimes on Sat. (Ah, you don't break from someone more publicly than to write up an oped for the NYTimes.)



Where is the break here and what does it mean going forward. And yes, that is much bigger to me than yet another general who following the policies of 2003 in 2003-4. Where is Gates going, are we trying to do war on the cheap to accomodate bad economic times and is he promoting someone who will follow orders, no matter what?

Re-listen to the roundtable on Afghanistan from Feb. I highly recommend the 10 minutes or so of Dr. Kilcullen's intro remarks at about 30 minutes into the hearing. He talks about the options open to the US in Afghanistan. It is becoming clearer by the day which option we are taking and McChrystal is symbol of that. http://foreign.senate.gov/hearings/2009/hrg090205a.html

After reading Kilcullen's op-ed, I am inclined to think they are not a great idea. I do remember that hearing. Kilcullen basically said we needed to go all in and do the full counterinsurgency strategy or we would fail. We also can't pull out either. It is an impossible situation. I suppose McChrystal as a "just following orders" guy makes sense. You are right that we are looking at small details, instead of noticing that the entire strategy (if there really is one) is seriously flawed. This could take Obama down, you know. LBJ, anyone? Obama has been overall brilliant these last few months but "facts on the ground" can derail even the most astute and gifted politicians.

Again, does John Kerry REALLY support this strategy or does he privately think this will be a big mistake. That is what I find frustrating. In that sense, it would be easier if the POTUS was a Republican. Then we could know what he really thinks since he wouldn't be shackled with party loyalty.

Obama supports the Kerry-Lugar bill that would send $1.5 billion a year in support money for non-military causes to Pakistan.

Kilcullen listed 3 ways our future in Afghanistan could go:



Secretary of Defense (or as he puts it, Secretary of War) Gates has been more visible and more active in the last few months. He has been making changes and showcasing certain specific aspects of the military that indicate to me that he favors a option #2. (Kilcullen specifically thinks this will eventually fail, btw.)

The http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/60minutes/main3415.shtml">CBS news show 60 Minutes was given very unusual access to the Nevada facility where the drone airplane program is set. CBS reporters were allowed to interview the Commander of this facility and were allowed to report on some fairly specific aspects of how this program operates with the continuing emphasis on how beneficial to our troop casualty numbers this is and how cost effective it is. The report on that aired in early May.

SecDef Gates was on 60 Minutes this past Sunday. He was emphasizing certain aspects of his tenure, including his focus on reducing casualties and protecting US troops. There have been some interesting stories lately about Gates or his preferred strategy for Iraq/Afghanistan going forward: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/15/AR2009051502069.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/15/AR2009051500253.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/14/AR2009051404450.html

So, why is Sec Gates suddenly so visible and willing to give interviews and go on TV? Why are previously obscure programs not only getting high priority in terms of funding and manpower, but TV exposure? What are we being prepped for with this media onslaught?

The interplay between Kilcullen and the others will be absolutely fascinating. Kilcullen wrote the manual that helped cement the option that Petraeus took in Iraq. He is a nation-building guy who thinks you do counter-insurgency (COIN) by engaging the local population, ensuring their safety and promoting stable social institutions. McChrystal is also a COIN guy, but he is very different from Kilcullen.

I think we are seeing people laying the groundwork for a withdrawal from Afghanistan/Pakistan/Iraq nation-building and a re-emphasis on the narrow US goal of hunting our adversaries in that region. I think this is happening for many reasons and there are pluses and minuses in this, as there would be in flat-out staying in those places.

McChrystal is symptom of which side is winning. BTW, I don't think we have a clear picture of where Sen. Kerry stands on the use of the drones. I have read commentary that indicates he is listening on this right now. (Actually, that is a good place to be as the debate on this really intensifies. I think the good Senator is in a position to be an independent evaluator.)

What do you see here? BTW, I see Gates, Petraeus and Odierno as a grouping of like minded people. McChrystal seems to fit right in. There was a good NPR story on this: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104065583

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=273&topic_id=156710&mesg_id=156725

But he also believes in a covert campaign that has pounded the tribal areas with some 40 missile attacks launched by unmanned aerial drones operated by the CIA. Those attacks have, largely, inspired anti-Americanism across the country.

"I've looked at them very very closely. And I asked for a CIA briefing to go through every single attack and understand the targeting and what the results really were. And I've also checked them against what they know here and the judgments they've made. And I would have to tell you that the answer to that is, I believe, yes, they have been worthwhile, and as complicated as it is, I think it's made us safer." Kerry said, going farther to acknowledge the CIA role in the attacks that most U.S. officials are willing to do on the record.

Kerry argued the drone attacks had been "ginned into a political tool" in much of Pakistan, but were actually popular in the tribal areas, so long as they did not cause civilian casualties and targeted foreign fighters, usually Arab, who are living among the Pashtun villages along the border.

"The fact is that many people out here understand that that is making their lives safer," he said."

Indeed, one tribal resident who spoke to ABC News agreed with Kerry.

"I am against the current drone attack policy. I think there should be at least one or two drones in every province," he said.

I have had my differences with Juan Cole. However, he was on Bill Moyers show on PBS this past weekend and the discussion merits a look. I am not approving of everything he said, but this is really interesting stuff and somewhat illuminating on what is going on in Pakistan.

I would be very interested in hearing thoughts from people on this.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/index-flash.html">Bill Moyers Show

Afghanistan now. The other commander had only been in charge about 11 months and did not have much help or troops to work with during his whole tenure. I have read it was a new philosophy on how to engage in Afghanistan that lead to this change. However, if torture and inhuman treatment and a disregard for human life is part of this new commander's resume, then I don't think much of him and I have to wonder about our President also.