Skip to comments.The curious sacking of Gen McKiernan
Posted on 05/12/2009 10:07:49 PM PDT by garyhope
It seems harsh to suggest the Pentagon top brass don't know what they're doing. But those who care to read the transcript of the press conference at which the sacking of the top American general in Afghanistan was announced may find that conclusion hard to resist. "In some ways we're learning as we go here," said Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the joint chiefs. It was not a reassuring admission.
The public defenestration of General David McKiernan, a distinguished career officer who took command in Kabul less than one year ago, was brutal in that cold, callous way peculiar to American officialdom. More to the point, it remains largely unexplained. "We can and must do better ... We have a new policy set by our president, a new strategy, a new mission ... I believe new military leadership is also needed," said Robert Gates, the defence secretary.
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
hopefully this is unrelated....no story yet....
US: Pentagon Official Charged With Passing Secrets To China
Last update: 5/13/2009 10:56:32 AM
(MORE TO FOLLOW) Dow Jones Newswires
traitor named in the story....
US: Pentagon Official Charged With Passing Secrets To China
DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
WASHINGTON (AFP)—A Pentagon official formerly of the U.S. Air Force has been charged with conspiracy to pass classified information to an agent of China, the U.S. Justice Department said Wednesday.
A criminal complaint said that retired Lieutenant Colonel James Wilbur Fondren, a deputy director of the U.S. Pacific Command’s Washington Liaison Office, “unlawfully and knowingly conspired” to communicate secrets.
“The allegations in this case are troubling - providing classified information to a foreign agent of the People’s Republic of China is a real and serious threat to our national security,” said Dana Boente, acting U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia.
“The U.S. government places considerable trust in those given access to classified information, and we are committed to prosecuting those who abuse that trust.”
In the absense of any other info my take is that The Marxist did not want a general in Afghanistan that was not “his man”. He tried to get Gen. Patraeus out, but the man held his ground in the Senate hearings.
McKiernan was the softer target so The Usurper threw him under the bus. Given that McCrystal is now The Messiah’s man, it remains to be seen to whom his ultimate loyalties lie—America and the American soldier or the unqualified communist residing in the WH.
Casey didn’t get fired, he became Chief of Staff. Even if McKiernan needed to be replaced there was no reason given for his forced retirement. If the new guys came from the Pentagon then there were slots open that GEN Mck could have filled. There is way more to this story than is being told.
i didn’t think of that
McChrystal and Petraeus are cut from the same cloth. Force multiplication through intelligence is the special forces way. Combine the intelligence you get from the special forces way, with the firepower we have developed during the 20th century and you have something that is much more effective than the firepower alone reacting to enemy initiatives.
The goal here is to not blow away the enemy AFTER you walk into his ambush, but take out the bad guys while they are moving, assembling, or planning. Kiernan was an armor guy and the mindset has its place. Afghanistan is not the proper place for a man trained to deal with mass armored warfare. Don’t forget — Petraeus endorsed this change.
We should have finished with Iraq years ago and gone into Iran. 500,000 was a much better idea. In fact, we should have knocked out Iran first! With Iran out, the majority of islamic extremism would have been stopped. Well except from the funding by the stinking Saudis.
But when we allowed the Iraqis to come up with a constitution that mandated that “No Law Shall Contradict Islam” well.....whats the point?
The problem is that it’s hard to see what we’re trying to accomplish there now. The renewed focus on Afghanistan has nothing to do with Afghanistan’s negligible strategic significance and much more to do with domestic U.S. politics.
Al-Qaeda no longer has a base in Afghanistan, and the Taliban is unlikely to regain control of the country even without our intervention. Even if they do, it will probably be of little consequence to us. Imposing any sort of stable order in Afghanistan is of little value to us strategically, and is probably impossible anyway.
Politically, however, Afghanistan is very important to Obama. It represents a foreign policy compromise that allowed him to be elected. He needed to oppose the Iraq war in order to win the Democrat nomination, but he could not appear weak against Islamic terrorists in general. That meant decrying our efforts in Iraq as a “distraction” from the “real war” in Afghanistan, and promising a renewed focus on defeating our enemies in the latter.
This is why we have no discernible objective in Afghanistan, and why this change in command will amount to little. Our original objectives were to overthrow the Taliban, deny an operational base to al Qaeda, and to kill or capture al Qaeda’s leadership. We’ve long since accomplished the first two. We’ve had mixed results on the third, and Afghanistan only continues in significance there as a base of operations to hunt al Qaeda down in Pakistan (where most of them are now) or pressure the Pakistanis themselves to do so.
Afghanistan will probably be our next Vietnam in one way: it’s unlikely that we’ll leave with anything that looks like victory. However, remember that our “defeat” in Vietnam was ultimately irrelevant to us strategically. So will our lack of obvious victory in Afghanistan. Fortunately, Afghanistan will come at a far lower cost.
>>The problem is that its hard to see what were trying to accomplish there now. The renewed focus on Afghanistan has nothing to do with Afghanistans negligible strategic significance and much more to do with domestic U.S. politics.<<
Agreed. I have grave concerns about this administration and what they will do there.
My point was limited to this - if he conducts war there, we all do - and if America is at war we should all hope for success.
His "Bay of Pigs" is more likely....
How often do these same pious Muslim leaders complain about the “innocent” deaths caused by Jihad acts of terror against the civilian population? Why they don't - is that they fear they will be killed for complaining! They KNOW they can spit on us with no ill effect.
When have these same pious sheet heads complained about the Jihadi routine practice of fighting from behind civilian shields or from the interior of their freaking “holy places”....
How can ANYTHING be innocent or holy in country recognized throughout recorded history as a land of backward militant war lords at each others throats?
It's very hard to selectively exterminate only the cockroaches with guns who are firing at you, and avoid injuring the cockroaches whose guns are still hidden away for the day they screw up their courage to fight you ..
By now - folks should have figured out that NONE of our current or future enemies will fight the type of war where we can utilize our military superiority..
They will elect to fight the type of war our too civilized society abhors..... the kind of war where MILLIONS die... Most of them “innocent”....
We knew where our enemy was during WWII — they lived in Germany and Japan...
That is precisely why the Islamists PRETEND none of the worlds Muslim nations is the enemy — yet we are asked to believe we are not fighting a war against Islam, but only against “extremists” of the Muslim faith...
ANY reading of the Koran will show that anyone who practices Islam as written and taught in the Koran, is in fact a damned extremist who is charged with our destruction or enslavement....
I'll not be convinced there is any “War against Terror”, until I see entire cities within the womb of the Islamic Republics leveled to a single layer of smoldering rubble...
It was war fighting procedure against the Germans, Japanese - and it SHOULD be suffered by the population areas most “hospitable” to the militant, radical Jihadists....
I'll bet we all could name some areas that would fit that description....
it’s effing Bambi what do you expect
“.........not knowing jack about this but hearing that the new brass is a former spec ops guy and that Gates suggested this I think this may be the rare instance maybe Teleprompter in Chief got it right
or didnt get in the way
somebody correct me please if im wrong.........”
I highly doubt it........Bambi put a known liar in instead
“.........Sounds to me that the General in Afghanistan probably disagreed with Obamas plans for more troops, and probably for suggesting going into Pakistan like Obama said he wanted to do in his campaign... I dont know anything about the former commander in that area, all I know is that Obama cant really stand being told hes wrong he believes he knows best, even if the commanders on the ground are telling him they firmly disagree. I would imagine that would get someone sacked in a hurry in Obamas military...
All just my armchair opinion...”
Actually, the fired general has been yelling for mre troops...no Bambi rehabbed a liar and can manipulate him...is what happened....be afraid.....be very afraid....
If he is a SpecOp guy it would be highly unusual for him to be put in this position. I will check around and see what the skinny is.
I swear every swinging d that goes to the Pentagon to work should be required to read and take an extensive test on âThe Art of Warâ.
If you are talking the games the Taliban and Karzai play, I have heard it from several sources the past few days. The discussion I heard was in the context of Hillary’s response to such an event (almost apologetic) only to discover it was a Taliban setup.
I feel the need to quote Ann Coulter here on what happens when Democrat Presidents have their fingers in foreign policy and warefare.
In summary, defeat and humiliation. God, how I pray for our troops and our country. Don’t Forsake Them under the arrogant, amateur direction of those who will handcuff and meddle in the affairs of our military in their every move.
see post 69
you can judge as you see fit
that’s why I asked
I heard (on O’reilly last night) the Taliban had killed the civilians before we ever got involved and then blamed the bombing for the deaths.
Its a trick to get us to stop bombing.
The Taliban is getting blowed up and they don’t like it.
In that case you're more qualified than the socialist-fascist-commie pig usurper pontificating from the steamy tropical temps & opulant settings in the WH -- 0boooooomboshiite!!!
"We can and must do better ... We have a new policy set by our president, a new strategy, a new mission ... I believe new military leadership is also needed," said Robert Gates, the defence secretary.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If Obama palns to defeat Al Quaida with aggrssive community organizing, then we may be in for Viet Nam , Act II.
It won't matter how good McCrystal is, he will preside over a community organizing debacle. We will have to see what exactly the new policy is.That is if we ever see it at all.
Remember that we had a really good soldier in command in Vietnam, but he was traduced by a micro managing president. The Cong and NVA ran cicles around him.
Not in the least bit curious; Oworshipme knew he would not be able to get the man to betray his country, so he had to put someone there who would.
“...make one tenet in their guerrilla warfare playbook an absolute priority: protection of the civilian population”
What about kick the sh$% out of the terrorists and make them eat their own a$$es?
If found guilty, should meet a firing squad!
Think an American newspaper would dare to use the word “defenestration”?
“Is Afghanistan/Pakistan going to be ZEROs Vietnam?”
Probably, when both “stans” are thrown into the stew.
Jack Kennedy had a similiar fixation on Viet Nam before and when he became president. That was the real beginning of our large involvement in that area.
The public defenestration of General David McKiernan, a distinguished career officer who took command in Kabul less than one year ago, was brutal in that cold, callous way peculiar to American officialdom. More to the point, it remains largely unexplained. “We can and must do better ... We have a new policy set by our president, a new strategy, a new mission ... I believe new military leadership is also needed,” said Robert Gates, the defence secretary.
But when asked what McKiernan had done wrong, or what his mooted replacement, Lieutenant General Stanley McChrystal, might do better, Gates and Mullen grew confused in thought and word. “Nothing went wrong, there was nothing specific,” said Gates. “There probably is no more critical ingredient than that than leadership. And again, along with all the other changes, it's time now,” said Mullen.
Maybe it is Gates who needs replacement (since no one can fire Obama).
The stage is being set for the ouster of McChrystal, Obama's hand-picked general to implement Obama's counterinsurgency strategy.
The libs complained about Bush "being cheap" on his Iraq strategy, yet now proclaim that McChrystal is being insubordinate for publicly saying he needs more troops to accomplish the CINC's strategy.
As a self-described "expert" on insubordination (lol-just ask a few REMFs that I served under), allow me to reassure everyone that McChrystal is looking out for the lives of the men and women entrusted to him, not to mention the lives of millions of Afghans. That's leadership, not insubordination.