THE news that Pentagon will replace the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, U.S. General David McKiernan with Rumsfeld buddy, Lieutenant General Stanley McChrystal was met with speculation that the change represented a shift away from the reckless, scattershot raids and airstrikes which have so inflamed the Afghan population for their collateral killings.
McKiernan was said to have been pushing for more troops for Afghanistan since Bush was his boss, and that fact was presented, by some, as evidence that the Obama administration was shifting it's Afghan strategy to the more comprehensive approach (by replacing him) which would combine economic and diplomatic efforts (hearts and minds) with the defense of the Afghan government, rather than the arbitrary, blustering militarism which has resulted in so many collateral killings of civilians. Yet, the escalation of force by Obama of 21,000 troops to be completed later this year (combined with the 6,000 or so McKiernan got from Bush) is pretty close to the 30,000 troops the outgoing commander had requested.
McChrystal has been presented as a perfect fit for the new focus by the Pentagon on 'counterinsurgency', which is essentially a combination of approaches which intends to transform the besieged population into a grateful partner in our nation-building efforts against the insurgency and resistance. But, his background in Special Forces actually suggests an intention to move away from the comprehensive approach of a combining diplomacy with the militarism to the expediency of even more 'pinpoint' strikes which intend to stifle and eliminate the leadership of the militarized resistance.
from Gareth Porter:
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=46821Media reporting on the choice of McChrystal simply echoed the Pentagon’s line. The Washington Post said his selection "marks the continued ascendancy of officers who have pressed for the use of counterinsurgency tactics, in Iraq and Afghanistan, that are markedly different from the Army's traditional doctrine".
The New York Times cited unnamed "Defense Department officials" in reporting, "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..."
The Wall Street Journal suggested that McChrystal was the kind of commander who would "fight the kind of complex counterinsurgency warfare" that Gates wants to see in Afghanistan, because his command of Special Operations forces in Iraq had involved "units that specialize in guerilla warfare, including the training of indigenous armies".
But these explanations for the choice of McChrystal equate his command of the Special Operations forces with expertise on counterinsurgency, despite the fact that McChrystal spent his last five years as a commander of Special Operations forces focusing overwhelmingly on counter-terrorism operations, not on counterinsurgency.
Whereas counterinsurgency operations are aimed primarily at influencing the population and are primarily non-military, counter-terrorism operations are exclusively military and focus on targeting the "enemy".
In fact, U.N. envoy for Afghanistan Kai Eide said in an interview in Islamabad today that the new commander should take heed of the measures McKiernan had been implementing to help protect the Afghan population against the collateral effects of the militarism of the coalition forces (despite the latest round of tragic collateral killings).
from Reuters:
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/ISL431868.htmU.N. envoy for Afghanistan Kai Eide said in an interview in Islamabad on Tuesday that outgoing commander General David McKiernan had made "tremendous efforts" to establish rules for the use of air power and cut the number of civilian casualties.
With U.S. reinforcements on the way and fighting expected to intensify, it was vital that new commander Lieutenant General Stanley McChrystal ensured the rule were kept, Eide said.
"It is one of the most important tasks that a new commander will have, to make sure that with all of these additional troops, and with intensified fighting this summer, that the rules set by General McKiernan are respected," Eide said.
Certainly there is much to be desired from the U.S. command in limiting or eliminating the types of airstrikes and raids which have produces so many collateral killings of innocents in Afghanistan. McKiernan should definitely be held to account for those instances where the U.S. force has recklessly targeted the population centers in their pursuit of the 'enemy.' Yet, there were recent moves by the outgoing commander to connect with the communities in an effort to mitigate and lessen the devastating consequences and effects of the NATO occupation on Afghans who inhabit the villages and provinces which are targets of the U.S.-dominated forces' offensive attacks.
from the AP in April:
http://www.wlwt.com/politics/19145115/detail.html
The top U.S. general in Afghanistan reached out to influential Afghan tribesmen in regions where U.S. troops will soon deploy, apologizing for past mistakes and saying he is now studying the Quran, the Muslim holy book.
Gen. David McKiernan met with villagers in Helmand and Kandahar -- two of Afghanistan's most violent provinces -- in an attempt to foster good will ahead of the U.S. troop surge that will send 21,000 more forces here this summer to stem an increasingly violent Taliban insurgency.
McKiernan said he wanted to show respect to tribal elders by traveling to Kandahar on Wednesday to explain some of the mistakes U.S. forces have made in the past -- such as arresting people based on information taken from one side in a tribal fight, or killing civilians during operations.
"I'm trying to connect to the local population in a bottom-up way and try to explain what the new U.S. strategy means and why they're going to see an increased force presence where they live," McKiernan said during the trip to Kandahar aboard the seven passenger jet he flies in . . .
Here's hoping that the new head broom in the U.S. command in Afghanistan isn't abandoning these comprehensive intentions of the outgoing commander for some expedient attempt to put a lid on the insurgency with some sort of decisive, military campaign ('targeted' or not). It would be typical for this leadership at the Pentagon to place belief in some big military strike, to end all military strikes. That's what the 'old-boy' selection of Rumsfeld's buddy looks like to me.
We'll just have to wait and see if his promotion to the Afghanistan command produces change in the policy there like the Pentagon and others are spinning it. The way defenders of the administration's Afghanistan policy are presenting the move, we're to expect an outcome more in line with the sweeping declarations made in the announcement of his 'new' strategy for 'success'. We'll see.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
