RSSNew Leader, Same Mission in Afghanistan
The Heritage Foundation | June 26, 2010
There’s been a change of command in Afghanistan.
After his critical remarks about the President and his staff were published in Rolling Stone magazine, Gen. Stanley McChrystal was summoned to The White House to face his boss, Commander in Chief Obama. The outcome from their meeting: McChrystal is no longer in charge.
During his Rose Garden press conference, the President explained his decision to remove McChrystal from his post:
The conduct represented in the recently published article does not meet the standard that should be set by a commanding general. It undermines the civilian control of the military that us at the core of our democratic system. And it erodes the trust that’s necessary for our team to work together to achieve our objectives in Afghanistan.
Shortly thereafter, Obama tapped Gen. David Petraeus to succeed McChrystal. Petraeus, who orchestrated the turnaround in Iraq, currently heads the U.S. Central Command, which includes all of South Asia and the Middle East.
As the American commander in Iraq, Petraeus changed the course of the war by implementing the troop “surge.” Though he faces confirmation by the Senate (the hearing is expected to take place no later than next Tuesday), there is no question that Gen. Petreaus is qualified for the job.
“Naming the very able Gen. David Petraeus to replace Gen. McChrystal may help heal this sad state of affairs, and we hope it does,” argues Heritage vice President Kim Holmes. ”But the drama behind Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s firing masks a far greater and troubling issue: Is the Obama administration fully committed to victory in Afghanistan?”
President Obama insisted that McChrystal’s dismissal “was a change in personnel, not in policy.” But the President has also established an arbitrary deadline for removal of forces – a bad policy, especially considering the poor conditions on the ground in Afghanistan.
“The timeline,” Heritage President Ed Feulner explains, “appears to be putting tremendous unnecessary pressure on our armed forces to accomplish their task: victory on the ground. We don’t need an artificial timeline for withdrawal. We need a strategy for victory.”
June has become the deadliest month for coalition forces over the almost nine-year conflict. And U.S. and NATO casualties are expected to rise as we move deeper into the Kandahar offensive. The stakes are very high. Victory – not meeting arbitrary deadlines – should be our objective.
As Holmes explains, “winning in Afghanistan is directly related to preventing another ’9/11′ and it truly is the central front in the war on terrorists.” Victory can only be achieved once Afghanistan is a stable nation capable of governing itself and defending itself from the Taliban and other terrorists. If we pull out before this is achieved, than we face a danger far greater than anything we’re seeing now.
Gen. Patraeus is a good man for the job, and we have every shred of confidence in his ability to lead. But as Heritage national security expert James Carafano argues, this war isn’t about the man. It’s about the mission. And the mission has to be victory. However long that might take.
Heritage Foundation experts were able to refocus the debate from personnel to strategy and the need for victory through over 25 radio and television interviews in less than 24 hours.
Contributor's website: http://www.heritage.org
Content posted by users from other sites is posted for commentary and news purposes under fair use and each author is responsible for their own postings and a particular posting should not be construed as being endorsed by this site or its owner.
Leave a Reply
Loading ...Recommended Reading:
