You are here: Home / War on Terror

McChrystal Relieved; Petraeus to Replace

June 23, 2010 By Jeff Leave a Comment

President Barack Obama has accepted the resignation of General Stanley McChrystal, the commander of the International Security and Assistance Force in Afghanistan, he will be replaced by General David Petraeus:

President Barack Obama accepted the resignation of Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. commander and strategist of the Afghan war, following comments by the general and his aides disparaging the president and other senior officials.

Mr. Obama nominated Gen. David Petraeus, the head of the military’s Central Command and the architect of the surge of forces into Iraq in 2007, to take over as the commanding general in Afghanistan.

The nomination of Gen. Petraeus, who still requires Senate confirmation, sends a signal that the president stands behind the counterinsurgency tactics pushed hard by Gen. McChrystal and championed by Gen. Petraeus.

Mr. Obama said his acceptance of Gen. McChrystal’s recommendation didn’t reflect a disagreement about strategy or any sense of personal insult. “We are in full agreement about our strategy,” he said Wednesday, expressing “great admiration” for the general.

“But war is bigger than any one man,” Mr. Obama said. “As difficult as it is to lose Gen. McChrystal, I believe it is the right decision for our national security.”

He said the change was necessary to maintain a “unity of effort” in Afghanistan. “I welcome debate among my team, but I won’t tolerate division.”

I’m sad to see Gen. McChrystal’s career end this way, but given what’s happened I don’t see how he could have stayed on. The remarks made Gen. McChrystal and members of his staff in Rolling Stone were openly contemptuous of the civilian leadership… Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice couldn’t be more on that point:

Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Simply put there no was no other way this controversy could end, General McChrystal had to go.

Related

Filed Under: Afghanistan, Military, Politics, War on Terror Tagged With: , , , ,

Thoughts on the McChrystal Controversy

June 22, 2010 By Jeff Leave a Comment

The whole world is buzzing about the controversial Rolling Stone profile of International Security Assistance Force commander General Stanley McChrystal. To be honest I’m kind of torn here, the whole Rolling Stone piece is a bit of a hatchet job… Adrian Michaels does a good job of summarizing things in the Telegraph:

There isn’t very much in the Rolling Stone article requiring an apology from General McChrystal, the man in charge in Afghanistan who has been summoned to the White House. If he does resign, it should not be because of perceived slurs against the White House. They’re not there.

There was a copy of the article available online until recently, which I’ve read, and some excerpts and a news report about it here and here. Basically, the general – or “THE RUNAWAY GENERAL” as he is hysterically referred to – has been the victim of journalist hype. It is the magazine’s editors that call the White House “wimps”, and it is the author that uses almost every f-word in the piece, gratuitously, gratingly, and not while quoting anyone. The only f-word used by someone else is a Brit saying how much some people love McChrystal’s habit of showing up on patrol.

Let’s be clear: Barack Obama may still want McChrystal to resign. The general gave long, close and after-hours access to a journalist and also apparently made no complaints when Rolling Stone sent him a pre-publication copy. That this represents poor judgment, and that this is not the first instance of his poor judgment, is indisputable.

As Mr. Michaels notes most of the troubling remarks are asides and ill-advised wise cracks… Bottom line, Gen. McChrystal and his aides may be 100% correct in their assessment of President Obama and his team. However, Gen. McChrystal and his staff should never have voiced his their frustrations with the Commander in Chief and his staff in a Rolling Stone interview, doing so is contrary to good order and discipline. Personally, while I might agree with Gen. McChrystal’s assessment of this administration I think he should resign.

Barack Obama may or may not be a disaster as Commander and Chief, but he is still the Commander and Chief and entitled to certain level of respect from the officers who serve under him. Their remarks were at the very least disrespectful to the Commander and Chief and at very worst insubordinate. Gen. McChrystal isn’t the first general officer to make this mistake and he won’t last, but for good of Army and the nation he should resign.

Edit: I should add that I agree wholeheartedly with Uncle Jimbo… If McChrystal goes, Eikenberry & Holbrooke must follow.

Related

Filed Under: Afghanistan, Politics, War on Terror Tagged With: , ,

The Body Scanner Scam

January 19, 2010 By Jeff Leave a Comment

Edward Luttwak, a senior associate at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, has a must read op-ed in today’s Wall Street Journal… In short Mr. Luttwak lays way waste to the fallacy of body scanners in airport security screening:

All males have a body cavity. Females have two body cavities. In prisons, these body cavities are habitually used to smuggle drugs and improvised weapons past body searches, including complete nudity strip searches.

Given the power of widely available explosives, the amount that can be carried inside a body cavity—let alone two—is sufficient to destroy ordinary pressurized airliners at normal flight altitudes. That makes “pat downs,” or indeed any form of physical inspection that is remotely feasible in any airport of any normal country, entirely futile. That alone rules out scanners as a solution unless they are both very-high definition and pat downs are not allowed as an alternative.

Futility has not of course deterred the United States from creating and operating a vast Transportation Security Administration apparatus critically dependent on metal detectors. At enormous cost, and by inflicting enormous inconvenience, it almost guarantees the detection of any explosive device—so long as it is firmly attached to a nail clipper.

Reliance on metal detectors was dubious from the start not only because they cannot detect explosives as such, but because they cannot even detect knives if they are made out of ceramic. Some manufacturers of ceramic knives add metal to them specifically to allow detection. Others do not and their knives are just as lethal—certainly more so than the short box cutters used by the 9/11 terrorists.

Our current airport screening system is destined to fail for the simple reason we place to much emphasis on screening for and finding things. If we truly want to improve security we to invest as much if not more resources in screening people and identifying  potential threats as we do in finding weapons

The body scanners currently being pushed as the best way to prevent another “underwear bomber” only perpetuate that “things” mentality… Our enemies aren’t stupid, and as Mr. Luttwak points out the body scanners can be easily defeated.

It’s time we faced reality and realized that invading our physical privacy at airports isn’t going to make us safer, we need to focus on people not just things.

Filed Under: Politics, Security, War on Terror Tagged With: , , ,

Napolitano Backtracks; Now Says System Didn’t Work

December 28, 2009 By Jeff Leave a Comment

Security of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano is backtracking on remarks she made over the weekend regarding the attempted bombing of Northwest Airline flight 253:

Napolitano, appearing Monday on NBC’s “Today Show,” explained comments she made Sunday regarding an incident in which a Nigerian man allegedly ignited an incendiary device aboard a U.S. jetliner on Christmas Day were “taken out of context.”

During a Sunday appearance on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Napolitano said “What we are focused on is making sure that the air environment remains safe, that people are confident when they travel. And one thing I’d like to point out is that the system worked.”

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Out of context??? Nonsense, lets examine what she said on Sunday:

What we are focused on is making sure that the air environment remains safe, that people are confident when they travel. And one thing I’d like to point out is that the system worked. Everybody played an important role here. The passengers and crew of the flight took appropriate action.

Secretary Napolitano wasn’t just talking just about other flights, she was also talking about Northwest 253… She may have misspoken, but she was most definitely not taken out of context. Bottom line, DHS’s incident response systems may have worked properly, but their passenger screening measures failed miserably in this case.

Related

Filed Under: Politics, War on Terror Tagged With: , ,

Janet Napolitano: “The System Worked”

December 27, 2009 By Jeff Leave a Comment

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again now: Janet Napolitano is an idiot who is completely unqualified for the position she holds. If anyone doubts the accuracy of that statement, her appearance on CNN’s “State of the Union” today should remove any doubt:

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said Sunday that the thwarting of the attempt to blow up an Amsterdam-Detroit airline flight Christmas Day demonstrated that “the system worked.”

Asked by CNN’s Candy Crowley on “State of the Union” how that could be possible when the young Nigerian who has been charged with trying to set off the bomb was able to smuggle explosive liquid onto the jet, Napolitano responded: “We’re asking the same questions.”

With all due respect Madam Secretary, the system failed miserably… a person who was on a terrorist watch list got on to an airplane with an explosive device sewn into his underwear. If it wasn’t for a failed detonator and the quick actions of passengers things would have turned out much differently.

Bottom line Madam Secretary we got lucky this time, the bad guys are going to try again, and again, and again and sooner or later they’re going to get lucky. The sad truth is our screening procedures place to much emphasis on trying to find weapons and not enough on trying to identify terrorists. Until we’re willing to place as much emphasis on preventing terrorists from boarding flights as we are on keeping weapons off we’re going to remain vulnerable.

Related

Filed Under: Politics, War on Terror Tagged With: , , ,

Christmas Day Terror: Bomb Attempt on U.S.-Bound Flight

December 26, 2009 By Jeff Leave a Comment

From the Wall Street Journal:

A passenger on a Detroit-bound Northwest Airlines flight tried Friday to detonate an explosive device strapped to his leg and later told investigators he had affiliations with al Qaeda and was trying to blow up the plane, according to a senior U.S. official.

“We believe this was an attempted act of terrorism,” said a White House official.

The suspect told investigators he was given the device by al Qaeda operatives in Yemen, along with detonation instructions, the official said. “This guy claims he is tied to al Qaeda, specifically in Yemen,” the official said. “He claims he was on orders from al Qaeda in Yemen. Who knows if that’s true?”

Rep. Peter King (R., N.Y.) identified the man as a 23-year-old Nigerian named Abdul Mudallad. Officials said they believed the man boarded a KLM flight in Lagos, Nigeria, and changed planes in Amsterdam, although that couldn’t immediately be confirmed. The suspect’s name didn’t appear on any terrorist watch lists maintained by U.S. authorities, Mr. King said, but it turned up “hot” in other terrorism-related databases maintained by intelligence officials.

On Saturday morning, Britain’s Metropolitan Police Service was searching a “number” of properties in central London that may be related to the attempted bombing, according to a spokeswoman. “We are liasing with U.S. authorities and are conducting enquiries in conjunction with them,” she said, declining to give further details.

First how did he get the device on to the plane? I know the Transportation Security Administration has warned about Nigeria’s porous airport security in the past, so one would assume the suspect would have gone through some sort of additional screening in Amsterdam?

Second let’s resist the urge to somehow try and blame this on Pres. Obama and/or his administrations policies. The simple truth is there going to be another terrorist attack in this country; it’s inevitable. The bad guys only have to get lucky once, to stop them we have to be good every single day.

Update (11:25 a.m.): Via Hot Air, a Nigerian newspaper is reporting that the suspected bomber’s father reported him to authorities after his son’s jihadist rhetoric started to worry him:

The older Mutallab, as at the time of filing this report, had just left his Katsina hometown for Abuja to speak with security agencies, family sources say. According to the family members, Mutallab has been uncomfortable with the boy’s extreme religious views and had six months ago reported his activities to United States’ Embassy, Abuja and Nigerian security agencies.

The older Mutallab was said to be devastated on hearing the news of Abdul Farouk’s attempted bombing and arrest. A source close to him said he was surprised that after his reports to the US authorities, the young man was allowed to travel to the United States.

~~~

At the secondary school, he was known for preaching about Islam to his school mates and he was popularly called “Alfa”, a local coinage for Islamic scholar. After his secondary school, the suspect went to University College London to study engineering and later relocated to Egypt, and then Dubai. While in Dubai in the United Arab Emirates, he declared to his family members that he did not want to have anything to do with any of them again.

Update (1:05 p.m.): Fox News is reporting that U.S. officials have known for two years that Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab, the suspect in the attempted Northwest Airlines bombing could have terrorist ties:

An official briefed on the foiled attack on a Detroit airliner says the U.S. has known for at least two years that the suspect could have terrorist ties.

The official tells The Associated Press that the suspect, Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab, has been on a list that includes people with known or suspected contact or ties to a terrorist or terrorist organization.

The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing.

Multiple law enforcement officials identified Mutallab as a Nigerian national who was reportedly an engineering student at London’s University College.

Update (4:50 p.m.): Reuters reports that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a Nigerian national, has been charged with attempting to blow Northwest Airlines flight 253. A preliminary analysis by the FBI shows that he tried to ignite pentaerythritol (PETN) which had been attached to his body.

Related

Filed Under: War on Terror Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,

A Few Thoughts on Obama’s Afghanistan Speech

December 2, 2009 By Jeff Leave a Comment

First off let preface this by saying I didn’t watch President Obama’s speech last night, instead I read the transcript this morning. The first thing about his speech that struck me is no where in it did he mention victory… A fact noted by LA Times blogger Andrew Malcolm:

President Obama spoke 4,582 words in his prime-time Afghanistan war speech at West Point last night.

He said “Al Qaeda” 22 times.

He mentioned the “Taliban” 12 times.

And here’s how many times the Democratic chief executive used the word “victory” — 0.

That telling omission says more than anything about Obama’s 322nd day in office, when he gave his first major address as the United States’ commander in chief.

The sad truth is nothing in the President’s speech leads me to believe that he is fully committed to prosecuting this war to it’s end even though he made winning the war in Afghanistan a central part of his Presidential campaign.

Anyway, President Obama outlined three broad strategies last night, the first Denying al Qaeda a safe haven is counter-terrorism… It’s Joe Biden’s “magic ninjas” and drones strategy. Which I would assume is why he decided to commit far fewer troops than Gen. McChrystal asked for. The second and third, reversing the momentum of the Taliban and safeguarding the Afghan people are elements of counter-insurgency, even with the 30,000 additional troops we’re woefully undermanned.

I have no doubt Gen. McChrystal will the best he can with the resources he has, but counter-insurgency is labor intensive mission and given the troops available I’m not sure he’ll be able to do much more than secure urban centers.

Lastly the President set a time line for our mission in Afghanistan, a time line that ultimately undermines the counter-insurgency mission.  In order for COIN operations to work you troops have to “flood the zone” and work to build trust with locals so they’ll be willing to provide us with the intelligence information we need to flush out the bad guys. The only way to do this by convincing the locals you’re going to be sticking around, by setting a date for withdrawal the President is telling the very people whose trust we need we’re not in it for the long hall. No one is going to cooperating with us for the simple reason they know we’re going to leave and the bad guys will still be there… ready, willing and able take revenge on anyone who cooperates with us.

Bottom line Wars don’t end Mr. President, they are either won or lost.

Related

Filed Under: Afghanistan, War on Terror Tagged With: , ,

Fred Thompson: The War in Afghanistan Has Been Lost

November 19, 2009 By Jeff Leave a Comment

Oh boy, I wish Fred hadn’t gone here but the said truth is someone had to say it out loud…

From the Politico:

Former Sen. Fred Thompson today intensified his party’s criticism of President Obama’s long deliberation over policy in Afghanistan, announcing that Obama’s delay signals that “the war has been lost” and that nothing the president now does will “make any difference.”

“It really doesn’t matter how President Obama divides the Afghan baby, how he splits the difference between McChrystal and Biden. Because the war has been lost,” Thompson said on his radio show today.  “I say this because of one sad and simple fact. The president does not have the will and determination to do what’s necessary to win it. His heart’s not in it, and never has been. The Taliban knows it. Al Qaeda knows it. Our allies know it. And the American people know it.

“Our enemies are now emboldened and our friends are discouraged. We cannot prevail if the American people are not willing to make the sacrifices necessary for an extended effort. The case has not been made to them to justify this effort. The case can only be made by the president. This president is unable or unwilling to make that case,” Thompson said.

Kathryn Jean Lopez has the audio here.

Ouch… Barack Obama made winning the war in Afghanistan a central part of his Presidential campaign and yet 10 months into his term in office he’s still formulating a policy… Unfortunately, I think Sen. Thompson is right, President Obama lacks the temerity to prosecute the war in Afghanistan and is instead voting ‘present’ just as he has done with everything else.

Jim Hanson laid it out months ago Mr. President, wars do not end, they are either won or lost:

The buck stops with you Mr. President, it’s time to make a decision… Do we give our war fighters the resources they need to fight and win or do we cut and run?

Update (5:15 p.m.): Pete Hegseth has a good post over at The Corner that takes Sen. Thompson to task for his remarks:

Let’s go back to an interview Senator Thompson gave on Hannity and Colmes on May 1, 2007:

HANNITY: The biggest battle we have is this war on terror, this battle in Iraq. We have a really deep divide in the country. Senator Reid the war is lost. We still have to finish the job there. Where do you stand in general on the war on terror and, more specifically, in Iraq, and on the divide surrounding Iraq?

THOMPSON: Well, let’s talk about Senator Reid for a moment. Right before I came over here, I was sitting outside, getting a bite to eat, before we did our interview. A young woman [former Army captain] came up and asked if she could sit down and talk to me a minute. . . . I asked her what she thought about this. She said, “How in the world can anyone, any one of our leaders, declare war, declare that the war has been lost when we’ve got troops in the field? My friends are over there in the field. I know what they think about this.”

And, of course, it’s just like all other Americans think. The very idea that they would do this and undercut our efforts over there is unprecedented. And it’s not only unprecedented; it’s awful politics.

We should not be fearful of these people politically. We just need to concentrate on what’s right. What is right? We need to take advantage of any opportunity we’ve got down there. I’ve got a lot of faith in Petraeus. I knew him when he was at Fort Campbell when I was in the Senate. He tells me we’ve got a shot? We’ve got to take that shot.

I’m sure Senator Thompson made many similar comments in 2007, and he was right. Sen. Harry Reid’s statement was unprecedented, and it was awful politics. And if Petraeus says we have a shot, then we’ve got to take that shot.

In light of the above, what is Senator Thompson doing undercutting the mission in Afghanistan? Is the mission less justified? Is it less achievable? Or is McChrystal less capable? No. Senator Thompson’s issue with the Afghanistan mission is President Obama. And while I share many of his frustrations — indecisiveness, lack of will, unwillingness to articulate the need to win — none of them give him, or anyone, grounds to declare the war lost.

I have a lot of respect for Fred Thompson but the more I think about his remarks the less comfortable I am with them…  Pete Hegseth is right, regardless of our frustrations with the President Obama’s lack of action there are just some things that shouldn’t be said while men and women are in harms way.

Filed Under: Afghanistan, War on Terror Tagged With: , , , , ,

Weekend Briefing – Saturday, October 10, 2009

October 10, 2009 By Jeff Leave a Comment

I’m going to be tied up with family all weekend but here’s a collection of must read links:

Feel free to add your links in comments.

Filed Under: Afghanistan, Economy, Health Care, International Affairs, Politics, War on Terror Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Michael Yon: Don’t Kid Yourselves; we’re in Serious Trouble in Afghanistan

October 1, 2009 By Jeff Leave a Comment

Michael Yon has spent more time in Iraq and Afghanistan than any other journalist. His dispatches from the front lines are required reading for anyone who wants to know what’s happening at the pointy end of the war on terror so when  he say we’re in serious trouble you should pay attention:

The Greatest Afghanistan War has deteriorated so noticeably that one can now feel the enemy’s growing pulse. Each month it beats steadier, stronger, and in 2010 it will finally be born.

On Sept. 11 in Kandahar, a South African civilian working without security was visibly upset – not at the Taliban but at the police. The 16-year police veteran recounted seeing Afghan police speeding through crowded streets and hitting a bicycle. The rider gymnastically avoided impact while the bicycle was tossed down the road.

The South African, with whom I spent a week in Helmand and Kandahar provinces, said the police never slowed down. “That’s part of the reason the Taliban are gaining ground,” he said. “The police are out there recruiting Taliban.”

I have searched for answers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Along with the more strategic questions (for example, should war be pursued?) are those closer to the shop floor: Are we gaining or losing popular support? Is the enemy gaining or losing strength? Is the coalition gaining or losing strength?

The first answer is a common denominator for the rest.

We are losing popular support. Confidence in the Afghan and coalition governments is plummeting. Loss of human terrain is evident. Conditions are building for an avalanche. Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the military commander in Afghanistan, and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates are aware of the rumbling, and so today we are bound by rules of engagement that appear insensible.

If you haven’t already done so, read the whole thing.

Related

Filed Under: Afghanistan, International Affairs, War on Terror Tagged With: ,
« Older Posts