Barack Obama sacks Afghan war commander Stanley McChrystal | US news | The Guardian Barack Obama sacks Afghan war commander Stanley McChrystal Obama says McChrystal 'undermined' conflict, but there will be no change in strategy Wednesday 23 June 2010 20.24 EDT First published on Wednesday 23 June 2010 20.24 EDT Close This article is 6 years old Barack Obama last night sacked the US and Nato commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal , saying he had undermined the military's accountability to civilian authority and the war itself with disparaging and contemptuous comments about senior administration officials to a magazine. Obama said he was making a personnel, not a policy change, as he named General David Petraeus, the architect of the surge in Iraq, to take charge of the Afghan war in an attempt to reassure Americans that he retains confidence in the counter-insurgency strategy designed by McChrystal. But the crisis has laid bare personal and policy divisions within the upper echelons of those responsible for running the war and fuelled doubts in Congress and among troops on the ground in Afghanistan about the strategy.

Obama said he was left with little choice but to dismiss McChrystal. "I don't make this decision based on any difference of policy with General McChrystal, as we are in full agreement about our strategy," the president said. "But war is bigger than any one man or woman, whether a private, a general or a president. As difficult as it is to lose General McChrystal, I believe it is the right decision for our national security. "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 is at the core of our democratic system and it erodes the trust that is necessary for our team to work together to achieve our objectives in Afghanistan." The White House said Obama spoke to David Cameron and the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, about his decision to remove McChrystal. The president's decision was broadly welcomed on both sides of the US political divide. One Republican senator, Lindsey Graham, said Obama had done the right thing because McChrystal had damaged the military by showing disrespect. Mark Kimmitt, a retired brigadier-general who served as assistant secretary of state under George Bush, said it was right for McChrystal to go.

"The president lost confidence in his commander and no commander can serve if he doesn't have the confidence of his president," he said. But the crisis has again focused attention on McChrystal's strategy in Afghanistan and raised questions about how it will be pursued. Leading members of Congress have again questioned whether the war can be won including the Democratic party leader in the House of Representatives, Steny Hoyer, who said he has "reticence on the probability of success". Kai Eide, who stepped down as UN chief in Afghanistan earlier this year, said the sacking was bound to have implications on the ground. "McChrystal is the only person in the international community with unlimited access to President Karzai, and that is tremendously important," he said. "He has not only been the face of the campaign but has been an inspirational leader who has rallied all troop-contributing countries. When that goes, of course that will have an impact. How can we pretend it won't?" Karzai appealed to Obama to keep McChrystal, calling him the best commander the war has had. But Senator John Kerry said Petraeus's appointment provided continuity.

"[Obama's] decision to return General Petraeus to the battlefield provides not just continuity in philosophy, but tested diplomatic skill that is at the very centre of a military strategy which hinges on progress in governance to sustain military gains. The strategy and the objectives must be the only agenda," he said. Pending Petraeus's confirmation by Congress, the British deputy commander of Nato forces in Afghanistan, Lt Gen Nick Parker, will assume command. Obama forced McChrystal's resignation because he said that while would tolerate debate on the war policy, he would not tolerate the kind of division created by the article – in which the general and his staff accused the US ambassador to Kabul of undermining the war, called the president's national security adviser "a joke", and mocked the vice-president, Joe Biden. There was also indirect criticism of the president as "uncomfortable and intimidated" by senior military officials. McChrystal left the White House within minutes of being dismissed at a short meeting and did not attend a conference of Obama's Afghan policy team shortly afterwards, which included many of the people insulted by the profile in Rolling Stone magazine.

The article prompted a frenzied debate about McChrystal's future, underpinned by doubts among politicians and in the military as to whether the war can be won. Obama had invested considerable trust in McChrystal by embracing his strategy and sending 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan despite objections from many in his Democratic party and Congress. McChrystal, who was told he would not be permitted to return to Afghanistan, first met the defence secretary, Robert Gates, who has been a strong supporter of the general but found he could no longer defend him. McChrystal issued a statement saying that he had resigned out of a commitment to "our coalition forces, our partner nations, and the Afghan people". The tone of Obama's statement, with its emphasis on military accountability to civilian authority, reflected the growing view that if he did not dismiss McChrystal he would appear to be hostage to the military over what is now America's longest war, with no end in sight despite a deadline next year to begin withdrawing troops. "It is my duty to ensure that no division complicates the vital mission they are carrying out. That includes adherence to a strict code of conduct," Obama said.

"It is also true that our democracy depends on institutions that are stronger than individuals. That includes strict adherence to the chain of command." In the article, headlined "The Runaway General", McChrystal's aides are quoted as saying that he was less than impressed by Obama from the start. McChrystal mocks Biden, saying "Who's that?" when his name comes up.

Counterinsurgency is not working, say experts, and critics warn that replacement strategy indicates more of same Published: 23 Jun 2010 Robert Fox Robert Fox: General McChrystal's dismissal should make commanders, diplomats and politicians think hard about our Afghan policy Published: 24 Jun 2010 Journalist Michael Hastings reveals how he got to write article that was praised by troops and led to US general's sacking Published: 24 Jun 2010 In Iraq, he helped to transform the US army from an organisation built to fight conventional wars against industrialised enemies Published: 23 Jun 2010 General alarm as Barack Obama summons Stanley McChrystal to the White House | US news | The Guardian Stanley McChrystal General alarm as Barack Obama summons Stanley McChrystal to the White House Commander of US and Nato forces in Afghanistan must face the music after mocking senior politicians in Rolling Stone magazine General Stanley McChrystal travels to Kandahar.

Photograph: Paula Bronstein/Getty Images Chris McGreal in Washington and Jon Boone in Kabul Tuesday 22 June 2010 15.47 EDT First published on Tuesday 22 June 2010 15.47 EDT Close This article is 6 years old Barack Obama will confront General Stanley McChrystal at the White House tomorrow as he decides whether to sack the commander of US and Nato forces in Afghanistan over disparaging and "contemptuous" remarks about senior administration officials, including the president himself. The White House said "all options are on the table" after an "angry" Obama summoned McChrystal to Washington to explain quotes in the latest issue of Rolling Stone magazine in which the general and his senior aides accuse the US ambassador to Afghanistan of undermining the war, call the president's national security adviser "a joke" and mock Joe Biden, the vice-president. There is also indirect criticism of the president as "uncomfortable and intimidated" by senior military officials. Obama said he is considering McChrystal's future. "I think it's clear that the article in which he and his team appeared showed poor judgment.

But I also want to make sure I talk to him directly before I make any final decisions," he said. The president added that his decision would be based on what is best for making a success of the war in Afghanistan and that he would be consulting US allies including David Cameron. However, the mood appeared to be shifting against McChrystal. Earlier the White House spokesman, Robert Gibbs, declined to give assurances about the general's position. He said US efforts in Afghanistan were bigger than one man and that McChrystal was not indispensable. The general apologised in person and by phone to some of those criticised and issued a statement admitting "a mistake reflecting poor judgment". "I have enormous respect and admiration for President Obama and his national security team," McChrystal said. But it is not clear whether that will be enough to save McChrystal's job after what is the latest of a series of political blunders. A leading Democratic member of Congress, Dave Obey, chairman of the House appropriations committee, called for him to be sacked.

But the general had the backing of the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, who said he "strongly supports General McChrystal and his strategy in Afghanistan and believes he is the best commander the United States has sent to Afghanistan over the last nine years". In the Rolling Stone article, entitled The Runaway General, McChrystal's aides are quoted as saying that he was less than impressed by Obama from the start. The general is described as believing the president looked "uncomfortable and intimidated" among senior military officers. McChrystal was also "disappointed" that the president "didn't know anything about him" during their early meetings. The general mocks Biden, with whom he crossed swords over counterterrorism strategy. "Are you asking about Vice-President Biden?" McChrystal said. "Who's that?" A top adviser responds: "Biden? Did you say 'Bite me'?" But the most stinging criticism is of other senior American officials with responsibility for what is now America's longest war, including the US ambassador to Kabul, Karl Eikenberry, Obama's special representative to Afghanistan, Richard Holbrooke, and the president's national security adviser, Jim Jones.

Rolling Stone quotes McChrystal's aides as calling Jones "a clown" who is "stuck in 1985". Holbrooke is described as being "like a wounded animal". "Holbrooke keeps hearing rumours that he's going to get fired, so that makes him dangerous," said an aide. The magazine describes how McChrystal at one point checks his BlackBerry. "Oh, not another email from Holbrooke," he said. "I don't even want to open it." Rolling Stone reports that Eikenberry cannot stand it that his former subordinate is now in charge. Earlier this year, the New York Times published a scathing critique by Eikenberry, a general in Afghanistan for three years early in the war, of McChrystal's military strategy. It criticised Karzai and warned that the US risked becoming ever more deeply engaged, with no way to extricate itself. McChrystal told Rolling Stone he felt "betrayed" by the leak and questioned Eikenberry's motives: "Here's one that covers his flank for the history books.

Now if we fail, they can say 'I told you so'." The aides also criticise leading politicians, including Senators John McCain and John Kerry, for turning up in Afghanistan, criticising Karzai and then getting back to Washington for the Sunday talk shows. But the secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, is praised by the general's aides for watching his back and giving him "what he needs". Rolling Stone said the general was present when many of the comments quoted were made by his aides. The entire tone of the article has infuriated the White House, but the president now faces a dilemma. Obama became the first president in more than 50 years to sack a top general in wartime when he removed the then US commander in Afghanistan, David McKiernan, and replaced him with McChrystal. To fire McChrystal now would suggest misjudgment by the president as well as removing the architect of an Afghan military strategy that is far from complete. But it may be politically difficult to leave in place a general who has shown such public lack of confidence in those appointed by the White House to work with him.

McChrystal did not make any friends at the White House when his confidential report urging Obama to send 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan leaked. The administration felt that the general was trying to strongarm the president by making him look weak if he did not agree. Obama did agree to most of McChrystal's request, including another 30,000 troops. What McChrystal said The Rolling Stone article is a broad assessment of General Stanley McChrystal's strategy in Afghanistan and hisan assessment of his critics. It describes how, even though the general voted for Barack Obama , the two failed to connect. McChrystal thought Obama looked "uncomfortable and intimidated" by the roomful of military brass at their first meeting. A second, one-onto-one encounter at the White House did not go much better. "Obama clearly didn't know anything about him, who he was. Here's the guy who's going to run his fucking war, but he didn't seem very engaged. The boss was pretty disappointed," an aide to McChrystal told the magazine.

Later, McChrystal objected to going to an official Nato dinner in Paris: "I'd rather have my ass kicked by a roomful of people than go out to this dinner." One of the aides was asked by Rolling Stone who the dinner was with. "Some French minister," he replied. "It's fucking gay." The article describes the behaviour of McChrystal and his aides, who call themselves Team America, at an Irish bar in Parisare were reportedly drunk, while two officers did an Irish jig, mixed with steps from a traditional Afghan wedding dance. They were singing a slurred song about Afghanistan. McChrystal said: "I'd die for them. And they'd die for me." An unnamed British officer is quoted as saying: "The fucking lads love Stan McChrystal.

You'd be out in Somewhere, Iraq, and someone would take a knee beside you and a corporal would be like 'Who the fuck is that?' And it's fucking Stan McChrystal." The article relates the story of a 25-year-old staff sergeant, Israel Arroyo, who sent an email to McChrystal from the front line in Afghanistan: "I am writing because it was said you don't care about the troops and have made it harder to defend ourselves". The general replied within hours: "I'm saddened by accusations that I don't care about soldiers, as it is something I suspect any soldier takes both personally and professionally – at least I do. But I know perceptions depend upon your perspective at the time, and I respect that every soldier's view is his own". McChrystal then turned up at Arroyo's base and went on foot patrol with him in an attempt to understand what the soldier meant.

During a later visit to the same forward base after a soldier is killed, another soldier said to McChrystal: "Sir, some of the guys here, sir, think we're losing, sir." The general tried to explain his counter-insurgency strategy but afterwards said he did not think it had been been persuasive. "This is the philosophical part that works with thinktanks. But it doesn't get the same reception from infantry companies," he said. A senior aide to McChrystal said that the war would be even more unpopular with Americans if they thought about it: "If Americans pulled back and started paying attention to this war, it would become even less popular." Obama relieves McChrystal of command - US news - Military | NBC News Obama relieves McChrystal of command Gen. David Petraeus named to take over troubled Afghan war Below: Advertise Charles Dharapak / AP President Barack Obama and Gen. David Petraeus walk to the White House Rose Garden on Wednesday to make a statement after meeting with Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who was ousted as commander of forces in Afghanistan. Patraeus was nominated to assume McChrystal's command.

NBC News and news services updated 6/23/2010 7:58:33 PM ET 2010-06-23T23:58:33 + - WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama sacked his loose-lipped Afghanistan commander Wednesday, a seismic shift for the U.S. military order in wartime, and chose the familiar, admired — and tightly disciplined — Gen. David Petraeus to replace him. Petraeus, architect of the Iraq war turnaround, was once again to take hands-on leadership of a troubled war effort. Obama said bluntly that Gen. Stanley McChrystal's scornful remarks about administration officials represent conduct that "undermines the civilian control of the military that is at the core of our democratic system." He ousted the commander after a face-to-face meeting in the Oval Office and named Petraeus, the Central Command chief, who was McChrystal's direct boss, to step in. In a statement expressing praise for McChrystal yet certainty he had to go, Obama said he did not make the decision over any disagreement in policy or "out of any sense of personal insult." Flanked by Vice President Joe Biden, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm.

Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in the Rose Garden, he said: "War is bigger than any one man or woman, whether a private, a general, or a president." He urged the Senate to confirm Petraeus swiftly and emphasized the Afghanistan strategy he announced in December was not shifting with McChrystal's departure. 'Not a change in policy' "This is a change in personnel but it is not a change in policy," Obama said. Indeed, as Obama was speaking, McChrystal released a statement, saying: "I strongly support the President's strategy in Afghanistan and am deeply committed to our coalition forces, our partner nations, and the Afghan people. It was out of respect for this commitment — and a desire to see the mission succeed — that I tendered my resignation." Advertise Obama hit several grace notes about McChrystal and his service after their Oval Office meeting, saying that he made the decision to sack him "with considerable regret." And yet, he said the job in Afghanistan cannot be done now under McChrystal's leadership, asserting that the critical remarks from the general and his inner circle in the Rolling Stone magazine article displayed conduct that doesn't live up to the standards for a command-level officer.

Obama seemed to suggest that McChrystal's military career is over, saying the nation should be grateful "for his remarkable career in uniform" as if that has drawn to a close. Video: McChrystal out, Petraeus in (on this page) McChrystal left the White House after the meeting and returned to his military quarters at Washington's Fort McNair. A senior military official said there is no immediate decision about whether he would retire from the Army, which has been his entire career. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly. Petraeus, who attended a formal Afghanistan war meeting at the White House on Wednesday, has had overarching responsibility for the wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq as head of Central Command. He was to vacate the Central Command post after his expected confirmation, giving Obama another key opening to fill. The Afghanistan job is actually a step down from his current post but one that filled Obama's pre-eminent need. Petraeus: Reputation for discipline Petraeus is the nation's best-known military man, having risen to prominence as the commander who turned around the Iraq war in 2007, applying a counterinsurgency strategy that has been adapted for Afghanistan.

He has a reputation for rigorous discipline. He keeps a punishing pace — spending more than 300 days on the road last year. He briefly collapsed during Senate testimony last week, apparently from dehydration. It was a rare glimpse of weakness for a man known as among the military's most driven. Video: Gen. Petraeus popularity to be tested on new front (on this page) In the hearing last week, Petraeus told Congress he would recommend delaying the pullout of U.S. forces from Afghanistan beginning in July 2011 if need be, saying security and political conditions in Afghanistan must be ready to handle a U.S. drawdown. That does not mean Petraeus is opposed to bringing some troops home, and he said repeatedly that he supports Obama's revamped Afghanistan strategy. Petraeus' caution is rooted in the fact that the uniformed military — and counterinsurgency specialists in particular — have always been uncomfortable with rigid parameters. With Washington abuzz, there had been a complete lockdown on information about the morning's developments until just before Obama spoke. By pairing the decision on McChrystal's departure with the name of his replacement, Obama is seeking to move on as quickly as possible from the firestorm.

In the magazine article, McChrystal called the period last fall when the president was deciding whether to approve more troops "painful" and said the president appeared ready to hand him an "unsellable" position. McChrystal also said he was "betrayed" by Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, the man the White House chose to be his diplomatic partner in Afghanistan. He accused Eikenberry of raising doubts about Karzai only to give himself cover in case the U.S. effort failed. "Now, if we fail, they can say 'I told you so,'" McChrystal told the magazine. And he was quoted mocking Vice President Joe Biden. If not insubordination, the remarks — as well as even sharper commentary about Obama and his White House from several in McChrystal's inner circle — were at the least an extraordinary challenge from a military leader. The capital had not seen a similar public contretemps between a president and a top wartime commander since Harry Truman stripped Gen. Douglas MacArthur of his command more than a half-century ago after disagreements over Korean war strategy.

US general is sacked after criticising Afghanistan's President Karzai - Telegraph Afghanistan US general is sacked after criticising Afghanistan's President Karzai A senior American general has been relieved of his duties in Kabul after criticising President Hamid Karzai and saying that the Afghan government was ungrateful and out of touch. Major General Peter Fuller and Afghan president Hamid Karzai Follow Major General Peter Fuller had said that the Kabul regime was “isolated from reality” and he hoped that the next Afghan president would be an improvement on Mr Karzai. His comments in a media interview prompted a quick response from the Nato coalition which immediately relieved the two-star general of his duties. Maj Gen Fuller, who is a deputy commander in Nato’s mission to build the Afghan forces, was particularly forthright about what he saw as Kabul’s ingratitude for America’s efforts. America is spending billions of pounds per year to build an army of 195,000 and police force of 157,000 by November 2012, as a cornerstone of the strategy to withdraw by putting the Afghan government in charge of security.

However, last month Mr Karzai shocked many of his allies and countrymen by stating Afghanistan would side with Islamabad if America ever went to war with Pakistan. Related Articles Hillary Clinton admits US held meeting with Haqqani network 21 Oct 2011 Maj Gen Fuller said: “Why don’t you just poke me in the eye with a needle! You’ve got to be kidding me … I’m sorry, we just gave you $11.6 billion and now you’re telling me, ‘I don’t really care’?” “When they are going to have a presidential election, you hope they get a guy that’s more articulate in public,” he told the Politico website. He said that the fledgling Afghan military was demanding it be given tanks and fighter jets while appearing not to understand America was going through an economic downturn. He had been told that the Afghan military only wanted battle tanks to “put them on a flat bed and drive them around in a parade", he said. He continued: “You can teach a man how to fish, or you can give them a fish. “We’re giving them fish while they’re learning, and they want more fish!

[They say,] ‘I like swordfish, how come you’re giving me cod?’ Guess what? Cod’s on the menu today.” America continues to enjoy uneasy relations with President Karzai, with the two allies lurching from one spat to another. General John Allen, commander of Nato troops in Afghanistan, issued a statement calling the remarks “unfortunate” and saying that Maj Gen Fuller had been relieved of his duties, “effective immediately”. He said: “These unfortunate comments are neither indicative of our current solid relationship with the government of Afghanistan, its leadership, or our joint commitment to prevail here in Afghanistan." Maj Gen Fuller joined the United States army in 1980 after graduating from the University of Vermont with a degree in History and Political Science. His biography says he holds the Distinguished Service Medal. Until relieved of his duties, he was the deputy commander of programmes at the Nato training mission in Kabul, overseeing plans to equip, train, supply and build bases for the Afghan forces from a $10 billion budget. His comments appeared to find favour among several military bloggers. “General Fuller was spot on and was then fired. You see no one wants to hear the truth,” said one commentator.

He is not the first coalition officer to be sacked for outspoken remarks. Gen Stanley McChrystal, former Nato chief commander in Afghanistan, was sacked for belittling senior members of Barack Obama’s administration during a Rolling Stone interview in June 2010. Two months later, Col Lawrence Sellin was sent home after publishing a rant against the bureaucracy and endless PowerPoint briefings at Nato's Kabul headquarters. Obama sacks General McChrystal over Rolling Stone interview - YouTube Obama sacks General McChrystal over Rolling Stone interview Want to watch this again later? Sign in to add this video to a playlist. Need to report the video? Sign in to report inappropriate content. The interactive transcript could not be loaded. Loading... Rating is available when the video has been rented. This feature is not available right now. Please try again later. Uploaded on Jun 24, 2010 General Stanley McChrystal, commander of US and NATO forces in Afghanistan, has been sacked by US President Barack Obama over comments he and his aides made in an article printed in Rolling Stone magazine.

In the interview, McChrystal's aides mocked vice-president Joe Biden, called the president's national security adviser "a clown" and compared Richard Holbrooke to a "wounded animal." Head of the US Central Command General David Petraeus has been chosen to replace McChrystal. ----------------------------------------­----------------------------------------­ Daily videos brought to you by THE Taiwanese Animators behind the infamous Tiger Woods animation. We got the funniest animations on the web to help you stay in-the-know on all the trending stories, so sit back, relax, and watch a few. Visit our channel for your daily dose of Taiwanese Animations: US Afghanistan commander sacked. - Free Online Library US Afghanistan commander sacked. <a href=" Citations: MLA style: "US Afghanistan commander sacked.." The Free Library. 2009 Al Bawaba (Middle East) Ltd. 18 Jan. 2017 Chicago style: The Free Library. S.v. US Afghanistan commander sacked.." Retrieved Jan 18 2017 from APA style: US Afghanistan commander sacked.. (n.d.) >The Free Library. (2014).

Retrieved Jan 18 2017 from 5/11/2009 4:48:59 PM The US has replaced the commander of its forces in Afghanistan, David McKiernan, as it continues to send more troops to combat Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters. Army Lieutenant-General Stanley McChrystal, a former commander of special operations forces, has been recommended as his replacement, Robert Gates, the US defence secretary, said on Monday. "This is the right time to make the change," Gates said. "Our mission there requires new thinking and new approaches from our military leaders." The US is sending around 21,000 extra troops to Afghanistan as part of the White House's plans to confront the growing power of the Taliban in the region. "Today we have a new policy set by our new president. We have a new strategy, a new mission, and a new ambassador. I believe that new military leadership also is needed." McKiernan arrived in Afghanistan about a year ago and had been asking for extra troops as the Taliban campaign intensified. New strategic plan McChrystal is currently the director of the joint staff, a top military position.

He comes from the warfare branch of the military rather than the conventional army, which marks a departure from previous appointments and recognises the complexity of the task in Afghanistan. He has led special operations forces, including "counter-insurgency", most prominently in Iraq from 2003 to 2008. The replacement comes as top US officials, including General David Petraeus, who oversees military strategy for the region, implements Obama's new strategic plan for Afghanistan and Pakistan. McKiernan played a crucial role in the current troop increase that is expected to more than double the number of US soldiers in Afghanistan to 68,000 by the end of the year. He had asked for an additional 10,000 troops in 2010, a proposal that appeared to meet resistance from Gates, who expressed reluctance to boost troops beyond the 68,000. 'Too conventional' Al Jazeera's James Bays, who has reported regularly from Afghanistan, said McKiernan's replacement was a very important development. "He commands all the American and Nato troops. He has been in effect fired from his job," he said. "When McKiernan took up his job, he wanted more troops.

He has been demanding them since. Now finally more troops are coming [but] he is not going to see the benefit of that. "One source told me that the current thinking in the headquarters of the [Nato-led]International Security Assistance Force is that there is a problem between him and his new boss, General Petraeus - that he [Petraeus] sees him as perhaps a too conventional type of commander, and they wanted some fresh thinking." Lieutenant General David Rodriguez, at present the head of US military forces in the eastern half of Afghanistan, has been lined up as McChrystal's deputy, a new position. "These two officers will bring not just a renewal but a focus that we need in 2009," Michael Mullen, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, said. Obama's plan for Afghanistan and Pakistan calls for a military push to reverse deteriorating security, and an increase in civilian aid and development assistance. Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president, met Obama last week in Washington to discuss their joint approach to fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan and neighbouring Pakistan. That meeting came amid claims that US air strikes in Farah province had killed at least 130 civilians.

Aljazeera.net 2003 - 2009 Provided by Syndigate.info an Albawaba.com company COPYRIGHT 2009 Al Bawaba (Middle East) Ltd. No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder. Copyright 2009 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. Article Details Barack Obama to replace Gen McChrystal with Gen Petraeus over Rolling Stone comments - Telegraph Barack Obama Barack Obama to replace Gen McChrystal with Gen Petraeus over Rolling Stone comments President Barack Obama has sacked Gen Stanley McChrystal, the US commander in Afghanistan, over comments made in a magazine interview. By Toby Harnden in Washington 6:38PM BST 23 Jun 2010 In what could become a defining moment for his presidency, Mr Obama said he had accepted Gen McChrystal’s resignation “with considerable regret but also with certainty that it is the right thing for our mission in Afghanistan, for our military and for the country”. Gen McChrystal was immediately replaced as commander by Gen David Petraeus, the architect of the successful Iraq surge in 2007.

Standing with Gen Petraeus outside the White House some three hours after his 22-minute meeting with Gen McChrystal, Mr Obama said: “War is bigger than any one man or woman, whether a private, a general or president. “As difficult as it is to lose Gen McChrystal, I believe it is the right decision for national security. I welcome debate among my team but I won’t tolerate division.” Gen McChrystal had been summoned from Kabul to be ignominiously dismissed after he and anonymous aides were quoted in a Rolling Stone magazine article . Related Articles McChrystal's firing: How Iceland's volcano played a role 24 Jun 2010 They criticised Vice-President Joe Biden, Richard Holbrooke, Mr Obama’s regional envoy, Karl Eikenberry, US ambassador to Afghanistan, and Gen Jim Jones, the national security adviser. A McChrystal aide even mocked Mr Obama himself, stating he looked “uncomfortable and intimidated” by senior officers and had not seemed “very engaged” when he met the general for the first time. Gen McChrystal had offered his resignation as he flew to Washington and formally tendered it to Mr Obama in the Oval Office.

But his abject public apologies and private telephone calls to all those who had been insulted proved to be insufficient to prevent Mr Obama from accepting it. Gen Petraeus, the former commander of US forces in Iraq, will step down as head of the US Central Command in what is technically a demotion but in practice puts him at the very centre of American foreign policy. Lt Gen Sir Nick Parker, the British deputy commander of the Nato-led International Security Assistance Force under Gen McChrystal, has taken interim command until Gen Petraeus is formally installed. Mr Obama insisted he had not acted out of “any sense of personal insult” but because Gen McChrystal’s conduct “does not meet the standard that should be set by a commanding general”. He stressed that the change in leadership should not be seen as signalling a shift in his overall war strategy in Afghanistan, where 94,000 American troops are fighting alongside 10,000 British troops and those of other Nato nations. “It is a change in personnel, but it is not a change in policy,” he said. The decision to fire Gen McChrystal for insubordination is likely to be seen as one of the most momentous decisions of Mr Obama’s presidency.

Senior Democrats attempted to force Mr Obama’s hands by arguing that he would be seen as a “wimp” if he did not reassert his authority by jettisoning Gen McChrystal. It comes at a time when the president’s Afghan surge strategy is faltering. Gen McChrystal had delayed the summer offensive on Kandahar and said that Marja, which was “cleared” in a major operation at the start of the year, was a “bleeding ulcer”. Gen McChrystal’s remarks and those of his aides about senior officials exposed the fact that the disagreements which emerged during Mr Obama’s three-month review of Afghan strategy last year remained and that relations between the key players were poisoned. Their impact was exacerbated by a series of setbacks for the war effort, which produced a consensus in Washington that the war was faltering or even failing as violence in Marja continued and the credibility of the Afghan government sunk to new lows. The article accelerated a crisis of confidence about whether the war could be won amid eroding public support for the nine-year conflict and rising American casualties.

Gen McChrystal was the American official able to deal most successfully with President Hamid Karzai and many viewed Mr Obama’s war strategy as being personified by the former special forces officer. Mr Karzai said yesterday he regretted Mr Obama’s decision but understood it. Gen McChrystal devised the plan for 30,000 extra troops to fight the Taliban and its allies as part of a new counter-insurgency strategy that elevated the needs of the Afghan people above even the safety of American troops. Some lower-ranking soldiers complained that restrictive rules of engagement gave the Taliban a tactical advantage and even led to American deaths. Gen McChrystal and his aides did not overtly criticise the Obama administration’s policy. Instead, the differences were personal, crude and publicly aired. White House officials described Mr Obama as being especially livid that the president had been characterised as disengaged.

Rise of the four-star deities 5 July 2010 Rise of the four-star deities David Petraeus, George Bush’s “main man” in Iraq and an American military icon, is now expected to w Sign up for our weekly email * On 23 June, the president of the United States, Barack Obama, sacked his top commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal. The general and his aides were quoted making disparaging remarks about their commander-in-chief, and other senior colleagues, in a now famous article in Rolling Stone magazine. In announcing the dismissal of McChrystal, the president said he had made his decision not on the basis of "any difference in policy" nor out of "any sense of personal insult", but because the article had eroded trust and undermined "the civilian control of the military that's at the core of our democratic system". Could this be the end of the love affair between the US political and military classes? In an age in which the citizenry is disillusioned with politicians and repulsed by the bankers, America's top generals, notably McChrystal and his celebrated mentor David Petraeus, have become the subjects of awe and reverence, not to mention the repositories of wide-ranging policymaking powers.

Douglas Macgregor, a retired colonel, decorated Gulf war veteran and adviser to the ­Pentagon until 2004, says he is disturbed by the "modern deification" of generals. "Most Americans have no military experience," he tells me. "They tend to impute to anyone wearing stars a degree of competence and courage associated with battle-hardened leaders of the Second World War or the Korean conflict. Nothing could be further from the truth." According to this view, the Rolling Stone debacle is an example not just of a single general exercising bad judgement, but a microcosm of how the top brass as a whole - arrogant, hubristic, overmighty - have overreached themselves. It illustrates the urgent need to recalibrate the relationship between democratic politicians and military commanders. “Certainly, if President Obama had not fired McChrystal, our civil-military relations problems would have become significantly worse," says one former Pentagon official who served under George W Bush. "But what few people recall is that when the Bush administration first came in, they were determined to rectify what they saw as very serious problems with civilian control, and determined to redress the imbalance.

Ironically, because of how the Iraq war turned out, Bush left office with civil-military relations arguably in a far worse state than when he came in. General Petraeus had become the face not only of the military campaign, but of the strategy and policy of the war in Iraq." During his eight years in office, Bush relied on different generals to prop up his adminis­tration's foreign and defence policies, in particular on Iraq: from the plain-speaking Tommy Franks and the Arabic-speaking John Abizaid, who oversaw the lead-up to the invasion and occupation of Iraq between 2002 and 2003, to the soldier-scholar Petraeus and the shaven-headed Ray Odierno, who executed the so-called surge in US military forces which, its supporters claim, helped reduce the violence in that country between 2007 and 2008. Petraeus stands out above the rest. A West Point graduate with a PhD in international relations from Princeton, he co-authored the US army's much-lauded manual on counter-insurgency, or "Coin", in 2006.

Coin theory disinters the Vietnam-era language of "clear, hold and build", and describes soldiers and marines as "nation-builders as well as warriors". It ­empha­sises a "population-centric" over an enemy-centred approach, and demands large numbers of troops. The Iraq surge was built on the ideas contained in ­Petraeus's Coin manual and the general himself implemented these ideas as Bush's commander on the ground. The then president constantly invoked Petraeus's name as he defended his new strategy in Iraq. Bush, noted the Washington Post in July 2007, called Petraeus his "main man" and managed to stave off a revolt over Iraq by Congressional Republicans by telling them "to wait to see what David has to say. I trust David Petraeus, his judgement." Bush's main man is now also Obama's main man. The current president pre-empted Republican criticisms of his decision to fire McChrystal by instantly appointing Petraeus in his place as the new US commander in Afghanistan. Given the success in Iraq that he and his surge have been credited with, Petraeus is the particular favourite of pro-war pundits at the Rupert Murdoch-owned Fox News and at the right-wing Weekly Standard magazine.

He is equally popular with hawkish neoconservatives such as the former vice-president Dick Cheney and the independent senator Joe Lieberman. Other generals are also popular in these quarters, such as Odierno, the current commander in Iraq, seen to have been successful in fighting terrorists, insurgents and dictators in America's so-called war on terror. “The senior ranks are politicised in ways never seen in the history of the United States," says Colonel Macgregor. "The top bureaucrats in uniform - that is, the top generals and admirals - are tied to neoconservative political circles in Washington, DC in ways that did not exist before 2001." But is it too easy to blame it all on Bush and his neocon allies? "American grand strategy has been a shambles for a long time - arguably from the end of the cold war," says the former Pentagon official. "The vacuum of strategic thinking gets filled by operational thinking, which only the military is providing. If we had real strategic thinking and real strategic action, then civilian leaders could more credibly direct the military to do its bidding.

But without an overall sense of what the US priorities and objectives are, we are collectively reduced to chasing tactical issues, and the military has the loudest voice in that domain." Andrew Bacevich, the long-serving former military officer and professor of international relations at Boston University, agrees. "As Americans became infatuated with military power in the wake of the cold war, they also became infatuated with generals," he says. "General Colin Powell [the former secretary of state] was the first major beneficiary. General David Petraeus is the most recent." Powell was the archetypal soldier-politician. Such was his national popularity as a former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff in the mid-1990s that most observers believe he could have defeated Bill Clinton for the presidency in 1996 had he stood as the ­Republican candidate. In the end, he didn't take the plunge - but Petraeus might. A registered Republican, he is thought to be considering a run for the White House in 2012. If so, Obama's decision to send him to Afghanistan could be a tactical move to remove him from the political equation, as the general's tour will last at least a year or longer.

But 2016 could be an even more attractive proposition for Petraeus, who is 57, and his Republican backers - assuming he has "won" the war in Afghanistan by then. “He is extremely intelligent and very charming. But he's also extremely driven and his charm and intellect cloak a competitive streak," says a US diplomat who knows the general. Petraeus, goes the conventional wisdom, is the scholar-soldier: intellectually robust, media-savvy and politically astute. He can be trusted to carry out the president's orders and end the war while not cros­sing the line. Such a view, however, ignores the general's recent testimony to the Senate, in which he downplayed the significance of Obama's Afghan policy review, scheduled for December, declaring that he "would not make too much of it", and claimed the July 2011 deadline set by the president for withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan is a date "when a process begins, not the date when the US heads for the exits". The relationship between a commander-in-chief and his top military officer can be horribly complex.

"Everyone pays lip-service to the principle of civilian control, but the truth of the matter is that the principle is highly contested," says Bacevich, author of The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced By War. "It would be a great mistake to assume that civil-military relations were simply a matter of generals advising, civilians deciding, and soldiers loyally and obediently implementing." Bacevich argues that the US has become addicted to the idea of global military supremacy sustained by "the collective mindset of the officer corps", as well as to the glorification of the military and the "normalisation of war". However, he questions how much authority individual generals possess and how that translates into political power, and notes the failure of any party or faction to rally around McChrystal or to exploit his firing for political gain. "A 'cult of the generals' does exist, but that does not translate into influence for any officer who happens to have reached flag rank," Bacevich tells me.

"[The retired US general and former Nato commander] Wesley Clark's effort to ­parlay his military reputation into a political ­career flopped." Yet that Clark felt he could run for president without any political experience, and purely on the strength of the four stars on his shoulder, speaks volumes. Twelve of the 43 men who have served as US president have been former generals - including the very first occupant of the Oval Office, George Washington. Nonetheless, there has not been a general in the White House since Dwight D Eisenhower, the former Supreme Allied Commander in the Second World War and architect of the D-Day landings, left office in 1961 (ex­coriating the "military-industrial complex" on his way out). But the rise of the generals in recent years, exemplified by the hallowed status of Petraeus, has altered the dynamic. If a general is elected to the White House in 2012 or 2016, the grip of this cult on the US polity will once again have been demonstrated. So, how to explain it?

"America is a country with a long and storied history of 'great men' and exceptional individuals, such as Ulysses S Grant in the civil war, a genuine hero who saved the country," says Celeste Ward, a senior defence analyst at the Rand Corporation. "We are primed for this kind of narrative." The media are adept at "spinning the yarn of a great man riding in on horseback to save the nation from disaster [which can] create unrealistic portraits and outsize expectations". Journalists have often attributed super powers to the US military leadership, despite its failure to question the legitimacy and rationale of the 2003 Iraq invasion, and its inability to contain the rise of first the Iraqi and now the Afghan insurgencies. While the top brass are deified and deferred to at home, the military they command is humiliated abroad. Macgregor says two types of journalists are complicit in sustaining the cult of the generals - first, those who support the war on terror, and backed the invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq. This group has used the popularity and seemingly apolitical status of modern generals to "cultivate support inside the American electorate for policies Americans would not normally support".

Add to these, he says, "still more journalists who are anxious to enrich themselves by writing ridiculous puff pieces and books about the four stars - men who, for the most part, have no personal experience of direct-fire combat and whose decisions are limited to when and where to approve air strikes against people with no armies, no air defences and no air forces". The largely uncritical reporting of senior military figures, acknowledges a former adviser to US military commanders in Iraq, is also a "cynical move to ensure continued access to war zones that are ultimately controlled by generals. It generally pays enormous dividends for reporters to have good access to senior officers and, thus, good relations are critical." These "good relations" produce positive coverage. McChrystal, for example, has been described as a "Jedi" commander (in the words of Newsweek) and an "intellectual and athletic bad-ass" (Vanity Fair). Reporters tended to avoid focusing on his role in the cover-up of the death from "friendly fire" of the army Ranger and former football star Pat Tillman in Afghanistan in 2004, or his links to the abuse and torture of detainees at Camp Nama in Iraq in 2006.

As the former adviser to US military commanders in Iraq points out: "Prior to the Rolling Stone article, profiles of McChrystal tended towards the hagiographic, portraying him as 'brilliant' and virtually superhuman in his personal qualities. But profiles of Karl Eikenberry [the US ambassador in Afghanistan] paled by comparison. Yet Eikenberry has a PhD from Stanford and is a fluent speaker of Mandarin Chinese. If anyone in Afghanistan is brilliant, it's him. But since he was not the military commander, he was not as interesting, and he's not as good a story." (It is worth noting, incidentally, that even the Rolling Stone profile which cost him his job described McChrystal as "brilliant" and referred breathlessly to his "custom-made set of nunchucks".) The Congressional and media hawks in the United States have acquiesced in the rise and political empowerment of a new cadre of generals and commanders committed to pushing policies - such as so-called small wars, based on counter-insurgency principles - that the US public has usually been sceptical of.

It is worth reflecting on a 2006 conversation, revealed by the journalist Bob Woodward in his book The War Within, between the retired general Jack Keane, a former army vice-chief of staff and one of the architects of Petraeus's surge in Iraq, and Robert Gates, then defence secretary to President Bush (and who is now serving in the same post under President Obama): "Let's be frank about what's happening here," Keane told Gates. "We are going to have a new administration. Do we want these policies continued or not? Do we want the best guys in there who were involved in these policies, who were advocates for them? Let's assume we have a Democratic administration and they want to pull this thing out quickly, and now they have to deal with General Petraeus and General Odierno. There will be a price to be paid to override them." But overriding the generals is exactly what Barack Obama should set out to do, regardless of the price he has to pay. Modern America can no longer afford to defer to the top brass on issues of war and peace. Mehdi Hasan is a contributing writer for the New Statesman and the co-author of Ed: The Milibands and the Making of a Labour Leader.

He was the New Statesman's senior editor (politics) from 2009-12.

Question: Name the US general and commander of Nato forces in Afghanistan sacked by Barack Obama in 2010?
Answer: Stanley McChrystal