Today I accepted General Stanley McChrystal's resignation as commander of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan. I did so with considerable regret, but also with certainty that it is the right thing for our mission in Afghanistan, for our military and for our country.
I'm also pleased to nominate General David Petraeus to take command in Afghanistan, which will allow us to maintain the momentum and leadership that we need to succeed.
I don't make this decision based on any difference in policy with General McChrystal, as we are in full agreement — (audio break) — strategy, nor do make this decision out of any sense of personal insult. Stan McChrystal has always shown great courtesy and carried out my orders faithfully. I've got great admiration for him and for his long record of service in uniform. Over the last nine years, with America fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, he has earned a reputation as one of our nation's finest soldiers. That reputation is founded upon his extraordinary dedication, his deep intelligence and his love of country. I relied on his service, particularly in helping to design and lead our new strategy in Afghanistan. So all Americans should be grateful for General McChrystal's remarkable career in uniform.
But war is bigger than any one man or woman, whether a private, a general or a president...
-- President Obama - New York Times Transcript
This morning the President accepted my resignation as Commander of U.S. and NATO Coalition Forces in Afghanistan. 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.
It has been my privilege and honor to lead our nation's finest.
-- General McChrystal - New York Times Transcript
President Obama removed Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal as commander of American forces in Afghanistan on Wednesday, and tapped as his replacement the general's boss, Gen. David H. Petraeus, the architect of the 2007 surge in Iraq.
Mr. Obama, standing with General Petraeus and Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. in the White House Rose Garden to underline the continuity and solidity of his Afghan policy, said that he had regretfully accepted General McChrystal's resignation.
He said he had done so not out of personal insult, but because a magazine article featuring contemptuous quotes from the general and his staff about senior administration officials had not meet standards of behavior for a commanding general, and threatened to undermine civilian control of the military.
"War is bigger than any one man or woman, whether a private, a general or president," Mr. Obama said. "As difficult as it is to lose General McChrystal, I believe it is the right decision for national security."
"I welcome debate among my team," he said, "but I won't tolerate division."
To replace an Afghan war commander brought down by his own impolitic comments, President Barack Obama chose one of the military's most gifted politicians.
In Gen. David Petraeus, Mr. Obama picked a general who he hopes will provide a relatively seamless transition in the combat zone. But he also chose a man who has proven his ability to persuade lawmakers and the public that he can produce results, at a time when confidence in the war effort is fading and a White House-imposed deadline for success approaches.
Gen. Petraeus "has an unparalleled ability to explain counterinsurgency, to explain what interests are at stake and to explain the possibility of success and the costs of failure to the American people," said former Lt. Col. John Nagl, who helped Gen. Petraeus draft the Army's counterinsurgency manual.
In early 2007, amid widespread criticism of the handling of the Iraq war, President George W. Bush picked Gen. Petraeus to lead a troop "surge." The gamble, combined with an about-face by Sunni leaders in Iraq, was credited with reducing violence in the country, although Iraq remains in a fragile state.
In late 2008, shortly after he had helped pull Iraq back from the brink of catastrophe, Gen. David H. Petraeus prepared to turn to that other American war.
"I've always said that Afghanistan would be the tougher fight," General Petraeus said at the time.
Now the burden falls to him, at perhaps the decisive moment in President Obama's campaign to reverse the deteriorating situation on the ground here and regain the momentum in this nine-year-old war. In many ways, General Petraeus is being summoned to Afghanistan at a moment similar to the one he faced three years ago in Iraq, when the situation seemed hopeless to a growing number of Americans and their elected representatives as well.
But there is a crucial difference: In Iraq, General Petraeus was called in to reverse a failed strategy put in place by previous commanders. In Afghanistan, General Petraeus was instrumental in developing and executing the strategy in partnership with Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, who carried it out on the ground. Now General Petraeus will be directly responsible for its success or failure, risking the reputation he built in Iraq.
News
President Obama's Remarks on Gen. McChrystal - Transcript via NYT
Statement by Gen. Stanley McChrystal - Transcript via AP
Obama Fires U.S. Commander in Afghanistan - Voice of America
Obama Accepts McChrystal's Resignation, Nominates Petraeus - AFPS
McChrystal Relieved of Duty; Petraeus to Replace - Washington Post
Gen. McChrystal Is Relieved of Command - New York Times
Petraeus to Replace McChrystal - Wall Street Journal
Obama Relieves McChrystal of Command - Los Angeles Times
McChrystal Resigns Afghan Command - Washington Times
Petraeus Takes over for Ousted McChrystal - Stars and Stripes
Obama Sacks General McChrystal, Appoints Petraeus - The Australian
McChrystal Out, Petraeus In as Afghan Commander - Associated Press
Obama Fires U.S. Afghan Commander - BBC News
With McChrystal Out, Difficult Afghan Mission Gets Harder - Washington Post
Petraeus Is Now Taking Control of a 'Tougher Fight' - New York Times
Petraeus Could Provide Calming Influence - Washington Post
Selection of Petraeus Means Afghan Strategy Survives - Stars and Stripes
Obama Says Afghan Policy Won't Change After Dismissal - New York Times
From Iraq to a Hard Place - Wall Street Journal
Strategy Remains the Same - Voice of America
NATO Chief Says Strategy Unchanged - Reuters
White House: Petraeus will Shed CENTCOM Post - Army Times
The End of Team McChrystal - BBC News
Obama Reasserts Authority - Christian Science Monitor
McChrystal Statement Expresses Support for Policy - AFPS
Sacked McChrystal Once Thought Indispensible - Stars and Stripes
Parties Support Obama's Decision to Replace McChrystal - Washington Post
Obama Likely to Win Quick Senate Confirmation for Petraeus - USA Today
Petraeus Pick Wins Approval on Capitol Hill - CBS News
U.S. Allies Hope for Continuity After McChrystal - Associated Press
U.K. Committed to Afghan Strategy after McChrystal Sacking - Reuters
Germany Regrets McChrystal Afghanistan Departure - Reuters
Afghanistan Disappointed, But Optimistic About Petraeus - Washington Post
Afghans Relieved at Choice of Gen. Petraeus - Associated Press
Karzai Says Firing McChrystal Not Helpful to Military Efforts - Voice of America
Kabul to Miss Respected McChrystal - BBC News
U.K. Says Brit General Taking Charge in Kabul - Associated Press
Gen. David Petraeus Returns to Battle in Afghanistan - ABC News
David Petraeus Brings Experience to the Job - CBS News
Will it Make a Difference? - Christian Science Monitor
U.S. Troops Split on Controversy Surrounding McChrystal - Washington Post
Military Men Divided on McChrystal Ouster - Time
McChrystal's ex-SAS Man Likely to Leave with Him - Guardian
Some Worry Gaffe Will End Embed Program - US News & World Report
A Flurry of White House Activity - Washington Post
Rapid-fire Chain of Events Led to Gen. McChrystal's Fall - Los Angeles Times
Short, Tense Deliberation, Then a General Is Gone - New York Times
Life and Near-Death Experiences of Obama's Warrior - CBS News
McChrystal's Lack of Political Skills Led to Downfall - Washington Post
The BBC Looks at the Career of Dismissed U.S. General - BBC News
Obama on McChrystal, Truman on MacArthur - Associated Press
Gen. David Petraeus didn't sign on as the new Afghanistan commander because he expects to lose.
That's the boldest aspect of President Obama's decision: He has put a troubled Afghanistan campaign in the hands of a man who bent what looked like failure in Iraq toward an acceptable measure of success. Obama has doubled down on his bet, much as President Bush did with his risky surge of troops in Baghdad under Petraeus's command.
Here's a simple way to think about the change of command: If the Taliban sold stock, its price would surely have fallen after Wednesday's announcement. It's hard to see how Petraeus can rejigger the pieces of this puzzle, but as I've heard him say: "The thing about winners is that they know how to win."
"As difficult as it is to lose General McChrystal, I believe it's the right one," the President just said. "The conduct represented in the recently-published article ... undermines the civilian control of the military that is 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."
No general could've taken Obama seriously, after getting dissed so publicly by McChrystal's crew. No captain or sergeant could've been expected to shut up and salute when his superior officer gave an order. The guy at the top didn't respect his commander; why should he?
-- Wired
Opinion
Time for Sweeping Afghan Policy Review - Council on Foreign Relations
Afghanistan, After McChrystal - New York Times
Change of Command - Washington Post
Lose a General, Win a War - New York Times
The War Within - Washington Post
A Fool's Errand - Washington Post
Fixing Afghanistan - Washington Post
Taking Command in Afghanistan - Los Angeles Times
McChrystal's Final Agony - Washington Times
Petraeus: The Right Commander for Afghanistan - Washington Post
Gen. David Petraeus' 3 Keys to Victory - New York Daily News
Petraeus Spares Obama Another Disaster - The Australian
McChrystalizing Failure - Washington Times
Why Obama Had to Fire McChrystal - Wired (Danger Room)
The Firing of McChrystal - The Atlantic
Can Petraeus Win the War? - Rolling Stone
Obama Makes the Right Call on McChrystal - Baltimore Sun
Obama Couldn't Give McChrystal a Pass - Associated Press
Firing Allows Obama to Reassert Leadership - Washington Post
Petraeus is the Only Man Who Can Save the Surge Strategy - Daily Telegraph
Obama's Choice of Petraeus a 'Masterstroke' - CNN News
White House Picks Safe Ally for Afghan Strategy - Stars and Stripes
McChrystalizing Failure - Washington Times
McChrystal's Ouster Unfortunate but Necessary - Dallas Morning News
McChrystal's Sacking Shows Obama is Boss - Daily Telegraph
So What Now? - Small Wars Journal
Petraeus Gets Another Tough Job - Small Wars Journal
Dave's Back - Foreign Policy (Best Defense)
Who Is to Replace Petraeus? - Commentary
Out with the New, In with the Old - The Economist
Changing Generals Changes Nothing in Afghanistan - Salon
Obama Handles McChrystal Affair With Grace - FOX News
Democrats and the McChrystal Fiasco - Wall Street Journal
Obama on McChrystal: Nothing Personal - Wall Street Journal
McChrystal's Tragedy - Works and Days
Rolling Stone Article's True Focus: Counterinsurgency - New York Times
Comments
General Petraeus will go to Afghanistan and make his initial assessment. In a month or so he'll return and report his findings and recommendations to the President.
He will say three things.
1. Relax these ridiculous Rules of Engagement.
2. Give me more troops.
3. Drop this STUPID timeline of July 2011.
He ought to tell Obama one other thing:
"If you don't give me what I want then I will resign."
President Obama knows General Petraeus is his last chance to get this right and facing the threat of a Petraeus resignation Obama will be forced to put up or pull out.
Anon said- "The real problem with the Petraeus appointment has nothing to do with Afghanistan. It is that transferring Petraeus removes the only person who was doing any serious long-term strategic planning for security in the Persian Gulf in the face of the Iranian threat. Petraeus has been carefully nursing the expanding military capacities of US-friendly Arab countries in the Gulf and nudging them toward greater coordination and interoperability with each other and with us. He will be hard to replace in that role."
Gen Petraus is a smart and talented leader but he is not the 'only one' looking at the future of the Middle East in CENTCOM or in the US Military as a whole. Who ever replaces him in CENTCOM will be well versed in the issues of the region and will retain a good portion of Petraus's staff.
Norman Rogers: What you are saying may be true, and if so its pretty disturbing because it indicates a system where everybody wants Daddy to make it right. If McChrystal was pissed off at the communication model with the civilians, why didnt he sit down and make a strategy review focusing on that aspect? What made him think it was OK to "highlighting" the faults of his commanding officers in public? Even worse, what made him think it was going to be a productive move, leading to a better campaign effort? If he did think at all, why Rolling Stones? And if he did want to leave in protest, why suicide through magazine instead of choosing the honorable way?
Unless there is something I dont get, it just sounds too silly. (Any info who was on the Paris tour with the gen.?)
<i>What your missing is that the management of the civil war dwarfed all responsibilities and Lincoln was forced to tolerate an ongoing series of lengthy disputes within his own cabinet. President Obama doesn't tolerate dissent on policy because there is precious leadership or hands-on management. The opinions expressed through "background" in the RS article show that the uniformed military believes it is working for a disjointed, confused clown circus.</i>
That was awful-my apologies. Again:
What you're missing is that the management of the civil war dwarfed all responsibilities and Lincoln was forced to tolerate an ongoing series of lengthy disputes within his own cabinet. President Obama doesn't appear to tolerate dissent on policy because there is precious little leadership or hands-on management when it comes to defense policy, which is being run almost exclusively by Secretary Gates. The opinions expressed through "background" in the RS article show that the uniformed military believes it is working for a disjointed, confused clown circus--pretty much uniting around the idea that only Gates and Secretary of State Clinton "get it" when it comes to Afghanistan.
When you see the uniformed military united behind two cabinet officers, and denigrating the Vice President and the US Ambassador and the special envoy, they are playing the "team of rivals" game by showing that there is a competence gap at the civilian leadership level. In domestic American politics, the McChrystal team is highlighting the fact that the Defense Secretary picked by Bush and the former primary campaign opponent of the President are competent and the President and Vice President are serving up a crap sandwich.
Anyway, it's done. In a calendar year, General Petraeus will roll out his charts and browbeat Congress into accepting that the war has been won.
Also, check your history - Lincoln cashiered plenty of generals in his time.
Lincoln failed to cashier generals when they needed to be cashiered.
"They do not allow their closest staffers to make snide comments about their civilian superiors. "
You have no working knowledge of the backbiting that went on in the press while Lincoln was President, do you? Much of it carried out by his cabinet.
What your missing is that the management of the civil war dwarfed all responsibilities and Lincoln was forced to tolerate an ongoing series of lengthy disputes within his own cabinet. President Obama doesn't tolerate dissent on policy because there is precious leadership or hands-on management. The opinions expressed through "background" in the RS article show that the uniformed military believes it is working for a disjointed, confused clown circus.
What they may have been trying to get out through the press is the fact that no one believes Eikenberry, Holbrooke, Biden or Kerry know anything about what's going on. We will see McChrystal fired without ever having the right discussion about the civilian team that can't get its act together.
Two very different opinions:
The president has every right to replace military commanders in whom he has lost trust. But trust is, at least in part, a choice. Gen. McChrystal said some things he should not have said, and his staff engaged in immature banter - all in front of a reporter. It was poor judgment. There was never any indication of insubordination or of policy differences, however. Even the president admitted that.
So it came down to personalities and political embarrassment. If every person in government who has made fun of Vice President Joe Biden is forced to resign, there will be few people left. The president argued that he did not make this decision "out of any sense of personal insult." And yet it seems that he did. We know from the health care debate and other controversies that the President does not take criticism well.
The real problem with the Petraeus appointment has nothing to do with Afghanistan. It is that transferring Petraeus removes the only person who was doing any serious long-term strategic planning for security in the Persian Gulf in the face of the Iranian threat. Petraeus has been carefully nursing the expanding military capacities of US-friendly Arab countries in the Gulf and nudging them toward greater coordination and interoperability with each other and with us. He will be hard to replace in that role.
Some say the Isreali's are the winners in this as Petraeus as the COCOM Cmdr was starting to voice some opinions as the COCOM Cmdr that they did not like to hear.
@Norman Rogers:
The Team of Rivals approach concerned civilian leadership. The need for unity of command and the primacy of civilian leadership trump policy differences any day, as well they should. If war is policy by other means, then it should be dictated by those that were elected to do so.
What you ought to be asking youself is why Gen McCrystal allowed a freelance reporter with a grudge against counterinsurgency into his inner circle.
@Norman Rogers:
You're completely missing the point. Members of a team with divergent position advocate their agenda through proper channels and then carry out orders once a decision has been made. They do not allow their closest staffers to make snide comments about their civilian superiors. Your idea of a "team of rivals" isn't a team at all - it's just a bunch of selfish individuals looking out for their own. In any case, it seems like McChrystal's issues were more about personal distaste rather than principled policy disputes.
Also, check your history - Lincoln cashiered plenty of generals in his time.
Wasn't President Obama supposed to favor the so-called "Team of Rivals" approach taken by President Lincoln?
So if he says that he won't tolerate "division" does that mean that he would rather be surrounded by yes-men who will, at the end of the day, rally around the boss and forget they disagree on major issues? You can't just have a meeting or two and bring everyone on line. Policy differences can't be swept under the rug. A true "team of rivals" is one where people advocate their agenda, even though it is divided from the agenda of others in the room. And they do it day after day after day.
So much for all that.
Dave M., yes the president did say that today.....but if General P. goes to the President and says he would like to do some fine tuning, I think it would happen quickly. The President has an Oil Spill, a Dead Cat Economy and some nasty Drug Dealers along the Mexican border, point being he has other things he needs to respond to and he needs to do it fast or A'stan will be the least of his problems.
Kent, can't let this one go. The myth that minorities died in disproportionate numbers in Vietnam is very common, but is not supported by the facts:
88.4% of the men who actually served in Vietnam were Caucasian, 10.6%
(275,000) were black.
86.3% of the men who died in Vietnam were Caucasian (including Hispanics)
12.5% (7,241) were black.
1.2% belonged to other races
170,000 Hispanics served in Vietnam; 3,070 (5.2%) of whom died there.
86.8% of the men who were KIA were Caucasian
12.1% (5,711) were black; 1.1% belonged to other races.
14.6% (1,530) of non-combat deaths were black
34% of blacks who enlisted volunteered for the combat arms.
Overall, blacks suffered 12.5% of the deaths in Vietnam when the percentage
of blacks of military age was 13.5% of the population.
Finally, only 25% of those that served in Vietnam were Draftees. The rest volunteered. Compare that to over 66% draftees in WWII.
Does the current civilian leadership really care about the troops on the ground in AFG?
Looks like they really only care about re-election---would not like to be the last one in AFG having to turn out the lights--this is not going to be a pretty sight to see and it will not be the same as pulling out of Iraq in an organized fashion.
This by the way applies to the SECDEF as well.
This single comment shows that the National Command Authority really does not understand nor does it fully want to do anything with AFG other than get out.
"I welcome debate among my team," he said, "but I wont tolerate division."
There have been countless private comments from NATO personnel in NATO capitals about the "backbiting" from members of the NCA staff---and the NCA does not tolerate division---and so the two most ineffective civilians in the AFG project the current Amb. and Holbrooke who are totally lost and mistrusted by the Afghan government and Pakistan government stay.
Give me a break and the man calls himself a leader with great community organizing skills?
Let's just hand it to the Chinese and go home as it appears that the NCA does not care about the lives of military personnel--that became clear today.
This decision also tells me no General on the substitution list wanted to step up and take the position---especially Mattis as there has never been a dual combat hat COCOM Cmdr in the history of DOD.
Brilliant, sinister! McChrystal was put in by Petraeus, dumping McKiernan to have his own man there. Now Petraeus is denied retirement by being placed in command so he can't abandon "his" war....DEMOTED...to where he has to be held responsible for the war he thought he would have McChrystal use to soften up Obama by 2012, blaming the President for the 2012 pullout. Now Petraeus will have to orchestrate all that-- brilliant, diabolic! The Republican Presidential Candidate for 2012 that slapout9 so wishes in the Presidency will have to take as his burden the losing war that he was seeking to use against Obama and can only run by abandoning it. After all, to begin his presidential campaign by July 2012 in protest of Obama's start of withdrawal is a bit late. To quit before then is abandoning his post during "his" war. McChrystal leaves realizing that maybe he misjudged Obamas seeming intimidation by "brass" because Obamas got a lot of civilian thugs in his corner to advise him on how to deal with a general that cant stop using his mouth as if it were his gun. Still, I hope none of us forget McChrystal for he not only tried brass- politics with brass knuckles but he made sure the troops were fighting the "better war." Alas, hes not the cagy politico he thought he was. God be with him and may be never suffer the pain suffered by Gen. Johnson. Gods speed, Gen. McChrystal, we will not forget the bad but we surely will not forget the good--far, far, far more remarkable.
And all think this will solve the inherent problem---it will get worse politically as Gen. P has been the lead horse in getting the goal posts moved past Jul 2011.
So why would a COCOM Cmdr take a position that has a revolving door and can that COCOM Cmdr convince ground troops that they have to kill or be killed for a policy that now makes no sense to them anymore---that is what the core of the article was alluding to.
That is now extremely clear to the ground troops---when you see a combat officer who is willing to stand in front of you trying to explain the strategic policy get replaced by the policy makers---you very quietly decide it is not worth getting killed for and you go into an avoidance game---you easily get to the locations where there is no Taliban-you avoid direct contacts with the Taliban---basically the ground troop goes into a survival mode just to get home.
Question to the National Command Authority---you ignor the AFG war as you figured the policy would be the cover-you basically have turned you back on the ground forces and yet you replace their Cmdr the very one you selected to lead the fight on an article that was all in all not that critical inside two days.
BUT it takes how long to gin up a response to oil streaming towards four States?
Really-just where are your priorities--they are not definitely not focused on the ground forces in AFG.