| Submit your comments on this article |
| Afghanistan |
| McChrystal bringing most American Special Ops forces under his direct control |
| 2010-03-16 |
| Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top American commander in Afghanistan, has brought most American Special Operations forces under his direct control for the first time, out of concern over continued civilian casualties and disorganization among units in the field. "What happens is, sometimes at cross-purposes, you got one hand doing one thing and one hand doing the other, both trying to do the right thing but working without a good outcome," General McChrystal said in an interview. Critics, including Afghan officials, human rights workers and some field commanders of conventional American forces, say that Special Operations forces have been responsible for a large number of the civilian casualties in Afghanistan and operate by their own rules. Maj. Gen. Zahir Azimi, the chief spokesman for the Afghan Ministry of Defense, said that General McChrystal had told Afghan officials he was taking the action because of concern that some American units were not following his orders to make limiting civilian casualties a paramount objective. "These special forces were not accountable to anyone in the country, but General McChrystal and we carried the burden of the guilt for the mistakes they committed," he said. "Whenever there was some problem with the special forces we didn't know who to go to, it was muddled and unclear who was in charge." General McChrystal has made reducing civilian casualties a cornerstone of his new counterinsurgency strategy, and his campaign has had some success: last year, civilian deaths attributed to the United States military were cut by 28 percent, although there were 596 civilian deaths attributed to coalition forces, according to United Nations figures. Afghan and United Nations officials blame Special Operations troops for most of those deaths. "In most of the cases of civilian casualties, special forces are involved," said Mohammed Iqbal Safi, head of the defense committee in the Afghan Parliament, who participated in joint United States-Afghan investigations of civilian casualties last year. "We're always finding out they are not obeying the rules that other forces have to in Afghanistan." "These forces often operate with little or no accountability and exacerbate the anger and resentment felt by communities," the Human Rights Office of the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan wrote in its report on protection of civilians for 2009. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose |
| #9 TOPIX/WORLD NEWS > US SPECIAL FORCES IN AFGHANISTAN NOW [mostly] UNDER NATO. and SAME > US SETS UP PRIVATE MILITARY FORCE TO HUNT DOWN MILITANTS. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2010-03-16 20:58 |
| #8 "These forces often operate with little or no accountability and exacerbate the anger and resentment felt by communities," "We're always finding out they are not obeying the rules that other forces have to in Afghanistan." Angers me to see the spin that our special forces kill a higher number of civilians, and are portrayed as out of control, or loose cannons. Our special forces are the best of the best and I am sick and tired of seeing our guys bashed constantly including our three SEAL's accused recently. And really, how many are insurgents and retreat and come back presenting themselves as civilians anyway. How about standing up for our guys putting their life on the line every time they go out there to protect our freedoms. This PC crap is just that, crap. end rant, this time. (I find myself ranting more and more every day). |
| Posted by: Jan at work 2010-03-16 16:51 |
| #7 The NY times is quite lazy. I believe to what they allude to was reported by the washington compost the day before: "The Marine approach - creative, aggressive and, at times, unorthodox - has won many admirers within the military. The Marine emphasis on patrolling by foot and interacting with the population, which has helped to turn former insurgent strongholds along the Helmand River valley into reasonably stable communities with thriving bazaars and functioning schools, is hailed as a model of how U.S. forces should implement counterinsurgency strategy. But the Marines' methods, and their insistence that they be given a degree of autonomy not afforded to U.S. Army units, also have riled many up the chain of command in Kabul and Washington, prompting some to refer to their area of operations in the south as "Marineistan." They regard the expansion in Delaram and beyond as contrary to the population-centric approach embraced by Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, and they are seeking to impose more control over the Marines." The first thing that went through my mind was McCrystal is wrong as is the UN. See what Freerange has to say about it from the 13th. Looks like it is working rather well to me as it is now. This is a big deal here. |
| Posted by: newc 2010-03-16 12:42 |
| #6 “(4) Except as otherwise directed by the Secretary of Defense, all forces operating within the geographic area assigned to a unified combatant command shall be assigned to, and under the command of, the commander of that command. The preceding sentence applies to forces assigned to a specified combatant command only as prescribed by the Secretary of Defense. “(b) CHAIN OF COMMAND.-unless otherwise directed by the President, the chain of command to a unified or specified combatant command runs- “(1) from the President to the Secretary of Defense; and “(2) from the Secretary of Defense to the commander of the combatant command. - Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2010-03-16 12:37 |
| #5 A, Your right to an extent. SOF units are operationally controlled by the geographic commander, McChrystal while ADM Olsen still owns them. The SOCOM, USASOC mission is to suppot the geographic commander not operate around him. |
| Posted by: 49 Pan 2010-03-16 11:31 |
| #4 49 Pan, lex: I'm not so sure his control was direct, because of SOCOM rules. As commander, USFOR-A, he would have been in overall command, by operationally, he would have likely needed to go through Admiral Eric T. Olson, at their headquarters at MacDill AFB, near Tampa. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2010-03-16 10:50 |
| #3 BLUF - Rubbish! New York Times article...closes with: "These forces often operate with little or no accountability and exacerbate the anger and resentment felt by communities," the Human Rights Office of the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan wrote in its report on protection of civilians for 2009. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2010-03-16 08:24 |
| #2 Bingo. What Pan said. |
| Posted by: lex 2010-03-16 00:27 |
| #1 This implies they were not under his control? Who controlled them? Why were they allowed to under the control of anyone except the Theater commander? This all sounds like political hogwash aimed at bluffing the Afghans into relaxing. McCrystal had control of SOF, he was the commander of all forces after all. |
| Posted by: 49 Pan 2010-03-16 00:25 |