More

Afghans 'Relieved' At Obama's Choice Of Gen. Petraeus

DEB RIECHMANN   06/23/10 10:40 PM ET   AP

Obama Petrateus

KABUL, Afghanistan — Afghan officials expressed relief at the choice of Gen. David Petraeus to replace Gen. Stanley McChrystal as the top U.S. and NATO commander, believing the U.S. strategy aimed at minimizing civilian casualties and bolstering the Afghan government would continue.

Afghans had warned that the dismissal of McChrystal would disrupt progress in the war and jeopardize a pivotal security operation under way in Taliban strongholds in the south.

After President Barack Obama announced the selection of Petraeus, Afghan authorities said Wednesday they were relieved because the veteran war commander helped craft the counterinsurgency strategy being implemented in Afghanistan.

President Hamid Karzai's spokesman, Waheed Omar, said the Afghan leader was informed of the change in leadership before the public announcement and that he was happy with the selection, despite his respect for McChrystal.

"He respects Gen. McChrystal but he also respects Gen. Petraeus," Omar said. "He believes Gen. Petraeus knows Afghanistan."

Omar described McChrystal as a "a fine soldier" and partner for the Afghan people "but we believe Gen. Petraeus will also be a trusted partner."

Omar said Karzai believes the U.S. and Afghanistan "are in a very sensitive juncture" and that any disruption "will not be helpful."

Afghan Defense Ministry spokesman Gen. Mohammad Zahir Azimi also publicly voiced his support for McChrystal, but also for Petraeus.

"Since Gen. McChrystal took over the job as commander of the international forces, there have been a lot of changes in different departments, which are very important and positive," Azimi said. "For example, there has been a decrease in the numbers of civilian casualties and we're still working jointly with McChrystal to decrease it further."

Until Petraeus is confirmed by the U.S. Senate, British Lt. Gen. Nick Parker, the deputy commander of the NATO-led forces, is assuming command of the troops, according to British Prime Minister David Cameron.

In a statement, the British prime minister's office said Cameron had spoken to Parker on Wednesday and the general had told him that the mission in Afghanistan "would not miss a beat" during this period.

McChrystal was replaced after being summoned to Washington to explain disparaging comments published in Rolling Stone magazine that he and his top aides made about President Barack Obama and his national security team.

The remarks, which revealed divisions among U.S. officials over the war strategy, came amid rising violence. June has become the deadliest month of the nearly 9-year-old war.

In a statement issued in Kabul, McChrystal said he tendered his resignation out of a desire to see the mission in Afghanistan succeed.

"I strongly support the president's strategy in Afghanistan and am deeply committed to our coalition forces, our partner nations and the Afghan people," McChrystal said in the statement, released just minutes after Obama announced that he was being replaced. "It was out of respect for this commitment – and a desire to see the mission succeed – that I tendered my resignation."

Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid said McChrystal should have resigned because his strategy had "clearly failed."

"The problems between American leaders over Afghan issues very clearly show that the policy and the strategy of America has failed," he said. "They cannot win this war because the Afghan nation is united and they are committed to defeating American forces in Afghanistan."

The flap over McChrystal comes as NATO and Afghan forces are ramping up security in and around the key southern city of Kandahar, the birthplace of the Taliban.

Before Petraeus' appointment was announced, Karzai's younger half brother, Ahmad Wali Karzai, the head of the Kandahar provincial council, gave McChrystal a ringing endorsement, telling reporters that McChrystal's leadership would be sorely missed.

"If he is fired, it will disrupt the operation," Ahmad Wali Karzai said. "It definitely will affect it. He (McChrystal) started all this, and he has a good relationship with the people. The people trust him and we trust him. If we lose this important person, I don't think that this operation will work in a positive way."

___

Associated Press writers Amir Shah and Rahim Faiez in Kabul and Mirwais Khan in Kandahar contributed to this report.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST WORLD

KABUL, Afghanistan — Afghan officials expressed relief at the choice of Gen. David Petraeus to replace Gen. Stanley McChrystal as the top U.S. and NATO commander, believing the U.S. strategy aim...
KABUL, Afghanistan — Afghan officials expressed relief at the choice of Gen. David Petraeus to replace Gen. Stanley McChrystal as the top U.S. and NATO commander, believing the U.S. strategy aim...
Filed by Curtis M. Wong  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 110
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
05:51 AM on 06/25/2010
You Americans are so stupid; once again you are dying in a meaningless war and killing thousands of innocent civilians. This is becoming standard practice, almost. No wonder many hate you. You are constantly creating new terrorists and extremists determined to kill you.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Rubiconski
NOTE: I advocate for anti-BSL...
01:15 AM on 06/25/2010
I bet they are....the day we leave that illegitimate puppet government will swing from the highest trees.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
tdotbird
12:22 PM on 06/24/2010
Yeah, because that whole not killing Afghan civilians strategy has been going really well lately...A new strategy is needed, not a general who crafted the one currently in place that hasn't been effective.
08:19 AM on 06/25/2010
Exactly. The whole COIN thing might have worked in the beginning until now, but to invest another 10 years seeing if this experiment actually works is ludicrous. Time for back to the future. WWII tactics, something that worked.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ergon
Man From Atlan
11:31 AM on 06/24/2010
For what? To deliver bushels of $ to Ahmad Wali Karzai to pay the local warlords to pay the Taleban not to attack the supply convoys and opium deliveries?
Afghnaistan is a racket.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Rubiconski
NOTE: I advocate for anti-BSL...
01:17 AM on 06/25/2010
Who cares....One baby killer is as good as the next.
09:53 AM on 06/24/2010
Obama feels, Bush and the republicans have done too much damage and left behind too manny problems that they are unable to handle.

Well! Then leave!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
04:29 PM on 06/24/2010
WTF?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cybersense
07:06 AM on 06/24/2010
There is so much more then many thought about when it comes to replacing a prominate general in a war. It should never be about "you pissed me off, so you are out" kind of thing. But, McChrystal really sounded as though he did not care about his comments, or his aids comments and gave an interview he had to have known would cause a ruckess. This bothered me, but to replace him without talking to him and finding out more was important. Apparently, McChrystal just wasn't in "the job" any longer. Why else would he not understand what was wrong with what he did. He is a general who commands respect himself, no?

Of course the President would already be ready with a replacement. I would hope so, this isn't a
position that you could go without someone for long, right?

I think, and I am assuming here, that McChrystal was indeed ready to go. I believe that even if he disagreed with the President, he wouldn't have did that interview if he was "in the job" so to speak. I think he needed to get out.
06:04 AM on 06/24/2010
Does anyone really give a Twinkie about what Afghans think? When they start fighting for their own, on their own, then perhaps what they think becomes slightly more important than how many cubes of sugar I'll have in my tea this morning - until then, it isn't. US policy for Afghanistan is sick and is weakening each day. Obama says we're there to catch OBL. It is now apparent that OBL is no longer there. Meanwhile troop loses mount. The Taliban has been around for centuries and while the average American, including myself, does not prescribe to their brutality we're not going to change it. Not in my lifetime.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
AwShucks
Obama-Biden 2012 Let's Do it Again
10:24 AM on 06/24/2010
I agree with the Twinkie part.
01:56 PM on 06/24/2010
They are fighting on their own, for their own. The problem, they are fighting against us, instead of rolling over and letting us install whomever we want to run their country for us.

The Taliban has only been around since the 1980's, btw.
11:27 AM on 06/25/2010
Sorry Hank0007 but it's logic similar to yours which contributes to the US Foreign Policy stumbling and fumbling to new lows - just because some choose to box and label a group of people as "The Taliban" does not mean they suddenly come into existence on that day they are lebelled as such. There is a significant amount of history which we as a country are too stupid to understand when it comes to the Middle East. The tribal systems, which are prevalent throughout the ME, go back for centuries. Way before the USA was even created. There happened to be a group of militia fighters backed by the USA during the '80's to fight against the Soviets which were "boxed and labelled" as the Taliban. Where do you think they came from? They didn't just spawn themselves into existence. Their father's and forefathers were most likely tribesmen and it is their rule which governs the local provinces. Nothing has changed since.
11:38 AM on 06/25/2010
In Iraq, for example, it was the Suni tribes who ascended to power hence the bloodletting of the Shia and Kurdish tribes. If anyone in our goven't with half a brain could have figured this out before destroying the country, they would have known that "installing" Shia tribes after getting rid of Saddam would certainly strengthen the hand and influence of Iran, who is now a major problem for US policy.

And as another more drastic example, the whole ruling family of Saudi Arabia is comprised of about 3 tribes - if you are not in these tribes, you are never going to get a job inside of the government. They are all relatives.
05:13 AM on 06/24/2010
I think Obama has cornered himself in a box.

Unless Obama establishes a peace agreement with Iran, Petraeus will be the next president of US in 2012 election.

The reason is that Petraeus looks like a hero after getting Taliban to agree about ceasefire and get the troops out.

At the same time Israel lobbyists painting Iran as the big threat in ME force Americans to vote for somebody "STRONG", and nobody is a match for Petraeus after two victories one in Iraq and one in Afghanistan!

I think It was stupid to fire McChrystal, Obama could just take little bit initiative and solve Afghanistan issue politically by negotiating with Talibans and take the credit himself instead of handing it over to Petraeus!

This raises many questions:

Does Obama want Petraeus to be the next president of US? Why?
Does Petraeus give any guarantee not to run in 2012?
If Yes, can Obama trust him?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cybersense
06:57 AM on 06/24/2010
Um, I am not sure you understand what is going on. I will end this comment here, because your comments makes me believe that I would have to spend a lot more time, then this space allows me in order to explain.
02:11 PM on 06/24/2010
cybersense... you have no idea how "out there" this dude is. He thinks Iran has a free democratic society! Sometimes you just gotta shake your head and feel sorry for some folk. Just another reason for me to support Obama...lol.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
AwShucks
Obama-Biden 2012 Let's Do it Again
10:26 AM on 06/24/2010
You're really out there, aren't you.

Stop watching those Oliver Stone movies.
04:50 AM on 06/24/2010
How many people realize that a 19 year old soldier in Afghanistan today was only 10 years old when 9/11 happened? A perfect example of Bush leaving his mess to the next generation.
08:32 AM on 06/24/2010
Obama ought not have taken the job if he felt it was too much to handle.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
09:36 AM on 06/24/2010
And exactly who says he does? He certainly hasn't.
04:33 AM on 06/24/2010
"After President Barack Obama announced the selection of Petraeus, Afghan authorities said Wednesday they were relieved because the veteran war commander helped craft the counterinsurgency strategy being implemented in Afghanistan."

Congratulations, more of the same.
03:08 AM on 06/24/2010
I was hoping that one our true heroes, John McCain, would get called upon to fix things up in Afghanistan. You would never hear him say naughty things about anyone in the White House.
photo
Soulmentor
"To thine own self be true...."
02:41 AM on 06/24/2010
Interesting to note that Patreaus was on hand for the Rose Garden event. Since he would have to have traveled from Iraq that means that he was summoned even as Obama was telling us he hadn't made his final decision.
How things are done in Washington.
02:56 AM on 06/24/2010
By backstabbing and lies?
photo
Soulmentor
"To thine own self be true...."
03:44 AM on 06/24/2010
You say poTAHtoe, I say poTAYtoe. I was simply pointing out that Obama obviously HAD made up his mind. But he was also trying to keep it all at a gentlemanly level, a necessary and important consideration in these kinds of events by giving McCrystal at least a last honorable face time moment. Nothing wrong with that. It's not "backstabbing and lies". It's civil conduct. Why must you insist on making something negative of it?
02:14 PM on 06/24/2010
This coming from someone who thinks Iran is a free and democratic society??? LOLOLOL
03:02 AM on 06/24/2010
I think Obama is cooking him to be the next president of US!
01:14 AM on 06/24/2010
One turn after the next in America's quest to stop the Taliban has proven wrong. His removal of this outspoken general is only a small portion of the ills of the army. Many as I do believe that the reasons for this war with the Taliban was capricious, faulty and unrighteous. It is best to leave Afghanistan and if not to late, become an active partner in trying to solve the horrendous problems facing the Afghan people. Unfortunately, the US prefers to keep Afghan destitute in order to keep out the Taliban from once again running the country! In essence, trying to reshape Islam into what American perceives Islam should be in the Muslim lands. This policy alone has created a firestorm of insurgencies bent on removing Americans and American backed Muslim governments. Regardless of what American feels about Islamic governance and how they govern, Afghan belongs to Afghan people and not to the Americans. If the Taliban wants to reconstitute to 7th century shari'ah, it is their business as long as they are not threatening to the US, which the Taliban did not do in the first place. Even though the previous Taliban rule was brutal, the people of Afghanistan must decide how to be governed and not forced to adopt religious and cultural way of life that runs contrary to Islamic values that the Americans wanted to usher in, threw the use of the sword!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DCmykl
A long seemingly endless edge
01:36 AM on 06/24/2010
That all sounds very nice, but the reality is that the Taliban and other Islamic militants want to foster shari'ah based Islamic republics across Africa, the Middle East and sourhern Asia...for now, and are quite willing to resort to the sword to do so.
01:43 AM on 06/24/2010
This is only western propaganda from Fox News!
Please take a trip to Syria, Iran, Lebanon, Turkey, Egypt etc to see by your own eyes that these countries are not as backward as west propaganda machine made you believe!
02:11 AM on 06/24/2010
Each Muslim country has it's Jamaat islamiyah groups wanting to restore Islamic law. Not Taliban Islamic law. You are correct to state that the US aim is to prevent Islamic law from returning in Muslim lands. Well, why do you think that there is so much insurgencies to stop the American intrusions into our lands? These are not militants as you describe them, many are sanctioned political groups and others are insurgents. The American government in its zeal to change that, has caused a 9/11 across Muslim lands, with invasions, backing weak and corrupt Muslim leaders, who the people want removed in Muslim lands. But, the American military might and funds keep these rulers in power as long as they serve the interest of American wishes of keeping at bay, Islamic law from resurfacing. This is creating insurgents. Across the board in Muslim lands, the people regard these leaders as turncoats and American puppets, who are longer Muslim anymore. To make a point, in the Muslim country I reside, it has been learned that a communist political party has been receiving cash under the table from the Americans! Why? This group wants to bring in western concepts of law, beer and wine sold everywhere, whoredom legalized and so on. They are not regarded Muslims and they want to scrap Islam altogether. My countrymen are up in arms to stop this from happening, but we are too weak to stop it!
01:41 AM on 06/24/2010
Even if US leaves Afghanistan right now we will not have the same Taliban Rulers back in power.

Karzai can survive because Talibans have said that they are not interested in central government and are happy with local goverment.

It will be Shariah laws in a few provinces and people who do not like it are free to move somewhere else in Afghanistan.

I do not see any problem with Afghanistan that US or NATO should urgently want to fix by military force!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DCmykl
A long seemingly endless edge
01:46 AM on 06/24/2010
Well, I suppose if a country is going to have a 7th Century cultural system there's no reason it can't have a 7th Century political system too.
02:25 AM on 06/24/2010
I believe you should understand the real dynamics of Afghanistan and don't put to much credence in your western media reports. The Taliban controls 80 percent of Afghanistan, and even with the 8 years of invasions by the Americans, they have not been able to stop or control the Taliban! Karzai has hinted on many occasions that he was willing to join the Taliban if talks with the US broke down. For he knows that the Taliban, once the American vacate, there will be another blood bath; and certainly, the 30,000 strong Taliban will not settle for some small province in the north of Afghanistan and see the central Afghan government, backed and funded by Americans to remain in power; since the Karzai cronies are gangsters, drug dealers of opium, corrupted men, made politicians by the Americans. and or adverse to Islamic laws. Many of the provinces are all ready practicing Islamic law and will not dare to challenge Karzai with the Americans still around, but, when the Americans vacate, Karzai's government will be in over the heads; Karzai either accept Islamic law, join in and support one province who want to government under a Islamic banner or Taliban rule again. Which will usher in again 8th century Islam. If he cannot, Kazai will leave for his own safety.
Karama
Procrastinator
12:49 AM on 06/24/2010
Obama talks about beating the Talibans. Aren't the Talibans also Afghan people? You're in Afghanistan to beat people who belong there? They have all the time. They just wait until you leave.

First the British couldn't defeat them, then the Russian tried and failed too, not it's the turn of the Americans.
01:48 AM on 06/24/2010
We need about 300,000 soldiers and we have to kill up to a one fifth of population around 2 million men to prevail.

If we do this the rest of Afghans by nessecity have to adopt the Sharia law for a men to be allowed to have multiple wifes so the Afghan society can survive.