THIS STORY HAS BEEN FORMATTED FOR EASY PRINTING

Support, resentment, and no time to worry

By Ernesto Londono
Washington Post / June 24, 2010

E-mail this article

Invalid E-mail address
Invalid E-mail address

Sending your article

Your article has been sent.

Text size +

KABUL, Afghanistan — Among US troops yesterday, opinion was split into three camps: those who were rooting for General Stanley McChrystal, those who were eager to see him ousted, and those who were too deep in the trenches to follow the scandal.

“We have too many things going on here,’’ said First Lieutenant James Rathmann, a platoon leader deployed in Kandahar. “As a soldier, you just follow orders.’’

The Internet had been temporarily shut down at Rathmann’s base because a soldier had been killed. His men had heard snippets about a magazine story and a brewing scandal. But the frenzy in Washington was an afterthought for many of the troops on the front lines of a worsening conflict.

“I don’t really know what’s going on,’’ said Rathmann, 31. “I heard he had to go to Washington?’’

There were those who rallied around the embattled general, calling his candor refreshing and his acumen indisputable. On Facebook, fans created pages urging McChrystal to run for president in 2012. Users, many of them troops, posted hundreds of comments on pages dedicated to the general.

“General McChrystal has tried to take the tactful, respectful, and appropriate response for months now, to no avail,’’ said a 30-year-old Sergeant First Class who was deployed to Afghanistan in 2004, and is slated to return next year. “His hands keep getting tied. . . . He’s the one that gets blamed by the families and the troops when we suffer more casualties. But the ones who should bear that burden are the people in D.C. who make the decisions about our actions.’’

Like other troops, the active duty sergeant spoke on condition of anonymity to speak candidly about a controversy involving senior commanders.

Support for the general was far from universal among service members. The Rolling Stone article that led to McChrystal’s dismissal gave voice to frustration among troops who feel the general’s directives, which sharply curtailed the use of lethal force, had made them more vulnerable.

“He should be fired,’’ said a 23-year-old specialist who recently completed a deployment in Afghanistan. “Today’s rules of engagement in Afghanistan are a Taliban weapon that is commonly used against American forces.’’

As a 30,000-troop surge recommended by McChrystal gets underway, June has become the deadliest month of the nearly nine-year-old war for the NATO-led international military force. An Associated Press count based on announcements by the alliance and national commands shows 76 international service members have died this month. The total includes 46 Americans.

Afghan officials said they were saddened and disappointed by the dismissal of McChrystal, but they expressed high hopes for his replacement.

“General McChrystal has been a very important partner,’’ said Waheed Omar, a spokesman for Afghan President Hamid Karzai. “We’re sad to see him go, but we respect this decision by the US commander in chief.’’

Omar said the Afghan government is encouraged by the nomination of General David Petraeus, the former commander of US forces in Iraq and currently the head of the US Central Command, to replace McChrystal, saying it “shows the commitment of the United States to Afghanistan.’’

Afghan leaders viewed McChrystal as a trustworthy general with a deep and nuanced understanding of their country. Among the cadre of Obama administration officials involved in Afghanistan policy, he had arguably the strongest relationship with, and the most influence over, Karzai and his security chiefs.

Boston.com top stories on Twitter

    waiting for twitterWaiting for Twitter to feed in the latest...