Best Defense

Thomas E. Ricks' daily take on national security.

Who’s in command in Afghanistan? A scorecard that indicates a lack of focus

Changes of command, particularly at the highest levels, which put tremendous stress on the force and continuity of command, are just as important as the principle of unity of command.

screen-shot-2017-02-27-at-10-26-35-am
screen-shot-2017-02-27-at-10-26-35-am

 

 

By Maj. Claude Lambert
Best Defense guest columnist

Our war in Afghanistan has had not just a complex command and control structure, but also military command continuity challenges aside from its complex command and control architecture.

Changes of command, particularly at the highest levels, which put tremendous stress on the force and continuity of command, are just as important as the principle of unity of command. Therefore, as Washington mulls over whether to change direction in Afghanistan, command continuity should play a prominent role in the discussion.

From 2007 to 2014 there were seven International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) commanders appointed to manage the war in Afghanistan. During this time, the longest tenure for an American ISAF commander was 19 months. Conversely, in World War II, General Dwight D. Eisenhower served as Commanding General of Allied Expeditionary forces in Europe from 1942-1945.   Also, in Vietnam, two out of four U.S. Military Assistance Command, Vietnam commanders served four years apiece — providing significant continuity of command for the U.S. national command authority.

Throughout military history, commanders have come and gone in disputes over policy and execution. But it is difficult to deny that frequent changes of command at the highest levels are disruptive events. Even if the overall strategy does not change, newly installed commanders and their staffs routinely conduct 60 to 90 day assessments and strategy reviews that frequently shift or alter the momentum at the operational and tactical levels of war.

Major Claude A. Lambert is an active duty U.S. Army Strategist. The views expressed here are solely his own and do not reflect the views of the U.S. Government, Department of Defense, U.S. Army, or U.S. Special Operations Command.    

Photo credit: the author

Thomas E. Ricks covered the U.S. military from 1991 to 2008 for the Wall Street Journal and then the Washington Post. He can be reached at ricksblogcomment@gmail.com. Twitter: @tomricks1

More from Foreign Policy

Newspapers in Tehran feature on their front page news about the China-brokered deal between Iran and Saudi Arabia to restore ties, signed in Beijing the previous day, on March, 11 2023.
Newspapers in Tehran feature on their front page news about the China-brokered deal between Iran and Saudi Arabia to restore ties, signed in Beijing the previous day, on March, 11 2023.

Saudi-Iranian Détente Is a Wake-Up Call for America

The peace plan is a big deal—and it’s no accident that China brokered it.

Austin and Gallant stand at podiums side by side next to each others' national flags.
Austin and Gallant stand at podiums side by side next to each others' national flags.

The U.S.-Israel Relationship No Longer Makes Sense

If Israel and its supporters want the country to continue receiving U.S. largesse, they will need to come up with a new narrative.

Russian President Vladimir Putin lays flowers at the Moscow Kremlin Wall in the Alexander Garden during an event marking Defender of the Fatherland Day in Moscow.
Russian President Vladimir Putin lays flowers at the Moscow Kremlin Wall in the Alexander Garden during an event marking Defender of the Fatherland Day in Moscow.

Putin Is Trapped in the Sunk-Cost Fallacy of War

Moscow is grasping for meaning in a meaningless invasion.

An Iranian man holds a newspaper reporting the China-brokered deal between Iran and Saudi Arabia to restore ties, in Tehran on March 11.
An Iranian man holds a newspaper reporting the China-brokered deal between Iran and Saudi Arabia to restore ties, in Tehran on March 11.

How China’s Saudi-Iran Deal Can Serve U.S. Interests

And why there’s less to Beijing’s diplomatic breakthrough than meets the eye.