Why I don't think General Allen should be fired as the commander in Afghanistan

Longtime readers know that I think the U.S. military ought
to fire generals more often than it does. I think we should reward success and
punish failure. I don't think we should be "fair" to generals when the lives of
our soldiers and the nation's interests are at stake. I think we should move
out people when we think we have someone better ready to move in. I think we
should even fire generals for simply having too long a run of "bad luck."

Now, in Afghanistan, we've had a painful run. First, Marines
pissing on the bodies of enemy dead -- and
being stupid enough to video the action. Then U.S. soldiers putting Korans in
the burn pit. And then a soldier running amok and shooting Afghan civilians.

So why am I not calling on General Allen to get the big
heave-ho? Basically, I don't see a pattern of poor leadership on his part
contributing to the three events. With Abu Ghraib in Iraq, by contrast, there
was clearly a pattern of poor leadership by General Sanchez that helped create
the conditions at Abu Ghraib. But I don't see that here. And while he has had
some bad luck, it has not been long enough by itself to justify jettisoning
him.

In addition, he might be just about the best guy to deal
with these problems. From what I saw in Iraq, I suspect he may be the most
culturally sensitive combat general we have. So, if he retains the confidence
of his superiors, both military and civilian, I think he should remain.