How will Rumsfeld's departure affect Afghanistan?

President Bush today announced the resignation of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Conventional wisdom is that Rumsfeld's departure effects Iraq policy much more than Afghanistan policy. As Col. Tom Collins, U.S. military spokesman in Afghanistan, said today: "The global war on terror continues in Afghanistan, and for the troops here, there's really no change in their day-to-day job."

But is this conventional wisdom correct? Rumsfeld was the architect of an innovative way of  war, first tested in Afghanistan in 2001: overwhelming air-power combined with a sparse ground presence. While United States strategy has gone through several iterations since then, today's force posture remains consistent with Rumsfeld's initial goals of defeating Taliban and AQ without becoming entangled in a peacekeeping mission.

Will the mission change at all with the departure of its architect? What role, if any, will Rumsfeld's departure have on Coalition and NATO operations? Eager to hear your comments...

Comments

[Casey Klahn]

Can I just say this?

I am getting very testy with this whole "air power can win wars alone" line of reasoning. Rumsfeld was a proponent of such, as you well stated in this post.

No doubt about it, the inital taking of Afghanistan so soon after 9-11 was an historical, remarkable event in the history of warfare. Extensive use of SF, as FACs and in their role as insurgent advisors had, probably, it's watershed event in history.
But, a victory for air-centric warfare? I think far from it. The coditions offered in the Afghanistan of 2001 were narrow and unique: a Taliban of (X) strength, a Northern Alliance of signifigant strength, the judicious and expert application of AF and SF forces = a brilliant outcome.

No change in any validation of air-centicity, though, IMHO.

Fire away...