America's war/ISAF command structure changes?

Video here of a June 2 segment of PBS Newshour in which the nomination of Lt.-Gen. Stanley McChrystal as US (and effectively ISAF) commander for Afstan is discussed, and what that may mean for the conduct of the war. There's no mention of NATO, nor of any other country fighting there.

More on the Senate nomination hearing:

New Approach to Afghanistan Likely
Nominee to Lead War Discusses Restructuring and a Focus on Civilian Protection

Army Lt. Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, President Obama's choice to lead the war in Afghanistan, said yesterday that violence and combat deaths will intensify as more U.S. troops surge into Taliban-held areas, but he vowed to execute a "holistic" strategy in which killing insurgents would be subordinate to safeguarding Afghan civilians.

McChrystal, a former Special Operations commander, pledged that if confirmed he will take extreme measures to avoid Afghan civilian casualties -- a problem that has long tarnished the U.S.-led military campaign -- putting civilians at risk only when necessary to save the lives of coalition troops...

McChrystal hinted at major organizational changes in the campaign [emphasis added].

One change would potentially abandon the current division of labor, in which the forces of individual NATO members are responsible for certain parts of Afghanistan. Instead, the effort would be divided according to function, with NATO performing most of the training of Afghan forces. But Adm. James G. Stavridis, who also appeared at the hearing as the nominee to become supreme allied commander of NATO [rather a surprise for the other members], said the coalition is having difficulty filling the current requirement for teams to train Afghans.

"The really bad news is, looking ahead, we're positioned to have 71 and need as many as 90-plus" teams, Stavridis said. In addition, he said non-U.S. forces are restricted in Afghanistan by 69 caveats that limit what they can do.

Another goal, McChrystal said, would be to promote greater continuity in U.S. personnel by developing a corps of experts in Afghanistan's language and culture who would be assigned to the country for repeated tours.

To improve the complicated command structure in Afghanistan, McChrystal said, he would seek NATO approval to put his deputy, Lt. Gen. David Rodriguez, in charge of military operations in the five military regions of Afghanistan, allowing McChrystal to focus on higher-level strategy [emphasis added]...

Well, well, well. This is from a post May 16:

...
Somehow I don't think NATO members received much, if any, consultation on the nomination of their new ISAF commander. Indeed, from May 13:

Weekly press briefing
by NATO Spokesperson James Appathurai
...
On Afghanistan, there has been… sorry, let me just make one more point on this. Lt-Gen. Rodriguez, as I mentioned, has been nominated as Deputy Commander for US Forces in Afghanistan with the COMISAF being double-hatted also is commander of US Forces Afghanistan. This is a three-star position. It is, as you know, in line with the increase in the number of US Forces. Gen. Rodriguez will wear a US hat; he will not be part of a NATO command structure [emphasis added]. The ISAF and OEF missions remain separate. The ISAF mandate stays as it is. The command structure does not change, just to be clear from that announcement...

Looks like there's going be a bit of an about-face. But something approaching real unity of (effectively American) command--except for ISAF's still reporting to NATO HQ and US Forces-Afghanistan to CENTCOM. More on Lt.-Gen Rodriguez (who recently served in Afstan) here and here. And PBS audio on unity of command here, with Canadian Col. Ian Hope, commander of our first battle group at Kandahar in 2006; Col. Hope has written on the issue.