MIB, fwiw from my perusal of congressional testimony and sworn statements of record, the Generals (Caldwell and Patton) arrived at a cesspool of corruption, abuse, incompetence and negligence (this is Afghan on Afghan stuff we are talking about)... and when they left that had been largely fixed, at least according to reports.
In dispute is their methods, not their efficacy. It has been variably asserted that there was political motivation, some claim the US 2010 midterms, but the LG Caldwell assert politics as well, that their task was going to require the removal of a Afghan General, something only the Afghan President has the authority to do, that it was going to be a difficult and sensitive matter.
Patton claimed his use of the words "stay in your [f*] lane" is a well recognized military phrase instructing one to stay within their expertise/duty (the issue at hand was a lieutenant with a nursing background judging the quality of surgery by looking at an x-ray of a femur, Patton asserts that was the domain of a surgeon, which the lieutenant was not) and the IG seems to acknowledge that use but nevertheless the result was documented that the lieutenant subsequently declined to provide the information on two other patients that (s)he had planned, that the lieutenant felt intimidated, such that the result was effectively one of interference, and interference with an IG communicating info to Congress is against USC. On balance it looks to me (pure speculation) that they did indeed stall, in an effort to accomplish the mission of cleaning up the joint and perhaps (even more speculation) considered the actions of congress to be interference, or at least problematic with respect to the intersection of its timing and their efforts.
At issue for Congress was among other things the misappropriation of tax dollars, if e.g corrupt Afghans were stealing medicine and selling it on the black market (and they apparently were) then the tax payer was being defrauded.
The preponderance of Congressional inquiry regarding cover-up/failure to note or communicate was regarding the several years prior to Gens Caldwell and Patton being assigned there.
Congress seemed to trip over themselves to acknowledge that things had largely been righted, their complaint being why didn't they know sooner.
Me lacking experience with asking foreign leaders to sack their own generals and so on, I just don't know how to interpret MG Patton's role in that context in terms of suitability for a management position at a public tech company.
the hiring of MGPatton may be brilliant, awful, and anywhere in between, I have largely no opinion on that.
The above content is my opinion.
