Will McChrystal resign if Obama doesn’t act?
posted at 11:36 am on September 22, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
General Stanley McChrystal’s assessment of the Afghanistan-Pakistan theater and request for more troops has not yet received any action from Barack Obama, but according to McClatchy and the Long War Journal, he may not have a lot of time to make a decision. McChystal has grown frustrated with President Obama’s “deliberative pace,” and may resign if Obama chooses not to act on his request. The commander of the Af-Pak theater followed Obama’s strategic decisions from the spring to their natural conclusion, and may not remain if Obama reverses course now:
Within 24 hours of the leak of the Afghanistan assessment to The Washington Post, General Stanley McChrystal’s team fired its second shot across the bow of the Obama administration. According to McClatchy, military officers close to General McChrystal said he is prepared to resign if he isn’t given sufficient resources (read “troops”) to implement a change of direction in Afghanistan …
Today, the military is perceiving that the administration is punting the question of a troop increase in Afghanistan, and the military is even questioning the administration’s commitment to succeed in Afghanistan. The leaking of the assessment and the report that McChrystal would resign if he is not given what is needed to succeed constitute some very public pushback against the administration’s waffling on Afghanistan.
The Washington Post reports that McChrystal’s assessment has split the Beltway along partisan lines, as expected. Karen DeYoung also reminds readers that McChrystal’s strategy came from the President himself originally:
Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal’s grim assessment of the Afghanistan war has opened a divide between the military, which is pushing for an early decision to send more troops, and civilian policymakers who are increasingly doubtful of an escalating nation-building effort.
Senior military officials emphasized Monday that McChrystal’s conclusion that the U.S. effort in Afghanistan “will likely result in failure” without an urgent infusion of troops has been endorsed by the uniformed leadership. That includes Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mike Mullen and Gen. David H. Petraeus, the head of U.S. Central Command and architect of the troop “surge” strategy widely seen as helping U.S. forces turn the corner in Iraq.
But before any decision is made, some of President Obama’s civilian advisers have proposed looking at other, less costly options to address his primary goal of preventing al-Qaeda from reestablishing itself in Afghanistan. Those options include a redirection of U.S. efforts — away from protecting the Afghan population and building the Afghan state and toward persuading the Taliban to stop fighting — as well as an escalation of targeted attacks against al-Qaeda itself in Pakistan and elsewhere.
Obama’s public remarks on Afghanistan indicate that he has begun to rethink the counterinsurgency strategy he set in motion six months ago, even as his generals have embraced it. The equation on the ground has changed markedly since his March announcement, with attacks by Taliban fighters showing greater sophistication, U.S. casualties rising, and the chances increasing that Afghanistan will be left with an illegitimate government after widespread fraud in recent presidential elections.
What if McChrystal resigns? It will present Obama with a big political problem. McChrystal would only resign if he planned to go public with his frustrations over the White House strategy in Af-Pak. McChrystal to this point has not been seen as a candidate for political office (as his commander, General David Petraeus, has been seen by some), which would make public criticisms even more troublesome if McChrystal chose to go that route.
Even if McChrystal keeps his mouth shut, his sudden resignation would draw close attention to Obama’s waffling on Afghanistan and his commitment to the war Obama repeatedly vowed to fight while a candidate for the presidency. Commanding officers do not just quit for no reason, and they don’t quit in the middle of wars they believe they are being allowed to fight and win. His resignation would create a strong impression that Obama has flip-flopped and lacked the leadership to articulate a new strategy.
But would McChrystal resign? My guess is that he would only do so in the last extremity. If he believes that Obama has no intention of fighting seriously, then McChrystal would pack his bags. If it just comes down to a dispute over troop levels, those can be resolved with good communication. The fact that this report got leaked (as well as the threat to resign) indicates that communication has degraded significantly between the White House and its top commander in the war zone, which is a separate but related matter.
Update: Michael Goldfarb has a good analysis of the political aspects of the leak.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
Bridge over the River Kwai to Afghanistan
Is it just me, or does Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s increasingly pathological obsession with “the people we seek to protect” — Afghans — to the exclusion of everything else, including the body parts of his own troops, begin to resemble the pathological obsession of another famous, albeit fictional, commander (whistling begins … )? Key is the shared blindness to national interest and enemy strategy.
From the Washington Post today:
McChrystal is equally critical of the command he has led since June 15. The key weakness of ISAF, he says, is that it is not aggressively defending the Afghan population. “Pre-occupied with protection of our own forces, we have operated in a manner that distances us — physically and psychologically — from the people we seek to protect. . . . The insurgents cannot defeat us militarily; but we can defeat ourselves.”
McChrystal continues: “Afghan social, political, economic, and cultural affairs are complex and poorly understood. ISAF does not sufficiently appreciate the dynamics in local communities, nor how the insurgency, corruption, incompetent officials, power-brokers, and criminality all combine to affect the Afghan population.”
Notice what’s missing (Islam).
Coalition intelligence-gathering has focused on how to attack insurgents, hindering “ISAF’s comprehension of the critical aspects of Afghan society.”
I’ll tell you what hinders ISAF comprehension — clueless Gen. McChrystal and all our see-no-Islam leaders, military and civilian, who are making a hash of US foreign policy on global jihad — not to mention our troops’s lives.
MB4 on September 22, 2009 at 1:42 PM
MB4 on September 22, 2009 at 1:33 PM
Thanks for that, hadn’t caught that one.
Absolutely despicable! The “people” will logically side with whomever they perceive to be the eventual winners. This only makes sense as they will have to answer to, and see the favor of, the last man standing. Watching to the US adopt an asinine policy directly detrimental to victory, will “win the hearts and minds” of precisely no-one!
Archimedes on September 22, 2009 at 1:45 PM
Agreed, but they have plenty of time to put this stuff together. I think the bigger issue is their stupidity, not their sluggishness.
Jaibones on September 22, 2009 at 1:46 PM
Bridge over the River Kwai:
Shears and Joyce wire explosives to it under cover of darkness. The next day, a Japanese train full of soldiers and important officials is scheduled to be the first to use the bridge; Warden wants to blow it up just as the train passes over.
As dawn approaches, the trio are horrified to see that the wire to the explosives has been exposed by the receding river. Making a final inspection, Nicholson spots the wire and brings it to Saito’s attention. As the train is heard approaching, the two men frantically hurry down to the riverbank, pulling up and following the wire towards Joyce, who is waiting by the detonator. When they get too close, Joyce breaks cover and stabs Saito to death. Nicholson yells for help and tries to stop Joyce (who cannot bring himself to kill Nicholson) from getting to the detonator. A firefight erupts. When Joyce is hit, Shears swims across the river, but he too is shot, just before he reaches Nicholson.
Recognizing Shears, Nicholson suddenly comes to his senses and exclaims, “What have I done?” Warden desperately fires his mortar, mortally wounding Nicholson. The colonel stumbles over to the detonator plunger and falls on it as he dies, just in time to blow up the bridge and send the train hurtling into the river. Major Clipton has witnessed the carnage unfold. He shakes his head incredulously and utters, “Madness! … Madness!
MB4 on September 22, 2009 at 1:49 PM
Also, BTW, I’ll bet Osama is in Iran, and has been for years.
MrLynn on September 22, 2009 at 12:59 PM
My bet has for some time been the hinterlands of of N.Eastern Kashmir. It is the bastion & operational theatre of ISI supported Jihadis far removed from any governmental control, neither Indian, Paki or anyone else have any dgree knowledge who and what transpires there. It is an Intel black hole, an ideal place to be amongst those ideologically sympathetic and out of the reach of everyone. The US especially have absolutely zero assets to bring to bear in this area, Osama would beyond the reach of even our predators.
Archimedes on September 22, 2009 at 1:53 PM
They seek him here, they seek him there
The Special Ops seek him everywhere!
He gives the Special Ops nothing but frustration
Sink me! He’s a spoilsport
Each and every demned capture
He cuts short
They seek him here, they seek him there
Those Special Ops seek him everywhere
Is he working on his tan somewhere in Miami or preaching in a mosque in Dearborstani
Is he in a cave or is he in a grave?
One thing we know for sure
Hes going to burn in Hell!
PercyB on September 22, 2009 at 1:57 PM
MB4 on September 22, 2009 at 1:42 PM
I’m wondering about Diana West’s sanity. I know she’s something of an intellectual hero of yours, but what does she, or say Andy McCarthy, think the alternative to the McChrystal strategy is? Total war with Islamism? By the country that just elected Barack F’in Obama President? Get real. The only alternative to Petraeus-McChrystal is is some variant on the Murtha “do it from Okinawa” strategy combined with the Kow-Tow doctrine aka Smart Diplomacy.
CK MacLeod on September 22, 2009 at 2:01 PM
If McChrystal were to resign, leaving Petraeus to turn out the lights, then the Emperor in DC really would be left naked.
CK MacLeod on September 22, 2009 at 2:02 PM
Maybe if we start a rumor that the Taliban are laissez-faire capitalists, Obama-nation will decide that they need to be exterminated no matter what the cost.
darktood on September 22, 2009 at 2:03 PM
Maybe if we start a rumor that the Taliban are laissez-faire capitalists, Obama-nation will decide that they need to be exterminated no matter what the cost.
darktood on September 22, 2009 at 2:03 PM
LOL! You might be on to something there!
Archimedes on September 22, 2009 at 2:20 PM
Nice going Scarlet P.! LOL
Jeff from WI on September 22, 2009 at 2:21 PM
If McChrystal is placed in a position in which he can’t possibly accomplish the objective with the resources given, and the framework of orders and such endangers the lives of soldiers, and he has asked for what is needed and been refused, what is left?
Particularly the lives. Generals care about lives. They have written the letters to families, have known the people who died.
jodetoad on September 22, 2009 at 2:30 PM
Will McChrystal resign? Probably only if he believes that he’s ordering soldiers to die needlessly.
Sadly, many Dems believe that’s always the case. Soldiers realize that there are objectives worth dying for. But maintaining a PR presence in Afghanistan without a plan for actually defeating the Taliban is NOT one of those objectives.
hawksruleva on September 22, 2009 at 2:31 PM
If Glenn Beck would do a show in support of the Taliban, Obama would get serious about fighting them.
hawksruleva on September 22, 2009 at 2:32 PM
Hey, but look at this way, to hear Beck till it we are better of with Barack Obama as Commander in Chief.
I would not blame this man for resigning, it is an absolute shame that there is even any discussion about whether or not he gets what he needs. A shame.
Terrye on September 22, 2009 at 2:49 PM
Chart of coalition casualties by month
Obama fired McKiernan in early May. See if you notice anything unusual happen afterwards.
Chuck Schick on September 22, 2009 at 3:02 PM
“Will McChrystal resign if Obama doesn’t act?”
Good Lord. You know the answer to this, Ed! Why pose it as a question? You’re inability to commit to the obvious really annoys me :(.
Kevin M on September 22, 2009 at 3:03 PM
HRC is on record backing the Pentagon and advising TOTUS to send more troops and listen to McChrystal. The Telegraph ahd it more than a week ago and our press wont cover anything HRC says so thank Gawd the press still prints what the Pentagon says.
She had a lot of military support in the primaries as she made it her business to LEARN about the military when she served on the Armed Forces Cmte But you KNOW Samantha Monster Power and Susan Rice and Axelrasputin are telling him to pull out of he will be LBJ with VietNam
He is voting PRESENT while our people are dying.
ginaswo on September 22, 2009 at 3:23 PM
NoDonkey on September 22, 2009 at 12:26 PM
well luckily for America Reagan didnt agree with you and built a coalition that included many of we Democrats
ginaswo on September 22, 2009 at 3:27 PM
“Lilly pads”
MB4 on September 22, 2009 at 3:30 PM
This rule is perfect – in all matters of opinion my adversaries are insane.
- Mark Twain
MB4 on September 22, 2009 at 3:32 PM
Obama just announced he will offer free healthcare to the Taliban, now he will control them too, no need for the military.
workingforpigs on September 22, 2009 at 3:58 PM
I think Obama has ‘more important’ thing to do tonight.
For example, hope TOTUS-es function properly, and he can read every line correctly.
Sir Napsalot on September 22, 2009 at 4:05 PM
“Lilly pads”… Am I missing something as per usual… or isn’t that one of the concepts now being seriously considered by the DOD in lieu of additional tens of thousands of troopers?
Geezer on September 22, 2009 at 4:07 PM
MB4 on September 22, 2009 at 3:30 PM
Thanks for the link. I’ll reserve judgment until I have had a chance to look into exactly what she’s saying.
CK MacLeod on September 22, 2009 at 4:10 PM
.
Sounds to me like we would be leaving the local population at the mercy of the Taliban. We can’t hold ground with “Lilly Pads”.
ronsfi on September 22, 2009 at 4:20 PM
.
That would also be opposite of the strategy that worked in Iraq where we placed troops right in the towns with the local population where we could protect them and establish a working relationship. It sounds too much like Murtha’s Okinawa bailout.
ronsfi on September 22, 2009 at 4:29 PM
I sincerely hope he does quit; He has abundant supporters, and it would send a message to the Obama mafioso and our allies, that We The People (the capable segment of our society), are not all behind the Incompetent in Chief.
Cybergeezer on September 22, 2009 at 4:37 PM
I think you are on the right track.
MB4 on September 22, 2009 at 4:39 PM
They are pretty much at the mercy of the Taliban right now as we are not currently holding that much ground. Many of the local population, including some/many on the government payroll, eg, our payroll, during the week are Taliban during their time off anyway.
MB4 on September 22, 2009 at 4:42 PM
It would send a message to voters. I wonder if he’ll resign if Dear Leader sends him something as a token but less than he has requested.
a capella on September 22, 2009 at 4:43 PM
Ralph Peters on Afghanistan, Obama and McChrystal
Obama’s message to McChrystal was “Just don’t ask.”
I don’t believe the general’s correct, but he has a right to be heard. Any decision about troop levels should be made based upon the facts on the ground, not politics. By playing along with White House censorship, McChrystal’s allowing himself to be used as a political tool. That’s not a proper role for any general.
When the military fails to speak the truth in wartime, the republic suffers. And the republic is more important than any floundering presidential administration.
I believe that our present approach to Afghanistan is wrongheaded. And more troops aren’t the answer — we should maintain a smaller, ruthless force on the ground that concentrates strictly on killing our enemies.
Instead, we’re squandering blood and treasure to prop up a fantastically corrupt government in Kabul that’s despised by the population. We’ve allowed the Taliban to dominate the information war by bowing to their exaggerated or fabricated claims — seconded by the unscrupulous Karzai government — about civilian casualties from our air attacks.
The Taliban wants to deny us the use of our airpower — and we fell for it. Unable to think beyond the last century’s counterinsurgency theories, McChrystal severely restricted air and indirect fire support to our troops.
Yet Afghanistan is worthless. Worthless. Repairing Afghan irrigation ditches has zero effect on al Qaeda’s will to win. Killing terrorists is the only thing that works. And there isn’t a single al Qaeda terrorist left in Afghanistan.
As for all those dire warnings that we mustn’t allow Afghanistan to become a terrorist haven again, that’s why we should maintain a compact, lethal force on the ground that backs our national interests — not a predatory Afghan government that’s turned out to be the Taliban’s best friend.
MB4 on September 22, 2009 at 4:49 PM
By playing along with White House censorship, McChrystal’s allowing himself to be used as a political tool. That’s not a proper role for any general.
- Ralph Peters
And this may be why there have been “leaks” after Peters wrote this.
MB4 on September 22, 2009 at 4:52 PM
A few weeks back, after the 20K personnel increase was authorized, the NSA told Pentagon staffers that any further increase requests would fall on deaf ears.
The President apparently has better things to do besides prosecute wars… like prosecute CIA officers, get on Letterman, Stephanopolous et al…..
ted c on September 22, 2009 at 5:07 PM
from Jennifer Rubin at Commentary
Ms. Rubin is too hard on errant teenagers…
ted c on September 22, 2009 at 5:14 PM
Alright. John Bolton says that McChrystal made perfectly clear his report to Obama of what is absolutely necessary to prevent failure in Afghanistan. And Bolton just said that should Obama try to thread the needle and counter McChrystal’s advice, that McChrystal should resign.
When John Bolton speaks, people listen.
maverick muse on September 22, 2009 at 5:21 PM
Would anybody be surprised if Obama preempts the whole thing, and just fires him?
RushBaby on September 22, 2009 at 5:25 PM
MB4
I heard Maj.Gen.Vallely describe the lily pad strategy on the Fred Thompson Show this afternoon. It’s convincing. I didn’t notice the General going the length George Will takes the troops, limited to offshore /Navy. As I understand, our forces deliver precise strikes and return to the safety of base, leaving the footwork fighting to the Afghan tribes. He also said that within one year, he’d have had the Afghans trained in organization, saying that so far as troops are concerned, the Afghans have the edge on everyone so far as fighting in their mountain terrain goes, having been doing so for centuries.
maverick muse on September 22, 2009 at 5:27 PM
Lilly pads, if I’m conceptually cognizant; would be a compliment to troops in static sites on the ground, usually in and or, around major population centers.
I might suggest that perhaps 70 to 80% of the Afghan population is now at the mercy of the Taliban or AQ, by not living within the conventional troop deployment, umbrella.
The British learned early on in Malaysia and we never learned in Vietnam; that it requires a ratio of [about 30 to 1] or greater for a conventional military force to defeat an indigenous fighter.
Assume there are only 30 thousand Taliban in-country and another 20K, available or in training in the eastern tribal area. Those figures though very modest, would require at a minimum, 1.5 million conventional troops on the ground to say nothing of the support personnel and staff for tens of years.
Totally unrealistic!
Newer concepts such as forth-gen warfare, including such concepts as “Lilly Pads” and the prolific use of UAVs’ will be required to make the fight on our side even marginally plausible?
Get used to it!
Geezer on September 22, 2009 at 5:28 PM
RushBaby
demote, reassign, transfer–but not “fire” him
What would not surprise me is for Obama to turn Afghanistan over to the UN to solve, himself as Chairman of Security Council. Obama wants to work as the Board Chairman of the international agency, and really doesn’t care to defeat al Quaeda, as he’d rather shake hands with them than not. He loves Islamic bling more than our national security.
maverick muse on September 22, 2009 at 5:33 PM
He forgot to mention the Obama Administration. The current conflict only gives the Taliban active war games training.
Cybergeezer on September 22, 2009 at 5:42 PM
On Lily, the other point that Gen. Vallely made a point regarded the ratio 10:10:80 in Afghani sentiment: 10% favor US, 10% Taliban, and 80% neither.
Finally, he stated that the US should not be vested in propping up the Afghan government that is overtly corrupt. Leave the Afghan people to determine their own government. Instead, refine our work to specifically attack the Taliban without regard to borders because the Taliban disregard borders and must be taken wherever they operate and hide.
Bolton just made the point with Hannity that Obama’s strategy is exactly what we see him doing right now. A Commander in Chief playing hooky with his commanders before showing up tardy to vote present is all Obama will do for our military, for our national defense.
maverick muse on September 22, 2009 at 5:45 PM
Patraeus; used this concept to a fare-thee-well, when he made the “olde fashioned” decision to pay the Sunni, “Sons’ of Iraq” the “big US bucks” to litteraly destroy AQI in the west central area of Iraq.
Outstanding… a master stroke!
4GW!
Geezer on September 22, 2009 at 5:59 PM
I decided to ask someone with real military experience how we could fend off jihad without further digging ourselves into Central Asia. I called up retired Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, one of the few top military leaders who talks on the record, to ask for his strategy recommendation for Afghanistan.
“Basically, let it go,” he said.
Let Afghanistan go — music to my ears, particularly given the source is no Hate-America-First professor or Moveon-dot-org-nik, but a lifelong patriotic conservative warrior. “There’s nothing to win there,” he explained, engaging in an all-too-exotic display of common sense. “What do you get for it? What’s the return? Well, the return’s all negative for the United States.”
The general continued: “This doesn’t mean giving up battle. What it means is you transition to a more realistic, affordable strategy that keeps them (the jihadist enemy) from spreading.”
Such a strategy, Vallely explained, relies on “the maximum use of unconventional forces,” such as Navy SEALS and other special forces, who can be deployed as needed from what are known in military parlance as “lily pads” — outposts or jumping-off points in friendly countries (Israel, Northern Kurdistan, India, Philippines, Italy, Djibouti … ) and from U.S. aircraft carrier strike groups. Such strike groups generally include eight to 10 vessels “with more fire power,” the general noted, “than most nations.” These lily pads become “bases we can launch from any time we want to,” eliminating the need for massive land bases such as Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan, by now a small city of 20,000 American personnel who continuously need to be supplied and secured at enormous expense.
“There’s no permanent force,” the general said. “That’s the beauty of it.” We watch, we wait and when U.S. interests are threatened, “we basically use our strike forces to take them out, target by target.” This would work whether the threat came from Al Qaeda, Pakistani nukes or anything else.
He continued: “This idea that we’re going to go in and bring democracy to these tribal cultures isn’t going to work. If we have a problem with terrorist countries, like Iran, it’s a lot cheaper to go in and hit them and get back out.”
In other words, don’t give up the battle; just give up the nation-building. “It’s up to somebody else to build nations,” the general said. “Not us.”
He went on: That old myth that (Colin) Powell had — if you break it you own it — that’s a myth. You break it, you decide whether you own it. You don’t have to go in and own it.”
And especially not when it is Islamic land that doesn’t belong in the West.
- Diana West( April 25, 2009 )
MB4 on September 22, 2009 at 6:01 PM
Are you sure he didn’t say AlQ, rather than Taliban?
MB4 on September 22, 2009 at 6:11 PM
Absolutely and with all due respect; both the President and the Secretary of State have expressed serious concern as to the probity of the recent Afghan election.
Or some such…?
Geezer on September 22, 2009 at 6:18 PM
The troops deserve better than the filthy liar in the White House. There are American soldiers put in harms way while the rat bastard traitor dithers over the political consequences of action and inaction (results in Afghanistan are secondary concerns at best). Obama cannot pronounce “intrepidity” but he sure has hell has “cowardice” down pat.
highhopes on September 22, 2009 at 6:34 PM
I cannot agree with those who rank modesty among the virtues. To the logician all things should be seen exactly as they are, and to underestimate one’s self is as much a departure from truth as to exaggerate one’s own powers.
- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
semloh on September 22, 2009 at 6:36 PM
Let me be in charge of the ROE. I gaurantee that there would be less U.S. casualties. You fight a war to win it; you can be nice after the war.
Johan Klaus on September 22, 2009 at 6:38 PM
Makes more sense than anything else I’ve seen. It also eliminates the issue of Russia deciding whether to allow us to move supplies in.
a capella on September 22, 2009 at 6:46 PM
You say, Westy! Only in throes of death was I to see the light… the shades have now been cast from mine eyes and the curtains from my ears…!
Some folks may not take kindly to your…”Don’t tread on me” jargon, when it refers to someone else?
Ah…shaddup!
Geezer on September 22, 2009 at 6:47 PM
In my humble opinion if Der Leader Obama is going to just stand there playing with his winky then it is time to bring our people home. This is starting to sound more and more like Vietnam. Either let the troops win it or bring them home.
Dire Straits on September 22, 2009 at 6:48 PM
From J.E. Dyer’s post in the Green Room.
Wethal on September 22, 2009 at 6:48 PM
I realize this is above the filthy liar’s paygrade but the military is only part of the equation. The filthy liar needs to express a coherent and reasonable strategy for success and then resource it properly. It is shameful that American troops are being killed while the coward spends his time dabbling in NY politics and has the time to call Doug Wilder to encourage him to endorse Creigh Deeds.
highhopes on September 22, 2009 at 6:55 PM
As a logician, I would agree…if I were one?
As a luver of Twain…I don’t give a good god damn!
Politics and distance are synonymous.
Geezer on September 22, 2009 at 6:56 PM
Rich Lowry at NRO is calling BS on limpy obama…
ted c on September 22, 2009 at 7:07 PM
Politicians are like diapers. They need to be changed often and for the same reason.
- Groucho
MB4 on September 22, 2009 at 7:12 PM
4GW…
Diplomats are as much a part of this new strategy as the generals…
4GW…like it ‘er not…?
Everything olde is new again!
Geezer on September 22, 2009 at 7:15 PM
Gotta luv yeh fusilier…!
Geezer on September 22, 2009 at 7:18 PM
I personally see no benefit in sending more troops to Afghanastan. It’s a lost cause.
AnninCA on September 22, 2009 at 7:20 PM
We personally believe that sending you would do this country some good. Please pack your things, <40lbs, and have it by the curb at 0300 tomorrow.
bring sunscreen.
out
ted c on September 22, 2009 at 7:28 PM
Mon apologies MB4…
What I really meant to say was yer, 105 or 155, humongous, fusilier…!
Appropriate…”slap up side the head’… given!
Geezer on September 22, 2009 at 7:48 PM
Great assessment of our situation in Afghan/Pakistan.
I do have some questions (if you come back to this thread) regarding the “lily pad” strategy.
It seems to me we would lose what little intel ability we have their now if we withdraw(or down size considerably).
Our intel shot up significantly in Iraq when we immersed with the population.
I also am reading about the HK (hunter killer) strategy and wonder if it is close to the “lily pad” strategy you are talking about.
If it is, here is a take on some problems with it:
HK teams are not a strategy – they are a tactic.
http://www.captainsjournal.com/2009/09/13/discerning-the-way-forward-in-afghanistan/
The small footprint model has indeed led us to this point in the campaign.
It seems to me that we either make a serious commitment to put the forces and resources into Afghanistan to defeat the Taliban/al-qaeda or we need to simply cut and run.
No Soldier should have to go to the front lines with a half-a$$ed effort from our White House in putting forth inept and butt saving policies that will accomplish nothing but dead Americans.
But if Obama still feels that Afghanistan/Pakistan have to eliminate the al-qaeda/Taliban threat for America to be safe,then our Generals and Soldiers need a 100% commitment and support from this administration.
Looking at Obama’s track record so far….I think we will see the Taliban and al-qaeda dancing in the streets and valleys celebrating their defeat of the American paper tiger .
Baxter Greene on September 22, 2009 at 10:45 PM
Let’s face reality. Obama will decide and impose his will.
He is the poster child for the, “I know nothing, but I slept at a Holiday Inn last night,” personality.
Don L on September 22, 2009 at 11:29 PM
Baxter Greene has a real point: With the ‘lily pad’ tactic, your intel is going to disintegrate; you’ll be reduced to what you can see from the air. You’re pretty much giving the Taliban free rein to operate, especially at night.
The real danger for the US is an Islamist infiltration and takeover of Pakistan. That would probably require us to move in and secure the nukes, an eventuality fraught with many perils.
Seems to me that, difficult as it may be, a take and hold strategy is the only way to proceed. I repeat, the key is the poppy crop. If the cash for poppies comes from us instead of the Islamists, the peasant farmers will shift their loyalties, especially if it’s accompanied by infrastructure and Western goodies.
You’ve got to bring in civilians to do that, though, using the military to provide security. Much as ‘nation-building’ leaves a bad taste in everyone’s mouth, it’s really the only way to keep the enemy at bay.
MrLynn on September 23, 2009 at 12:05 AM
Yes.
Reminds me of Band of Brothers, where one of the NCOs commented on their empty suit lieutenant:
atheling on September 23, 2009 at 12:13 AM
I imagine some intel would be lost. We would presumably have at least a few spies, bribed if need be, left around here and there. We would still have predators, over flights and spy satellites. Since we would no longer be fighting the Taliban much the loss of intel on the Taliban would not matter much. I don’t think we have much intel on AlQ in Afghanistan anyway. Ralph Peters says there are no AlQ in Afghanistan now anyway, although I take that to mean very very few AlQ.
MB4 on September 23, 2009 at 12:15 AM
MB4:
You’ve already quoted Ralph Peters; here’s his latest piece in the NY Post:
http://tinyurl.com/kvdfhv
He advocates the hunter-killer approach, which seems to me the only sensible plan if we’re going to remain. Count on the Democrats to dither, and expose our troops to no purpose.
JackOkie on September 23, 2009 at 12:29 AM
Thanks,
Although being in Afghanistan for 8 years and not having much intel on our enemy is not reassuring.
Just don’t want our Soldiers dying if our countries leadership is not committed to winning.
I think they care more about pushing their partisan agenda and poll numbers than eliminating a jihadist force that is not going to go away no matter how much we leave them alone.
Baxter Greene on September 23, 2009 at 12:34 AM
I think the idea is to basically have no permenent footprint and we wouldn’t have any mainline troops left..
That seems overblown. Many/some who work for the government also work for the Taliban.
Their problem if they keep being corrupt.
I would imagine that if the Taliban became the “strong horse” most of the Afghan National Army would take off thier uniforms.
I don’t know what HK is.
We have far more than a small footprint there. I believe there are (now/will be soon) 68,000 American troops in Afghanistan (per WSJ: Mr. Obama, who has approved more troops for Afghanistan while ordering a drawdown in Iraq, has already agreed to send an additional 21,000 troops to Afghanistan, bringing the total number of U.S. forces there to 68,000 by year’s end), plus a sundry other NATO forces. Almost no chance there will be that much more than that.
There are probably more AlQ in Britain than there are in Afghanistan. Maybe more in the U.S. Probably more in Sudan. Certainly far more in Pakistan. We are not going to put that many additional forces in Afghanistan no matter what. I favor “cut and run”. One must be as a Lion to frighten of Wolves, but as a Fox to recognize Traps.
- Niccolo Machiavelli
MB4 on September 23, 2009 at 12:50 AM
My small fry local yokel phone company has been going down for the last few hours. Just came back on.
MB4 on September 23, 2009 at 12:51 AM
Late to this discussion but let me say this to the brave General:
When you hear the Azaan from the Capitol this Jumma, you will get your answers,
until then…
macncheez on September 23, 2009 at 12:52 AM
This is one of the major differences between Iraq and Afghanistan.
Iraq had infrastructure and other means for creating a working economy.We secured the areas and allowed people to start getting their lives back and doing business.This made it easier to keep them from planting IED’s and wearing suicide vests.
Afghanistan not only is based on a tribal,territorial way of life that does not pay allegiance to the central government,but they also have little to no working economy.
The poppy rules.
I believe a variation of what we did in Iraq could work in Afghanistan but stopping corruption,creating economic alternatives to the poppy,and finding a way to eliminate the Taliban/al-qaeda influence on the tribes would require a huge nation building effort.
The Taliban are 80% strong in Afghanistan right now and if we were to leave, al-qaeda and other jihadist groups would flow into Afghanistan in a quick hurry, killing everyone who they suspected of working with NATO forces.
We would probably be leaving Afghanistan to become a much stronger supporter of terrorism and a threat to America,Europe,Germany,and many other nations than before we came in.
The jihadist would use our cutting out as a symbol of western weakness and recruit with impunity to make the west pay for the war it brought on them.
They would attack and we would have to come back again.
We are there and in better shape to finish this with a 100% commitment to defeating the jihadist necessary from our leadership.
The options in this war are not appealing and offer no guarantees. It just seems to me that leaving now and thinking that special ops hits,drone attacks,and pouring money into their infrastructure whether we stay or not,is not going to rid the theater of the jihadist threat that is he!! bent on their vision of a new Caliphate and the destruction of all that don’t abide by Shari law.
Baxter Greene on September 23, 2009 at 12:56 AM
Personnally, I don’t think we have much to win in Afghanistan. Ralph Peters says there are no AlQ in Afghanistan anymore, although I imagine there are some. We only went in there because the Taliban would not turn OBL over and to teach them a lesson. OBL is almost certainly not there anymore and may even be in Hell already and we taught the Taliban about all the lesson that we are going to teach them. Even if we put another 20,000 troops in and kept them all there for another 8 years (neither is at all likely) I think that things would just end up the same anyway, but with a lot more American troops dead and missing limbs. Most of what is going on there now is “Nation Building” and McChrystal has put the priority on Afghans and not American troops (see Diana West above).
I view Afghanistan as a junker car. You can put all the money in it that you want but it’s just going to cost you a lot of money, will never run very well, and you will end up, at some point, scrapping it anyway. Might as well scrap it now and save yourself a lot of additional grief.
MB4 on September 23, 2009 at 1:03 AM
I wonder when the military will finally arrest obama for violating the US Constitution. I wonder if they have a plan in place for such a thing. I mean, I’m sure someone at the top has thought about it. Hopefully it will come soon. I think Biden will be less a threat to the Republic as President b/c he does not possess a cult of personality.
long_cat on September 23, 2009 at 1:17 AM
I see your point and agree that Afghanistan needs to do a he!! of a lot more in fighting for their Freedom than they have shown.
Their army,police force,and citizens are their problem as well as fighting the corruption that poisons the population against the government and allows tribes to be bought off.
The al-qaeda that are in Britian and many other places have not been able to turn the country into their own personal terrorist camp the way they have Afghanistan/Pakistan.So even though they can plan from these places, many of these countries fight terrorism so they will only get so far.The others like the Sudan and Somali, I am sure are watching what we do in Afghanistan to determine if they do launch attacks, will the country pay a price.
MB4, if we cut out of Afghanistan,don’t you think that it will turn into a even stronger terrorist nation than before?
If leaving is our best option (which it might be, I am listening and learning on Afghanistan, not experienced enough to set policy), how do we deal with an emboldened jihadist movement that has a defeat of the west to hold up in the streets.
Do you think that HK (I believe this stands for Hunter Killer ) tactics like drones and special ops are going to make any kind of a difference?
Do you think that phasing back to a “police action” tactic is going to work in keeping the US mainland safe.
If I could see policies that would ensure that we would be safe from the jihadist that will take over Afghanistan/Pakistan and policies that would keep the homeland safe from their revenge, then I can see cutting out being the best move.
So far I have not seen that from anybody.Does not mean it is not there and ready to be implemented.
Just saying I have not seen a plan that accomplishes what we need accomplished in defending nations from the jihadist threat.
Baxter Greene on September 23, 2009 at 1:20 AM
I am hearing this opinion of Afghanistan more and more from military people and publications.
It is really hard to comprehend that there is no success to be had in this theater after so many years.
If it is this hopeless,should we just turn it into a parking lot so that they are not able to regroup after we leave.
I just can’t see that leaving and letting al-qaeda/Taliban take over Afghanistan and possibly a nuclear powered Pakistan is a smart alternative.
If they are hopeless and committed to supporting terrorism, then why don’t we just destroy them?
Baxter Greene on September 23, 2009 at 1:28 AM
Thanks for your input,
will return later.
Baxter Greene on September 23, 2009 at 1:29 AM
Diana West had some thoughts on that.
Somalia: Lily Pads at work (via Fox News). Neat, small-scale, and lethal. And nobody stopped to nation-build
The, maybe as many as 20, AlQ types that were thought to be getting ready to launch a terrorist attack in the U.S. maybe NYC subways, were caught by FBI in the U.S.
Off to hit the hay now. Gots to get my beauty sleep. Never works but hope springs eternal.
MB4 on September 23, 2009 at 1:46 AM
Thanks,
Hope that beauty sleep thing works for you better than it worked for me.
Baxter Greene on September 23, 2009 at 2:00 AM
More from Diana West. Hot off the press. I hope, if she every by chance reads Hotair, she doesn’t think I am “stalking” her. Just the highlights from the link.
The title of this post was the title of a panel this week sponsored by the Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI), the same group that sponsored a conference last spring I wrote up as “What Do You Mean `If We Ever Want to Leave’ Afghanistan?” The group includes many of the conservative/neoconservative champions and theorists of the Bush war strategies, including the vaunted “surge” in Iraq, and now supports a similar strategy for Afghanistan as specifically laid out in what I consider to be the appalling terms of population protection by Gen. Stanley McChrystal. GIven softening Democratic support for the war, this largely Republican/conservative group seems to be Obama’s core Washington think-tank ally in advocating and securing continued backing for the war — if, given Obama’s own reversing intentions, he even wants such an ally.
Do these people know what they’re saying?
The short and long answer is no. There is no reckoning for culture clash in their analysis (and that goes in spades for the Bush people), not even any sense that culture clash exists, and certainly no understanding that it renders hopeless our grovelling, humiliating attempts to now curry favor in Afghanistan by giving Afghans things — not beads and trinkets, mind you, but multi-million-dollar infrastructure projects and troops to guard them, metric tons and tons of wheat and troops to safeguard them, lots of cash to compensate for “civilian” casualties, etc. Supporters of this strategy say we would lose face by leaving Afghanistan. I’m sorry, but we lose face every day we force our bravest, most promising citizens — our soliders — to execute this humiliating and impotent policy to submit to Islamic sensibilities to try to make them like us. And our enemies, particularly in the Islamic world, understand this.
But our Washington patriots do not. Every problem in Afghanistan is just a matter of transferring more money, more men, more resources from Here to There. Endemic corruption? More mentors needed. Taliban sympathies? More massive construction projects. Disinterest in security work? More trainers.
This is policy-making by magic wand, and there was plenty to behold at the FPI conference this week — as when Zhalmay Khalilzad listed tasks to accomplish in Afghanistan as though he were making a grocery list that included eliminating Pakistani sanctuaries, infusing Afghan government with rule of law and justice, fixing Afghan unemployment and poverty….
There was also the same air of permanence to the Afghanistan project now as in the spring. I noticed this particularly when ret. BG Mark Kimmitt argued that what he called “the center of gravity” in the war had shifted. It was “not defeat of enemy forces,” and “not support of local population.” The “center of gravity” in the Afghanistan war was now maintaining the support of US population. In other words, the war in Afghanistan was now a war for the support of the American people. And that would be “the center of gravity” in this effort “for the next 10 years.”
Ten years?
You almost don’t know where to begin with these people, but asking “how an infidel nation wins the heart and soul of an Islamic nation” seemed like a good place to start with Gen. Kimmitt when I spoke with him afterward. Kimmitt, by the way, was described as having participated in the strategic review that led to the Iraqi surge and later as having helped negotiate the SOFA with Iraq. (Yes, that.) He offered up Kuwait as an example.
Kuwait? Since when did we nation-build Kuwait? Harkening back to Desert Storm, the “100-hour war” to repel the aggression of Saddam and nothing more, is simply not comparable to our investments in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iraq is no ally of ours, which he disputed, speaking of a long-term relationship, and pointing out that Iraq is still fighting “al qaeda” within its borders.
My feeling, which I kept to myself, was, Whoop-de-do. Instead, I asked the general to consider the SOFA with Iraq (which he helped negotiate). It doesn’t even allow us to use bases in Iraq from which to attack Iran if we wanted to.
That’s not what the SOFA says, he replied. It says we can’t attack any country from Iraq. That means not Syria or Turkey, either.
Boy, was this a weird conversation. A prohibition against US action across the board was a good thing? I remained incredulous. That’s good for American interests? I asked him.
He replied: You don’t mean to say that you think that if Iran attacked Iraq (far-fetched notion), Iraq wouldn’t call on us to help?
Again, this was supposed to be a plus. Churlish me, I don’t find it a great privilege to be a rent-a-cop for Iraq and I told him so.
We’re a rent-a-cop for Canada, was his reply.
I was utterly amazed. He was lumping Canada and Iraq in the same strategic and historical and cultural breath. But there you have it.
Watch the Arctic, he said.
I’ll just do that, general. And you, um, too ………………
It would almost be funny if it weren’t so tragic.
OK, rather long for “highlights”, but there is much more.
MB4 on September 23, 2009 at 2:04 AM
US troops to retreat from Taliban strongholds
Doubleplus ungood.
crosspatch on September 23, 2009 at 2:27 AM
Not only do our troops not respect Obama, they despise Obama.
elduende on September 23, 2009 at 3:27 AM
Careful with that “news” item its from an Iranian site.
elduende on September 23, 2009 at 3:28 AM
LOL! That really might be the post of the year for both hilarity and truthfulness.
MannyT-vA on September 23, 2009 at 3:44 AM
“Careful with that “news” item its from an Iranian site.”
And so it is.
For some reason I was thinking “Ireland”
Nevermind.
crosspatch on September 23, 2009 at 4:37 AM
I agree in general with your observations, but “creating economic alternatives to the poppy” is not really feasible; it is by far the most important cash crop in the region. Since there are plenty of legitimate medical and scientific uses for the opiates from poppies, we should instead simply buy up the crop every year and turn the peasants toward us instead of the Taliban. That will take security from Taliban reprisals (the US military). But if we pay more, and couple that with basic infrastructure (roads, schools, electricity), we could marginalize the Taliban.
The wild card is really Iran, which is shipping sophisticated weaponry into Afghanistan. At some point we are going to have to get rid of the mullahs, but don’t expect Obambi to do it. A friendly Iran would help prevent the loss of Afghanistan and also Pakistan. Continuation of the status quo works the other way.
MrLynn on September 23, 2009 at 8:22 AM
We’re a rent-a-cop for Canada, was his reply.
Kuwait? Since when did we nation-build Kuwait?
I certainly understand her frustration with a plan forward from this group if they are going to offer up Canada and Kuwait as examples of how we need to handle Afghanistan.
To be honest with you “we rent-a-cop to Canada” sounds like something a liberal would say..(Germany has al-qaeda, why didn’t we invade them nonsense).
My problem with a lot of these assessments is that if we abandon the Afghan/Pakistan theater, we know that terrorist groups like al-qaeda and their many affiliates will join forces in Afghan(already in Pakistan in great numbers)again
with a victory against the west to brag and recruit with,leaving us in the same place if not worse than before we came.
“lily pads” and drone tactics rely on good intel.That will be lost when we have no boots on the ground or a population that will help us and has shown will help if the country can be secured and better alternatives offered.
I have always considered the concept of the War on Terror to be successful only if when we are done in Iraq/Afghanistan/Pakistan that the message has been sent to countries like Iran,Somali,Yemen,and Syria that if you harbor terrorist and allow them to use your country as a base for terrorism,you will suffer the consequences(Regime change and partial annihilation).
Afghanistan became a muslim nation by force.The Arab leaders that invaded killed everyone that did not adhere to the Koran.This is what the Afghan people (who still live like it’s 700 ad) understand and abide by. Force.
I think that if we leave this battle like it is,the west will be viewed as weak and the jihadist will do everything they can to attack until they take over or are destroyed.
There quest for the new Caliphate will go into overdrive with the west pulling back and hoping that we can stop “every” attack through “police action” as they acquire more sophistication in weaponry and tactics.
Here is a good breakdown of a strategy that requires a lot of commitment of resources.The number of troops I believe needs to be much higher and is being low balled for political reasons.
A Comprehensive Strategy for Afghanistan: Afghanistan Force Requirements
Created 2009-09-21 21:05
http://www.irantracker.org/print/569
U.S. Arm Sgt. Robert Newman near Zabul, Afghanistan (Photo by Staff Sgt. Adam Mancini, army.mil,
I think we have become to soft in worrying about “losing hearts and minds” when it comes to Afghanistan.
The key is the tribes and I think they understand and will
abide by the lifestyle changes that are brought about using force then trying to institute social and infrastructure changes. They need to know that if they insist on supporting terrorism that we will destroy those that do and help those that don’t.
The same with Pakistan.We have the means to inflict massive damage on our enemies.When diplomacy combined with strength does not work like it did in Iraq,then we should let it be known in no uncertain terms that we are not leaving with the jihadist still intact. You can help or get out of the way, one way or another this threat will be eliminated.
Baxter Greene on September 23, 2009 at 9:17 AM
I have not heard the alternatives discussed much for the poppy.Only the need to destroy it which will not happen since so many people rely on it in that country.This could work if the trafficking networks are broken up.
Extremely difficult to do.
I know we are trying that now (with little success since most of this country has no infrastructure or economic base)but I think that we need to forcefully show that flipping back and forth between the jihadist and NATO forces for monetary value by the tribes is not going to work.We need to eliminate the alternatives to get the tribes on board.The threat of annihilation has been the only policy that has worked in this region for hundreds of years. Force combined with the chance to have a better life and living conditions can work if not implemented through a Political filter.
The stage has been set for Iran.
Israel will have to deal with them (they will get help(not troops or visual support) from some unlikely players in the region like Saudia Arabia who do not want to see Iran gain power in the region) since Obama has made it clear that he is not concerned with the jihadist threat and there acquisition of nuclear and other dangerous weapons.
The sanctions will do nothing as history has shown the UN route to be an absolute failure.
The Jews were murdered by the millions by the time the West had stopped the policies of capitulation to Hitler and finally defeated the Axis of Germany,Japan,and Italy.
They will not make this mistake again.
They take Ahmandenjad’s words seriously and know that the missiles are pointed at them.
Israel really has no choice but to take action because appeasement has only strengthened the terrorist dictators of the world, which in time brought on war.
The west watching hitler rebuild his war machine while we talked tough but did nothing is no different than watching the leading sponsor of terrorism in the world acquire nuclear weapons while we seek “sanctions”.
Baxter Greene on September 23, 2009 at 9:42 AM
News you all missed out on apparently:
h/t Blackfive
Blacksmith8 on September 25, 2009 at 3:22 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »