Gates: We’re not leaving Afghanistan anytime soon

posted at 10:20 pm on October 5, 2009 by Allahpundit

Good to know, although whether this is comforting or ominous depends on what Obama decides about troop levels, doesn’t it? The one outcome guaranteed to anger both left and right is staying put with too few troops to secure the country; all that does is keep men in harm’s way to save face until we can withdraw “with honor.” If we’re going to keep just enough people there to lose, pull out now and save some American lives.

“We are not leaving Afghanistan. This discussion is about next steps forward and the president has some momentous decisions to make,” Gates said in a TV program taped at George Washington University that will be aired by CNN on Tuesday…

“The reality is that because of our inability, and the inability, frankly, of our allies, (for putting) enough troops into Afghanistan, the Taliban do have the momentum right now, it seems,” Gates said.

However, he said the United States could not afford to give al Qaeda and the Taliban the propaganda victory of a U.S. retreat in Afghanistan, where mujahideen forced the Soviet Union to withdraw in 1989 after a decade of bloody warfare…

“What’s more important than that in my view is the message that it sends that empowers al Qaeda … The notion that they have come back from this defeat, come back from 2002, to challenge not only the United States but NATO, 42 nations, is a hugely empowering message should they be successful.” he said.

Sure sounds like he’s leaning towards McChrystal’s counterinsurgency strategy/heavy footprint, which may explain why news stories about how we’ve infiltrated Al Qaeda and how the organization is a shell of its former self are now creeping into newspapers. Clearly, some military and intel people who’d prefer Biden’s counterterror approach and a lighter footprint are keen for Americans to think that current troop levels are adequate to keep AQ under control.

Hunted by U.S. drones, beset by money problems and finding it tougher to lure young Arabs to the bleak mountains of Pakistan, al Qaeda is seeing its role shrink there and in Afghanistan, according to intelligence reports and Pakistani and U.S. officials. Conversations intercepted by the U.S. show al Qaeda fighters complaining of shortages of weapons, clothing and, in some cases, food. The number of foreign fighters in Afghanistan appears to be declining, U.S. military officials say…

Similarly, the U.S. in the past was unable to comprehensively monitor communications in Pakistan; that has now been rectified, said an official briefed on U.S. operations. Through that monitoring, U.S., British and Pakistani intelligence officials have seen increasing evidence that al Qaeda is having difficulty raising money…

The new intelligence has provided fresh ways to try to undermine the foreign al Qaeda fighters. Pakistani authorities say they’ve started targeting food shipments believed to be headed for al Qaeda operatives, who prefer their own cuisine over local fare. “The Talibs, they’re eating mutton, chicken, bread — the food ordinary people eat,” said an officer from Pakistan’s ISI spy agency. “The Arabs want their own food.”

Exit question: If the Al Qaeda senior leadership is so boxed in, how’d Najibullah Zazi manage to make contact with them?

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: 1 2

Either sh$t or get off the pot Obama.

Knucklehead on October 5, 2009 at 10:24 PM

Last time I checked checked the Russians put well over 100,000 troops into Afghanistan and completely failed in a straight up anti-insurgency mission.

We will never make that commitment.

Combine that with the dithering at the top and the only sensible solution is to pull out completely.

Anders on October 5, 2009 at 10:26 PM

Bull shite. Afghanistan and the entire global war on manmade disasters ( (c) Obama administration) is about to get thrown down the crapper.

mjk on October 5, 2009 at 10:26 PM

Prediction: We stay, but with current troop levels. It’s the same as voting “present”.

SouthernGent on October 5, 2009 at 10:27 PM

This is Today’s story;

Tomorrow will bring ‘transformations’, nuances, permutations, variations, adjustments, and lying

Janos Hunyadi on October 5, 2009 at 10:27 PM

WHY DO I NOT BELIEVE THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

canopfor on October 5, 2009 at 10:27 PM

“Secretary Gates, please report to Air Force One immediately.”

fogw on October 5, 2009 at 10:28 PM

Anders on October 5, 2009 at 10:26 PM

I would have thought that there is little comparison between Russian conscripts and the US military.

OldEnglish on October 5, 2009 at 10:28 PM

the president has some momentous decisions to make

Yeah, but the question is, WHEN? We’re talking about a guy who mostly voted “PRESENT” in the past when it came to making simpler decisions.

GarandFan on October 5, 2009 at 10:29 PM

Bad time to be giving out such mixed messages.

joedoe on October 5, 2009 at 10:29 PM

Trial balloon alert. Think “bell” and “salivation”. The left is being gauged as to their response. HHS Secretary K. Sebelius did the same thing when the “no public option” trial balloon was floated a few weeks back. Mr. Gates is doing the same thing today. The volume and content of the left’s outrage will be assessed, catalogued, and considered. By the end of the week, another trial balloon for less than 80% of GEN McChrystal’s forces will be floated–a number–say 5 combat brigades (and their troop number equivalent) will be floated, and the response of the right will be gauged, just as the left’s is today.

So, Mr. Gates answer is a non-answer. Of course we’re not leaving Afghanistan, that’s easy to say and a simple restatement of the obvious. But the obvious questions remain, what is going to be done about GEN McChrystal’s request?

ted c on October 5, 2009 at 10:30 PM

As with all Obamanable statements, this comes with an expiration date. Look for the level of support our troops got in Mogadishu.

pedestrian on October 5, 2009 at 10:32 PM

Frankly, I think what we need in afghanistan is our boys trained in assassination techniques, particularly snipering, then let them go out on missions in groups of 3.

Pick off any and all opportune targets, to hell with prisoners.

I don’t call it anti-insurgency, I call it organized geurilla warfare against terrorist scum. We’ve already proven it effective, even though we haven’t used the technique in over 200 years.

Spiritk9 on October 5, 2009 at 10:33 PM

Fogw: yep..put Gates on the list, along with McChrystal, Mullens,and Petreaus. .

Obama will abandon Afghanistan if he has to level the pentagon and fire every officer above the grade of 2lt to do it.

Skandia Recluse on October 5, 2009 at 10:33 PM

Btw,I`m gonna add my 2 cents!

Why are there outposts way out of the way!

And,why isn`t their Combat Air Patrol(CAP),like a swarm
of pissed of Hornets ready to drop a 500lber when needed,
or B-1′s ready to drop J-Dam 2000 lbers!

Where is the Air Support when needed!

Or is Obama worried about the cost,of fuel,jus say’n!!

canopfor on October 5, 2009 at 10:34 PM

Your Exit question is a bitter pill.

I think this is going Vietnam route.

This war is winnable. I am not sure 0 is going to lead to victory. I am surprised he does not have a strategy in 9 months. Were they sleeping until now?

antisocial on October 5, 2009 at 10:34 PM

“If we’re going to keep just enough people there to lose, pull out now and save some American lives.”

Hey, I got an idea…

… Let’s elect Barack Hussein Obama as the Commander in Chief

Seven Percent Solution on October 5, 2009 at 10:34 PM

Anders on October 5, 2009 at 10:26 PM

I would have thought that there is little comparison between Russian conscripts and the US military.

OldEnglish on October 5, 2009 at 10:28 PM

Please talk to any non-media relations soldier who has been in the theater. Ask them if they think we are winning or will win right now.

It really is not a pretty picture and the fish rots from the head.

Anders on October 5, 2009 at 10:35 PM

Combine that with the dithering at the top and the only sensible solution is to pull out completely.

Anders on October 5, 2009 at 10:26 PM

Shows how much sense you have…

lovingmyUSA on October 5, 2009 at 10:36 PM

I’m starting to think O’s stalling, biding his time til it’s Republicans that are so worn down by troop losses that they’ll request withdrawal rather than watching more soldiers die. Then O can claim he wanted to fight the good war but the yellow Republicans made him cut and run.

Monica on October 5, 2009 at 10:36 PM

As with all Obamanable statements, this comes with an expiration date. Look for the level of support our troops got in Mogadishu.

pedestrian on October 5, 2009 at 10:32 PM

pedstrian: Another FUBAR OPERATION by a Liberal President
who denied ARMOUR and AIR SUPPORT,in the Meals
on Wheels mission by the UN:)

canopfor on October 5, 2009 at 10:37 PM

How does 8 of our soldiers dying in a poorly thought-out posting, and 2 killed by a covert jihadist Afghan policeman, turn into “the Taliban do have the momentum right now“.

That’s childish defeatism right there.

Don’t any of these clowns remember truly deadly struggles like Iwo Jima or the Battle of The Bulge or even Gettysburg?

Setting up ill-manned outposts that do not control the high ground is an open invitation to disaster.

The lousy planners need to be routed as much as the Taliban.

We can only defeat ourselves.

Medieval crackpot hordes of suicidal maniacs can only scare a diffident force unwilling to reap unholy havoc on their sorry “holy” asses.

And Barry and Company seemed damned determined to try.

profitsbeard on October 5, 2009 at 10:38 PM

Or is Obama worried about the cost,of fuel,jus say’n!!

He didn’t seem to give a sh*t about that when he, the little woman and Her majesty Oprah Winfrey flew over to Copenhagen for no apparent reason.

I’m starting to think O’s stalling, biding his time til it’s Republicans that are so worn down by troop losses that they’ll request withdrawal rather than watching more soldiers die. Then O can claim he wanted to fight the good war but the yellow Republicans made him cut and run.

Interesting theory. I’m going with he’s a complete beta male incapable of making a decision bigger than what to eat for lunch. I like mine better.

:)

mjk on October 5, 2009 at 10:39 PM

Seven Percent Solution on October 5, 2009 at 10:34 PM

Perfect picture of Liar-in Chief!

lovingmyUSA on October 5, 2009 at 10:39 PM

Anders on October 5, 2009 at 10:26 PM

The Soviets weren’t defeated in fighting insurgents backed by insurgent sympathizers in caves. They were fighting insurgents backed heavily by the United States, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. We poured countless funds and technologically-advanced equipment, even down to the explosive charges they used for attacks and missiles they utilized to down planes, into the country.

Now we’re fighting, with the backing of NATO and simultaneous actions by Pakistan within its own borders, against Taliban and general terrorist insurgents. Many of our strikes can be carried out by unmanned aircraft, while we’re simultaneously utilizing Afghan forces in raids and intend to hand the situation off to them as soon as they’re capable of keeping the country stable.

amerpundit on October 5, 2009 at 10:39 PM

Anders on October 5, 2009 at 10:35 PM

Wouldn’t that have more to do with the ROE, which Russia didn’t have?

OldEnglish on October 5, 2009 at 10:40 PM

Under the “skilled” and “competent” “leadership” of B.O., Afghanistan is about to turn into a meat grinder that is going to make VietNam look like a Sunday stroll in the park!

pilamaye on October 5, 2009 at 10:40 PM

canopfor on October 5, 2009 at 10:34 PM

o/t just for you. My husband liked that link with the video of helicopter flights to Thunderstruck. He sent it to all his VN era buddies.

Cindy Munford on October 5, 2009 at 10:41 PM

I don’t believe this either. They are buying time for some reason, and I don’t like it. I think Obama is purposely trying to enlarge the sentiment of returning the troops home, so he can do so.
I hate how they are toying with the lives of our troops. Stop with the BS Obama.

cubachi on October 5, 2009 at 10:41 PM

Fighting insurgents backed by superpowers and generally wealthy countries that pour technologically-advanced equipment into the war zone, and fighting insurgents backed by their leaders who live in caves and harm their own civilians, isn’t quite the same thing.

amerpundit on October 5, 2009 at 10:42 PM

put well over 100,000 troops into Afghanistan and completely failed in a straight up anti-insurgency mission.

The Soviets had no anti-insurgency plan.

We’ll be working with the population not, as the Soviets did, against them.

SteveMG on October 5, 2009 at 10:42 PM

“The reality is that because of our inability, and the inability, frankly, of our allies, (for putting) enough troops into Afghanistan, the Taliban do have the momentum right now, it seems,” Gates said.

Because of our inability????? WTF???

drjohn on October 5, 2009 at 10:42 PM

The Soviets weren’t defeated in fighting insurgents backed by insurgent sympathizers in caves. They were fighting insurgents backed heavily by the United States, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. We poured countless funds and technologically-advanced equipment, even down to the explosive charges they used for attacks and missiles they utilized to down planes, into the country.

Now we’re fighting, with the backing of NATO and simultaneous actions by Pakistan within its own borders, against Taliban and general terrorist insurgents. Many of our strikes can be carried out by unmanned aircraft, while we’re simultaneously utilizing Afghan forces in raids and intend to hand the situation off to them as soon as they’re capable of keeping the country stable.

With respect, it sounds like you just read (and bought into) Charlie Wilson’s War.

There was a hell of a lot more to the resistance than Stinger missiles.

Anders on October 5, 2009 at 10:43 PM

Clearly, some military and intel people who’d prefer Biden’s counterterror approach and a lighter footprint are keen for Americans to think that current troop levels are adequate to keep AQ under control.

Really? Military and Intel folks who just want to go with the current flow instead of landing bigger fish with more bombs, more people, and more intense fighting against those who beat women, fly planes into buildings, behead innocents for sport and kill all infidels just because they think they should?

Name one, Allah. Gen Jones doesn’t count as Intel or Military anymore.

Subsunk

Subsunk on October 5, 2009 at 10:43 PM

With respect, it sounds like you just read (and bought into) Charlie Wilson’s War.

There was a hell of a lot more to the resistance than Stinger missiles.

Anders on October 5, 2009 at 10:43 PM

I just finished reading Ghost Wars by Steve Coll. And there being more to the resistance back in the ’80s than my simplification for the purpose of a blog comment doesn’t change the fact that the war we’re fighting now and the one the Soviets fought are two different situations.

amerpundit on October 5, 2009 at 10:44 PM

BHO must have gotten his call from the Chinese to stay in Afghanistan. They seem to be running the show now.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/the-demise-of-the-dollar-1798175.html

Heck maybe Soros has some Petrobas $$$ investment in mining the hills of Afghanistan and he needs the troops to get the ore out?

Isn’t Bidens’ son in Afghanistan? And isn’t Beau Biden Joes’ handpicked successor for the Family Senate seat? Getting him home early could make BBiden a sure 2010 Candidate.

PappyD61 on October 5, 2009 at 10:45 PM

How does 8 of our soldiers dying in a poorly thought-out posting

profitsbeard on October 5, 2009 at 10:38 PM

profitsbeard: Agreed,if you gonna stick 8 troops somewhere
in no-mans land,then at least have some fight
er/bomber aircraft buzzing near by,just in ca
se theres a possiblility of being over-run!

Hell,at least it would be a cheap insurance
policy!!:)

canopfor on October 5, 2009 at 10:45 PM

Good to know, although whether this is comforting or ominous depends on what Obama decides about troop levels, doesn’t it?

No, not so much. It depends much more on what the mission and ROE are. Do they remain -

[Mission] We don’t win by destroying the Taliban. We don’t win by body count. We don’t win by the number of successful military raids or attacks, we win when the [Afghan] people decide we win.
- General McChrystal (in London last week)

[ROE] 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.
- General McChrystal (from his COMISAF assessment of the war in Afghanistan)

?

If so, then ominous.

MB4 on October 5, 2009 at 10:45 PM

Please talk to any non-media relations soldier who has been in the theater. Ask them if they think we are winning or will win right now.

It really is not a pretty picture and the fish rots from the head.

Anders on October 5, 2009 at 10:35 PM

You strike me as the kind who would not make it through basic training. Of course we aren’t wining now–haven’tyou been reading about what the generals have been saying? We need more troops–just like we did for the surge. We have better weapons than the Russians did 27 yrs ago.
You want us to abandon the Afghani people–like we did the VietNamese…It was wrong then, and is just as wrong now.

lovingmyUSA on October 5, 2009 at 10:46 PM

Well then be in it to win it, you effin’ pansies!
Stop tying our soldiers hands and let them finish the job and come home with the victory!

HornetSting on October 5, 2009 at 10:48 PM

the war we’re fighting now and the one the Soviets fought are two different situations.

Good, that should do it.

We may or may not “win” (however defined) in Afghanistan. But comparing this battle to the one waged by the Soviets is a non-starter. It gets us nowhere.

SteveMG on October 5, 2009 at 10:48 PM

amerpundit on October 5, 2009 at 10:39 PM

aka “Charlie Wilson’s War”

Knucklehead on October 5, 2009 at 10:48 PM

Cindy Munford on October 5, 2009 at 10:41 PM

How’s the project going? It’s good to see you :)

lovingmyUSA on October 5, 2009 at 10:48 PM

This should be interesting — and it is:

One way to accomplish that, McChrystal wrote, is to target insurgent networks “to disrupt and degrade” their effectiveness. Another is to expose what he calls the insurgents’ “flagrant contravention of the principles of the Koran,” including indiscriminate use of violence and terrorism, and attacks on schools and development projects.

Or, in the full context of McChrystal’s assessment:

A more forceful and offensive StratCom approach must be devised whereby INS [insurgents] are exposed continually for their cultural and religious violations, anti-Islamic and indiscriminate use of violence and terror, and by concentrating on their vulnerabilities. These include their causing ofthe majority of civilian casualties, attacks on education, development projects, and government institutions, and flagrant contravention of the principles of the Koran. These vulnerabilities must be expressed in a manner that exploits the cultural and ideological separation of the INS from the vast majority of the Afghan population.

As many readers will realize, a line like that can only mean one thing. It’s that time again — time to trot out our favorite despicable jihadist, Abu Qatada, whose words of wisdom have time and again helped restore a little sanity to a mad world.

And I’m not kidding. Back in 2003, the man sometimes described as OBL’s “spritual guide” castigated then President Bush, and rightly so, for expounding on the religion of jihad as the religion of peace:

“I am astonished by President Bush when he claims there is nothing in the Koran that justifies jihad or violence in the name of Islam. Is he some kind of Islamic scholar? Has he ever actually read the Koran?”

Substitute “Gen ‘Islam is the Religion of Peace’ McChrystal” for “President ‘Islam is the Religion of Peace’ Bush” in the quotation and maybe we can start getting somewhere.

MB4 on October 5, 2009 at 10:49 PM

“The reality is that because of our inability, and the inability, frankly, of our allies, (for putting) enough troops into Afghanistan, the Taliban do have the momentum right now, it seems,” Gates said.

Shocking!

BigMike252 on October 5, 2009 at 10:49 PM

We really don’t need history lessons here. The soviets were trying to turn Afghanistan into a satellite, and we sided with the only guys who were organized enough to bog them down, meaning the Taliban.

It’s a different situation now, don’t need to tell you guys that. This particular situation requires guerrilla warfare on our part as well as small teams enabling plausible deniability. Let the Taliban complain about losing people to sniper fire and APMs, that’ll garner REAL sympathy, lol.

We need to fight to win. If we aren’t allowed that, then the scumbag in chief needs to set his useless ass out there on the front line with Lindsay Graham and they can cry in each other’s laps till they die by machete on youtube.

Spiritk9 on October 5, 2009 at 10:49 PM

Fogw: yep..put Gates on the list, along with McChrystal, Mullens,and Petreaus. .

Obama will abandon Afghanistan if he has to level the pentagon and fire every officer above the grade of 2lt to do it.

Skandia Recluse on October 5, 2009 at 10:33 PM

Don’t scare me.
I don’t think Dear Leader has the guts to fire anyone – he’s pretty weak and can only whine. But the scenario that you described is a nightmare scenario that won’t pass..I hope.
Obama will try to abandon Afghanistan but he only will try to by ignoring the generals. Thats not any better but it is better than firing them.

nyx on October 5, 2009 at 10:51 PM

“We are not leaving Afghanistan today.

Fixed.

As long as we have an inexperienced, America-hating coward for a C-in-C, I don’t think our military is going to get the support it needs and deserves.

That’s a disgrace, and shames most Americans. Not those in D.C., though.

MrScribbler on October 5, 2009 at 10:52 PM

…fighting insurgents backed by their leaders who live in caves and harm their own civilians, isn’t quite the same thing.

amerpundit on October 5, 2009 at 10:42 PM

+++1000
Plus, big deal if we catch Bin Laden–he is a bottom feeder cave-dweller, having to look over his shoulder everywhere he goes–if he even goes anywhere. Can’t trust anyone. He has a great life…heh.

lovingmyUSA on October 5, 2009 at 10:54 PM

lovingmyUSA on October 5, 2009 at 10:48 PM

Much better than expected. Done with part one, entering a new phase in a week or two. Totally out of my realm of experience so I will have to hide and watch on it’s impact on my time. Thanks for asking.

Cindy Munford on October 5, 2009 at 10:54 PM

… Let’s elect Barack Hussein Obama as the Commander in Chief

Seven Percent Solution on October 5, 2009 at 10:34 PM

Seven Percent Solution: I’m inexplicable perplexed!

In the video,Hopey/Changey states
that as soon as he wakes up,and just
before he fall asleep,AFGHANISTAN is
on his mind,and is PRIORITY ONE!!!!

Trapper needs to ask Obama that ques
tion,and get an answer then,why Obam
a isn’t fixated like a laser beam on
Afghanistan!!:)

canopfor on October 5, 2009 at 10:55 PM

Y’now, 25,000 German troops plus say 15,000 French and another assortment of 20,000 troops from various Nato nations would really help.

Yeah, they don’t have them.

And if they did, they wouldn’t send them.

SteveMG on October 5, 2009 at 10:58 PM

Y’now, 25,000 German troops plus say 15,000 French and another assortment of 20,000 troops from various Nato nations would really help.

Yeah, they don’t have them.

And if they did, they wouldn’t send them.

SteveMG on October 5, 2009 at 10:58 PM

Obama won the only thing he cares about.

The rest, apparently, can all go to hell.

And is on its way, thanks to his indifference / incompetence / arrogance / ignorance.

profitsbeard on October 5, 2009 at 10:58 PM

Or is Obama worried about the cost,of fuel,jus say’n!!

He didn’t seem to give a sh*t about that when he, the little woman and Her majesty Oprah Winfrey flew over to Copenhagen for no apparent reason.

mjk on October 5, 2009 at 10:39 PM

Buzzing the Statue of Liberty and causing a panic in New York City is also an acceptable use of air assets.

Providing timely support of the troops in harms way – not so much. Have to avoid that pesky collateral damage to “innocent bystanders.”

red winger on October 5, 2009 at 11:00 PM

You strike me as the kind who would not make it through basic training. Of course we aren’t wining now–haven’tyou been reading about what the generals have been saying?

We need more troops–just like we did for the surge. We have better weapons than the Russians did 27 yrs ago.

You want us to abandon the Afghani people–like we did the VietNamese…It was wrong then, and is just as wrong now.

lovingmyUSA on October 5, 2009 at 10:46 PM

Better weapons and more troops?

How about getting a handle on the enemy?

Their motivation?
Their view on religion?
Their cultural history?
Where they are coming from?
Their financing?

Thus far we seem to act as if we have no clue about these topics.

Pouring more troops in might work if we had some idea about the above and allowed it to inform the ROE.

Anders on October 5, 2009 at 11:01 PM

It’s a police action, not a war.

Dhuka on October 5, 2009 at 11:02 PM

Why would you not mention the title of the article:

Gates blames past lack of troops for Taliban edge

and that the article says:

Gates suggested the failure of the United States and its allies to put more troops into Afghanistan in earlier years — when former U.S. President George W. Bush shifted resources to invade Iraq — had given the Taliban an edge.

and

The Obama administration already has almost doubled the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan this year to 62,000

This is a typical hit piece by Al Reuters… Just curious

luckybogey on October 5, 2009 at 11:02 PM

Anders on October 5, 2009 at 11:01 PM

Stuff their cultural history! they don’t give a damn about mine, and I didn’t start out to murder them indiscriminately!

OldEnglish on October 5, 2009 at 11:06 PM

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.

“The Bridge on 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. Nicholson beside a plaque commemorating the completion of the bridge.

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!”

Is General McChrystal reprising the role of Colonel Nicholson in “The Bridge on the River Kwai” or that of T. E. Lawrence in “Lawrence of Arabia”?

Pretty much all evidence tells me the former.

MB4 on October 5, 2009 at 11:07 PM

canopfor on October 5, 2009 at 10:34 PM
o/t just for you. My husband liked that link with the video of helicopter flights to Thunderstruck. He sent it to all his VN era buddies.

Cindy Munford on October 5, 2009 at 10:41 PM

Cindy Munford: Can’t leave out the Navy,and thanks:):)

Magic Carpet Ride!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwDa5dMmfZ4

canopfor on October 5, 2009 at 11:07 PM

“I now really believe for the first time that he will not accept General McChrystal’s recommendation in Afghanistan. I think he’s going to look for ways to get out of that. And I just think across the board, it’s one thing, it’s dangerous enough for a regime like Iran to get nuclear weapons, but the idea of them getting nuclear weapons in a context of American retreat is truly scary.
I think that was a very significant piece in the Post where the forces who want to go to a so-called counterterrorism strategy, which is really a way of just staying offshore and killing a few terrorists, I suppose, and hoping it all doesn’t blow up in our face, that…I had assumed that Obama would reject those counsels. But I don’t see how you can explain his behavior over the last month except to say that he is trying in various ways to lay the groundwork for not accepting General McChrystal’s recommendation, the commander he put in there six or seven months ago. They’re going to pretend that the election changed everything, the Afghan election, was a mess and that changed everything…
So I don’t know what’s going to happen. I’ve just heard this morning from someone who’s been in touch with people in the administration, a foreign gentleman who deals with this government, that people are talking about Secretary Gates leaving at the end of the year, and being replaced by Chuck Hagel…
I think that’s quite a plausible rumor, and a very worrisome one, because he is an advocate of retreat everywhere, I think…”

Bill Kristol

http://www.hughhewitt.com/transcripts.aspx?id=60fdaea3-b7c0-46bb-b42d-61046f06189b

lovingmyUSA on October 5, 2009 at 11:09 PM

That all depends on the boss.

I am sure they were telling workers at GM that the layoffs were not coming at the end of 2008.

Mr. Joe on October 5, 2009 at 11:11 PM

canopfor on October 5, 2009 at 10:55 PM

That clip should be played everyday until “The Community Organizer” makes a decision…

Seven Percent Solution on October 5, 2009 at 11:13 PM

Cindy Munford on October 5, 2009 at 10:54 PM

Good that you got phase one done. Kind of scarey moving into something that is a challenge. I think you are up to it–just from the little bit I have seen of you here! Glad you have us to “relax and let your hair down” with…heh. (Any trolls you can run over are just a bonus :)

lovingmyUSA on October 5, 2009 at 11:16 PM

SteveMG on October 5, 2009 at 10:58 PM

But, but….I thought when the One won, we’d have sooo much help from our “allies”–now that the cowboy has left town…

lovingmyUSA on October 5, 2009 at 11:18 PM

Gates: We’re not leaving Afghanistan anytime soon

Ya, it sure looks that way.

It would be hilarious if it weren’t so deadly serious.

TheBigOldDog on October 5, 2009 at 11:18 PM

From the Sergeant Major:

The hard fact is that the “hearts and minds” of the Afghan “people” are not for sale! The descendants of “The Great Khan” and their tribal cousins have no interest in being Westernized in any way. And, the human sewers that serve as their political leadership can only be rented. Americans are interlopers in a land where interlopers generally have their heads lopped off.

Nobody read their Kipling. (I know, “who or what was Kipling?” Look it up.) Americans do not know their OWN history (except the spun trash that passes for “social studies” in our heavily socialistic high schools) much less the history of Afghanistan. And, this includes our political leadership! Ask an American on the street – or a congressman in the House – to point to Afghanistan on a map, and they will probably start with their finger cautiously orbiting somewhere over Rhode Island.

This writer spent thirty years listening to and deciphering military acronyms and idiotic jargon. The catch phrase today is “COIN” – Counterinsurgency doctrine. Our political and military leadership act like this is some sort of secret knowledge – Gnostic esoteric knowledge – that is now coming to light. That is crap. There is nothing new here.

The current crop of Afghanistan’s “Warriors” is almost exclusive to the opposition. The true believers are fighters – cowards too, but fighters nonetheless. By contrast, the bulk of the Afghan National Army (ANA) and Afghan National Police (ANP) are not fighters, nor are they “true believers”. They are simply cowards – frauds – corrupt to the core by any standard and an apostate to their own faith. They are slovenly, drug-addicted, dimwitted, and totally unreliable at any level. Like the Taliban, they are brutal to their own countrymen. They thrive on their petty powers and refuse to shoulder any burden or responsibility. Does this sound too harsh? Not for the Marines and Soldiers who have been killed by the treachery of ANA and ANP who have purposely led them into ambush.

According to the great military minds of our time, these ANA/ANP forces can be trained and formed to fight their own war. At what cost? How many American lives? How many taxpayer dollars? It would take decades if it were simply a matter of sophistication and military training. However, the obstacle is the way and philosophy of life in the Islamic world.

President Obama and General McCrystal need to review their history. When you treat the Afghans with kid gloves, they will bite off your hand.

MB4 on October 5, 2009 at 11:19 PM

Obama lies, Obama lies all the time.

I’ll wait to see what he does and not what he has said.

jukin on October 5, 2009 at 11:20 PM

canopfor on October 5, 2009 at 11:07 PM

It will be a twofer for the husband, he worked on EA6B’s and F14′s after the Army.

lovingmyUSA on October 5, 2009 at 11:16 PM

To quote an old Beatles tune, I plan to get by with a little help from my friends.

Cindy Munford on October 5, 2009 at 11:25 PM

How about getting a handle on the enemy?

Their motivation?
Their view on religion?
Their cultural history?
Where they are coming from?
Their financing?
Anders on October 5, 2009 at 11:01 PM

WTF are you talking about? Have YOU been living in a cave?
You are like 7 years behind times with your idiotic questions.
You qualify as an advisor to Obama–you are just as clueless.

lovingmyUSA on October 5, 2009 at 11:26 PM

canopfor on October 5, 2009 at 10:55 PM
That clip should be played everyday until “The Community Organizer” makes a decision…

Seven Percent Solution on October 5, 2009 at 11:13 PM

Seven Percent Solution: Dam straight! Hey,on the brightside
this could be used for an election
ad against Democrats who will try
to play the Foreign Policy,yes we
have experience in that department!

Uh Huh,sure you do!!:)

canopfor on October 5, 2009 at 11:26 PM

“Gates suggested the failure of the United States and its allies to put more troops into Afghanistan in earlier years — when former U.S. President George W. Bush shifted resources to invade Iraq — had given the Taliban an edge.”

The last thing I want to hear is Bush’s Secretary of Defense essentially complaining we don’t have enough troops in Afghanistan nine months after he became Obama’s Secretary of Defense. Did he accidentally forget to mention that deficiency during the transfer process and when devising Obama’s strategy in Jan-Feb of this year?

Dusty on October 5, 2009 at 11:28 PM

I don’t trust Gates anymore…I’ve got a very bad vibe about this and so it’s been for some time. I hope I’m wrong, but I think I understand Obama…it’s bad.

AUINSC on October 5, 2009 at 11:28 PM

WTF are you talking about? Have YOU been living in a cave?
You are like 7 years behind times with your idiotic questions.
You qualify as an advisor to Obama–you are just as clueless.

lovingmyUSA on October 5, 2009 at 11:26 PM

Hardly.

Read Sun Tzu and get back to me sweetie.

Anders on October 5, 2009 at 11:30 PM

Read Sun Tzu and get back to me

Anders on October 5, 2009 at 11:30 PM

No nation has ever benefited from a protracted war.
- Sun Tzu

MB4 on October 5, 2009 at 11:32 PM

canopfor on October 5, 2009 at 11:07 PM
It will be a twofer for the husband, he worked on EA6B’s and F14’s after the Army.

Cindy Munford on October 5, 2009 at 11:25 PM

Cindy Munford: Prowlers,Intruders,and TomCats,Awesome
Cindy:)

canopfor on October 5, 2009 at 11:35 PM

How about getting a handle on the enemy?

Their motivation?
Their view on religion?
Their cultural history?
Where they are coming from?
Their financing?
Anders on October 5, 2009 at 11:01 PM

Islam.
Islam.
Islam.
Islam.
Islam (Saudi Arabia and us).

A little oversimplified, but that’s about it in a nutshell.

MB4 on October 5, 2009 at 11:36 PM

What does that victory sh1t look like in Afglandfill again?

It is going to be tough keeping partners in this if thumbs can’t be retrieved from sphincters and everything looks like pouting between American political factions. Eight fu*king years for fu*ks sake. Back before Obama had ambitions. What was the winning strategy under Bush for Chr*sts sake?

BL@KBIRD on October 5, 2009 at 11:43 PM

Either sh$t or get off the pot Obama.

Knucklehead on October 5, 2009 at 10:24 PM

Knucklehead: Get off the pot,hehe,er how about get off the

We WEED UP,ahem:) Jus try’n to help you out:)

canopfor on October 5, 2009 at 11:57 PM

[luckybogey on October 5, 2009 at 11:37 PM]

Thanks. The revised ROE another extremely sore subject for me, too.

Dusty on October 6, 2009 at 12:02 AM

Read this and weep over how many things are not being obeyed.

BL@KBIRD on October 6, 2009 at 12:03 AM

Islam.
Islam.
Islam.
Islam.
Islam (Saudi Arabia and us).

A little oversimplified, but that’s about it in a nutshell.

MB4 on October 5, 2009 at 11:36 PM

From your words to the commander in chief’s ears – and the military’s.

Anders on October 6, 2009 at 12:03 AM

Nobody is going to be happy with this situation. You just can’t half-fight. People’s lives are at stake.

AnninCA on October 6, 2009 at 12:30 AM

http://www.veteranoutrage.com

Im sorry but this is very wrong.. either

a. we are supposed to believe that suddendly the democrats actually grew a pair of balls

b. or Liberals have suddendly become smarter than the Generals in charge of the us army.

or the more likely scenario is (and something i believe the democrats are planning)

obama and the liberals want a DEFEATED US military
and are setting the stage for a collosal failure
which they will then try to blame Former president Bush..

Then they will use the money from the defense budget to
provide free health care for 20 million illegal mexicans
all providing they vote democrat

thus ensureing they stay in power for the next 50 years
and enslave all americans to their disgusting and vile
liberal american (aka north korea)..

dont think so hmmm..

Well let me remind you that the liberals
(who never seem to take any blame for anything ever)
just tried to blame Former president George bush for obamas fauilure to land the olympics

or the fact that liberals who made their vast fortunes
off of americas capitolist system are now
trying to blame america and its system for the banking failures
that they CAUSED by the liberals manipulating
the tax code FORCING banks to lend money to any
illegal or poor person reguardless of their ability to repay..

or the fact that the democrats and liberals did EXACTLY
this in vietnam

I call it TREASON
I think the moment they do this
we should ARREST ALL members of congress and obama
and put them on public trial for TREASON..

Still not convinced hmm ok how about this..

this entire financial mess
it was a receipe for disaster and after the entire worlds banking system went up in flames they tried to blame capitolism and america
for the crash which they themselves caused..
I personally watched barney (the prostitute franks)
on tv claiming he never forced banks to lend to the poor
Even when confronted with his own signature on the laws he signed he still denies it..

Democrats and liberals they are all traitors and creeps..

Now i see the same patters that i saw in vietnam

1. Liberals and democrats helping the enemy
force america to stop supporting the war by using the mass media to help our enemies.

2. Then they bring the troops home but to make it look like their tough the democrats / liberals promise the afghans they will not abandon them

3. the democrats (obama and liberals) order the airforce to put on a show of force using missles to blow up a bunch of taliban

4. When this fails (it has too) then they cut off funding for the defense of afghanistan thus ensuring a taliban victory..

Millions again will die all at the hands of the dog damned
democrats and liberals..

finally

5. the democrats and liberals will hold trials and haul in
former president george bush to try and jail him
for their collosal failures and TRE$ASONIST ACTIVITIES

http://www.veteranoutrage.com

because i am outraged at these traitors called democrats
and any republicans who also didnt do the right thing..

you work for us remember?
and if you betray us we will remove you
by all means necessary..

and yes that scares the hell out of me
but you democrats are so corrupt now
your so vile i think we might have a chance at
winning the war on terror
if you all went over publicly to the talibans side..

veteranoutrage on October 6, 2009 at 12:32 AM

Call me when Obama installs a “Meet with McChrystal Czar” instead of an Olympics Czar or whatever other non-serious endeavor boy genius is up to.

BKennedy on October 6, 2009 at 12:38 AM

Heard on Savaage today that near the site where those eight troops were killed yesterday was a mosque. According to Savage the mosque was holding a bunch of terrorists and according to the rules of engagement the mosque was off limits to fire on. The Rules of Engagement are insane and its time to fight a war to win. This will never happen with that idiot in the White House and the idiots running congress.

garydt on October 6, 2009 at 12:43 AM

Secretary Gates is doubtlessly sincere, but he fails to mention Geraghty’s Law. It applies to Obama’s Afghanistan policy statements, too.

OhioCoastie on October 6, 2009 at 1:26 AM

Depends on what their meaning of “leaving” is.

I think Allah sums up one of the biggest concerns about the Obama Administration and the Afghanistan/Pakistan theater:

If we’re going to keep just enough people there to lose, pull out now and save some American lives.

When is Obama going to use all the media resources like prime time spots,527 groups,pundits with their lips pressed to his a$$ like Couric,Matthews,Olberaman,NY Times,Wapo,and many others.
When are we going to see Obama criss crossing the country giving speeches about how important it is to win in Afghanistan/Pakistan.

Obama told everybody for years that Afghanistan was the central front of terror and America would not be safe until the terrorist threat in that region was destroyed.

Obama and the democrats told us they were smarter and had a better plan.

Obama and the democrats complained that our military was denied resources to win there.

Now Obama does not know if he wants to provide the military with the resources it needs to carry out Obama’s own strategy he laid out in March concerning the Afghanistan/Pakistan region.

If Obama is not going to put a 100% effort into this war than don’t use our Soldiers as political pawns to “project” a serious effort while in reality they just want to cut and run.

Obama needs to provide the military with what it needs to fulfill their mission or suffer the consequences of the jihadists dancing in the streets drunk with their victory over America and free to plot out their revenge in Afghanistan/Pakistan.

Baxter Greene on October 6, 2009 at 1:29 AM

lovingmyUSA on October 5, 2009 at 11:09 PM

Thanks for that post.
You can always depend on Kristol to get straight to the point.

The Obama administration is all about capitulation and appeasement.

This will turn out to be disastrous for Americans and many other countries if Obama decides to lose this war.

Quite a bubble the White House lives in.

Baxter Greene on October 6, 2009 at 1:36 AM

If Obama could put down rules for radicals, he could actually learn something by reading this:

The Gathering Storm, Winston S. Churchill

http://www.historyofwar.org/bookpage/churchill_gathering_storm.html


“Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it”

Edmund Burke

Baxter Greene on October 6, 2009 at 1:53 AM

My power went out, I was sitting here with candles, looking at a blank screen. This is how the world ends–we will all be in the dark…

lovingmyUSA on October 6, 2009 at 1:55 AM

Good to know, although whether this is comforting or ominous depends on what Obama decides about troop levels, doesn’t it?

Armchair Athiest.

Ugly on October 6, 2009 at 2:36 AM

Good to know is right.

I think it would be a disaster if we allowed the Taleban and AlQaida to come back into Afghanistan and take hold. We would pay for it for years. And the people there who have worked with us, would die. They would be killed. No one would ever trust us again.

Terrye on October 6, 2009 at 6:53 AM

Gates, if you don’t give the ground commanders the troops and other support the yneed you’ll be run out . . . just like the mighty Russian bear.

rplat on October 6, 2009 at 7:22 AM

Clearly, some military and intel people who’d prefer Biden’s counterterror approach and a lighter footprint are keen for Americans to think that current troop levels are adequate to keep AQ under control.

The filthy lying coward in the White House has lost control of the issue by his dithering and stalling for time. There needs to be a robust discussion of whether or not to us a CT or COIN approach but that debate needs to be behind closed doors in the Pentagon and White House. Not through stuff leaked to the media.

Perhaps if the filthy lying coward spent a little bit more time on the fundamentals of his job and a little less time jetting to Europe for parties, I’d feel a little bit better about troops being put in harm’s way. As it is, the filthy liar spent 25 minutes reading the riot act to McChrystal and hours schmoozing for Chicago. Reprehensible and unforgivable behavior that cannot be overlooked.

highhopes on October 6, 2009 at 7:28 AM

… Let’s elect Barack Hussein Obama as the Commander in Chief

Seven Percent Solution on October 5, 2009 at 10:34 PM

Thank you posting the video. I wonder who the staff member is who has to peel the President out from under the bed when he wakes up to get the morning war and terrorist briefing and who tucks him in at night?

yoda on October 6, 2009 at 7:40 AM

Comment pages: 1 2