You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Afghanistan
McChrystal calls for enduring Afghan force
2013-01-08
NEW YORK - Retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal said Monday he backs the White HouseÂ’s drawdown of U.S. forces in Afghanistan slated for 2014, but added that the U.S. owes Afghans some sort of enduring security presence to support them.

“We have an emotional responsibility,” McChrystal said of Afghanistan in an interview with The Associated Press. He commanded forces there before resigning over a controversial magazine article.

“We created expectations after 2001 in people” that the U.S. would be there to keep the country from sliding back into the chaos of the Taliban years, McChrystal said.
No we did not. Europeans, academics and Democrats did, and like a fool George W. Bush listened to them. One of the bigger mistakes he made. The original goal was to destroy al-Qaeda and gobsmack the Taliban so that the Northern Alliance and friendly Pashtuns (is there such a thing?) could run the place. But George got conned into 'nation-building', and here we are.
His comments come ahead of a visit by Afghan President Hamid Karzai to the White House, as the two nations try to craft a long-term plan for Afghanistan that will include a U.S. military presence whose size and scope have not yet been decided. The Afghan war commander, Gen. John Allen, has offered White House planners a range of troop numbers to choose from, from 6,000 troops, who would be devoted mostly to hunting al-Qaida, to more than 15,000, enough to continue much of the U.S. training mission and also back Afghan troops in the field with intelligence and logistical support.
I choose option A, perhaps A-minus. We really need 6,000?
McChrystal said Afghans donÂ’t want an occupying army, but they fear the U.S. will withdraw completely.
Really? When did they say that -- when they were practicing green on blue?
“Like a teenager, you really don’t want your parents hanging around you, but...you like to know if things go bad, they’re going to help,” he said. McChrystal added that the Afghans are not children, but they need to know they can trust America.

The retired general insisted the strategy known as counterinsurgency worked, saying the Afghans are much better able to stand on their own.

“If you had tried to bring big American forces in and do search and destroy, or do just raids, it would have been pointless. The Afghan people needed to buy into this,” he said. “They needed to believe we were there to protect them...and we weren’t just using Afghanistan as a place to fight our enemies.”

He called the looming drawdown of U.S. forces “inevitable,” and said that while Afghan troops still needed to “mature rapidly,” being forced to work on their own would help.

“You are never ready to do something by yourself until you actually do it, and then you are surprised you can,” he said.
They can mature tomorrow, or not. The point is to make sure they understand that if al-Qaeda returns, so will we, and we won't be happy about it.
Posted by:Steve White

#12  I hope.
Posted by: Redneck Jim   2013-01-08 19:52  

#11  I notice a hell of a lot if "Damn Reagan" sentiment here, J hope it's all trash reporting.
Posted by: Redneck Jim   2013-01-08 16:55  

#10  Ditto BH6. Mebe he should consider a 6k, or volunteering over at the museum.
Posted by: Besoeker   2013-01-08 14:28  

#9  General, I think you've done enough. Enjoy your retirement.
Posted by: Broadhead6   2013-01-08 13:57  

#8  "We have an emotional responsibility"

We have a responsibility to make a decision that is in the U.S. national interest.

Emotion has nothing to do with it.
Posted by: Pappy   2013-01-08 13:46  

#7  The Afghans of liberated Afghanistan are SOBs but certainly not our SOBs. They're SOBs whom the Western political class has led to believe that Western nations are their prison b****es servants.

There might be a good, strictly realpolitical argument for engaging them but Gen McChrystal's 'emotional' diatribe doesn't put forward such an argument.
Posted by: Elmerert Hupens2660   2013-01-08 13:03  

#6  I almost forgot, their soldiers and cops shoot our soldiers. We have an emotional responsibility to let them rot in the hell that they will most certainly create for themselves.
Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305   2013-01-08 12:09  

#5  They hosted al Qaeda, they grow opium and after we leave they will welcome the Taliban with open arms. They deserve whatever they get and we don't owe them squat. Well, maybe a few more arclights.
Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305   2013-01-08 12:05  

#4  Then he expressed support for strict control on assault weapons. Total write-off.
Posted by: KBK   2013-01-08 11:03  

#3  "We have an emotional responsibility," McChrystal said of Afghanistan Stan, you can try telling it to the COC--again. The COC doesn't take input very well.
Posted by: JohnQC   2013-01-08 09:25  

#2  This is unreal.
Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418   2013-01-08 04:39  

#1  They are legendary smugglers, dope and gun runners, dancing boy buggerers, and tribal bandits. It's still 400 AD in Afghanistan. It's where they want to be, they love it!

Sadly, the general (like many others) remains in denial. Stumping his new book, “My Share of the Task: A Memoir,” on Sean Hannity last evening, he admitted he voted for the Champ. It could all be attributed to a bad landing and a bunp to the head on Sicily Drop Zone, more likely kindred narcissism.
Posted by: Besoeker   2013-01-08 03:58  

00:00