Article

2009-09-21 Afghanistan

McChrystal: More Forces or 'Mission Failure'

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Unoluter Javique5084 2009-09-21 05:28|| || Front Page|| [3 views ] Top

#1 Got nuts afterall!

Posted by Besoeker in Duitsland 2009-09-21 07:52|| 2009-09-21 07:52|| Front Page Top

#2 ...but if you don't let them use their firepower, particularly when under attack, they're just more targets.

Posted by Procopius2k 2009-09-21 08:06|| 2009-09-21 08:06|| Front Page Top

#3 Army General Stanley McChrystal wrote: "Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near-term (next 12 months) -- while Afghan security capacity matures -- risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible."

The emphasis should be a stable post-exit Afghanistan. The war against the Taliban hasn't been winnable for some time and the Iraq comparisons doesn't apply.

Posted by phil_b 2009-09-21 09:07|| 2009-09-21 09:07|| Front Page Top

#4 So, what's the mission, getting Bambi reelected?

Posted by Anonymoose 2009-09-21 10:49|| 2009-09-21 10:49|| Front Page Top

#5 So, what's the mission, getting Bambi reelected?
Of course
and anything else to pronounce him GOD

Posted by Redneck Jim 2009-09-21 14:36|| 2009-09-21 14:36|| Front Page Top

#6 McChrystal has threatened to resign if he is not given the troops, according to Bill Roggio. Good for him. The military has to start assuming responsibility for its actions and the top is the place to start.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2009-09-21 18:26|| 2009-09-21 18:26|| Front Page Top

#7 IMHO, the Big O does not care a wit for Afghanistan and the al Q threat from that area or from Pakistan or the NWFP. He never did.

He said some things about Pakistan and Afghanistan during the campaign, but they were just words to placate voters that he would not cut and run.

Now he will ignore McCrystal's carefully worded and research report and will not increase troop strengths and other resources, like the Brit MoD.
He certainly will not go into the NWFP and make it a hellhole to eliminate al Q base ops there. Afghanistan is lost if O has his way.

Posted by Alaska Paul 2009-09-21 19:44|| 2009-09-21 19:44|| Front Page Top

#8 Well, one can always fall back on the President's campaign remarks:

As President, I will pursue a tough, smart and principled national security strategy - one that recognizes that we have interests not just in Baghdad, but in Kandahar and Karachi, in Tokyo and London, in Beijing and Berlin. I will focus this strategy on five goals essential to making America safer: ending the war in Iraq responsibly; finishing the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban; securing all nuclear weapons and materials from terrorists and rogue states; achieving true energy security; and rebuilding our alliances to meet the challenges of the 21st century... In the 18 months since the surge began, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated. June was our highest casualty month of the war. The Taliban has been on the offensive, even launching a brazen attack on one of our bases. Al Qaeda has a growing sanctuary in Pakistan. That is a consequence of our current strategy.

It is unacceptable that almost seven years after nearly 3,000 Americans were killed on our soil, the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 are still at large. Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahari are recording messages to their followers and plotting more terror. The Taliban controls parts of Afghanistan. Al Qaeda has an expanding base in Pakistan that is probably no farther from their old Afghan sanctuary than a train ride from Washington to Philadelphia. If another attack on our homeland comes, it will likely come from the same region where 9/11 was planned. And yet today [July 15, 2008], we have five times more troops in Iraq than Afghanistan.

Senator McCain said - just months ago - that "Afghanistan is not in trouble because of our diversion to Iraq." I could not disagree more. Our troops and our NATO allies are performing heroically in Afghanistan, but I have argued for years that we lack the resources to finish the job because of our commitment to Iraq. That's what the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said earlier this month. And that's why, as President, I will make the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban the top priority that it should be. This is a war that we have to win.

I will send at least two additional combat brigades to Afghanistan, and use this commitment to seek greater contributions - with fewer restrictions - from NATO allies. I will focus on training Afghan security forces and supporting an Afghan judiciary, with more resources and incentives for American officers who perform these missions. Just as we succeeded in the Cold War by supporting allies who could sustain their own security, we must realize that the 21st century's frontlines are not only on the field of battle - they are found in the training exercise near Kabul, in the police station in Kandahar, and in the rule of law in Herat.

Moreover, lasting security will only come if we heed Marshall's lesson, and help Afghans grow their economy from the bottom up. That's why I've proposed an additional $1 billion in non-military assistance each year, with meaningful safeguards to prevent corruption and to make sure investments are made - not just in Kabul - but out in Afghanistan's provinces. As a part of this program, we'll invest in alternative livelihoods to poppy-growing for Afghan farmers, just as we crack down on heroin trafficking. We cannot lose Afghanistan to a future of narco-terrorism. The Afghan people must know that our commitment to their future is enduring, because the security of Afghanistan and the United States is shared.

The greatest threat to that security lies in the tribal regions of Pakistan, where terrorists train and insurgents strike into Afghanistan. We cannot tolerate a terrorist sanctuary, and as President, I won't. We need a stronger and sustained partnership between Afghanistan, Pakistan and NATO to secure the border, to take out terrorist camps, and to crack down on cross-border insurgents. We need more troops, more helicopters, more satellites, more Predator drones in the Afghan border region. And we must make it clear that if Pakistan cannot or will not act, we will take out high-level terrorist targets like bin Laden if we have them in our sights.

Posted by Pappy 2009-09-21 21:08|| 2009-09-21 21:08|| Front Page Top

#9 "Well, one can always fall back on the President's campaign ~~remarks~~ lies"

Fixed that for ya', Pappy.

No extra charge.

Posted by Barbara Skolaut">Barbara Skolaut 2009-09-21 21:46|| 2009-09-21 21:46|| Front Page Top

#10 The admin is torn between the desire to win in afghanistan, and its fear that Kharzai has made it impossible. And the fear that a request for more troops, opposed by the left, and by some on the right (like George Will) will undermine it crucially.

At this time it behooves everyone who thinks a withdrawl from Afghan would be a mistake to put partisanship aside and to push as hard as possible for the POLICY of increasing resources.

Personally I think it will be hard for the admin to face appointing the third US commander in Kabul in 6 months. And I think McCrystal would resign. However it will help if we all reach out in places other than here and spread the word for victory.

Posted by liberal hawk 2009-09-21 22:18|| 2009-09-21 22:18|| Front Page Top

#11 WAFF > USA CALLING RUSSIA TO WAR IN AFGHANISTAN [30-40K more US Troops + RUSS MIL HELP AGZ MILITANTS].

D *** NG IT, VLADVEDEV, COME ON OVER AND JOIN THE FUN - ITS 2009, REAGAN IS DEAD, BUSH 1 IS RETIRED, BUSH 2 IS NOW OBAMA, OSAMA IS EITHER DEAD OR IN POOR HEALTH, + OSAMA + THAT GUY FROM GUAM AREN'T HERE/AROUND TO KILL YOUR ARMY.

YOU CAN WIN NOW!

JOE M. SAYS HE'LL LEAVE RUSS + YOUR ARMY IN AFPAK ALONE IFF YOU + TOM BERENGER, ETAl. RETURN HIS GOOD ISLAND SHIRTS FROM THE 1970's, + TELL HIM WHOM KILLED ANNA LONGINOVA.

Posted by JosephMendiola">JosephMendiola 2009-09-21 22:31|| na]">[na] 2009-09-21 22:31|| Front Page Top

23:28 JohnQC
23:26 JohnQC
23:22 JohnQC
23:19 JohnQC
23:18 JohnQC
23:13 JohnQC
23:11 Woozle Uneter9007
23:10 JohnQC
23:03 JohnQC
22:51 Woozle Uneter9007
22:41 JosephMendiola
22:39 liberal hawk
22:37 liberal hawk
22:36 Thing From Snowy Mountain
22:35 Thing From Snowy Mountain
22:31 liberal hawk
22:31 JosephMendiola
22:29 liberal hawk
22:27 GirlThursday
22:24 liberal hawk
22:21 liberal hawk
22:18 liberal hawk
22:18 JosephMendiola
22:13 liberal hawk