Top Military Officer Urges Major Change in Afghanistan Strategy

Washington Post ^ | September 11, 2008 | Ann Scott Tyson

[GOP Poet]

I am very glad to hear we are FINALLY going into that nasty area of Pakistan too. It started there and there is where we shall end it (Afghanistan). I like that from Gates. I like his thinking.

Many prayers for our men and women of the military this is going to be a tenacious battle. I know they will win. Bless them all!!!!!!

[freema]

I wish Mullen would just go away.

[iopscusa]

Yeah, wth is wrong with Mullen? The guy gives off bad vibes for a Senior Officer!

[freema]

It’s awful, isn’t it.

[Alia]

Both gentlemen are correct. The war did begin in Afghanistan. AQ/Taliban, not able to beat back US/Coalition forces moved their forces; some to the Pakistani mountains, some to where they knew they needed to protect most, Iraq. Iraq has been stabilized. AQ knows at best, the area between Pakistan and Afghanistan will remain a ping-pong match between AQ/Tal and US/Coalition forces. And so, ipso, their concentration upon Afghanistan. I didn't find a single line in this article I disagreed with or was made uncomfortable by.

We will win in Afghanistan. And we do need a "surge" in Afghanistan.

Military commanders really did keep deployments to Iraq as cost-effective and streamlined as possible; nonetheless, some civilians of Afghanistan have fallen prey to AQ propaganda and have turned coat. The inter-tribal brawls have been going on in Afghanistan for many centuries.

It is time for the focus to return to Afghanistan. And once it is settled, I'll wager our relationship with Pakistan becomes much more improved.

[rbg81]

Well, DUH. We’re never going to “win” until we eliminate the safe haven in Pakistan. Unfortunately, no one know exactly how to do that—especially since it has nukes.

[Steel Wolf]

I agree that Mullen is a tool. He's got more DNA similarities with Wesley Clark than David Petraeus, as it were.

But he's exactly right on this point. Afghanistan has been flapping in the wind for years and years, and the Taliban are proving to be far more resilient than we'd like. As we draw down from Iraq, we need to commit the resources to Afghanistan.

Afghanistan is the forgotten war. Islamic militancy is becoming more dangerous the longer we let it fight us, learn, and adapt. This will affect us in other ways, closer to home, if not dealt with.

[TexasCajun]

Let the Dem’s promote the invasion of Pakistan, not us.

[varon]

BTTT

[steve8714]

Having said that, remember Mullen is the guy who wanted to lose Petraeus. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

[dools007]

Well, well, well. Here’s a navy guy—probably became general officer during Clintoon reign—telling any dem in Congress who will listen how he would fight a land war in Afghanistan. If I were Bush I would fire the b*********as of now. But Bush has already demonstrated his vacuousness by appointing a Navy guy as joint chief during a time when the country is involved in a land war. The only words I can think of to describe that decision are bizaar and grotesque.

[wildbill]

You always wonder about a blue water Navy man who comments on land wars that he isn’t trained for.

I’d rather hear from Petraeus that he concurs.

[ladyjane]

I wish that Army and Navy would leave their rivalries on the football field. Army brass just can’t stand having an Admiral in a position of power. They behave as if the Navy is the enemy.

[WoofDog123]

“The inter-tribal brawls have been going on in Afghanistan for many centuries.”

That is a concept I think most reporters either don’t understand or intentionally ignore - a lot of what is going on in afghanistan/pakistan, at the local level, is tribal, not geopolitical.

[Magnum44]

Adm Mullen is a CNO...He is not an operational commander like CENTCOM...they are different roles...CNO and all Joint Chiefs of Staff support the Area Commanders like Petraeus at CENTCOM by tanking his op requirements and meeting them via personnel, training, and procurement.

Just take that perspective when you read comments from the Joint Chiefs.

[Magnum44]

sorry...that was ‘taking’..not ‘tanking’...

I think what Mullens is saying is that Petraeus has given him op requirements and to meet those, Mullens need appropriations for more personnel...

[Magnum44]

previous post meant for you...

sorry...that was ‘taking’..not ‘tanking’...

I think what Mullens is saying is that Petraeus has given him op requirements and to meet those, Mullens need appropriations for more personnel...

[Cold Heat]

My take on this may surprise some, but it should not when you view it through a historical lens.

Afghanistan will not and can not be won militarily.

The more boots they have on the ground, the more the locals will detest it, and the more they will resist so that we will eventually have a full blown mess.

What they can do, and the only logical thing to do, is control the Pakistan border to keep the government from destabilizing, and in the fullness of time, the seeds of stability will expand outward from the central part of the country and into the frontier provinces.

We cannot surge this country as we did with Iran, as it will do no good. The locals want their independence and their Islamic ways, and any attempt to shove them into the future will be met with violence.

I think they should keep the troop numbers down and respond to the major threats to the new government's stability, understanding that decades will be required to make stability a permanent condition.

[VOA]

Naive suggestion from a never-served civilian:

Just let Gen. Petraeus succeed in Afghanistan like he has in Iraq.