Posted on 09/03/2009 2:45:53 AM PDT by Scanian
THE classified status report from Afghanistan by Gen. Stanley McChrystal was censored by the White House before its submission. As a result, it's all bun and no burger.
According to multiple (angry) sources, McChrystal -- our top soldier on the ground -- intended to ask for 28,000 more US troops. A presidential hatchet man directed the general not to make the request: Troop increases would be "addressed separately."
Worried about his poll numbers, our president's making a bad situation worse. He's given McChrystal the impossible mission of turning Afghan Flintstones into Jetsons, while starving him of means.
This violates a fundamental principle of the American way of war: Once the president assigns the mission, the commander must receive due consideration when he asks for the necessary resources.
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Ralph Peters, ex military and the writer of this piece in the Post, says he disagrees with the Commander on the ground in Afghanistan about the need for more troops. How does he come to his conclusions no more troops are needed? Is he there?
There is nothing to indicate he has any knowledge other then what I have regarding what is needed to get the job done properly.
Ralph Peters, ex military and the writer of this piece in the Post, says he disagrees with the Commander on the ground in Afghanistan about the need for more troops. How does he come to his conclusions no more troops are needed? Is he there?
There is nothing to indicate he has any knowledge other then what I have regarding what is needed to get the job done properly.
Thanks to the 52.7% of the incompetent idiot voters Zer0
is fomenting a disaster.
Where are so-called conservatives? Zer0 has set the table for a massive failure and no objections from our side of the aisle.
Where’s that hardn hitting moderate Senator McCain?
Right now, more troops would be endangered under the stupid Rules of Engagement our kids must work under to fight an enemy who operates under no rules at all, even the Geneva Accords. Col. Peters has exhaustively written about this as well.
People, this is Viet Nam all over again only this time the media will carry the water totally for the President whose minions (Czars) attempt to micromanage something they know nothing about. Then as now, we have the capability to totally squash the enemy but are troops are ordered to fight a politically correct war.
Total peace can only be achieved with total unconditional victory over the enemy.
In more recent times, the Left hated Bush's actions in Iraq and wanted us to go into Afghanistan instead. Now Obama is stuck with Afghanistan and will probably walk away from the problem, muttering "Bush's fault" and have the media cover for him.
It is consistent with his views from the beginning of this engagement in the ME. And there are a few of us out here, also ex-military, that don't find fault with his views.
If we are not going to use the whole of our traditional forces for absolute and total victory on the battle field, and are going to engage guerillas we should use ours as well.
With all the limitations we, via Obama, are putting on our traditional forces to go overboard in not having collateral damage, we find ourselves fighting an illusive enemy with one hand tied behind our backs.
The rest of the article at The Post combined with the first response on the linked page also leads me to agree with Col Peters.
To be honest I, for one, have not been too impressed with the strategic prosecution of this "war" from early on. Far too much "nation building" and squandering of our military in that regard.
I opt for his idea or a total pull out and bomb the bastards back into the dark ages, irregardless of the "collateral damage". But of course we won't do that for now. I for one believe we have been simply putting off what will eventually have to be done in order to really win this war against Islamiscism.
THIS is why Peters, and many guys with boots on the ground, are angry at the changes in ROE and McChrystal’s throwing caution to the wind where it comes to protecting our troops.
He thinks our TROOPS have acted too defensively in their own best interest and caused the “poor, helpless civilians” humiliation.
NOTE THE DATE.
General wants more troops for Afghan war
By: The Associated Press - The Sentinel-Record - Published: 08/02/2009
MORE TROOPS: Lt. Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the U.S. general in charge of turning around the war in Afghanistan, may recommend significant changes to U.S. and NATO operations in a report due in August.WASHINGTON - The U.S. general put in charge of turning around the war in Afghanistan is likely to recommend significant changes in the campaign and may include a request for more U.S. forces that the White House is expected to resist.
Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s long-awaited reassessment of the war against Taliban insurgents aims for a transformation of the shaky relationship between U.S. forces and Afghan civilians as troops press a counterinsurgency strategy of clearing and holding populated areas, said officials apprised of the report’s contents.
The biggest change urged in McChrystal’s report is a “cultural shift” in how U.S. and foreign troops operate - ranging from how they live and travel among the Afghan population to where and how they fight, a senior military official in Kabul said Friday.
The latest draft of the assessment also urges speeding up the training of Afghan soldiers and police and nearly doubling their numbers to roughly 400,000, said a senior defense official in Washington, one of several uniformed and civilian officials who spoke on condition anonymity because the report has not been made public.
As McChrystal readies the assessment of the war, due in two weeks, numerous U.S. officials and outsiders aware of his thinking suggest that he will request in a companion report that more American troops, probably including marines, be added next year.
Several people familiar with the work being done cautioned that McChrystal could opt not to ask for an increase at all - a recognition that President Barack Obama and other White House advisers would not look favorably on adding new numbers to U.S. forces after already agreeing to boost their ranks by 21,000 troops earlier this year.
The main recommendations for change stem from the military’s new counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan, which is now designed to focus less on going after Taliban strongholds and more on protecting the local population.
The new U.S. strategy is also aimed at helping develop an Afghan government that civilians will embrace rather than siding with the insurgents, two senior military officials said. To achieve that, one official said, the latest draft of McChrystal’s assessment includes the following recommendations:
- Using intelligence less to hunt insurgents and more to understand local, tribal and social power structures in the areas where they operate. McChrystal is considering concentrating troops around populated areas rather than going after sparsely populated mountain areas where Taliban hide.
- Getting troops more active in fighting corruption. U.S. forces will need to take care in their dealings with local Afghan leaders to ensure that they are not perceived by the Afghan population to be empowering corrupt officials.
*PLEASE NOTE THIS PARAGRAPH IN PARTICULAR.
In preparing his assessment of the Afghan command, McChrystal found an American military culture that showed a great concern for troops’ protection – sometimes at the expense of their relations with Afghan civilians.
To change those relations, McChrystal wants American forces to think twice about basic conduct - for instance no longer pointing their guns at people when they pass in convoy or blocking narrow roads with their convoys, while relegating Afghans to the ditches.
To deal with the most contentious aspect of those shaky relations, McChrystal has already committed to try to reduce civilian casualties by issuing new orders that restrict when troops should call in bombing strikes.
I believe we are of the same mind!
I don’t think a war can be won by some self serving politician playing armchair warrior. Commandes in the field unteathered can do what needs to be done. Perhaps the head man should just say boys, pack it up, we’re going home and have a job to do.
It was previously reported that McChrystal was instructed NOT to ask for additional troops.
That he played the game rather than speak up does not bode well for America.
What??????
I am sickened to the max. I have heard nothing but praise about McChrystal, especially from someone who served with him in Afghanistan. If he can’t get it done, no one can. And if this sucky admisnstration is going to tie his hands, then we should pull out tomorrow. I have two nephews in the Marines, one is headed there in November.
I smell the ghost of William Westmoreland and Robert MacNamara entering the room.
I predicted this six months ago.
Thanks for this. I didn’t read far enough. I kind of favor the idea of turning the country into rubble and dust via bombing, after notifying the residents of our intentions, like we did in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
My personal view is an action like this prefaced by a warning that ANY nation which is determined to have given even one dollar to any terrorist organization after Afghanistan is leveled, will meet the same fate. Once the savages who fund the savages who kill are aware of the certain loss of all they have, the funding will dry up quickly enough.
Shades of Viet Nam where the generals failed the nation by not resigning when LBJ insisted on politicizing the war.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.