In addition to all the nation-building exercises McCarthy finds in McChrystal's report/press release, there's also a lot of warm and fuzzy but completely untenable sociology.
Personally I was able to locate in the McChrystal report/press release exactly 1 (one) paragraph mentioning Pakistan - which is the latter-day Laos/Cambodia/ho Chi Minh Trail for the Taliban et al - and nothing, zero, nada about Afghanistan's status as the source supplier of 90 percent of the world's illicit opium and thus heroin (largely through Pakistan in the east and Iran in the west).
Let's see: ignore Pakistan, ignore the opium, and let's do some nation building. Even Michael Yon called Afghanistan a 100-year commitment.
Sounds like an idea, yes?
KILL THE ENEMY! Yes! Why is that so hard to figure out? We've been there for eight years now and the Narcissist-in-chief has to have strategic meetings to determine our goals in Afghanistan? Either make a commitment to kick ass or get the heck out and deal with terrorist camps there by bombing the hell out of them (not that I think the Obama admin would even do that).
This is an excellent article and I urge everyone to read all 3 pages of it. It’s not that long and goes pretty fast.
My reaction to reading it is this: with Obama as President, it’s not worth it to put our troops on the line in Afghanistan. This general is an idiot and doesn’t care if his own men and women needlessly die. Bring the troops home. Keep them alive for the day when there’s an actual American in the White House.
Rahm Emanuel is laughing his ass off - it's too easy!
Like our current central government does that.
bflr
Need to bring em’ home, and turn them loose on the radical Muslims and their enablers in the White House and DC...
God help our poor BOHICA’d troops in Afghanistan, under this C-in-C and these ROE.
This dreamy-eyed social experiment is doomed, and we will just be sacrificing troops for NOTHING.
Great article, especially the third page.
Please read the entire linked article.
our commanders, obsessed with avoiding civilian casualties, have imposed mind-boggling rules of engagement (ROE) on our forces, compelling them to retreat from contact with the enemy and denying them resort to overwhelming force including the denial of artillery and air cover when they are under siege
If this is coming from Gen McChrystal or worse, Gen Petraeus, then Houston, we have a problem.
Time to Fish or Cut Bait. Unleash the Dogs of War or get the hell OUT!
( the Taliban and AQ are playing Whack-A-Mole with our brave men)
In addition to all the nation-building exercises McCarthy finds in McChrystal’s report/press release, there’s also a lot of warm and fuzzy but completely untenable sociology.
And that’s why I say we should pull out: Unless we retool and go after Bin-Laden and Alqaeda, and pull the rest, and then pull out, then we SHOULD just pull out all together! Why should our boys die in the middle of an islamic civil war?
Also, we do not get anything from NATION BUILDING, and the traditional conservative position has been to OPPOSE N’TN Bldg and police actions (Untill Bush arived that is)!!
I’ve met this general, in the Vietnam era, where we fought under ROE’s, too. Like the one that held that B52 strikes had to be coordinated (announced) 24 hours in advance with the enemy-riddled ARVN forces.
This guy is Westmoreland and McNamara rolled into one.
Without the balls, apparently.
GTF out. Now.
If that’s the military strategy, and o needs three weeks to mull it, our service members are in deep trouble.
A couple of days ago I watched a FNC interview with both Col. Hunt and Col. Peters who both made the same sort of points McCarthy makes. Withdraw regular combat troops (because the stupid PC rules of engagement are getting them killed, and we know Obama doesn’t have the will to win anyhow) - and leave elite forces (like the Seals) in place over there to run covert operations - killing the enemy out of the sight of the radical anti-war moonbats Obama represents.
I have greast respect for Andy McCarthy and had come to a similar conclusion before reading his piece- but his reasoning just clarifies the situation all the more.
Given the CiC we have, the limitations he’s put on the soldiers and marines ON THE GROUND with these insane ROE’s, it may not be a bad idea to scale waaaaay back. The Taliban nd AlQ know the new ROE’s favor them- so now we’re looking at an AlQ/Taliban win..no matter with more troops or less.
This president does not have a clear goal- he’s getting strongly conflicting advice and in the end- he doesn’t seem to really believe we’re in a war anyway. Given all that- why should we stay?
So many conservatives first reaction is- more troops, do what McChrystal wants- but we’re forgetting- at the same time- the CIC has tied the hands of the fighting man on the ground. What good will more troops do if they’re not allowed to right the enemy? IF- the president says- take the gloves off- then by all means- send more troops. Does any reasonable citizen think he will give that order?
Ignore opium? NOT! A corrupt government will allow more ease for Taliban to overrun the government. Those opium may be sent to America to corrupt our people for demoralization as part of the strategy of Taliban. Remember the hippies full of illegal drugs? Don’t repeat it.
the general says of the Afghans. This conflict and country are [theirs] to win not mine. And because we are in Afghanistan primarily to make life better for the Afghans, he argues, our strategy cannot be focused on seizing terrain or destroying insurgent forces; our objective must be the population.
/////////////////////
WTF? Tell that to the Marines, don’t focus on destroying the enemy? When you getting shot at? Don’t focus on killing the enemy?
We have only one military mission in Afghanistan, and it is not to protect the Afghan population, who are not properly our concern so long as they dont allow their country to be a launching pad for attacks on the United States. Our troops are in Afghanistan because we, not the Afghans, are in a war to destroy al-Qaeda and its enablers
TELL THAT TO obambi.
Counterinsurgency critique ping.