Page 1 of 15 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 143

Thread: NATO Backs McChrystal Strategy

  1. #1
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    NATO Backs McChrystal Strategy

    1. While the president dithers over Afghanistan, while the White House engages in a PUBLIC dispute with its generals, our allies are in contrast declaratively decisive.

    2. The public hair pulling all began on Monday, September 21, when The Post's BOB WOODWARD leaked a secret assessment the president, it turned out, had been SITTING ON since August 30.

    3. In the report released by The Post, General McChrystal called for a new counter-insurgency strategy, as well as a bulking up of US forces by some 40,000 troops.

    McChrystal: More Forces or 'Mission Failure' - washingtonpost.com

    4. "The worst kept secret in Washington" became the recommendation of Obama's hand picked commander in the field.

    5. Urgency was also an intrinsic component of the general's inducement---delay in the troubled theater, he warned, doomed our efforts over there to defeat.

    6. That was THREE MONTHS ago.

    7. "Further, a perception that our resolve is uncertain makes Afghans reluctant to align with us against the insurgents," cautioned the general.

    8. The White House implored The Post not to publish its piece, but the paper of repute inside the Beltway repulsed the president's pleas.

    9. "Why," became an interesting question.

    10. As well as "who," as in, "who squealed?"

    11. The answers might have had something to do with the president's appearance the previous morning, Sunday, September 20, on FIVE network talk shows, during which interviews the prez prevaricated that he was STILL AWAITING a "top-to-bottom review," and he had not yet been requested to relay reinforcements.

    12. "Someone," or some "someones," might well have felt BETRAYED.

    13. We know this is the impulse that compelled Darth Veep out of his cave last Wednesday.

    14. Cheney this week revealed that the incoming Obamites requested of the outgoers last October a comprehensive analysis of affairs in Afghanistan, which was conducted and delivered, which was kept quiet also at the White House's preference, and on which the current occupants based their "new, comprehensive strategy" for the region, announced on the infamous date of March 27.

    15. Naturally, the tactics advised by the Bushies and adopted by Obama resemble in toto the methods recommended with consistency by McChrystal.

    16. When Rahm the Ram on last Sunday's State of the Union (CNN) complained that the previous admininstration left the current team completely in the dark, that they had to "start from scratch" in assembling a stagecraft, it was apparently too much for the Darth to take.

    17. Just like Woodward and his anonymous source.

    18. Inexplicably, on August 17, on the eve of Afghanistan's election, the president reaffirmed his resolve that HIS WAR was not one of "choice," but a casus of "necessity."

    19. Victory in Afghanistan is "fundamental to the defense of our people," continued our challenged commander in chief.

    20. Just this week, Defense Secretary Gates warned we can't afford to wait for the Afghan government to get is act together.

    21. We mustn't "sit on our hands" while the president deliberates, declared the grownup.

    22. Obama is not only openly at odds with his own Pentagon, he's lost Panetta and the CIA.

    23. He appears today to be in disjunct defiance with HIMSELF---in PUBLIC.

    24. He wants OUT of Afghanistan.

    25. He needs to appease his progressives for the dissipation of their pet public option.

    26. Yet he's MOORED in Moon Mountains, after all the promises he's pledged, after the prominent place he gave this "right war" in his campaign.

    27. He attempts to capitalize on Karzai's suddenly discovered dishonesty as window dressing for withdrawal?

    28. He only now comprehends that Karzai is corrupt?

    29. His prounouncement that HIS war was a "necessity" came only THREE DAYS before the election in dispute.

    30. His personal representative, the honorable Richard Holbrooke, was feet on the ground at the time.

    31. While Obama dithers, the NATO ministers offer "broad support" to the strategies urged by McChrystal.

    32. Afghanistan is KILLING this president, as well as 50 red, white and blue heroes per month.

    NATO defense ministers Friday gave "broad support" to the counterinsurgency strategy proposed by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top US commander in Afghanistan, but sidestepped the difficult question of how many forces would be required to implement that plan.

    The top UN special envoy for Afghanistan also backed McChrystal's strategy at the NATO meeting.

    "We have come to a point where I believe McChrystal is right," said Kai Eide here Friday, adding bluntly, "If we continue the way we've done so far, both with regard to the military effort, the civilian effort, and the behavior of the Afghan government, this project will not work."

    Taken together, the comments suggest that American allies are leaning toward a more troop-intensive, counterinsurgency approach that opens the political door for President Obama to direct deployments of tens of thousands of additional troops.

    The Obama administration is deliberating over what strategy to pursue in Afghanistan – a counterinsurgency approach that focuses on securing the country and winning over the population and that would require many more troops, or a more targeted approach that focuses on taking out Al Qaeda leaders with air strikes.

    While signaling support for more troops, NATO minsters did not address the tougher issue of how many more troops to send and stopped short of making additional resource commitments themselves.

    "The purpose of today's meeting was not to make any decision on figures," said NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen during a press event here. "I have noted broad support of all ministers … but without discussing resource implications."

    About 40,000 NATO and non-NATO troops are currently in Afghanistan, in addition to about 68,000 US forces.
    NATO backs McChrystal's Afghanistan strategy | csmonitor.com


    The Prof
    Last edited by The Prof; 10-24-09 at 04:32 PM.

  2. #2
    Guru
    Councilman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Riverside, County, CA.
    Last Seen
    11-04-11 @ 10:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,454
    Blog Entries
    10

    Re: NATO Backs McChrystal Strategy

    And I thought I was long winded.
    Nothing NATO says is likely to have much effect on Oama unless or until he can see a way to benefit either his own stature of to promote or move forward his Socialist/Communist agenda. He and the rest of his Comrades such as Pelosi, and Reid and most Dims (no spell error) in Congress have shown they are not interested in the concerns or desires of the U.S. people or what is good for Our Nation. Why in hell would he suddenly care what's best for Afghanistan or the Troops on the ground. He has been derelict in his duties as commander in chief for delaying a decision that has costs American lives.
    Expect no change from Comrade Obama because it that would be crazy thinking.

  3. #3
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,394

    Re: NATO Backs McChrystal Strategy

    Everybody is ready to rock, except for PBO.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    12-02-09 @ 05:13 PM
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    4,695

    Re: NATO Backs McChrystal Strategy

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Everybody is ready to rock, except for PBO.
    How many years have our troops been "Ready to rock" in Afghanistan Apdst?

  5. #5
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,394

    Re: NATO Backs McChrystal Strategy

    Quote Originally Posted by goldendog View Post
    How many years have our troops been "Ready to rock" in Afghanistan Apdst?
    How long is your boy going to take to make a decision?
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    12-02-09 @ 05:13 PM
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    4,695

    Re: NATO Backs McChrystal Strategy

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    How long is your boy going to take to make a decision?
    How many years have they been ready to do the job in Afghanistan apdst?

  7. #7
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,394

    Re: NATO Backs McChrystal Strategy

    Quote Originally Posted by goldendog View Post
    How many years have they been ready to do the job in Afghanistan apdst?
    They haven't been doing their job in Afghanistan?
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    12-02-09 @ 05:13 PM
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    4,695

    Re: NATO Backs McChrystal Strategy

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    They haven't been doing their job in Afghanistan?
    What does the situation on the ground today tell you?

    They have been asking for more troops for months..Obama's put 28,000 of them there after Bush and Cheney sat on the requests for eight months.

    Do you think they did that for the sake of the troops or the sake of their polical party?


    Don't blame it on the troops..blame it on the people who were creating policy.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Seen
    10-14-11 @ 10:09 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,164

    Re: NATO Backs McChrystal Strategy

    Before folks (who probably don't really know what is going on) start arguing this from a Partisan standpoint, answer these questions and consider these points made by a very smart U.S. Army Major on a very reputable COIN forum:

    1. If the President made a decision two weeks ago to adopt a troop increase, when would the first brigade be available to deploy? Would it be time now? Would it be the brigade that just got pulled off the hook for Iraq? Would it be a different brigade based on matching task org with the required mission in Afghanistan? I'm not looking at a specific answer as we'd then be traveling down the OPSEC path, but it's quite possible that waiting for several weeks/months doesn't change anything at all.

    2. If the assessment determines that the current strategy is the way forward based on the value of the object in view, the means required to work towards the object, and the risk that the strategy takes on, then how does the timing change anything?

    3. Here's a potential scenario: The administration has already made their decision, but is delaying a pro-forma decision and is instead continuing to "deliberate" so that it builds political support for the decision. Doing this ensures that GEN McChrystal will be able to prosecute the strategy without major domestical political hindrance unless the 2010 elections create a mandate for "change." Not doing so means that the heat of the 2010 elections only gives GEN McChrystal six months to demonstrate success or else we abandon a superior strategy.

    All of the above scenarios lead to the conclusion that an immediately executed decision may not change anything and in fact, may even cost more lives. What we are forgetting here is that strategy is not made and executed in a vacuum, but that domestic politics plays a role (and it should, after all, war is about pursuing policy/political objectives) both in shaping the strategy and assessing the strategy.

    In fact, I'd offer that calls to make an immediate decision may actually harm the process. Right or wrong, the reality is that a quick decision could appear to be the result of the administration kowtowing to the military and the GOP, which only stands to discredit Obama amongst the base and make it less likely for a strategy to have staying power as it is executed.
    1. Doing anything "Immediately" in the context of national decisions takes a long time. It's like trying to turn a zodiac (tactical) vs. a supertanker (strategy). Furthermore, to be logical, you should change direction based on comparing the new vs. the old, not simply drawing up a new and then go charging after it. I don't know exactly how long GEN McChrystal had to draw up his assessment, but given that it was a few months, how long is sufficient for the NSC to digest it?

    2. We have an assessment from an operational commander. Resourcing him means that those resources aren't available to other operational/theater commanders. What are the unintended consequences? North Korean adventurism? Chinese adventurism? Shia or Sunni adventurism in Iraq? It's simply not a matter of just rubberstamping GEN McChrystal's report, but looking at the second and third order effects.

    3. Strategy isn't a binary approach - either you can achieve your OBJs or not. Instead, it's along a probabilistic continuum and the question is do we accept the risk. So it's not a question as you state that "we are not going to get what we want," but rather, what is the risk that "we are not going to get what we want" and is that acceptable or not based on the means spent. We should be careful in making absolute statements when assessing strategy

  10. #10
    Sage
    kaya'08's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    British Turk
    Last Seen
    05-12-14 @ 01:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    6,363

    Re: NATO Backs McChrystal Strategy

    Quote Originally Posted by Councilman View Post
    And I thought I was long winded.
    Nothing NATO says is likely to have much effect on Oama unless or until he can see a way to benefit either his own stature of to promote or move forward his Socialist/Communist agenda.
    I get where your coming from. With everything being nationalized and all, and the state health care. But your going a bit too far.
    Last edited by kaya'08; 10-24-09 at 07:52 PM.
    "If religious instruction were not allowed until the child had attained the age of reason, we would be living in quite a different world" - Christopher Hitchens
    > Good to be back, but I'm only visiting for a few weeks. <

Page 1 of 15 12311 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •