• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US general warns more troops or Afghan 'failure'

bhkad

DP Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
10,742
Reaction score
1,753
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
US general warns more troops or Afghan 'failure'

WASHINGTON — The top military commander in Afghanistan warns in a classified document that more US forces are needed within the next year or the mission "will likely result in failure," the Washington Post said Monday.

AFP: US general warns more troops or Afghan 'failure'

The general's report carries a direct call for extra troops

The US mission in Afghanistan will "likely result in failure" unless troops are increased within a year, the top general there has said in a report.

Gen Stanley McChrystal made his assessment in a copy of a confidential report obtained by the Washington Post.

He recently called for a revised military strategy in Afghanistan, suggesting the current one is failing.

More than 30,000 extra US troops have been sent to Afghanistan since May - almost doubling the US contingent.

The number of US troops in Afghanistan is already set to rise to 68,000 by the end of the year.

But in his latest assessment, Gen McChrystal is quoted by the Washington Post newspaper as saying: "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."

He warned that "inadequate resources will likely result in failure".

Gen McChrystal said that failure to provide adequate resources "also risks a longer conflict, greater casualties, higher overall costs, and ultimately, a critical loss of political support".

"Any of these risks, in turn, are likely to result in mission failure."

BBC NEWS | South Asia | US in Afghanistan failure warning

We have vital interests in that region which risk being lost should we lose or pull out of Afghanistan.

America has vital national security interests in Afghanistan that make fighting there necessary.

The key objectives of the campaign are preventing Afghanistan from again serving as a sanctuary for terrorists with global reach and ensuring that it does not become the catalyst for a broader regional security meltdown.

Afghanistan also serves as a base from which the United States attacks al-Qaeda forces inside Pakistan and thus assists in the broader campaign against that terrorist organization -- one that we clearly must win.

JOHN NAGL

President of the Center for a New American Security

Topic A: Is the War in Afghanistan Worth Fighting? - washingtonpost.com
 
Bush was called an idiot for the longest time because he didn't send enough troops, now we have a delay by a Democrat President. Where are the cat calls now?
 
Bush was called an idiot for the longest time because he didn't send enough troops, now we have a delay by a Democrat President. Where are the cat calls now?

obama_approval_index_september_21_2009.jpg
 
Anyone remember when Obama and Clinton demanded the troops be pulled out ASAP, and said if elected they'd start major withdrawals within a couple months? Ha!

Obama will neither increase troop strength to necessary levels nor pull them out.. both wars will keep lanquishing. Hope and change, indeed.
 
The template is being set up as we debate this issue; this new template will take the presumption that Bush messed things up so badly and we waited too long to fix this issue because we took our eyes off Afghanistan to fight an illegal war in Iraq.

With that, Pelosi and the rabid Liberal kooks who infest the congress and are in power will not approve more troops or more money with the eventual decision that the war is no longer worth fighting and cannot be won (typical Liberal view on any war).

What we are seeing now from the Libruls is that what once was the RIGHT war to fight is no longer worth the cost. They need the money to pass healthcare.

:2wave:
 
Russia had half a million troops in Afghanistan and still lost that war. The terrain there is perfect for asymmetrical warfare, and no great power has ever been able to defeat Afghans because of it. Still, we need to keep pounding them because it was FROM THERE that 911 was launched. We should send more troops there, even if we do eventually leave with mission unaccomplished. If nothing else, they will get the message that, if they mess with the United States, they can expect lots of death in return. That will at least make them think twice before supporting a terrorist organization that wants to hit America. If there is a penalty for doing something, and if that penalty is harsh enough, they will look elsewhere to do it.
 
Russia had half a million troops in Afghanistan and still lost that war. The terrain there is perfect for asymmetrical warfare, and no great power has ever been able to defeat Afghans because of it.

Russia lost that war because they attempted to prop up an unjust and despotic pro-Communist regime using brute force. It is a vast difference from the JUST reasons we are there.

Still, we need to keep pounding them because it was FROM THERE that 911 was launched. We should send more troops there, even if we do eventually leave with mission unaccomplished. If nothing else, they will get the message that, if they mess with the United States, they can expect lots of death in return. That will at least make them think twice before supporting a terrorist organization that wants to hit America. If there is a penalty for doing something, and if that penalty is harsh enough, they will look elsewhere to do it.

On this point we are 100% in agreement but my argument would also include to support and defend a fledgling representative Government we helped to establish as part of our mission in a country where the people have never know free associations and representative Government until it can stand on its own.
 
What we are seeing now from the Libruls is that what once was the RIGHT war to fight is no longer worth the cost. They need the money to pass healthcare.
Seems to me that this was very much the argument from the left during and since the election -- that Iraq needed to be de-escalated and that our commitment to Afghanistan -- a 'just' war -- needed to be increased.
 
Seems to me that this was very much the argument from the left during and since the election -- that Iraq needed to be de-escalated and that our commitment to Afghanistan -- a 'just' war -- needed to be increased.

Yes, but what we are now hearing from the Democrats with Nancy Pelosi in the lead is that they are not supportive of sending any more money or troops to Afghanistan. The talking point memo will be that Bush failed so miserably that even the efforts of the smartest politicians on the face of the earth, being them of course, cannot mend the mess and therefore, after another year or two we will pull out and once more abandon an ally we created in the interest of doing the right thing; spend gobs of money on social welfare programs and lie about the costs.
 
Truth Detector said:
Russia lost that war because they attempted to prop up an unjust and despotic pro-Communist regime using brute force. It is a vast difference from the JUST reasons we are there.

You're not being serious, are you?
 
I do love how some circles are calling the 'leak' of this report as something sinister. I think we as Americans have a very short attention span.

Levin: U.S. surge in Afghanistan a bad idea - Army News, news from Iraq, - Army Times

That was ten days ago.

There are clearly advisors around the President that are saying this is a bad idea. The leak from an 'unknown source' was most likely in the Pentagon. That is just how these things work, and the leak was meant to publically debate what is going on.

In a sense both sides have some valid points, the one is concern about the effect of more foreigners in Afghanistan, which has historically tended to unite the tribes in a rather hostile manner. That being said, more troops ARE needed to stabilize the situation.

I think it is refreshing to see a CINC that is taking some time to make sure that the implimentation of these additional soldiers is done properly, and the political (State) interests are given commencerate consideration to miliary interests (Defense). Although military means may be necessary to win the war, the final settlement will be political.

A little bit of patience now may save us a great deal of heart ache later.

We don't exactly have an infinite number of chances to get this right.
 
1. Yesterday, during the Omnipresence of Obama, the president was asked on all 4 English-speaking channels about Afghanistan.

2. On all 4, as is the story of the day, he answered identically, using the exact same phraseology, even.

3. He said, when asked about sending more troops, he was waiting to conduct his "top to bottom review" (except on CNN he called it a "soup to nuts reevalution"), he didn't want to put his cart before his horse, he was committed to putting off "the resource question until after the strategy question" has been resolved.

4. On CBS, Schieffer asked him straight up---"will you send a larger force to Afghanistan?"

5. The Chin in Chief replied---"no, I haven't yet received that request."

6. The DATE on General McChrystal's leaked assessment above is August 30, more than THREE WEEKS AGO.

7. Therefore, the president yesterday LIED.

8. Schieffer also foresaw today's revelation, apparently, asking---if the general asks for more troops, "won't it be hard to say no?"

9. The assessment leaked to The Post today blatantly contradicts the Chin's position stated 4 times yesterday.

10. The only reason Obama has any interest in the region in the first place is because he made it such a high priority during his campaign, so eager to prove to the people that he was not your traditional anti-military, blame-America-first democrat.

11. He opposed W's War in Iraq, he said, because it was the "wrong war."

12. The mountains on the moon in Afghanistan, in contrast, were the appropriate purlieu for this final showdown with international terror.

13. Now, he's stuck with it.

14. John King on CNN asked, when will Afghanistan become "Obama's War?"

15. We're clearly past that point.

16. King asked---during the campaign you promised to "crush Al Qaeda and kill Osama Bin Laden," is it harder than you thought it would be?

17. The Chin chimed in---oh, I think I knew during the campaign it was going to be hard.

18. Everything is so "hard," from health care to setting the tone of civility to changing "this town" to determining the "appropriate role of government."

19. Going on Letterman aint easy either, presumably.

20. On CNN, Senate Republican Leader McConnell pledged support for the president should he decide (once he receives that assessment he's been sitting on for THREE WEEKS) to commit to victory in Afghanistan.

21. Obama can't blame this one on Fox.

22. The United States, however, has ZERO chance of success in Moon Mountains.

23. The USSR's Gorby put 200,000 troops there for ten years and discovered only defeat.

24. The USSR also fought with a WILL to win alien to this administration.

25. Indeed, Gorby's loss in Afghanistan was one of the principle reasons Stalin's evil empire ultimately collapsed.

26. Obama wants OUT.

27. His party too is almost universally committed to retreating from the forlorn region.

28. Obama will eventually DROP Afghanistan just like his public option, just like cap and trade, just like his prosecution of the CIA.

29. It's only a matter of time.

30. When he does, it will be a strategic and military defeat of planetary scope for America.

31. And an equally soaring setback for this president politically.

32. McChrystal warns "defeat is likely."

33. The stability of the Karzai regime is as problematic as the insurgency itself, says Obama's hand-picked general.

34. Obama yesterday, pressed by CNN's King ("didn't Karzai steal the election?") would not comment on the legitimacy of the recent plebiscite there.

35. But McChrystal, in the leaked assessment, sure did---"the result is a crisis of confidence amongst Afghans."

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

37. Other problems, according to the president's man: our strategy needs to be more concerned with protecting Afghans from terrorists and less focused on killing the enemy.

38. We do not sufficiently understand Afghanistan's "social, political, economic and cultural affairs," as well, says the top US and NATO commander.

39. The prisons are full of radical Islamists who make their plans freely behind barbed wire and recruit converts to their cause from the petty trespassers comprising the prison population.

40. McChrystal continues to teach lessons on which the president, according to Obama, awaits elucidation---we are facing in the land that grounded Gorbachev a "three headed insurgency."

41. The most dangerous element to our interests, according to McChrystal, is the Taliban, led by Mullah Omar, and headquartered in Pakistan.

42. Shadow Taliban governments control spacious provincial precincts, establish Sharia courts in their strongholds, impose taxes and conscript soldiers.

43. The second-in-size security peril posed to our soldiers is the Haqqani Network located in the southeast, with ties to Al Qaeda in next-door Pakistan.

44. And the third threat to US interests comes from the Hezb-e Islamic Gulbuddin, which operates from 3 regional bases and is led by former Mujahadeen commander Gulbuddin Hekmatyar.

45. Toward the end of his report, McChrystal revisits his central theme: "Failure to provide adequate resources also risks a longer conflict, greater casualties, higher overall costs, and ultimately, a critical loss of political support. Any of these risks, in turn, are likely to result in mission failure."

46. Problems, problems everywhere, when will this poor president produce a positive piece of press?

McChrystal: More Forces or 'Mission Failure'
 
Last edited:
Well, you are assuming that the ONLY agency that has input to Afghanistan is the Defense Department, specifically GEN McCrystral's ISAF command. Admiral Mike Mullens has also come out in support of the the plan, and that was last week. That means the Joint Chiefs of Staff and most likely the SECDEF agrees with the assessment. However, there has been serious reservations about the program from the state department, and those likewise came out last week.

There are several agencies of government involved in this process, and interagency effort supported by Gates. Defense is focused on security aspects, and state is focused on political aspects. The two need to be in harmony, or at least the assurance that one area will not unduly influence the other area.

What you are seeing here is the time it will take to reconcile the state position with the defense position.

A good commander does not make a deicion without considering the implications. There is not sense in rushing to failure, and not wanting to do so make no man a liar.
 
he told bob schieffer, "i haven't yet received that request"

within 24 hours The Post published a piece contradicting him

The Post's headline was a disaster for the admin

afghanistan is a sure, dead loser

militarily and politically

but, hey, at least it got health care off the front page
 
1. Yesterday, during the Omnipresence of Obama, the president was asked on all 4 English-speaking channels about Afghanistan.

2. On all 4, as is the story of the day, he answered identically, using the exact same phraseology, even.

3. He said, when asked about sending more troops, he was waiting to conduct his "top to bottom review" (except on CNN he called it a "soup to nuts reevalution"), he didn't want to put his cart before his horse, he was committed to putting off "the resource question until after the strategy question" has been resolved.

4. On CBS, Schieffer asked him straight up---"will you send a larger force to Afghanistan?"

5. The Chin in Chief replied---"no, I haven't yet received that request."

6. The DATE on General McChrystal's leaked assessment above is August 30, more than THREE WEEKS AGO.

7. Therefore, the president yesterday LIED.

8. Schieffer also foresaw today's revelation, apparently, asking---if the general asks for more troops, "won't it be hard to say no?"

9. The assessment leaked to The Post today blatantly contradicts the Chin's position stated 4 times yesterday.

10. The only reason Obama has any interest in the region in the first place is because he made it such a high priority during his campaign, so eager to prove to the people that he was not your traditional anti-military, blame-America-first democrat.

11. He opposed W's War in Iraq, he said, because it was the "wrong war."

12. The mountains on the moon in Afghanistan, in contrast, were the appropriate purlieu for this final showdown with international terror.

13. Now, he's stuck with it.

14. John King on CNN asked, when will Afghanistan become "Obama's War?"

15. We're clearly past that point.

16. King asked---during the campaign you promised to "crush Al Qaeda and kill Osama Bin Laden," is it harder than you thought it would be?

17. The Chin chimed in---oh, I think I knew during the campaign it was going to be hard.

18. Everything is so "hard," from health care to setting the tone of civility to changing "this town" to determining the "appropriate role of government."

19. Going on Letterman aint easy either, presumably.

20. On CNN, Senate Republican Leader McConnell pledged support for the president should he decide (once he receives that assessment he's been sitting on for THREE WEEKS) to commit to victory in Afghanistan.

21. Obama can't blame this one on Fox.

22. The United States, however, has ZERO chance of success in Moon Mountains.

23. The USSR's Gorby put 200,000 troops there for ten years and discovered only defeat.

24. The USSR also fought with a WILL to win alien to this administration.

25. Indeed, Gorby's loss in Afghanistan was one of the principle reasons Stalin's evil empire ultimately collapsed.

26. Obama wants OUT.

27. His party too is almost universally committed to retreating from the forlorn region.

28. Obama will eventually DROP Afghanistan just like his public option, just like cap and trade, just like his prosecution of the CIA.

29. It's only a matter of time.

30. When he does, it will be a strategic and military defeat of planetary scope for America.

31. And an equally soaring setback for this president politically.

32. McChrystal warns "defeat is likely."

33. The stability of the Karzai regime is as problematic as the insurgency itself, says Obama's hand-picked general.

34. Obama yesterday, pressed by CNN's King ("didn't Karzai steal the election?") would not comment on the legitimacy of the recent plebiscite there.

35. But McChrystal, in the leaked assessment, sure did---"the result is a crisis of confidence amongst Afghans."

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

37. Other problems, according to the president's man: our strategy needs to be more concerned with protecting Afghans from terrorists and less focused on killing the enemy.

38. We do not sufficiently understand Afghanistan's "social, political, economic and cultural affairs," as well, says the top US and NATO commander.

39. The prisons are full of radical Islamists who make their plans freely behind barbed wire and recruit converts to their cause from the petty trespassers comprising the prison population.

40. McChrystal continues to teach lessons on which the president, according to Obama, awaits elucidation---we are facing in the land that grounded Gorbachev a "three headed insurgency."

41. The most dangerous element to our interests, according to McChrystal, is the Taliban, led by Mullah Omar, and headquartered in Pakistan.

42. Shadow Taliban governments control spacious provincial precincts, establish Sharia courts in their strongholds, impose taxes and conscript soldiers.

43. The second-in-size security peril posed to our soldiers is the Haqqani Network located in the southeast, with ties to Al Qaeda in next-door Pakistan.

44. And the third threat to US interests comes from the Hezb-e Islamic Gulbuddin, which operates from 3 regional bases and is led by former Mujahadeen commander Gulbuddin Hekmatyar.

45. Toward the end of his report, McChrystal revisits his central theme: "Failure to provide adequate resources also risks a longer conflict, greater casualties, higher overall costs, and ultimately, a critical loss of political support. Any of these risks, in turn, are likely to result in mission failure."

46. Problems, problems everywhere, when will this poor president produce a positive piece of press?

McChrystal: More Forces or 'Mission Failure'

Could you elaborate?
 
Anyone remember when Obama and Clinton demanded the troops be pulled out ASAP, and said if elected they'd start major withdrawals within a couple months? Ha!

Obama will neither increase troop strength to necessary levels nor pull them out.. both wars will keep lanquishing. Hope and change, indeed.

Obama never said he would pull troops out of Afghanistan, he said that about Iraq. When he talked about Afghanistan he said he would add troops so learn what your talking about first.
 
Obama never said he would pull troops out of Afghanistan, he said that about Iraq. When he talked about Afghanistan he said he would add troops so learn what your talking about first.

Who said I was referring to Afghanistan?

But since you brought up Iraq; yeah, he DID say he'd pull them out.. so why isnt it? And why does he go out of his way NOT to ever talk about it?
 
Russia had half a million troops in Afghanistan and still lost that war....

...because of American intervention with effective weapons sytems and training. People tend to leave that part out, when talking about the Rooskies getting their nuts cut off in Afghanistan.
 
The template is being set up as we debate this issue; this new template will take the presumption that Bush messed things up so badly and we waited too long to fix this issue because we took our eyes off Afghanistan to fight an illegal war in Iraq.

With that, Pelosi and the rabid Liberal kooks who infest the congress and are in power will not approve more troops or more money with the eventual decision that the war is no longer worth fighting and cannot be won (typical Liberal view on any war).

What we are seeing now from the Libruls is that what once was the RIGHT war to fight is no longer worth the cost. They need the money to pass healthcare.

:2wave:
Pelosi could win this war if she wanted to by flying over there and just exposing herself.
 
Pelosi could win this war if she wanted to by flying over there and just exposing herself.

I dunno, Nancy is a good lookin' woman for a 60-something-y/o. I bet she was bad to the bone 20 years ago.
 
Like Rodney Dangerfield once said, "I'll bet you were something before electricity."
 
Back
Top Bottom