NATO Backs McChrystal Strategy

[The Prof]

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

 

[Councilman]

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.

 

[apdst]

Everybody is ready to rock, except for PBO.

 

[goldendog]

Everybody is ready to rock, except for PBO.

How many years have our troops been "Ready to rock" in Afghanistan Apdst?

 

[apdst]

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?

 

[goldendog]

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?

 

[apdst]

How many years have they been ready to do the job in Afghanistan apdst?

They haven't been doing their job in Afghanistan?

 

[goldendog]

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.

 

[kansaswhig]

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

 

[kaya'08]

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.

 

[ScottD]

Obama is taking his time formulating a strategy, listening to all of his generals (not just one), etc.

If he could do all of that in a day, than good for him. But he can't, and it is unrealistic to expect him to pull a plan right out of his top hat (he needs that room for the rabbit). Give him some time.

 

[apdst]

Obama is taking his time formulating a strategy, listening to all of his generals (not just one), etc.

If he could do all of that in a day, than good for him. But he can't, and it is unrealistic to expect him to pull a plan right out of his top hat (he needs that room for the rabbit). Give him some time.

All the generals are saying get the show on the road, so obviously he isn't listening to them.

 

[kansaswhig]

All the generals are saying get the show on the road, so obviously he isn't listening to them.

Absolutely False. Your Chief of Staff certainly is not saying that.

READ THIS PLEASE

A snippet from the link @ FP (Haddick)

Gen. George Casey, the Army chief of staff, fears that the size and duration of this commitment could eventually break the all-volunteer Army. One strategic risk is that the United States would not have enough ready ground forces for another sustained contingency elsewhere. Finally, the funding that is diverted to sustaining ground-force intensive operations in Iraq and Afghanistan could be creating risks in the space, air, and naval dimensions that will unpleasantly appear in the next decade and beyond.

 

[apdst]

Absolutely False. Your Chief of Staff certainly is not saying that.

READ THIS PLEASE

A snippet from the link @ FP (Haddick)

Admiral Mullens (Chairman of The Joint Chiefs) says it's time to go. General Petraeus says it's time to go and General McChrystal says it's time to go. Looks like The Chief of Staff might not be a hard charger. Just maybe.

 

[The Prof]

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:

you're talking tactically, and intelligently

but you're somewhat missing my point (i offer respectfully)

which is, as always, p-o-l-i-t-c-s

afghanistan is KILLING this president

and if your point #3, "potential scenario," were anything more than pipe dream, mcchrystal wouldn't be expressing such pissed off disposition in public

gates wouldn't be openly contradicting his c in c

obama wouldn't be saying THREE DAYS before the karzai election he was looking at a "war of necessity" with the "fundamental defense of our people" as its impetus

he wouldn't go on FIVE sunday talks and dissemble about elements of a secret assessment he was SITTING ON

so that BOB WOODWARD could come out in the post the NEXT DAY and expose the prez as prevaricator

p-o-l-i-t-i-c-a-l-l-y, this "right war" of obama's is KILLING this president

on the ground, you make excellent points, in my opinion

thanks, cliff

 

[kansaswhig]

you're talking tactically, and intelligently

but you're somewhat missing my point (i offer respectfully)

which is, as always, p-o-l-i-t-c-s

afghanistan is KILLING this president

and if your point #3, "potential scenario," were anything more than pipe dream, mcchrystal wouldn't be expressing such pissed off disposition in public

gates wouldn't be openly contradicting his c in c

obama wouldn't be saying THREE DAYS before the karzai election he was looking at a "war of necessity" with the "fundamental defense of our people" as its impetus

he wouldn't go on FIVE sunday talks and dissemble about elements of a secret assessment he was SITTING ON

so that BOB WOODWARD could come out in the post the NEXT DAY and expose the prez as prevaricator

p-o-l-i-t-i-c-a-l-l-y, this "right war" of obama's is KILLING this president

on the ground, you make excellent points, in my opinion

thanks, cliff

I 100% concur on the criticality of politics on this decision. It's covered in the summary by the good Major.

 

[kansaswhig]

Admiral Mullens (Chairman of The Joint Chiefs) says it's time to go. General Petraeus says it's time to go and General McChrystal says it's time to go. Looks like The Chief of Staff might not be a hard charger. Just maybe.

Mullen's has concured with the the McChrystal report...he's advocated no new strategy nor recommended troop levels. Petreaus has been oddly silent. McChrystal had the report leaked; so we know where he stands.

 

[The Prof]

good majors are my heroes

i defer to them

perhaps others should too

at least they could more consistently respect them in public

 

[goldendog]

All the generals are saying get the show on the road, so obviously he isn't listening to them.

LINK apdst? How many years have our troops been ready to go in Afghanistan Apdst?

 

[American]

How many years have our troops been "Ready to rock" in Afghanistan Apdst?

Are you saying they've been sitting on their lazy asses doing nothing? I've heard you say some pretty ****ty things, but I never thought you'd kick our troops in the teeth. :doh

 

[goldendog]

Are you saying they've been sitting on their lazy asses doing nothing? I've heard you say some pretty ****ty things, but I never thought you'd kick our troops in the teeth. :doh

No I'm saying the Previous administration to a hands off appoach in reguards to afghanistan for years and our troops have been paying the price.

Go find somebody else to put words in their mouth.

 

[American]

No I'm saying the Previous administration to a hands off appoach in reguards to afghanistan for years and our troops have been paying the price.

Go find somebody else to put words in their mouth.

Well that must be the secret strategy they passed along to Obama, and he's carrying it out flawlessly.

 

[goldendog]

Well that must be the secret strategy they passed along to Obama, and he's carrying it out flawlessly.

So you ignore the fact that The President has sent 28,000 additional troops into Afghanistan since he's been in office while again ignoring the fact that that request for additional troops sat on Bush's desk for eight months?

 

[kansaswhig]

Are you saying they've been sitting on their lazy asses doing nothing? I've heard you say some pretty ****ty things, but I never thought you'd kick our troops in the teeth. :doh

Grow up, Troll. I'm a troop, & a GWOT vet and I didn't take offense to it.

I know what he meant.

If you want to learn something about the topic instead of sifting through threads until you find an opportunity to say something partisan, read my original post on this thread.

 

[The Prof]

no one cares about the previous administration except politicos and historians

obama is the president now

afghanistan is his problem

if he doesn't like it, he shouldn't have run

is HE gonna try to blame his failures on the past, too?

let him try

he too will come off as an excuse making coward

afghanistan is KILLING this president