Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

McChrystal: More Forces or 'Mission Failure' (Drudge headline)
Washington Post ^ | 21 September 2009 | Bob Woodward

Posted on 09/21/2009 3:04:40 AM PDT by SE Mom

The top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan warns in an urgent, confidential assessment of the war that he needs more forces within the next year and bluntly states that without them, the eight-year conflict "will likely result in failure," according to a copy of the 66-page document obtained by The Washington Post.

Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal says emphatically: "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."

His assessment was sent to Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates on Aug. 30 and is now being reviewed by President Obama and his national security team.

McChrystal concludes the document's five-page Commander's Summary on a note of muted optimism: "While the situation is serious, success is still achievable."

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: afghanistan; bho44; bhodod; bhogwot; bobwoodward; democrats; mcchrystal; obama; oef; oefsurge
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-121 next last
Further in the piece:

..The commander has prepared a separate detailed request for additional troops and other resources, but defense officials have said he is awaiting instructions before sending it to the Pentagon.

Senior administration officials asked The Post over the weekend to withhold brief portions of the assessment that they said could compromise future operations. A declassified version of the document, with some deletions made at the government's request, appears at washingtonpost.com.

1 posted on 09/21/2009 3:04:41 AM PDT by SE Mom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SE Mom
"confidential assessment"

That's a dig by wapo.

"risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible"

Expect to see procrastination from the democrats then.
2 posted on 09/21/2009 3:08:16 AM PDT by chuck_the_tv_out ( <<< click my name: now featuring Freeper classifieds)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bahbah; STARWISE; Allegra; Dog; jeffers

Will there be a showdown between McChrystal and Obama?


3 posted on 09/21/2009 3:08:36 AM PDT by SE Mom (Proud mom of an Iraq war combat vet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SE Mom

NO amount of troops will help if they are not allowed to shoot at the enemy.


4 posted on 09/21/2009 3:19:46 AM PDT by agere_contra (The Democrats use Black people as human shields.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: agere_contra

Yup, lookin’ like familiar history repeating itself once again at the hands of another cowardly Leftist.


5 posted on 09/21/2009 3:28:34 AM PDT by rockinqsranch (Dems, Libs, Socialists...Call 'em What you Will, They ALL have Fairies Living In Their Trees.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: chuck_the_tv_out

When the Generals asked for troops Bush gave them troops because they knew best. You are either going to fight a war or you are not. This is the good war remember Mr. Obama thank God others that made decisions in your chair did not buckle to political pressures and did the right thing.


6 posted on 09/21/2009 3:31:16 AM PDT by vicar7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: agere_contra

Exactly- and given the current ROE’s this is quickly turning into a Catch 22, isn’t it?


7 posted on 09/21/2009 3:31:32 AM PDT by SE Mom (Proud mom of an Iraq war combat vet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SE Mom

Obama will opt for mission failure. His success is our failure in any way shape or form. His mission is to change the USA from a free capitalist country to a totalitarian communist state.


8 posted on 09/21/2009 3:33:01 AM PDT by screaminsunshine (!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SE Mom
Obama is learning a hard lesson about screwing with the generals. Just last week he punted on McChrystal... now first thing Monday morning, the Compost has a copy of the general's assessment, warts and all.

Obama's not going to be able to hide from this one.

9 posted on 09/21/2009 3:34:48 AM PDT by Virginia Ridgerunner (Sarah Palin has crossed the Rubicon!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: agere_contra
This is the key. A little-recognized development in Iraq, even by the excellent blogger Michael Yon, is that from 2004-2007, our spec ops and military snipers and other units began a massive "winnowing" at Fallujah that spread elsewhere. Yes, there was an "Anbar Uprising" against AQ. But at the same time, U.S. forces were steadily waging an silent war that was slaughtering the AQ leadership. In Fallujah alone, a single sniper killed over 100 in about 4 months. Informants would quietly tell where AQ lived and slept, and the next day, AQ would have "vanished."

This aspect of the operations in Afghanistan cannot be underestimated and is a key to success.

10 posted on 09/21/2009 3:40:47 AM PDT by LS ("Castles made of sand, fall in the sea . . . eventually." (Hendrix))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: LS

Interesting. In case you aren’t aware, Iraq and Afghanistan have very different geography, roads, and population density and it makes what you described much more difficult.


11 posted on 09/21/2009 3:43:33 AM PDT by ItisaReligionofPeace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SE Mom

Yesterday during one of the talk shows zer0 focued the goal of Afghanistan so narrowly on al Queda that it sounded like he doesn’t want to fight the Taliban.

Bad thing, that.


12 posted on 09/21/2009 3:49:11 AM PDT by paulycy (Screw the RACErs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ItisaReligionofPeace

Nah, I never considered that in a million years. I guess my pal in spec ops hadn’t thought of that either.


13 posted on 09/21/2009 4:05:52 AM PDT by LS ("Castles made of sand, fall in the sea . . . eventually." (Hendrix))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Virginia Ridgerunner

It’s a mess, isn’t it?


14 posted on 09/21/2009 4:14:27 AM PDT by SE Mom (Proud mom of an Iraq war combat vet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ItisaReligionofPeace
and it makes what you described much more difficult.

No. Not being able to shoot at Taliban who are indoors makes it much more difficult.

15 posted on 09/21/2009 4:42:23 AM PDT by agere_contra (The Democrats use Black people as human shields.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SE Mom
I heard on the radio this morning that House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said they were trying to get McChrystal to testify before congress and they were unable to do so. They (the administration) are keeping the general out of harms way I guess. If you don't have the answers, don't take the test.
16 posted on 09/21/2009 4:50:11 AM PDT by BilLies
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: BilLies

I bet McCrystal would relish the chance to testify before Congress- but the Dems and the administration don’t want him anywhere near a microphone.


17 posted on 09/21/2009 4:52:11 AM PDT by SE Mom (Proud mom of an Iraq war combat vet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SE Mom

I am sick about this. You can’t fight a war with one hand tied behind your back - true then, true now. I’ve two nephews in the Marines. McChrystal is the consummate soldier, I have the utmost confidence that he has their backs (have heard personal account from another who has served with him). But having a lousy, no good lying wuss of a CIC at this time is the most dangerous thing for our men and women in uniform.


18 posted on 09/21/2009 4:58:15 AM PDT by SueRae
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SE Mom
FoxNews is reporting that Obama Admin wants to wait 6-8 weeks before making a decision about adding more troops.

Presidentin' is hard. Obama seems to want to vote present on the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan.
19 posted on 09/21/2009 5:05:14 AM PDT by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SE Mom

A lot of freepers, including myself, believe that 0bama is deliberately out to screw up America and all its works.
Nothing is easier to screw up than a war.
Therefore we should get out of Afghanistan.
We’re stuck with him, and he will use that conflict to damage us. Furthermore, even if he didn’t have base motives, he and the rest of the Democrats consistently befoul everything they handle. You don’t get into a car with a drunken imbecile at the wheel.


20 posted on 09/21/2009 5:06:40 AM PDT by 668 - Neighbor of the Beast ( If you have kids, you have no right of privacy that the govt can't flick off your shoulder.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SE Mom

It’s heartbreaking. Our country needs a leader. Instead, it has a thoroughly unqualified, racist Socialist who hates our country, and envisions himself to be a mix of Mussolini and Nipsey Russell.


21 posted on 09/21/2009 5:08:24 AM PDT by Pravious
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SE Mom

McChrystal says: “Failure to provide adequate resources also risks a longer conflict, greater casualties, higher overall costs, and ultimately, a critical loss of political support.”

0’s ‘justification’ yesterday was that he didn’t want to risk sending another military man/woman into harm’s way without a plan for victory. So he has no problem risking the lives of troops already there and the probability of total mission failure.


22 posted on 09/21/2009 5:10:22 AM PDT by drierice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 668 - Neighbor of the Beast

I honestly don’t know- given the current leadership- what is the wisest course for our defense and safety.

I can argue it either way at this point- but my distrust of this administration is so profound I can’t imagine them waging a successful war anywhere.


23 posted on 09/21/2009 5:12:38 AM PDT by SE Mom (Proud mom of an Iraq war combat vet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ItisaReligionofPeace
True dat. The Iraqi are about 3 centuries ahead of the Afghanis in terms of modern culture. Makes a huge difference when a 21st century western force is trying to “win the hearts and minds of the people”

Now, back to watching the Prevaricator in Chief continue his tango with the media and the American people about how much smarter he is than his generals

God Help our troops over there struggling while the incompetent narcissist muses out loud about not yet having a “strategy” (ie, whether to win or lose)

24 posted on 09/21/2009 5:15:33 AM PDT by silverleaf (If we are astroturf, why are the democrats trying to mow us?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: vicar7

remember Colin Powell backstabbing Bush because he didn’t send enough troops to Iraq.....

when Powell was on the talk head circuit prevaricating about sending more troops?

Where is Colin Powell now? Sitting in the chicken sh!t gallery?


25 posted on 09/21/2009 5:18:21 AM PDT by silverleaf (If we are astroturf, why are the democrats trying to mow us?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: drierice

So O doesn’t want to risk the lives of reinforcements, but the tens of thousands calling for support over there are just supposed to wait until wisdom falls down and hits this jackass TOTUS on the head?

Kind of a macrocosm of the 4 US marines who died this week in a withering taliban ambush, after calling and waiting over an hour for support- because of obama ROE restrictions


26 posted on 09/21/2009 5:22:43 AM PDT by silverleaf (If we are astroturf, why are the democrats trying to mow us?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy

Obama wants to wait until McChrystal’s report is fully flushed from the news cycle.


27 posted on 09/21/2009 5:30:53 AM PDT by rbg81 (DRAIN THE SWAMP!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: SE Mom

I can see the future now. Obama denies the request for more troops and we start pulling out of Afghanistan leaving them to fend for themselves. Then “The One” blames it on Bush by saying he took his eye off the ball by going to Iraq and now it’s too late to win in Afghanistan..


28 posted on 09/21/2009 5:45:15 AM PDT by Old Teufel Hunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SE Mom
So glad the boy-king has time to be on Letterman, play with light sabers, golf every weekend, and fly Sasquatch all over the freakin’ country for date nights while our soldiers are being killed over there. You can't vote present when your suppose to be the CIC!!!!!
29 posted on 09/21/2009 5:46:29 AM PDT by ladyvet (WOLVERINES!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: agere_contra

Ping. But the larger issue is overall US security. If Onada pulls us out of Afghanistan and the Al Queda murderers hit us again on our own soil, it’ll one more negative for The Dear Leader.

I don’t think much of McCrystal’s sitting still for Onada’s ROE, but on the larger point I like the pressure he’s putting on the Marxist occupying the WH.


30 posted on 09/21/2009 5:47:48 AM PDT by dools007
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: silverleaf

I am almost in favor of the military taking Obama in exile to Honduras and giving Biden the Presidency. You are either going to fight to win or get out and not pander to the leftists in your party. Fighting a war is not a political decision. This president is extremely naive like none other.


31 posted on 09/21/2009 5:50:56 AM PDT by vicar7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy
If I recall correctly, when the Son of OBama was campaigning for president presidential nomination and the presidency he KNEW what should be done in Afghanistan and Iraq without qualification. Mr. Richard Holbrooke is the Son of OBama’a Mideast man as he was Clinton's Balkan’s adviser. We are in Afghanistan to eradicate the poppy fields in case you did not know why service people are dying.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/22/AR2008012202617.html
32 posted on 09/21/2009 5:53:09 AM PDT by BilLies
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: dools007
“If Onada pulls us out of Afghanistan and the Al Queda murderers hit us again on our own soil, it’ll one more negative for The Dear Leader.”
True. But shat if the the terrorists are based in Syria, Palestine, Iran, Egypt....etc.
We went into Afghanistan to punish the Tali ban and cancel the immediate threat of the terrorists for a short period. One of the aspects of Iraq was intended to be a long term solution by breaking up the solidarity of the wacko/terrorists enabling Muslims governments.
33 posted on 09/21/2009 6:04:07 AM PDT by BilLies
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: chuck_the_tv_out

so if it was confidential..who leaked it and why?

And isn’t this some kind of crime to leak this kind of info?


34 posted on 09/21/2009 6:18:33 AM PDT by RummyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SE Mom
Related article:

Report: More troops needed for Afghan war success

By Anne Gearan

WASHINGTON — The situation in Afghanistan is growing worse, and without more boots on the ground the U.S. risks failure in a war it's been waging since September 2001, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan says in a confidential report.

"Resources will not win this war, but under-resourcing could lose it," Gen. Stanley McChrystal wrote in a five-page Commander's Summary. His 66-page report, sent to Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Aug. 30, is now under review by President Barack Obama.

Details of McChrystal's assessment were first reported late Sunday by The Washington Post. The newspaper posted a link to the report on its Web site, with some operational details withheld at the request of the Pentagon.

"Although considerable effort and sacrifice have resulted in some progress, many indicators suggest the overall effort is deteriorating," McChrystal said of the war's progress.

While asserting that more troops are needed, McChrystal also pointed out an "urgent need" to significantly revise strategy. The U.S. needs to interact better with the Afghan people, McChrystal said, and better organize its efforts with NATO allies.

"We run the risk of strategic defeat by pursuing tactical wins that cause civilian casualties or unnecessary collateral damage. The insurgents cannot defeat us militarily; but we can defeat ourselves," he wrote.

In his blunt assessment of the tenacious Taliban insurgency, McChrystal warned that unless the U.S. and its allies gain the initiative and reverse the momentum of the militants within the next year the U.S. "risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible"

Gates spokesman Geoff Morrell confirmed the Post report, but said the Pentagon would not release McChrystal's assessment.

"While we would have much preferred none of this be made public at this time we appreciate the paper's willingness to edit out those passages which would likely have endangered personnel and operations in Afghanistan," Morrell said in an e-mail statement.

The Pentagon and the White House are awaiting a separate, more detailed request for additional troops and resources. Media reports Friday and Saturday said McChrystal has finished it but was told to pocket it, partly because of the charged politics surrounding the decision. McChrystal's senior spokesman, Rear Adm. Gregory Smith, told The Associated Press on Sunday the report is not complete.

Obama is re-evaluating whether the renewed focus on hunting al-Qaida that he announced just months ago has become blurred and whether more forces will do any good.

"Are we doing the right thing?" he asked during one of a series of interviews broadcast Sunday. "Are we pursuing the right strategy?"

A spokesman for Afghanistan's Defense Ministry said Sunday the Afghan government would not second-guess international military commanders on the need for more troops, but said that the greatest need is actually on the other side of the Afghan-Pakistan border.

"The focus should be on those points and areas where the insurgency is infiltrating Afghanistan," he said, referring to the Pakistan border region where Taliban and al-Qaida fighters hide and plan attacks.

In Congress, the war has taken on a highly partisan edge. Senate Republicans are demanding more forces to turn around a war that soon will enter its ninth year, while members of Obama's own Democratic Party are trying to put on the brakes. Obama said in the Sunday interviews that he will not allow politics to govern his decision.

Nor has the president asked his top commander in Afghanistan to sit on a request for U.S. reinforcements in a backsliding war.

"No, no, no, no," Obama responded when asked whether he or aides had directed McChrystal to temporarily withhold a request for additional U.S. forces and other resources.

But he gave no deadline for making a decision about whether to send more Americans into harm's way.

"The only thing I've said to my folks is, 'A, I want an unvarnished assessment, but, B, I don't want to put the resource question before the strategy question,'" Obama said. "Because there is a natural inclination to say, 'If I get more, then I can do more.'"

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Congress last week he expected McChrystal's request for additional forces and other resources "in the very near future."

Other military officials had said the request would go to McChrystal's boss, Gen. David Petraeus, and up the chain of command in a matter of weeks. The White House discounted that timeline, but has remained vague about how long it would take to receive the report and act on it.

In the interviews taped Friday at the White House, Obama mentioned concerns about the "mission creep" that befell former President George W. Bush's attempt to build and prop up a viable democratic government in a country unaccustomed to central rule and sensitive to foreign meddling.

Obama said he's asking this question now of the military regarding his plan: "How does this advance America's national security interests? How does it make sure that al-Qaida and its extremist allies cannot attack the United States homeland, our allies, our troops who are based in Europe?"

"If supporting the Afghan national government and building capacity for their army and securing certain provinces advances that strategy, then we'll move forward," the president continued. "But if it doesn't, then I'm not interested in just being in Afghanistan for the sake of being in Afghanistan or saving face or, in some way, you know, sending a message that America is here for the duration."

Obama spoke on CNN's "State of the Union," ABC's "This Week," NBC's "Meet the Press," and CBS' "Face the Nation."

Source: Report: More troops needed for Afghan war success

35 posted on 09/21/2009 6:22:58 AM PDT by myknowledge (F-22 Raptor: World's Largest Distributor of Sukhoi parts!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: silverleaf; 444Flyer
"McChrystal makes clear that his call for more forces is predicated on the adoption of a strategy in which troops emphasize protecting Afghans rather than killing insurgents or controlling territory. Most starkly, he says: '[I]nadequate resources will likely result in failure. However, without a new strategy, the mission should not be resourced.'"

The true context of McChrystal's call, (piss be upon him,) for more Troops is in the first line of a paragraph far down the aricle.
It is NOT his goal to protect our WARRIORS.
It is NOT his goal to defeat the Taliban.
It is NOT his goal to protect the National Security of this country!

The headline for this article is GROSSLY misleading.

Me to McChrystal:
YOU ARE A DISGRACE TO THE UNIFORM! YOU ARE BETRAYING OUR WARRIORS!

ME TO THE PENTAGON: When are you going to do the right thing by our TROOPS?????

36 posted on 09/21/2009 6:30:53 AM PDT by MestaMachine (One if by land, 2 if by sea, 3 if by Air Force 1.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Pravious

a mix of Mussolini and Nipsey Russell.


Lol!


37 posted on 09/21/2009 6:32:28 AM PDT by ecomcon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: myknowledge

“Because there is a natural inclination to say, ‘If I get more, then I can do more.’”


And he should know.


38 posted on 09/21/2009 6:40:31 AM PDT by ecomcon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: myknowledge

McChrystal is not fighting a war. This is insanity. BEYOND insanity.
This is not what our brave Troops should be engaged in. They will be killed doing this. They are already being killed doing this.
It is inexcusable.


39 posted on 09/21/2009 6:45:12 AM PDT by MestaMachine (One if by land, 2 if by sea, 3 if by Air Force 1.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: SE Mom

Some of the comments at the WP illustrate what an uphill battle lies ahead. Most support cut & run:


Of course, if you read or watch the American MSM (or McChrystal “top-secret” report, for that matter), you may reach the same conclusion: more troops are needed in order to succeed in our noble goal of saving Afghanistan from those bad, ugly barbarians who enjoy killing our fully-armored troops.

But,

If you take a look at other sources (for instance mainstream European, Asian, Middle-East media), you may understand something pretty obvious: those ugly barbarians are fighting against foreign invaders who have installed a corrupt puppet government.


Is the U.S. military/industrial complex crazy or just blood thirsty. Who is in charge the CIA or our elected government? Does Gates realize he is no longer in charge of the CIA?


Republicans have been “cutting and running” on health care reform for 70 years!
Now - it’s a quagmire.
But Republicans will GLADLY support more war spending in THE country where empires go to die.


Those are fairly representative...that is what folks hear in the Beltway.


40 posted on 09/21/2009 6:48:54 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (I loathe the ground he slithers on!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MestaMachine

A reminder of Vietnam.


41 posted on 09/21/2009 6:49:06 AM PDT by myknowledge (F-22 Raptor: World's Largest Distributor of Sukhoi parts!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: SE Mom

I am going to take this opportunity to encourage everyone to send a package to someone fighting in that hell hole under this Communist CIC.

If your budget is tight-

Next week Walgreens will have some things you can get for free.

Dentek Dental Care
Robitussin DM To Go
Chapstick Fresh Effects
Oral-B Advantage 1-2-3 Toothbrush
Emergen-C Booster
Vaseline Sheer Infusion Lotion

You buy it and you get a register reward. You can’t use the reward on the same item but you can buy a different item. Takes some effort..but roll away..and send someone a care package.


42 posted on 09/21/2009 7:00:14 AM PDT by RummyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SE Mom

bump


43 posted on 09/21/2009 7:01:44 AM PDT by RDTF (Honk if I helped you Buy your New Car)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MestaMachine

"ME TO THE PENTAGON: When are you going to do the right thing by our TROOPS?????"

I'll see ya and raise ya one!

44 posted on 09/21/2009 7:08:14 AM PDT by 444Flyer ( "Every society honors its live conformists and its dead troublemakers."--Mignon McLaughlin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: MestaMachine
Does this look to you like something “leaked” out for a little CYA for McChrystal?
45 posted on 09/21/2009 7:11:12 AM PDT by 444Flyer ( "Every society honors its live conformists and its dead troublemakers."--Mignon McLaughlin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: SE Mom

Of all of the things that Obama has done to harm this country since he got in office, his treatment of our soldiers(new ROE,etc.) pisses me off the most. The very idea that he would postpone making a decision on Afghanistan just so he can ‘focus’ on his commie healthcare plan is truly unconscionable. Obama behaves more and more like a clinical sociopath every day. There is something very cold and calculating about the man..it’s creepy.


46 posted on 09/21/2009 7:14:16 AM PDT by penelopesire ("The only CHANGE you will get with the Democrats is the CHANGE left in your pocket")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick
"I am going to take this opportunity to encourage everyone to send a package to someone fighting in that hell hole under this Communist CIC. If your budget is tight-"

You are a beautiful person.


47 posted on 09/21/2009 7:17:03 AM PDT by 444Flyer ( "Every society honors its live conformists and its dead troublemakers."--Mignon McLaughlin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: MestaMachine; penelopesire; All

These are MUST reads for those who have anyone serving or who care about and support our military.

“AMBUSHED MARINES’AID CALL REJECTED”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2340992/posts

“WE’RE PINNED DOWN:’4 U.S. MARINES DIE IN AFGAN ABUSH”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2335142/posts

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2336737/posts

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2335336/posts

“GIS TOLD NOT TO RISK CIVILIAN LIVES”

http://www.military.com/cs/Satellite?c=maArticle&cid=1199422047446&pagename=News%2FnwsLayout

“OBAMA’S RULES OF ENGAGEMENT IN AFGHANISTAN COSTING OUR TROOPS LIVES”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2335891/posts

“BAGRAM INMATES CAN CHALLENGE DETENTION: PENTAGON”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2339337/posts

“ANALYSIS: WHITE HOUSE POSTPONING HARD CALLS ON WAR”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2340176/posts

“NO DEADLINE FOR TROOPS WITHDRAWAL FROM AFGHANISTAN: OBAMA ADMN”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2334327/posts

“MILITARY LEERY OF AFGHANISTAN ESCALATION WITH NO CLEAR GOALS”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2335026/posts


48 posted on 09/21/2009 7:21:16 AM PDT by 444Flyer ( "Every society honors its live conformists and its dead troublemakers."--Mignon McLaughlin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: SE Mom

“U.N. LAWYERS TARGET U.S. TROOPS”

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=337473733467144

“Justice: As if fighting a war in Afghanistan isn’t hard enough, ambitious global prosecutors have rolled into Kabul looking to charge U.S. troops. Intentional or not, such legalism will sap U.S. morale as it did in Vietnam.

At about the time NATO’s new secretary-general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, warned NATO’s European members against an early pullout, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, the top prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, whose body is charged with looking for international war criminals, announced he was looking for new “clients” from anyone with a grievance in Afghanistan.

At a briefing Wednesday in The Hague, Moreno-Ocampo said he had launched a new war crimes inquiry, seeking information about “torture” especially — a European obsession — and had already mined the human rights groups for stories. He added he was also “very open” to more information from foreign governments.

Oh, he’d been evenhanded in his Monday-morning battlefield quarterbacking of course, promising he’d prosecute both Taliban and NATO troops as moral equals.

But it doesn’t take a genius to know what the spotlight-loving attorney (who once launched his own reality TV show back in Argentina) is really after: Americans in the dock as war criminals.

The atmosphere that makes a prosecutor like Moreno-Ocampo ambitious enough to go after Americans instead of a real monster like, say, Fidel Castro, can only occur when the West’s will has weakened, as Rasmussen warned.

After all, if a war to defend our civilization can be reduced to a series of police-brutality cases, then Afghanistan isn’t about victory.

This is underscored by Washington’s conflicting aims.

Though our president has rightly boosted the number of troops in Afghanistan, he’s created a climate of doubt by declaring the war on terror an “overseas contingency operation” and stating he doesn’t believe in “winning.” It’s poison for morale and gives momentum to the kind of bureaucratic, legalistic and defeatist thinking that preceded our bitter pullout in Vietnam.

Moreno-Ocampo’s entry into Afghanistan is a sign that legalism has begun to overtake victory as a goal, at a time when our Taliban foes still believe in victory.

On the battlefield, our troops are increasingly constrained by legalistic rules of engagement.

Case in point: On Tuesday, four U.S. Marines and seven of their Afghani allies walked into a well-planned ambush and were killed in the Kunar province near the Pakistani border.

“We are pinned down. We are running low on ammo. We have no air. We’ve lost today,” Marine Maj. Kevin Williams, 37, told his Afghan counterpart, responding to the latter’s repeated demands for helicopters, McClatchy Newspapers reported.

Rules of engagement condemned them to die because they couldn’t get air cover.

According to McClatchy: “U.S. commanders, citing new rules to avoid civilian casualties, rejected repeated calls to unleash artillery rounds at attackers dug into the slopes and tree lines — despite being told repeatedly that they weren’t near the village.”

Meanwhile, all pullout talk condemned those U.S. troops, too.

Ground intelligence sources who might have warned them were reportedly more fearful of Taliban retaliation than convinced that American troops would be able to defend them, given the weakening will of the West. They opted to survive.

Now, the latest legalistic block against winning is an international prosecutor looking for NATO troops to prosecute.

Back in 2002, President Bush told the ICC that there wouldn’t be any of that, and he rescinded the U.S. signature from the Rome Statute that would have opened the door to that. Today, there’s a legal battle going on at the ICC to make U.S. troops subject to doing it and there’s no signal from the White House that it will stop it.

Don’t think Moreno-Ocampo won’t do it. His history as a prosecutor suggests an affinity for publicity over justice, which is just what the anti-American crowd wants.

(snip)Someone like that won’t hesitate for a minute to make a big show of putting U.S. troops in the dock for “war crimes” no matter what the impact in Afghanistan. That’s defeat.
____________________________________________________________

Then there is this little tidbit:

0’s Giant Ego is too busy trying to be king of the World. He has no time to be bothered with what could be avoidable deaths of American servicemen.

Besides, he’s proving his qualifications to head up the “Security Council” (excuse my utter hysterical laughter!) to the America hating dweebs at the U.N..:

“Obama to seal US-UN relationship”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2334897/posts


49 posted on 09/21/2009 7:22:16 AM PDT by 444Flyer ( "Every society honors its live conformists and its dead troublemakers."--Mignon McLaughlin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SE Mom

*PLEASE NOTE THIS PARAGRAPH IN THIS ARTICLE 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.”

http://www.hotsr.com/news/WireHeadlines/2009/08/02/general-wants-more-troops-for-afghan-war-26.php

From the posted article by McClatchy ‘We’re pinned down:’:

“...U.S. commanders, citing new rules to avoid civilian casualties, rejected repeated calls to unleash artillery rounds at attackers dug into the slopes and tree lines — despite being told repeatedly that they weren’t near the village.”
___________________________________________________________

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/75036.html?storylink=MI_emailed

(snip)..Dashing from boulder to boulder, diving into trenches and ducking behind stone walls as the insurgents maneuvered to outflank us, we waited more than an hour for U.S. helicopters to arrive, despite earlier assurances that air cover would be five minutes away.

U.S. commanders, citing new rules to avoid civilian casualties, rejected repeated calls to unleash artillery rounds at attackers dug into the slopes and tree lines — despite being told repeatedly that they weren’t near the village.


50 posted on 09/21/2009 7:23:03 AM PDT by 444Flyer ( "Every society honors its live conformists and its dead troublemakers."--Mignon McLaughlin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-121 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson