Skip to comments.McChrystal: More Forces or 'Mission Failure' (Drudge headline)
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 ...
..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.
Will there be a showdown between McChrystal and Obama?
NO amount of troops will help if they are not allowed to shoot at the enemy.
Yup, lookin’ like familiar history repeating itself once again at the hands of another cowardly Leftist.
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.
Exactly- and given the current ROE’s this is quickly turning into a Catch 22, isn’t it?
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.
Obama's not going to be able to hide from this one.
This aspect of the operations in Afghanistan cannot be underestimated and is a key to success.
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.
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.
Nah, I never considered that in a million years. I guess my pal in spec ops hadn’t thought of that either.
It’s a mess, isn’t it?
No. Not being able to shoot at Taliban who are indoors makes it much more difficult.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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?
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
Obama wants to wait until McChrystal’s report is fully flushed from the news cycle.
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..
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.
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.
so if it was confidential..who leaked it and why?
And isn’t this some kind of crime to leak this kind of info?
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."
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?????
a mix of Mussolini and Nipsey Russell.
“Because there is a natural inclination to say, ‘If I get more, then I can do more.’”
And he should know.
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.
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.
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.
A reminder of Vietnam.
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
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.
I'll see ya and raise ya one!
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.
You are a beautiful person.
These are MUST reads for those who have anyone serving or who care about and support our military.
AMBUSHED MARINESAID CALL REJECTED
WERE PINNED DOWN:4 U.S. MARINES DIE IN AFGAN ABUSH
GIS TOLD NOT TO RISK CIVILIAN LIVES
OBAMAS RULES OF ENGAGEMENT IN AFGHANISTAN COSTING OUR TROOPS LIVES
BAGRAM INMATES CAN CHALLENGE DETENTION: PENTAGON
ANALYSIS: WHITE HOUSE POSTPONING HARD CALLS ON WAR
NO DEADLINE FOR TROOPS WITHDRAWAL FROM AFGHANISTAN: OBAMA ADMN
MILITARY LEERY OF AFGHANISTAN ESCALATION WITH NO CLEAR GOALS
U.N. LAWYERS TARGET U.S. TROOPS
Justice: As if fighting a war in Afghanistan isnt 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 NATOs new secretary-general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, warned NATOs 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, hed been evenhanded in his Monday-morning battlefield quarterbacking of course, promising hed prosecute both Taliban and NATO troops as moral equals.
But it doesnt 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 Wests 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 isnt about victory.
This is underscored by Washingtons conflicting aims.
Though our president has rightly boosted the number of troops in Afghanistan, hes created a climate of doubt by declaring the war on terror an overseas contingency operation and stating he doesnt believe in winning. Its poison for morale and gives momentum to the kind of bureaucratic, legalistic and defeatist thinking that preceded our bitter pullout in Vietnam.
Moreno-Ocampos 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. Weve lost today, Marine Maj. Kevin Williams, 37, told his Afghan counterpart, responding to the latters repeated demands for helicopters, McClatchy Newspapers reported.
Rules of engagement condemned them to die because they couldnt 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 werent 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 wouldnt be any of that, and he rescinded the U.S. signature from the Rome Statute that would have opened the door to that. Today, theres a legal battle going on at the ICC to make U.S. troops subject to doing it and theres no signal from the White House that it will stop it.
Dont think Moreno-Ocampo wont 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 wont 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. Thats defeat.
Then there is this little tidbit:
0s 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, hes 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
*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.
From the posted article by McClatchy Were 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 werent near the village.
(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 werent near the village.