General McChrystal Assessment - Unclassified

Washington Post ^ | 30 Aug 2009 | General McChrystal

[An American!]

In an unclassified version of the assessment, obtained and posted by the Washington Post, McChrystal said the “situation in Afghanistan is serious; neither success nor failure can be taken for granted.”
Here is some snippets from the attached...

Dear Secretary Gates,
As directed by the Reference, my Initial Assessment is attached....

Sincerely,
STANLEY A. McCHRYSTAL
General, U.S. Army
Commander,
United States Forces - Afghanistan/ International Security Assistance
Force, Afghanistan

The following assessment is a report of COMISAF's findings and conclusions. In summary, this assessment sought to answer the following questions:
Can ISAF achieve the mission?
If so, how should ISAF go about achieving the mission?
What is required to achieve the mission?
The assessment draws on both internallSAF components, to include Regional Commands, and external agencies such as GIRoA ministries, International Governmental Organizations and Nongovernmental Organizations....
Success is achievable, but it will not be attained simply by trying harder or "doubling down" on the previous strategy. Additional resources are required, but focusing on force or resource requirements misses the point entirely. The key take away from this assessment is the urgent need for a significant change to our strategy and the way that we think and operate.

[An American!]

At the link above is PDF of the Unclassified McChrystal Assessment. 66 Pages long.
Full of good information.
If you are looking to quickly search through the text go to this link http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/21/AR2009092100110.html?hpid=topnews

The PDF File is at http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/Assessment_Redacted_092109.pdf

[Mrs. Don-o]

bttt

[RWGinger]

I can’t believe no one in the media has commented on McChrystal saying this as a reason things aren’t going ewell on page 6
“preoccupied with protection of our forces”
HUH?Damn straight I want our country to be “preoccupied” with protecting our men and women>

mcchrystal says this preoccupation has resulted in the Afghans feeling disconnected.

Dear Lord get our people out NOW
or put someone in charge who cares about our troops.

[An American!]

I don't agree with your assessment of his comment, my take on it is:
He is saying the current mission has morphed into just "protecting our troops" and that is the wrong mission. Sure protection is required, but you don't deploy troops into an area and say that reason we are there is to protect our troops.
A better mission is the one he mentions which is "Our strategy cannot be focused on seizing terrain or destroying insurgent forces; our objective must be the population."
His overall point is that there must be enough troops to provide security for themselves as well as accomplish the overall mission. Today there are not enough and thus we are primarily protecting ourselves and "we run the risk of strategic defeat by pursuing tactical wins that cause civilian casualties or unnecessary collateral damage."

[RWGinger]

tell that to the 4 Americans killed because of the mcchrystal ROE and the commanding officer refusing air support in case it might have killed an afghan.

[An American!]

I am not as familiar with the incident you cite, nor the specifics of the confusing new Rules of Engagement and the commanding officer mentioned. So I fully accept your point that screwed up politically sensitive ROE will kill our good guys every time.
My opinion is still, tactical fighting without a clear strategy is counter-productive and costs lives. The 66 page assessment is clear in that point...there is no overall strategy and it is damaging the mission. If we are going to have FOB's then we need to understand why they are there, how to protect them (adequately staffed and with air cover), and succeed in their mission.
It baffles me why we have thousands of troops grouped up in major compounds and then send out 10-15 soldiers to hold a mountain top position?
Something stinks and needs to change. I read McChrystal's assessment and believe it might have the correct changes.

[RWGinger]

I understand and agree with some of your points.
But I think the very least our country can do is when we send our own into harm’s way our first priority must be to protect them as far as is possible OR for God’s sake do not put ROE into place that places lives of insurgents and / or potential civilians ahead of our own.

[crazyotto]

can you say military cu-da-ta.

[An American!]

"do not put ROE into place that places lives of insurgents and / or potential civilians ahead of our own."
100% AGREE!!!!!!

[RWGinger]

here is one retired General’s opinion of Mcchrystal new ROE
“The Rules of Engagement now in effect in that war zone are designed to appease the faint hearted rather than win a war…According to military spokesmen, the ROE has been tailored to soften the possibility of civilian casualties. General Stanley McChrystal issued the new ROE restrictions on the use of military force to reduce the risk of further alienating the population… “Tying our Warfighter’s hands behind their backs is past unsatisfactory…it’s criminal! [Colonel Wayne Morris, USMC (Ret)]

The new ROE resulted in 4 of our own getting killed 2 weeks ago when a commanding officer refused to allow air support or artillery for fear there might have been afghan civilians mixed in with the insurgents firing at our troops.

“The New Media Journal – Thomas D. Segel, September 23, 2009

Active duty military personnel, veterans and retirees alike all expressed their outrage and distain for the reported Rules of Engagement (ROE) that resulted in loss of life to four United States Marines and nine of their Afghan army allies. In a Taliban initiated ambush the insurgents out-gunned the joint military unit and pinned it to indefensible ground. The NATO advised Afghan force was denied artillery support and did not receive close air support for more than one hour after coming under attack. By that time 13 lives had been forfeited because of a politically motivated ROE that always favors the insurgents”