Afghanistan Strategy - No Deadline Set for Decision on Troops

by albertacowpoke | September 27, 2009 at 10:57 am

193 views | 22 Recommendations | 12 comments

Last week a report was leaked that General McChrystal, Commander ISAAF, had produced. The report indicated that, in McChrysal's judgment, the NATO effort in Afghanistan was headed for failure unless more troops were made available to protect the Afghan people.

General McChrystal's strategy is to have troops live with the local population in their towns or villages to provide them the protection they seek from retribution of the Taliban.

General McChrystal replaced General McKiernan as Commander of ISAF. The Obama Administration effected this replacement. In my view, before General McChrystal was send to Afghanistan, he was given a manadate by the Commander in Chief. Surely, a newly appointed commander does not go to a theatre of war blindly, without guidelines.

There seems to be some hesitation to release General McChrystal's request, which is not held by Secretary Gates in the Pentagon. It is to be kept secret until a strategy for Aghanistan is developed.

Admiral Mullen and General McChrystal met at Ramstein AFB on Friday, apparently so General McChrystal could brief the Chief of the Joint Chiefs on his request. According to Bob Woodward, a distinguished journalist with the Washinton Post, Retired General Jones has said that President Obama has not set a deadline for determining a new strategy.

This goes in the face of General McChrystal's urgent request for more troops. His request is estimated to be for 10-40,000 additional troops. Jones said that the President had several meetings planned over the next few weeks to determine a new strategy.

Personally I feel that General McChrystal was send to Afghanistan with a mandate. With a special operations background, I doubt that the "Win the Hearts and Minds" strategy came from the General. This would seem to run counter to anything the U.S. Army has trained for.

Could the secrecy of the request and the absence of a strategy be a strategic move to avoid a new discussion that would take away from the Health Care Debate?

President Obama has not set a deadline for determining a new strategy or for committing more troops to the war in Afghanistan, despite an urgent request from his top commander, his national security adviser said Saturday.

In a lengthy telephone interview, retired Gen. James L. Jones outlined Obama's plans for reassessing the war effort. Jones noted that although the administration has seen some progress in Afghanistan and Pakistan, it remains uncertain about the outcome of President Hamid Karzai's contentious bid for reelection.

Obama has scheduled at least five meetings with his national security team over the next weeks to reexamine the strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan. "Tuesday marks the start of five scheduled intensive discussions with the National Security Council, as well as field commanders and regional ambassadors, on Afghanistan," Jones said.

2 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend Add a comment

a211423

at 11:31 on September 27th, 2009

Could the secrecy of the request and the absence of a strategy be a strategic move to avoid a new discussion that would take away from the Health Care Debate?

albertacowpoke

Your musing is possible, but is it also possible that the president recognizes this as the turning point in this conflict in terms of American intervention. The decisions that are made now will set the policy for the next few years, and the liabilities for escalation need to be weighed carefully, and perhaps the introduction of a new stratedgy that does not involve additional troop build up.

Meetings with the national security team together with field commanders and regional ambassadors is encouraging. At least this president moves forward engaging all expertise and advice.

albertacowpoke

at 12:48 on September 27th, 2009

That would be based on the assumption that one General replaced and the replacement was send to command Afghanistan without a mandate or strategy to follow. The question remains then, how many more soldiers have to die before there is a strategy developed for Afghanistan?

It should also be noted that during the election campaign then candidate Obama made Afghanistan his priority. If your assumption is correct, it has now been almost nine months with the lack of a strategy, even though 48,000 U.S. troops have already been deployed to Afghanistan.

I would also have thought that the national security team and field commanders would almost talk on a daily basis. At least the Commander in Chief, based on military tradition, would receive daily reports. Afghanistan Desk officers in the Pentagon would have already developed comprehensive directives and strategy on behalf of the Secretary of Defense and thus the Commander in Chief.

Rory Cripps

at 17:01 on September 27th, 2009

ACP: Thanks for this story! Here's my brutally frank two cents: I don't think that President Obama ever wanted anything to do with military personnel until he became president--but now he's forced to deal with them and put on a fake face. And I venture to say that he abhorred military personnel, throughout his entire life, like the plague, prior to his role as "Commander In Chief".

Indeed, those that share President Obama's elitist views have nothing but utter contempt for military personnel. In their minds, the U.S. military consists of "crackers" and others from various ethnic groups that are too dumb to get a job anywhere else. Military personnel are simply not a part of President Obama's core of being and never will be. The military, indeed, is anathemas to President Obama's world view.

With the above said, I would urge--in the most emphatic terms--that families, who have loved ones stationed in Afghanistan, convince their loved ones to get the hell out of that shit hole as soon as possible if their loved ones are not already convinced that their mission in Afghanistan is an exercise in utter futility--not to mention sure and sudden death.

It is becoming more and more apparent, everyday, that the Obama administration (i.e., the politicians--and that's all that the Obama Administration is) is getting more and more military personnel KIA and will continue to do so. When politicians lie, soldiers die . . . .

albertacowpoke

at 17:21 on September 27th, 2009

Quite frankly I have never seen such a public display of apparent discord between the Generals and the administration. I think Mullen going to Ramstein was quite telling.

MacArthur had that problem, but he thought he was Emperor of Japan lol

Rory Cripps

at 17:31 on September 27th, 2009

HA! And they killed Patton too (at least in the eyes of combat veterans)! This is really a disheartening and revolting development.

QueensHart

at 17:56 on September 27th, 2009

Oh yeah.. tell it like it is ... I feel a sick feeling when I see the skinny , cigarette puffing , head geek saluting the real men. Obama is spineless. I have not seen anyone that fits the barometer of disgust as much as he does for lying and strutting around. He shoulda been a rapper for he so wants to talk........talk.....talk.....May God have mercy on us all for allowing him to be the president. These young people do not have a clue what a fake he is .

Babel-Fish

at 18:05 on September 27th, 2009

The problem always is that the military on the ground know how to fight the battles and use what is thought to be the best strategy. But those that sit behind desks poke fingers and say how they think it should be done.

Then worst still politicians that have no clue how to win wars make decisions normally on bad advice from those that sit behind desks.

What we then get is a big problem on the ground where the soldiers have the right equipment to do it their way but have not got the right equipment to do it the way they are told to. In my mind this war should never be fought in armored vehicles that have to use the few roads and bad tracks in a terrain that's makes it very easy to mine and set up traps. Wars in this type of terrain should be fought on foot the same way the enemy fights.

Helicopters are not the total answer neither as the enemy has ground to air missiles and caused havoc to the Russians when they used helicopters.

Placing troops in villages and towns could work however this is really going into the defensive which could mean the troops will be in Afghanistan for a very long time.

But of course the political answer is change an gag the generals and throw money at the problem of which will not go away because the troops can not fight the war their way. This problem is also seen in UK where the generals also are moaning about equipment and man power. I have seen similar problems when I was on active service and as a solder on the ground I felt absolutely frustrated with the political influence on military issues. As communication technology has improved those siting in chairs and the politicians have gain more influence on how wars are directed.

If this technology was the same in World War II Its my belief Hitler would of won the war. Because generals would be told what to do and not do what they thought was right.

albertacowpoke

at 18:22 on September 27th, 2009

As you know Babel, it takes a long time to make a General. Most start out with Military College, as for Royal Military College in Canada or West Point in the U.S. This is followed by basic Infantry or Armoured Officer training, etc., which qualifies them to command a platoon, which in my mind is a training phase for a second lieutenant under the watchful eye of a platoon sergeant. Most go to a staff position after their initial tour in a battalion, normally three years in Canada. Then they normally return to a battalion as a Captain doing various duties from battalion staff to company second in Commands, followed by a staff job probably in a Brigade Headquarters. A Company Commanders Course, Staff College then prepare them for Company Command, followed by another staff tour and promotion to Lieutenant-Colonel on to command a Battalion. As full bird Colonels they command a brigade and move on from their to Division and Corps Command.

I have described the process to give the uninitiated an idea what training and employment military officers go through. A General is not just some nimrod that got appointed to a certain job, most have earned their position through hard work and equipped with the knowledge of the art of military leadership and planning.

As Babel has stated to ignore those on the ground doing the job by listening to desk jockeys is almost criminal. Politicians got us into this mess in the first place, let the men that have the knowledge do the job and provide them with the resources that they need.

Even the Royal family realizes that a future King should have military service. Should a Commander in Chief have that background?

Babel-Fish

at 18:53 on September 27th, 2009

Should a Commander in Chief have that background?

A good question but of course the US citizens would not like their country run by the military.

We must remember the Royal family have no power over the military in UK.

The problem is the same with all countries that have employed a military force the leaders have ultimate power over the military. The problem really is does the leader trust the army to do the job the way they are train to do or does the leader want to take control? This has been a problem since the roman empire and just look what Hitler did thankfully it lost him the war.

My view is a good president trust his generals and men on the ground. But does any politician trust anyone, lol

albertacowpoke

at 19:02 on September 27th, 2009

The Governor General of Canada has no control over the military either. Nevertheless I think it prudent that those that are making the decisions to put the military in harms way must permit them to do the job they have assigned to them and also provide the resources to do it.

By the way the reason armoured vehicles and tanks have been deployed to Afghanistan was one for protection against IEDs and suicide bombers, second to provide a stand off capability. Canadian experience has shown that the use of heavy lift helicopters for resupply and movement of troops does indeed save lifes.