General McChrystal's Troop Request up to 80,000

by albertacowpoke | October 14, 2009 at 04:11 am

292 views | 32 Recommendations | 20 comments

Anonymous sources have revealed that General McChrystal is asking for as many as 80,000 additional troops for the counter-insurgency efforts in Afghanistan.

General McChrystal had warned last month that the mission was headed for failure if additional troops were not approved for this effort.

In his report, which is still classified secret, General McChrystal apparently proposes three options. The options range from troop levels to increase from 80,000 to as few as 10,000. McChrystal apparently favours an increase of at least 40,000.

The US troop levels will be at 68,000 by January and if this request is approved the troop levels would be at would bring troop levels to 108,000. These levels would stretch US Forces to a maximum and would in all likelihood take some time to achieve.

Additional troops need to be recruited, trained in basic skills, followed by collective skills within a combat unit. This takes time.

The White House announced yesterday that a decision is still weeks away. The National Security Council has held several sessions to provide data and advice for an upcoming decision.

The Council, includes, among others, General Jones, National Security Adviser, Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State, Joe Biden, Vice President.

Joe Biden and General Jones apparently favour a more stand-off policy, which would attack Al Quaeda with drones and surgical strikes. Hillary Clinton seems to go with one of General McChrystal's options.

On the weekend Senator Diane Feinstein expressed her opinon that President Obama should go with General McChrysal's recommendations.

Let's not leave any doubt, even if the President approves General McChrystal's recommendation there is no guarantee for success. The situation is very volatile in Afghanistan. The recent election is alleged to have been riddled with corruption and Karzai is still being seen as a puppet for Washington.

Afghanistan, no doubt, may very well define the Presidency of Barrack Obama.

The top military commander in Afghanistan is asking for up to 80,000 more American troops, according to U.S. officials.

A still-secret document by U.S. Gen. Stanley McChrystal that requests more troops is expected to be among the topics discussed Wednesday when President Barack Obama meets with his national security team to hash out a strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Even with additional troops, McChrystal concluded that government corruption in Afghanistan could still let the country turn back into a haven for terrorists, according to officials at the Pentagon and White House.

3 See all footage | View Slideshow

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

recommend Add a comment

marianmo

at 04:15 on October 14th, 2009

ty for keeping us informed

nanute

at 04:31 on October 14th, 2009

How can the document still be labeled as "secret" with this information being leaked?

Didn't I see something yesterday that the President approved a troop level increase of 13,000? Just the other day, I think I noted that the 40,000 number was being revised to upwards of 60,000. At this rate, by the time a decision is made, the number may well be a request for 80,000.Say what you will about politics, but in all honesty, the mess left by the previous administration will be all the current administrations fault come the next election cycle.

albertacowpoke

at 04:43 on October 14th, 2009

Nanute the additonal 15,000 that were revealed over the weekend were support troops, which according to the administration, actually all administrations, are always in addition to combat troops.

Why is this decision by Obama to divert resources to Afghanistan always the previous administrations mess. He campaigned on it. Now he has to deal with it. Right or Wrong.

nanute

at 12:13 on October 14th, 2009

ACP,

Point well taken. The fact of the matter is that we had a very good window of opportunity (during the previous administration), to focus adequate troop levels in the Afghan "engagement." Taking those resources and engaging them in Iraq, was a serious policy mistake, in my opinion, and led to the current mess Obama is facing. You've mentioned before, this situation is not likely to have a "favorable" outcome. Shedding more blood for an eventual withdrawal without a victory, that can't be defined or achieved is problematic and probably does not serve our long term global interests. Just my opinion. :)

nanute (the surrender monkey) LOL

albertacowpoke

at 12:53 on October 14th, 2009

The whole mess, in my opinion comes down to strategy. Was the ball dropped in 2001? Probably. That was a ball dropped by the UN and NATO subsequently as well.

I look at the whole region and how it lines up, with both Aghanistan and Iraq bordering Iran and I start to wonder what we have and haven't been told by at least the last three Administrations.

As peons on the lower portion of the food chain, you can rest assured that we are not being told everything.

I would like to see a favourable outcome, with minimum bloodshed of soldiers and civilians. Based on what I have observed over the past six or seven months, I think we're past that point.

I take some encouragement from the Canadian troops I am in contact with. They still believe that they are making a difference with their mission.

If you're interested to see the perspective from Brigadier General Vance's point of view (He is the Commander of Canadian troops in Afghanistan) Here is a link that will take you to an interview with him

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/10/13/f-audio-current-vance-afghanistan.html

Anonymously Given (not verified)

at 05:12 on October 14th, 2009

War is often used to bail out a peoples under economic distress. Perhaps, the "mess" in the economy has deterred the original plans of the prez to exit the arena. The bad news is that war brings a short boost followed by a sharp economic decline (when we have to pay for it). Sound familiar? Same drug, different pharmco.

albertacowpoke

at 05:17 on October 14th, 2009

Unfortunately, I think you.re right.

nanute

at 12:49 on October 14th, 2009

Yes. Is it not amazing that all the people that are screaming about all this government spending, are having no problem funding 2 "wars" on credit? Amazing.

Hugh Askew

at 15:08 on October 14th, 2009

nanute, not certain that assessment is correct, but it certainly has the appearance of being correct.

were we told, on a nearly daily basis, what the actual costs were, there might be a very different outlook.

The gummit puts whatever spin it feels is needed, on domestic spending - "it's for the children", or what have you - then the MSM picks it up. If they like what the president is doing, it gets played up with a positive slant, if they dislike his spending, the opposite occurs. Either way, it gets talked about - a lot. It also has a more direct effect, on most folks, than does military spending.

With military spending, the White House plays it close to the vest. There are many reasons, but it wouldn't take much more than a couple of rocket scientists (or seventy-three economists), to figure what our plans were, if spending figures were announced for a given theater (assuming you know the numbers for troops, etc).

In addition, it is likely that the president doesn't want us to know the costs, so that it doesn't become a major issue in decision making. If you were intent on defeating a foe, i wouldn't think that you would have him to sit back and say, "you know, we can do this, they can't afford to try to stop us...they got budgets to keep"

If memory serves,(and sometimes it doesn't) during the later years of the Johnson administration, there were some Senators and congressmen, that began to turn away from his effort in Viet Nam, based solely on the cost, tho that may have been for public consumption. I do know that government debt was rising rapidly (nothing compared to now, tho), and the general public wasn't real smitten with the fact.

To re-state all that with a semblance of brevity: People don't complain about the costs of the war(s), because they aren't told the cost. It isn't widely, loudly, publicized. The cost of the bailouts, and cash-for-clunkers is.

a211423

at 12:40 on October 14th, 2009

Considering the depth of the corruption in the Pashtun Karzai government, I do not understand how bringing any sort of military effort that confronts the Taliban extremists will ultimately bring peace to Afghanistan, short of erradicating the Pashtun. 50% of Afghans are Pashtun, and U.S. military strategies identify the militant warlords as Pashtun. How deep are the loyalties among tribal members? And even if we suppress the Taliban for a while, all they have to do is wait it out.

The human rights issues concerning women and children controlled by the Taliban are horrendous, but are military interventions the only way to confront this issue?

Diane Feinstein said she didn't think the American people want a 10-12 year commitment. We have already been there eight years. And projections for moving the country in governance that represents all its people and reasonable infrastructure building is 20-30 years. We need to be honest about what a commitment now really means, and it's not just two or three years.

nanute

at 12:47 on October 14th, 2009

I couldn't have said it better myself. Excellent post a211423

albertacowpoke

at 12:59 on October 14th, 2009

Your assessment is right on. Any strategy will require a long term commitment which will involve, military (for security and training), civilians for a commitment on infrastructure and a viable Afghan government that the Afghans trust, with loyal police and military forces.

So NATO along with the US needs to search its soul and determine if they are ready to make that commitment or get out, while the getting is still good.

a211423

at 14:06 on October 14th, 2009

Thank you nanute and cowpoke

158

at 15:33 on October 14th, 2009

In the last three US wars leaders have tried to fight cheaply with minimum forces and with business as usual in the country.

War is not a game but real life and death, killing and destruction.

Any war that lasts more than a few months or involves more than a very few thousand men should be fought with all available force with the sole intent being a quick victory.

It should also be a declared war, with politicians setting the goal and generals deciding what is needed.

albertacowpoke

at 16:23 on October 14th, 2009

While I would agree with you, in the context of past conventional wars, I think this situation is much different. We are not only fighting a war, but success is measured on how well a nation is build.

The conventional war on the battlefield against the Taliban was won quickly. The problem is now the insurgency. The reach of the Afghan government is contained within Kabul. The Taliban basically operate at will throughout the countryside.

So the question is, what is success? I would estimate that the assessment in March was that success is a stable country with an effective government accepted by the people of Afghanistan. This requires sufficient police forces as well as an effective Afghan Army.

While the training of the Afghan army has made steady progress, this is not the case with the police.

I think that General McChrystal's assessment is based on the nation-building aspect, which requires that troops live in villages with the locals as opposed to operating from outposts.

In addition you need the trainers, both military and civilian to train the Army and Police

All of this is both manpower and resource intensive.

So the question remains, what is a success in this conflict. If it is all of the above, then McChrystal must be listened to.

Because of the tribal nature of Afghanistan this could be an exercise in futility.

Over the past few days I have had the opportunity to think about Afghanistan in much larger terms then in the past.

I really think if we can.t achieve a stable nation at the end of this mission, we should consider leaving before it becomes another Vietnam.

Even if we pursue Al Qaeda in Pakistan with drones and surgical strikes, Al Quaeda will relocate.

158

at 18:11 on October 14th, 2009

Winning does not mean killing every terrorist or insurgent. And not all the enemy is al Qaeda or Taliban.

Winning means reducing them to a nuisance rather than a threat.

First you win the war then you build the nation.

Or you pack and leave.

rng

at 16:26 on October 14th, 2009

At a macro level our foreign policy is screwy. We end up mired in Afghanistan and Iraq which in a world of China, Russia, Iran et al that are important strategically, just shows how we got off track and into sideshows. Iraq - we should never have gone and getting out is not as easy as they are leading us to believe, especially now Iran has scope to pursue its regional hegemony thanks to us disturbing the Sunni-Shia balance between Iraq and Iran.

We do not have the skills, patience or electorate fortitude to get into country building in Afghanistan, and meaningful military options without large scale commitment are unlikely. In addition we have very confused objectives as to what we are trying to do there other than some vague desire to not have a safe haven for Al Qaeda (while they happily build new ones in Pakistan, Yemen, Algeria and the Horn of Africa). We need to understand we are not Atlas and can't carry the world on our back. We need to be smarter, more strategic, use engagement/diplomacy/economic policy and not rely on blunt leviathan military interventions. Extraction now is as much as a problem as continuance - it is a bloody mess, and one hell of a conundrum.

albertacowpoke

at 16:41 on October 14th, 2009

Thanks for commenting rng. You make good points, especially in view of the contractual arrangements being made between China and Iran as well as Russia. Where do we think they sit when it comes to a Security Council vote on Iran?

Al Quaeda is mobile and can.t be put into a neat box.

Democracy in Afghanistan is a myth and it goes on and on.

rng

at 16:55 on October 14th, 2009

Thanks ACP

Where do we think they sit when it comes to a Security Council vote on Iran?

Russia talks a good game while pipe-lining in and out via Turkmenistan so I don't trust them whatsoever, let alone their dealing on nuclear technology transfers. China is just hungry for resource plus they are an alternative supplier of air defense system if Russia defaults on the S300 contract. So in real terms, we are being set up to fail.

I agree with many analysts that Iran will go nuclear and our policy set needs to adapt to how best to integrate that into our strategies. We cannot play proxy here for the Saudis or Israel the stakes are too high. We are working the back door through Syria into Tehran and we need to speed that up (see Turkey and Saudi talks with Syria and read US sponsored). We have to attempt to isolate Iran and then engage them head on to integrate. Iran is now mainly secular so money, and incentives will work way better than sanctions they can run rings around