by
MilanSturgis | October 1, 2009 at 01:39 am
359 views | 38 Recommendations |
6 comments
The White House is now contending with competing strategies in the case of Afghanistan. The Pentagon has made the argument for more troops (upwards of 40, 000) to implement what Gen. McChrystal has proposed as a “protect the population” strategy. This has been a major shift in policy from the previous eight years, which had been one of targeting insurgents and concentrating our forces on their elimination. One of the challenges of such a shift is the number of troops needed in order to implement the strategy. The White House is acutely aware of the political ramifications of such a troop increase and continues to delay in making a final decision. The other strategy, which has been gaining traction, championed by VP Joe Biden and strongly supported by US Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), favors a return to the “hunt and kill” method of operation with an emphasis on Pakistan as the center of gravity of the insurgency. This particular strategy requires far less troops than that advocated by McChrystal and according to its supporters gets the US out of the business of securing the entire country by a blanket force. The troubling feature of this strategy is that it has been tried for eight years and we still have an unstable environment and now with a growing insurgency. The President spoke to Gen. McChrystal yesterday for the first time since they met in June in the Oval Office. It is hoped that all options were examined before a course of action was selected if one was selected at all. The time is growing near when a decision must be made as to which path we will take with Afghanistan.
Truemors
A House Divided
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (6)
at 04:12 on October 1st, 2009
It is amazing to me, that the General on the ground, an airborne and special ops soldier, who is a real warrior, advocates a strategy of Hearts and minds and the Commander in Chief is not listening.
at 07:28 on October 1st, 2009
The President has been accused of "outsourcing" the details of his policy agenda to date. Pelosi with healthcare bill and now Biden with Afghanistan. I think you are spot on Karl with the observation that there has been no direct contact between the White House and the field commander, McChrystal.
at 08:26 on October 1st, 2009
I thought there was a distinct difference between McChrystal's recommendation and the Biden/Kerry approach. McChrystal wants to increase the military to put forward, what seemed to me, an almost non-military approach by focasing on protecting villiages from the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. The Biden/Kerry stratgedy focuses only on Al-Qaeda in the north.
We have talked here extensively about the military efficacy of fighting the Taliban and whether that battle could ever be won based on the sociological and cultural climate in Afghanistan together with the unstable government. McCrystals request appears to wed us with the concept of nation building, which based on what we know now, is not possible with a military commitment only for the next five to seven years. Afghanistan is 20-30 years behind even Pakistan in creating a cohesive nation, and it is questionable they ever will considering the tribal nature of their population and disconnect among tribes.
at 08:48 on October 1st, 2009
Biden and John Kerry's approach indeed concentrates mostly on Al Quaeda. They intend to do it from a distance though with surgical strikes and drones. This method has caused too much collateral damage in the past. I also thought that that was precisely why General McChrystal replaced General McKiernan, who used surgical strikes.
I also think that at this stage of the game it will be nearly impossible to disengage the Taliban from fighting. Do you now tell them, ignore NATO troops we're not out after you but only Al Quaeda. Afghanistan is yours to do as you please. Hamid Karzai thank you for the past 8 years.
Canada for the past eight years in Afghanistan has used the 3D approach, with Provincial Reconstruction Teams, Operational Mentor Liaison Teams, Combat troops and the Canadian International Development Agency, where possible.
If we can't provide security to the Afghan population the cause is a lost one and we should get the hell out completely. There I agree with General McChrystal.
at 09:14 on October 1st, 2009
rng
Yes, I have heard the same in terms of the eventuallity of 600,000 over the long term, and there was not an estimate of the casualty loss, but it will be significant, and this will not be acceptable to the American people eventually, and this, in my opinion, should hold some significance in making the decision now about further commitment. The danger of this turning into another Viet Nam or "screw up" as you say is definitely looming large.
at 09:21 on October 1st, 2009
The Russians had 118,000 troops and got nowhere.