ISAF under Command of General McChrystal (The March Strategy)

by albertacowpoke | October 22, 2009 at 04:47 am

162 views | 58 Recommendations | 14 comments

General McKiernan commanded ISAF until he was replaced by the Obama Administration in March of this year by General McChrystal.

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel alleged on the Sunday talk shows that there was no plan or strategy present prior to the Obama Administration taking over. Dick Cheney, former Vice President under GW Bush, reputed this by commenting that there had been a comprehensive review of Afghanistan for almost two months. According to Cheney upon request of the White House Transition Staff that it was agreed that the Bush Administration would not release it.

According to Cheney this strategy is the one adopted, with very few changes, in March of this year. I leave it to the reader to decide who is telling the truth. Having said that, it would be very surprising to me that the Pentagon and Secretary Gates would not be constantly updating its contingency plans and strategy as part of normal operating procedures. My military service and employment in several headquarters tells me that is so.

General McChrystal, armed with the new strategy, took command of Afghanistan's ISAF and undertook a comprehensive fact checking mission to determine how best to implement this policy. He created waves with his multi-national staff by asking subordinate commanders hard questions and basically playing hardball until he got the answer he needed.

In his pursuit he traveled from village to village and sometimes to the dismay of the commanders on the ground, discarded his flak vest and helmet while he talked to villagers. He asked them what he could do for them rather than telling them. He then told his commanders on the ground how to change their approach.

Early in McChrystal's tenure he issued new Rules of Engagement, which basically was to avoid civilian casualties at any cost, even if the enemy runs away. McChrystal also determined that living with the locals in villages and providing continued security was the best way to win hearts and minds. Co-operating civilians obviously were concerned about vengeful acts by the Taliban after the NATO forces left.

It is generally believed that an approach to improve the economic condition of the people of Afghanistan, by ensuring well working infrastructure and jobs would stop young men from joining the Taliban in their quest to fight NATO.

In his comprehensive review, General McChrystal determined that up to 80,000 additional troops were required to implement this policy. It is believed that he recommended an additional 40,000 troops to implement the counter-insurgency strategy.

Some have accused President Obama to be sitting on this report and showing indecision or leaving the troops on a cliff hanger. The attack on FOX News, The Chamber of Commerce and Wall Street bonuses are believed by some to be distractions from the business that should be attended to, i.e. the economy, Afghanistan and the chaos presently in health care legislation.

General McChrystal did what was asked of him. He completed his review and presented it to the Administration at the end of August. His recommendation is supported by the military chain of Command and Secretary Gates. Some Democratics Senators, namel Diane Feinstein, believe Obama should go with the General's recommendations.

I leave it to you to decide if Obama is dithering on this issue.

3 See all footage | View Slideshow

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

recommend Add a comment

marianmo

at 04:55 on October 22nd, 2009

ty for this story acp

158

at 07:39 on October 22nd, 2009

Very good report.

This war and Iraq are already too politicized.

Obama needs to make a decision now.

Ten months of delay is more than enough.

nanute

at 09:29 on October 22nd, 2009

This war and Iraq are already too politicized...... Then why on earth is the former Vice President politicizing it further? The former VP is proving that he and others from the previous administration live in a world of reality created by themselves. Ron Susskind wrote a piece in the 2004 NY Times magazine of which the following is an excerpt: As an unnamed Bush official told reporter Ron Suskind, "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality--judiciously, as you will--we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors...and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do." For those who didn't like it, another Bush adviser explained, "Let me clue you in. We don't care. You see, you're outnumbered two to one by folks in the big, wide middle of America, busy working people who don't read the New York Times or Washington Post or the LA Times."

Ten months of delay is more than enough. The policy change by President Obama in March of this year, along with the charge to Gen. McCrystal to make an assessment and recommendation to the President has not been 10 months. Gen. McCrystal's recommendations were given to the President in August, less than 3 months ago.

The former VP is trying to blow smoke up the American public's ass, and further politicize the issue, and I might add, undermine the Commander in Chief and our troops. He has every right to speak his mind. It is just rather unfortunate that every time he opens his mouth, he shoots himself in the foot. (I heard he is a good shot.)

The current strategy is a new policy initiative, and if it isn't why did it take 8 years for the Cheney Administration to implement the policy?

Critics are trying to force the Administration to make a decision in the same fashion as the previous policy makers. We have seen how well those reactionary decisions have worked out. I'm sure Gen. McCrystal would like the additional troops requested yesterday. But as of yet, I haven't heard that if the troop levels aren't increased by a date certain it's too late.

As I suggested 2 days ago, read the Deker Filkins article in the Sunday Times http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/magazine/18Afghanistan-t.html?pagewanted=7&_r=1 for a look at General McCrystal, not Vice President Cheney's assessment and policy recommendations for Afghanistan.

Thanks for a great read ACP

albertacowpoke

at 09:39 on October 22nd, 2009

Thanks for your perspective on this nanute. Personally I don't blame VP Cheney for shooting back after the accusations made on the Sunday talk show rounds. Another official, whose name was not revealed, called the Obama Strategy released a cut and paste job.

I suspect the reality lies somewhere in the middle. I think the present Administration needs to take responsibility for its own actions now and not continuously blame the previous Administration.

I agree that this war has already been politicized enough and the rest are all side attractions that serve to distract from the real issues at hand.

I suppose that's politics.

nanute

at 11:00 on October 22nd, 2009

Point well taken. I do think the Administration is taking responsibility. The problem is that critics don't seem to be interested in allowing the President to make a thoughtful decision based on all the underlying issues faced in this conflict. There aren't any guarantees with the McCrystal strategy either. This is a high risk proposition considering the realities on the ground. Unfortunately, political considerations always seem to have a way of defeating our own self interests. "I suppose that's politics."

albertacowpoke

at 11:24 on October 22nd, 2009

I agree there are no guarantees. In view of recent events, which in my mind boils down to dirty politics, with BS floating from both sides of he political spectrum, I'll reserve my opinion on whether or not the Administration is taking responsibility.

There are many roads that lead to Rome, let.s hope they chose the right road.

nanute

at 11:58 on October 22nd, 2009

As one who is very up on this issue, you well know that there is a growing chorus of people that think maybe we shouldn't be going to "Rome." And it ain't all "lefties." Did you see former director of policy and planning at the State Dept. Richard Hass's comments in the Filkins piece? And I'm not talking about his being in favor of a more limited strategic policy initiative as Biden and others propose.(He does favor this approach, though.) He said: "I keep thinking back to Yogi Berra. You know: 'When you come to a fork in the road, take it.' I bet there are days when Obama wakes up and sees the fork in the road and decides he's not going to take it. Because both choices are so bad."

Again, thanks for the dialogue and feedback. :)

albertacowpoke

at 12:08 on October 22nd, 2009

I agree with you fully and I don.t consider myself a Lefty. I am pleased that the Canadian government has decided to cease our combat operations in 2011. We will remain involved, but only in the rebuilding process. Whether that will work or not, I have no clue.

The question here has to be, do we (meaning NATO) prop up a corrupt government, knowing full well if we do leave the Taliban will, again gain control, or do we leave?

I don't think that half measures will work.

Hugh Askew

at 09:38 on October 22nd, 2009

Thanks for the excellent article, cowboy.

McChrystal also determined that living with the locals in villages and providing continued security was the best way to win hearts and minds. Co-operating civilians obviously were concerned about vengeful acts by the Taliban after the NATO forces left.

this is reminiscent of successful Green Beret practices in Viet Nam. Let us hope they work out with the Afghan people.