World

The Nature of a Leak

by MilanSturgis | September 23, 2009 at 01:43 am

269 views | 39 Recommendations | 4 comments

The most popular game in Washington has always been who leaked what to whom and ultimately why was the story leaked? The latest episode of this parlor game is the leaking of Gen. McChrystal’s report on the current situation in Afghanistan and his request for more forces on the ground. This of course has caused great interest and anxiety in DC as his assessment sounded dire with it ending” but there is still hope of success.” One would hope after over 700 US deaths, thousands of Afghan deaths, over 20,000 US wounded and over $32 billion spent on reconstruction there still would be a chance for success. But this distracts us from the question at hand, who leaked this report and why? There are a variety of reasons for leaks to include those who simply like to interact with the media to feed an ego though in this case it might be a bit more complicated than simple ego boosting. By leaking this report the White House is forced to to place Afghanistan on the “front burner” something that has not happened to date. The Obama Administration has studiously avoided the Afghanistan debate in favor of domestic health care and other domestic programs. This now has changed. A quick scan of the major newspapers yesterday and today will show that Afghanistan is now front and center and the very tough decisions that President Obama has stated must be confronted now must be confronted. This might very well be the source of the firestorm surrounding the report, its dire tone and the controversial steps it lays out for needed courses of action.

0 See all footage | View Slideshow

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

recommend This comment thread is now closed

Rhonda J Mangus

at 04:23 on September 23rd, 2009

Thanks for this, MilanSturgis. More on McChrystal's report in Saving the Obama Revolution

Karl Gotthardt - albertacowpoke

at 04:49 on September 23rd, 2009

A strategy has been needed for Afghanistan for a while. With the UN debates today and the G20 down the road, it seems relevant that this would be put on the table.

Perhaps it's a way to engage the NATO allies. If, in fact 40,000 troops are needed, President Obama will have to engage the allies for additional support and a common strategy. I doubt that the U.S. could sustain 40,000 more troops in Afghanistan.

a211423

at 09:09 on September 23rd, 2009

I would like to read a clear statement of what success in Afghanistan will look like. What is the definition of "it's over." If we leave, the administration says the Taliban will surely take over; therefore, what is the long term plan to prevent this, and is it achieveable. And is it possble given that Al Qaeda now can take refuge in countries like Somalia and Yemen. The Taliban and Al Qaeda like the North Vietnamese in Viet Nam, have time on their side. We cannot kill them all, so they will just wait.

Also, what are the differences between fighting Al Qaeda and The Taliban? We know where the Taliban is, but do we know for sure we are fighting Al Qaeda and terrorism by our presence in Afghanistan when nothing prevents them from moving to other countries which they have already done.

In which country will we be fighting Al Qaeda after Afghanistan?