Casey: U.S. Could be at War Another Decade

By: Christine Delargy
Topics: Afghanistan ,; National Security

(Credit: AP Photo/Lauren Victoria Burke)

Updated July 10 at 2:52 p.m. ET

General George Casey, the Chief of Staff of the Army, said today the United States could face another "decade or so" of persistent conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In two months, the U.S. will have been at war in Afghanistan for nine years.

The four-star general said the U.S. military moved beyond conventional warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan "long ago," and that the focus is now on the people. Casey highlighted job, education and economic growth as essential to success in Iraq and Afghanistan.

When asked if enemies of the U.S. have to be a part of the reconciliation process for it to be considered a success, Casey said that is a "matter of debate," but that enemies have to be convinced they will lose.

In a follow-up statement to CBS News, a spokesperson for Gen. Casey, Lt. Col. Rich Spjegel, said that "General Casey was speaking of the types of conflict we will be fighting for a decade or so. He did not, nor did he intend to, imply that we would be fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan for 10 more years."

The general's comments were made at a session moderated by the New York Times' David Sanger at the Aspen Institute's Ideas Festival. Former Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff was in the audience and his wife Meryl Chertoff, the Institute's Co-Director of Justice and Society Programs, introduced Casey.

To view a video of the Aspen Institute's discussion on "Our 21st-Century Army" click here.

Christine Delargy
Christine Delargy is a producer for CBSNews.com.
Follow on Twitter »

62 Comments Have Your Say
Email Story Send to a Friend
Share This Tell Your Friends
Tweet This Tweet This
More Share It

Add a Comment

See all 62 Comments


by B_TRAVEN July 12, 2010 1:13 PM EDT: Not only is Afghanistan a vestige of the Bush/Cheney MIC world view. It is a recipe for further disaster to the US middle class. It has "set the table" for another handfull of terroists to take the country down another notch.

We need much smarter voters!; Reply to this comment


by vanax July 11, 2010 9:30 PM EDT: Maybe Congress can lock him up in the penitentiary for ten years so he can become a penitent and repent his warmongering.; Reply to this comment


by rockcutr July 11, 2010 5:55 PM EDT: "moved out of conventional warfare in Afganistan" gen Casey. Then the best one, "we could be at war another 10 years." OMG, these dudes all dream in color. Then sit around a 5 sided table the "far east" of the usa, to see just how hard they can milk the taxpayer cow before she drops from dehydration. Clearly, full grown men have no business playing with toy soldiers. Especially when real faces of hometown americana is on the little plastic men they push and shove in their war games. Get a frickn chess set and bring the humans home. Never fear the new general will betrayus all.; Reply to this comment


by tryhonesty July 11, 2010 1:17 PM EDT: Got to keep the War Machine going. Too many retired Military investors along with Corporate America.
Hey people, why do you think JFK was assassinated? He wanted to get out of Vietnam and that was contrary to the War Machine then, same for now...PERIOD.; Reply to this comment


by GM2009 July 11, 2010 11:41 AM EDT: @ Perish1
"Bi Laden was one of the masterminds behind 9/11"

Was he?
Verifiable evidence that Bin Laden is guilty of involvement in 9/11___________________________________. (please post *verifiable* evidence here and cite sources); Reply to this comment


by hopeandchange95 July 11, 2010 11:26 AM EDT: So you are telling me that even Obama isn't big enough to stop the American War Machine ?; Reply to this comment


by kcleung8947 July 11, 2010 10:18 AM EDT: Good news. Just a decade. I think we will be at war all the time, for centuries if the country last that long.; Reply to this comment


by wyodutch July 11, 2010 9:43 AM EDT: McChrystal was supposedly forced to resign after he and his aides made disparaging remarks against the Obama administration in an interview with Rolling Stones magazine.
.
However, the episode has been viewed in Pakistan in the context of the failure of US-led Nato forces to gain the support of the Afghan population during operations this year in the Taliban heartland of southern Afghanistan.
.
The military surge has been accompanied by a three-fold increase in violence. The lack of military progress prompted Gen David Richards, the British army chief, to suggest in a June 27 interview with BBC Radio that talks with the Taiban should start "pretty soon".
.
Vincent Desportes, a senior French general, was less subtle in a July 2 interview with Le Monde, saying the surge was "not working" and that the situation in Afghanistan "is worse than ever".
.
"The British and the French have come around to what the Pakistani government has been saying all along: the military option is not going to get you anywhere," said Mr Gul, who is the author of a book about Pakistan?s tribal regions bordering Afghanistan, The Most Dangerous Place.; Reply to this comment

by gregorybrian July 11, 2010 9:34 AM EDT

The problem is that the US, thanks to Bush, has set a precedent that will take a long time to overcome: devote gargantuan sums of money and lives to fight every single possible threat, no matter how remote (The One Percent Doctrine) or real. The reality is that no country can afford to insulate itself from every single possible real or percieved threat, large or small or wreak revenge on every single former aggressor. In life, bad things happen that you just can't do anything about, regardless of how much you bulk up the military or spy on your citizens.

I'm sure if the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan had been included as part of the budgets he submitted to Congress instead of having the special category of "emergency" funding, we would have learned to either tax ourselves more to pay for it or pulled out. Now, we have deficit hawks yelling about how we need to stop trying to help folks who are out of work because of the cost, some of the same folks who gladly kept the costs of these wars "off the books."

Reply to this comment


by wyodutch July 11, 2010 9:45 AM EDT: The current cost of our occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan is a staggering $3,000,000,000 a WEEK.


by GM2009 July 11, 2010 11:02 AM EDT: Only 3 billion?
Lessee....that's a projected $1,560,000,000,000. Can't afford health care for America's own citizens though. Not to mention the Pentagon budget during that period at the current rate of funding amounts to another $6,500,000,000,000.00.
Small price to pay for the "defense" of America from 300 primitively equipped and untrained foreign outlaws with no central leadership, organization, navy, air forces or intelligence services.

So altogether that would be...(carry the two...)$8,060,000,000,000.00
And that doesn't address the cost of treating about a million service veterans for loss of limbs, brain damage and PTSD.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the Global War on Terror! Can I hear you say amen?

by wyodutch July 11, 2010 9:32 AM EDT

We CAN win this one!
.
1. Bring the draft back. Universal military service for all able-bodied male citizens from 18 to 40 years of age. Number of annual draftees to be determined by need. No deferments of any kind.
.
2. An across the board national sales tax/war tax to pay for the war.
.

Reply to this comment


by worldcitizen1 July 11, 2010 2:39 PM EDT: That should put an end to both ongoing wars! About your suggestion "universal military service for all able-bodied male citizens from 18 to 40" Why do you discriminate against women, disabled and those over 40? Your term "this one", you mean Iraq, Afghanistan, or the "war on terror"?