WASHINGTON, Sept. 5, 2008
U.S. General Sees "Slow" Afghan Win
Key Commander Says Less-Than-Decisive Approach Must Be Accelerated
-
Photo
U.S. Maj. Gen. Jeffery J. Schloesser, second left, walks around with US soldiers after arriving at a US base in Nuristan province east of Kabul, Afghanistan, Sept. 1, 2008. (AP Photo/Rahmat Gul)
-
Interactive
Assault On Al Qaeda
The manhunt on the Afghan-Pakistan border.
-
Fast Facts
Afghanistan
Learn about the people, economy and history.
Maj. Gen. Jeffrey J. Schloesser, in a video conference with reporters at the Pentagon, said he remains hopeful that the Bush administration will send him more combat troops and other resources by winter.
He mentioned that Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said the U.S. effort in Afghanistan is by necessity an "economy of force" mission, meaning it is under-resourced because the war in Iraq is considered a higher and more urgent national security priority.
"We need to get away from that, over time," to make a stronger push in Afghanistan, Schloesser said.
The current approach, he said, is making headway, but not at a rate that he considers satisfactory.
"It's not the way that I think ... the Afghans, the international community and the American people would like to see us conduct this war," Schloesser said. "It will take longer the way we are doing it right now, as far as the level of resources that we have. I'd like to speed that up. So it's a slow win. I'd want to make it into a solid, strong win" by committing more resources.
There are now about 33,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, compared with about 146,000 in Iraq.
Schloesser, commander of the 101st Airborne Division, leads a contingent of international forces responsible for an eastern sector of Afghanistan, which includes a volatile area bordering Pakistan.
He predicted that insurgent activity would not fall off as much as usual this winter, when snow usually limits the fighting season.
"I do believe that the level of significant activities, maybe violence, will be higher than any previous winter since 2002," he said. The war began in October 2001 in response to the 9/11 attacks launched by Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network, which at the time used Afghanistan as a haven.
Schloesser declined to say exactly how many additional U.S. combat troops and support forces he thinks are needed in his sector, but said he was optimistic that they would be provided in the next several months.
"The numbers are going to be a couple thousand - some series of thousands," he said.
In addition to combat troops there is a need for more intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance units of the type that currently are being used on missions in Iraq, he added.
In some areas of eastern Afghanistan there simply are too few U.S. or coalition troops to decisively defeat the Taliban, he said.
"I can come in and I can clobber the enemy but then I can't hold it and stay with the people," he said.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Mullen on Wednesday recommended to President Bush that a partial shift of resources from Iraq to Afghanistan be undertaken early in 2009, but it's not clear whether that will provide the help Schloesser says is needed to deal with enemy forces this winter.
"If we don't do anything over the winter the enemy will more and more try to seek safe haven in Afghanistan rather than going back to Pakistan," Schloesser said.
On the other hand, he said, getting additional forces is not a make-or-break issue.
"We're not losing this war, and we won't lose (it) if those troops don't show up in the next several months," he said.
U.S. and NATO officials say militants cross into Afghanistan from Pakistan, where they rest, recruit, train and resupply in tribal areas along the frontier where the Pakistani government has little sway.
Schloesser said he is counting on executing a two-track strategy this winter for further eroding the insurgents' fighting prospects.
The first is an aggressive effort to hunt them down.
"We will pursue them wherever they run," he said. "We will intercept them, and we're going to destroy their resources. My intent is to eliminate the support areas within our sector to diminish the enemies' ability to operate next year."
The second is what Schloesser called a "development surge." That would be a variety of projects, such as construction and road maintenance, designed to keep military-aged males employed who otherwise could be recruited to join the insurgency.
© MMVIII The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yep, the Russians know about an Afghan win. That''s how they lost the soviet empire, because they wanted the Afghan win.
And before them, the British too know about the Afghan win.
Where did all these nutcase generals come from?
Those who do not know history are condemned to repeat it.
And it looks like we''re condemned by our idiot president and his commanders to repeat history.
I say, go after Bin Laden, put his head on a stake and get out of Afghanistan quick before we suffer the same fate as the Soviet union!
are you kidding, the only people that would be profitable for would be us taxpayers? why would we want to buck this republicommie scheme? who needs an infrastructure anyway -war sells!
We cannot win militarily nor can we be defeated militarily. Pouring more troops in this this will not help at all.
We need to stop fighting wars like Vietnam, Iraq and Afrans until we learn how to do it right.
You do not catch rats with a hammer. You catch rats by luring them into a trap.
Whoever came up with the idea of using the military to capture OBL is a M O R O N.
Posted by tuckerndfw at 05:01 AM : Sep 06, 2008
___________________
Hmmm. I prefer to poison rats. Feed them a little oatmeal with warafin in it and pick them up out of the yard in a few days.
This is obviously offered up for the dim-witted or gullible.
7 years on now and we effectively only control the area surrounding Kabul.
7 years on and our casualties are increasing not decreasing.
If this is a "slow" way to win a war, it won''t be "won" in this century, that''s for sure....
RINO Failure. And Bumpkins STILL swill Belgianweiser and vote for their failure.
Ukraine''s pro-west coalition collapsed on Wednesday, plunging the country into political uncertainty, hitting financial markets and undermining recent efforts by western leaders to show their support for Kiev following Russia''s intervention in Georgia.
http://tinyurl.com/5jnb4x
They both represent a certain two-dimensional picture of American life, or life as it should be, where all the women are drop-dead gorgeous and all the men happily rush off to war, to fight against unnamed and ever-shifting ''baddies''.
http://in.rediff.com/news/2008/sep/04guest.htm
Warning To NATO
This is obviously offered up for the dim-witted or gullible.
7 years on now and we effectively only control the area surrounding Kabul.
7 years on and our casualties are increasing not decreasing.
If this is a "slow" way to win a war, it won''''t be "won" in this century, that''''s for sure....
Posted by formrusmcsgt at 07:02 AM : Sep 06, 2008
Yes brother but as you, I''m sure, know there is a limit on how much you can put on those few that stand in the ranks of our defense. The toll they have paid in Iraq is MASSIVE and now we must ask them to take on a completely rebuilt Taliban and Al Queda. There are limits to any human as we are most certainly, with the very best of management, going to exceed that. Iraq HAS GOT to be the Military Blunder of all time. As an old Top I had would say, "It doesn''t matter how good the private is Sarge if the person leading doesn''t care". Hows that for a tried and tested Old Top Sgt??
Posted by MCVet-1 at 09:15 AM : Sep 06, 2008
Semper Fi Sarge! Don''t know how it could be said any better!!
Pershing & Ike-WHERE ARE YOU NOW??
Posted by babooph at 03:43 AM : Sep 06, 2008
Sorry but someone had to do this!! ;-)
AT 1100 AM AST...1500Z...THE CENTER OF HURRICANE IKE WAS LOCATED
NEAR LATITUDE 21.9 NORTH...LONGITUDE 68.8 WEST OR ABOUT 150 MILES...
240 KM...EAST OF GRAND TURK ISLAND.
-
by claydowner
September 7, 2008 10:50 PM PDT
- The problems that NATO is facing in Afghanistan has been a lack of infantryman and supporting units like intelligence, reconnaissance, surveillance and military police troops. Civil administration projects like schools, roads, etc. have also been a huge challenge for the Canadian, British, Dutch, French and Americans on the ground. They have been making up for a lack of infantryman by increased use of tactical air support. Mobility in the mountains has put a premium on helicopter transport which is hugely expensive. The close air support has resulted in many Afghan civilian casualties. President Karzai complains about this and rightfully so. But until such a time that you can get more infantry and support troops on the ground funerals for civilians will be the rule of the day as the war against the narco-funded Taliban goes on for its seventh year. At the rate we are going ten years from now we will still be in Afghanistan. We may end up being in Afghanistan longer than the Soviet Union.
-
Reply to this comment
-
See all 41 Comments