Afghan Corruption Could Derail Troop Surge

AP Sources: Gen. McChrystal Warns in Troop Request that Even Huge Surge Could Fail Due to Corruption

(CBS/AP)  Rampant government corruption might derail the fight against the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan even if as many as 80,000 additional U.S. troops are sent to the war, the top military commander there has concluded, according to U.S. officials briefed on his recommendations.

The conclusion by Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal is part of a still-secret document that requests more troops even as he warns that they ultimately may not prevent terrorists from turning Afghanistan back into a haven.

McChrystal has outlined three options for additional troops - from as many as 80,000 to as few as 10,000 to 15,000, according to officials at the Pentagon and White House.

More from CBS News' Special Report: The Road Ahead:

Cost of War Hits Home for the President
Medevacs Pushed to the Limits

Each option carries a high risk of failing, according to U.S. officials, although they said McChrystal concluded that fewer troops will bring the highest risks.

McChrystal favors a compromise of 40,000 additional troops, said the officials, who described his request to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss it publicly.

Related: McChrystal on "60 Minutes"

President Obama said Tuesday that he will decide on a war strategy and the troops needed to carry it out in "the coming weeks." Though he said weighing military and security concerns are crucial to his decision, "Another element is making sure we're doing a good job in building capacity on the civilian side."

"Our principal goal remains: Root out al Qaeda and its extremist allies that can launch attacks against the United States or its allies," the president said.

There are 67,000 American troops in Afghanistan, and 1,000 more are headed there by the end of December.

The Washington Post reported Tuesday that President Obama had approved an additional deployment of 13,000 troops - primarily in support roles - to Afghanistan. According to the report, the Pentagon is already deploying the troops.

Allegations of widespread fraud in Afghanistan's Aug. 20 presidential election threaten to scuttle the international strategy to combat the burgeoning Taliban insurgency. The elections were marred by claims of ballot box stuffing and voter coercion, and officials now are recounting a sample of 10 percent of ballot boxes from 3,063 polling stations with suspect results.

A decision whether to hold a runoff election between Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai and his chief challenger, Abdullah Abdullah, a former Afghan foreign minister, could come as early as Saturday.

Katie Couric reports: Karzai a Problem or Solution?

On Tuesday, one U.S. military official said discussions within the Obama administration are ongoing about whether it is even possible to "surge" enough troops to overcome the corruption and how crucial a legitimate government in Afghanistan is to the overall war strategy. The official requested anonymity to describe the confidential discussions.

Corruption can lead to citizens rejecting their government and sometimes even aligning with rebel or insurgent groups. That in turn creates chaos that can lead to security problems and long-term instability.

Sending in additional troops would help secure Afghanistan, but only in the short term, said Jay Parker, a Georgetown University foreign service professor and retired Army colonel. Troops alone cannot fix the corruption, the root of the problem, he said.

Now in its ninth year, the war in Afghanistan has been increasingly deadly for NATO forces and faces waning public support in the United States and allied nations. Mr. Obama has vowed to disrupt al Qaeda, the terrorist group behind the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, whose leaders are believed to be hiding in Pakistan's mountainous border region with Afghanistan.

Some of President Obama's top advisers, chief among them Vice President Joe Biden, want to target al Qaeda with missile-carrying unmanned spy planes and U.S. special forces strikes in Pakistan. Military officials and some diplomats argue, however, that U.S. troops must continue to curb the extremist Taliban's influence in Afghanistan to prevent future alliances with al Qaeda.

McChrystal delivered his request for troops last month to top military leaders, who handed it off to Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Gates gave it to Mr. Obama days later.

The additional forces would not be deployed until early next year at the soonest, and it is not clear how they would be compiled. Two U.S. officials cited a range of sending between four and eight military brigades, which would mean a mix of Army and Marine units.

An Army brigade generally has between 3,500 and 5,000 soldiers, while a Marine expeditionary brigade could be built up to about 17,000 troops. However, sending a high number of forces would put more stress on troops who are already stretched thin from fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, and probably would reduce the time they would get at home between deployments.

[lovenpeace1]

In Communism/Dictatorship, only the Dictator can Corrupt.

In Democracy, only WE THE PEOPLE can corrupt.

[Lawyers-Guns-n-Money-01]

Looks like CBS has flipped the script...again.

The first shall be last; the last shall be first.

[salmoc44]

We are spending 3 times the GNP of Afghanistan almost 9 years into this war and we're losing. Even if we could defeat the Taliban that Bush told us no longer existed back in 2004, what would we win exactly? After all, there are way more members of Al-Qaeda in Pakistan and that country has nukes. We spend 30 times as much money in Afghanistan than we spend for Pakistan. This makes no sense. This war must just be about enriching war profiteers with taxpayer money. And, the goal must be simply keeping the heist running as long as Americans allow it to continue.

[salmoc44]

The Afghanistan War isn't about winning anything. It's about stealing taxpayer money to enrich war contractors. There is nothing to win in Afghanistan for the average American. But, for the rich bloodsucking corporations that are feeding off of this effort, every day we continue to blow money is a huge win. There are way more members of Al-Qaeda in Pakistan than there are in Afghanistan. There are nukes in Pakistan. Currently, we're spending 30 times the cash in Afghanistan than we are in Pakistan. This makes no sense strategically. But, if you're a giant contractor making wads of cash on the current situation in Afghanistan, the status quo is something to you never want to end.

[Lawyers-Guns-n-Money-01]

Rampant government corruption might derail the fight against the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan even if as many as 80,000 additional U.S. troops are sent to the war, the top military commander there has concluded, according to U.S. officials briefed on his recommendations.

The conclusion by Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal is part of a still-secret document...
================================================================

It doesn't appear to be very secret, now does it?

[lovenpeace1]

Folks,
The more this goes on, the more the Iraq Invasion looks much worst than a Blunder. I now feel sorry for the Legacy of Republican Ex-President Bush.

[superdem1]

I saw the Frontline special on Afghanistan last night - what a mess ! I'm convinced we can never do anything in Afghanistan except lose a lot of men and a lot of money. Everybody over there is lying through his teeth, and Pakistan is every bit as bad. We actually have tape of Pakistani leaders talking to Taliban leaders. They deny it. They all hate us over there. We should get the heck out, and let what is going to happen anyway just happen. Get it over with, and use our men and resources actually protecting AMERICA. Remember, al Qaeda used SAUDIs to attack on 9/11, they don't need Afghanistan to attack us. The real problem is Pakistan's nukes, but we should have thought about that a long time ago. Instead, we backed Pakistan to counter the Soviets in India. Now, none of that matters and we've got a problem. I don't care who rules any of these backward cess pools, if we get out they'll eventually stop hating us. More troops only sinks us deeper in the tar pit.

[ramos1129]

Now in its ninth year, the war in Afghanistan has been increasingly deadly for NATO forces and faces waning public support in the United States and allied nations. Mr. Obama has vowed to disrupt al Qaeda, the terrorist group behind the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, whose leaders are believed to be hiding in Pakistan's mountainous border region with Afghanistan.
-------------------------------------------------------------

I respectfully request that someone that favors sending the 40,000 USA troops address the problem I express herein.

While I might have some facts wrong, I understand that currently the USA is providing about 48% of the troops in Afgans. Further, there is an estimated 42 countries fighting in the country mostly NATO forces. If it is so important to conduct this war, why not have countries other than the USA contribute the required additional 40,000 troops? Further, if each country provided 10,000 troops, the allied force would be about 420,000 troops. Why are we Uncle Sucker again?

[lovenpeace1]

Hey ramos1129,

Where were you when Bush decided to go Unilateral (alone)? Watching video games?

[lovenpeace1]

Hey ramos1129,

Where were you when Bush decided to go Unilateral (alone)?

88% of Americans approved the Invasion of Iraq 1 day after Bush made the announcement on National TV.

ps: I was one of the lonely 12%.

[RedWings_ninety_one]

We need more troops in afghanistan after the Iraqi screw up by G.W. Bush. We never should've went in to finish Bush's Daddy's War.

[lovenpeace1]

Corruption in the Iraq Government was worst and is still Work In Progress but like any Corrupted people, Americans look the other way.

[lovenpeace1]

23% of Americans over the age of 18 are Registered to Vote.

53% of Registered Voters do go out to vote during a General Election.

Therefore, 12% of Americans over the age of 18 do care about their beloved nation.

Consequently, 88% of Americans careless.

[lovenpeace1]

Corruption in the Iraq Government was worst and is still work in progress but the Corrupted Americans obviously look the other way.

[bubbadubba]

Now that the UN has said the latest Afghan election was bogus does anyone think that the first election was fair when Bush and the oil companies put their gadfly puppet in charge?

[whatdableep]

C'mon now - a little corruption Never would have stopped Bush!

[wyodutch]

While we are bogged-down in our perpetual wars of choice... America continues to go to hell in a handbasket.
.
"Th dollar crisis went into a wider mode yesterday as the greenback was shockingly upstaged by the euro and yen, both of which can lay claim to the world title as the currency favored by central banks as their reserve currency. Over the last three months, banks put 63 percent of their new cash into euros and yen -- not the greenbacks -- a nearly complete reversal of the dollar's onetime dominance for reserves, according to Barclays Capital. The dollar's share of new cash in the central banks was down to 37 percent -- compared with two-thirds a decade ago."
.
More troops!! ... More bombs!! More missile strikes!!! Spend, spend spend!!!

[wyodutch]

It's all those foreign fighters that are causing all the problems in the 'Stan. Whoops... 99% of the "foreign fighters" are Americans. Forget that.

[afmcalax]

Unfortunately we keep sending troops to societies where their leaders care more about themselves and amassing personal wealth than the people they govern. Iraq is the same. We should insist on some semblance of honesty and integrity in their political system before committing troops. Part of the reason the Taliban gains support is that the regular people see the corruption of their government leaders.

[scabbard2]

The irony of your comment shines like the sun. It is well thought and to the point and describes the enigma of the beast in the mirror that reflects our own government.

[hungry1968-16]

What's the difference between the corruption in Afghanistan and the corruption in Washington?

[stuart-johns2]

The way the people respond to it.

[jsf14]

Several orders of magnitude! Which is to say 10s of 10s of 10s ...

[Constitionalist]

Here we have a false sense that our vote matters. Over there they know it doesn't.

[jsf14]

Oh, for crying out loud. At least in my town, if you get hauled into court -- either by the cops or because you are being sued -- you do NOT pay off the judge. Or any other official you meet. Yes, we have bribery scandals, but here those can be prosecuted. At least in places I've lived in the US.

[dallisman]

How odd. The Taliban is already aligned with Al Qaeda living free in Pakistan where they plan,plott,and hatch programs to kill are soldiers and attack the US.

[widollar]

The General has given the Commander in Chief a way out of sending more troops to the hell hole Afghanistan! Blame it on corruption which has always been there!