need to add title here

Bulletproof?

September 27, 2009 5:00 PM

Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, walks the streets of Kabul without body armor. Find out why.

Recent Segments
Scroll Left Scroll Right
Add a Comment
by origtartuffe October 11, 2009 8:53 PM EDT
Richard Engel, NBC (Charlie Rose 10/07/09), gave (at last) an honest assessment of Af-Pak. But, alas, with a paradoxical conclusion, i.e., not to leave posthaste, despite a realistically hopeless outlook. Engle lamented leaving the Pakistani?s after exhorting them to take up the battle against the Taliban. ???? I don?t get it. It?s their problem to resolve (or not) in any level of efficiency (or not) they chose. The Pashtun (Source of Taliban) are 15 per cent of Pakistan. In other words doable if they have the will.

Engle could discern no distinction between Taliban and al Qaeda, and the Taliban were Pashtun (but all Pashtun are not Taliban). He further asserted that drone missiles were not the answer because of civilian casualties and lack of target definition.

As an aside, for those who like to keep score against the 3,000+ World Trade Center 9/11/2001 deaths, the raw score in body count is more than settled with Afghan troops killed at 11,522; Afghan civilians killed at 7,589; [1,371 coalition troops, contractors and six journalists]. So the eye-for-an-eye, and a tooth-for-a-tooth (until we?re all blind and toothless crowd) should be satiated.

Given that and the fact that Osama bin Laden has apparently safely ensconced himself out of reach, what is our objective? The elusive end-game? How about an Hippocratic Oath takeoff, of ?Second, Do no (more) harm!? The hardliners are shuddering, but remember tough guys we?re already more than even based on body count - what other metric is there as far as vengeance?

Formulations to consider, where: O = Outcome, T=US Troops, E = Enemies, C = Created, V = Vanquished (killed), I = Indifferent.

Scenarios: 1- Add 40,000 to 68,000 troops and 75,000 contractors already there. 2-Add 20,000 troops. 3-Add none. 4-Add none and remove all troops and contractors.

Assumptions: 1- For each Enemy (Pashtun) killed a MINIMUM of three other Pashtuns will grieve and harbor resentment, 2- The current rate of say (11522+7589)/68000x8 = 35 Pashtuns/US troop/yr vanquished (euphemism for killed) per 1,000 troops will continue.

Therefore, the outcomes O for for the four scenarios are shown below:

Where: Outcome O = T in thousands x Vanquished per year per thousand = Annual Pashtun Kill.

Scenario 1: O = (68k + 40k) x 35 = 3780 / yr
Scenario 2: O = (68k + 20k) x 35 = 3080 / yr
Scenario 3: O = (68k + 0 k) x 35 = 2380 / yr
Scenario 4: O = (68k - 68k) x 35 = 0 / yr

These hypotheticals could be reduced by strategical policies and actions. But at whatever level, they have consequences. If it can be safely assumed that at least three generations carry emotional trauma for at least three survivors of the ?vanquished? 150 enemy-years (E-yrs) will be created for each Pashtun killed. Therefore, for the four scenarios the following potential E-yrs of terrorists will be created ©.

Scenario 1: C = 150 E-yrs x 3780 = 567,000 Enemy-years
Scenario 2: C = 150 E-yrs x 3080 = 462,000 Enemy-years
Scenario 3: C = 150 E-yrs x 2380 = 357,000 Enemy-years
Scenario 4: C = 150 E-yrs x 0 = 0 Enemy-years

Reminder, these figures are for one year. Another eight years increases Scenario 1 to 4,536,000 Enemy-years for example.

Simplistic example: they experience casualties when they go out on patrols in the remote outposts. When they don?t, they don?t. DUH!

Iraq will never REALLY resolve their Sunni - Shia problem until we leave and they are forced to reach an accommodation one way or another, equitable or not. Repressive a la Sadam or not, they?ll own it.

Af-Pak as well will never REALLY resolve their Pashtun (aka Taliban, al Qaeda) problem until we leave and they are forced to reach an accommodation one way or another, equitable or not.

WE NEED TO CUT OUR LOSSES, PULL OUT AND COME HOME - NOW!!

So, there you go Mr. President, for every 1,000 troops sent to Af-Pak, the potential for diminishing the NY sky-line is increased by 5,250 Enemy-years, for each year they are deployed. Such scientifically, mathematically derived S.W.A.G. precision is undeniable. Ignore at your own peril and demeaning of your newly acquired Nobel peace prize. Prove it and bring em home!
Reply to this comment
by MayorClint October 1, 2009 10:49 PM EDT
What an impressive gentleman. Too bad he wasn't on the ground eight years ago. I sincerely hope that the Pentagon and more importantly West Point and the other service academies sit up and take notice. This man puts service back in serviceman. - Formerly a general's aide.
Reply to this comment
by Tripflare September 28, 2009 9:36 AM EDT
Gen McCrystal like Gen Carl Stiner Ret. understands the concept of Community Action. They are no nonsense type warriors who realize that you have to win the hearts of the people. You have to manage by walking around. His transparency gives the United States combat forces an edge on bad publicity and eliminates the enemy within. Very impressive and very wise choice by the current CIC to keep him at the helm. When i was a combat marine, i was in harms way for the people, especially the children of the country we occupied, and for my brothers and sisters. Gen. McCrystal understands that we are all children of the same Creator, and it is obvious that he trusts same for assistance in his mission. It's more than bulletproof. God/Allah be with him.
Reply to this comment
  • Preview: The Cost of Dying Preview: The Cost of Dying

    0:41 November 20, 2009

  • Preview: Cameron's Preview: Cameron's "Avatar"

    0:42 November 20, 2009

  • On The Set of On The Set of "Avatar"

    1:15 November 19, 2009

  • Kroft's Reporter's Notebook Kroft's Reporter's Notebook

    3:02 November 19, 2009

  • 60 Minutes, 11.15.09 60 Minutes, 11.15.09

    43:29 November 15, 2009

  • Rooney on U.S. Citizenship Rooney on U.S. Citizenship

    2:16 November 15, 2009