need to add title here

General McChrystal

September 27, 2009 5:00 PM

As news from Afghanistan moves to the front pages of Americans' newspapers, Gen. Stanley McChrystal tells David Martin that the spread of the violence in Afghanistan was more than he expected.

Recent Segments
Scroll Left Scroll Right
Add a Comment See all 43 Comments
by buffalosoldier82 November 15, 2009 11:31 PM EST
As a junior Army Officer who is about to deploy next year to Afghanistan in support of the ISAF mission in Afghanistan and Operation Enduring Freedom, I am very confident in the leadership of General McChyrstal. In studying in preparation for this deployment, I have found that cultural ingonrance and tactical unprepardness have been part of our inability to truly sway the battle agianst the Taliban.

Nation building (one of our major goals in Afghanistan) can not be accomplished without the invovling the local populus. You cant storm into a city, pin its citizens between yourself and insurgents, and expect them to cooperate with you. No man is better than any man, and no life worth more than another. General McChyrstal has the most effective approach.
Reply to this comment
by PiePlate November 1, 2009 11:55 AM EST
Finally, an officer who understands and is willing to lead. There's an old saying that's been proven: Sometimes one has to hire the enemy. Looks as if General McChrystal has figured out in short order that the Taliban is doing just that with the village people who will accept money for favors.

The General is right-on and after almost 9 years and many lost lives, he knows what is necessary: Security for each village, one village at a time so these people can survive (not take money from Taliban) and protect themselves.

Our President should listen to him very carefully and above all, help Afganistan formulate an interim governing body (a number of local trusted persons) to provide the needs of each village, one village at a time to accomplish it. Doesn't have to be ONE PERSON (king/president/Emir); just a trusted group the people can accept who will take the drug & resource money and use it to develop their own country.

Not a simple task. America needs help and cooperation from every available agency & ally. As each community is secured, then send in the community builders with Afghan Government money to provide the basics for survival and build this nation one community at a time from village to village.

To drop, roll, and run is not an option in my humble opinion. The world as a whole will lose if a joint effort from every neighboring country & agency is not adopted to see this through to progress in erraticating the terriorism in this region of the world.

There are few options: America knew this going into Afganistan as well as Iraq. Strategy change so they know the difference between the Taliban v. America v. Al-Qaeda (This is difficult when Afghanis are being paid by Taliban/Al-Qaeda.) Maybe it is time we hired the enemy to fight the enemy! At least we'd know which is which. God Bless our President, God Bless our Troops, and God Bless this World with a few leaves of healing for these nations.

I just keep praying.
Reply to this comment
by dallisman October 13, 2009 12:55 AM EDT
Originally, The Taliban rose to power in Afghanistan to fight the brutal War Lords who were a problem in the cities and villages and to purify ISLAMISM. The people of Afghanistan are Islamic. I believe most ordinary Afghans do not have the stomach to fight and kill because of their religion. Building a military and security force will be a hard task both in principle as well as cost. Unfortunately, the US is tapped out on money at this time.
Afghanistan is an ISM. Islamism can not be changed to colonialism. Even if we could borrow the money to stay 20 years we can not change this ISM. Simply, Islamism is not about killism and I don?t really think were going to get any helpism.
Reply to this comment
by origtartuffe October 11, 2009 8:55 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 suzannesugar October 8, 2009 12:12 PM EDT
I think the McChrystalbear is as mad as a hatter for not wearing body armour. I wouldn't trust any Afghan as far as I could throw them. It would only take one of the religous Imans to say he has had a whisper from Allah to say any Afghan that gets the McChrytsal bear not only gets 72 virgins or whatever, but will get a couple of ****** as well, in case he wants someone that knows what they are doing , and one of the lunatics will try and get up close and personal to have a go on his life.
Reply to this comment
by mary_henry October 4, 2009 8:15 AM EDT
Although I respect and agree with most of what General McChrystal had to say in this report one point he made has not left me all week:

"We had gotten to the point where the flags were at half mast all the time, and I believe that a force that's fighting a war can't spend all it's time looking back at what the costs have been. They've got to look ahead and they've got to have their confidence. And I thought it was important that the flags be up where they belong,"

First of all the soldiers in the battlefield do not forget for one second when they loose a commrade. We are not fooling them by "putting the flags where they belong" When a soldier is killed the flags belong at half staff. It is to honor the dead. If it gets to hard to look at flags that are not fully raised then maybe its time we go home. Its bad enough that most of our nation has forgotten that we are at war, the General and his staff should not forget for a moment of the ultimate sacrifice that these men and women have made.
Reply to this comment
by currieken October 2, 2009 4:51 PM EDT
As a retired military officer, all I can say after watching this: Praise God for giving us the right man at the right place at the right time. Obama needs to spend a hell of a lot more time listening to this man than flying off to IOC meetings. The gentleman who disparagingly said the general's "been talking to BO" is really clueless. We'll win this thing a town at a time, and it will take a while. The general has righted a floundering ship. If you want to know how we found ourselves floundering in Afghanistan, read "Imperial Grunts." This is a Spec Ops war; it takes a leader who understands how to fight such a war, and this general is it. You don't need to grill him with a bunch of self-serving (and biased) questions to know this. You can feel it in your gut when you listen to this man. Hooah!
Reply to this comment
by as_I_can October 2, 2009 3:28 PM EDT
I was shocked to learn last night via Comedy Central's program The Daily Show with Jon Stewart (and not 60 Minutes) that General McChrystal was a main architect in using the death of Pat Tillman as a propaganda tool for the previous administrations efforts in Afghanistan. It's a shame that David Martin chose not to address this in his questioning of the general. How could he not?
Reply to this comment
by debsemine October 1, 2009 11:10 PM EDT
This is not the 60 minutes I grew up with. No way would any of those reporters not ask about the General's involvement with the cover-up of the death of Pat Tilly. Shame on you, David Martin and the producers, of what used to be an interesting, provocative show.
Reply to this comment
by biggyinvestor October 1, 2009 10:24 PM EDT
In the past, the US has shown we are the greatest nation builders in history. Just look at Japan, Germany, Korea, Philippines, Puerto Rico, etc. Success story after success story. Why are we not taking pages from these expeiences and isung them in Afghanistan. What are we doing wrong? From my studies, the main differences is that we set basic rules to live & govern similar to our constitution and we demanded these people be self-reliant. WE have made NO such demands on the Afghans.
The world & the US have been at this expensive rebuilding project for 8 years with NO results. The Afghans have to pull themselves up by their own boot straps or face living like they did in Jesus' time going into the future. We need to quit letting the Afghans run around trying to design a government system when our constitution though slightly modified, will fit the bill. That and give them a swift kick in the pants.
Reply to this comment
by upstate60 October 1, 2009 8:29 PM EDT
As I watched your excellent broadcast last Sunday evening, I kept asking myself "what's wrong here?"

Then it began to dawn on me. We condemn serial killers to live out their lives in 5X8 cells, but General McChrystal thinks this is the perfect abode from which to lead our soldiers in Afghanistan and advise our President on American strategy.

I'm sorry, but the lives of our brave soldiers are at stake, and the more I watched the program the more I began to think: "HEY, THIS GUY MIGHT BE JUST ONE CASHEW SHORT OF BEING A NUT CASE!"

General McChrystal says that the assumption of more risk on the part of our soldiers is more important than killing the enemy. He thinks our US policy ought to be going out to play kissy-facey amongst the Afghans. He demonstrates his affection by not carrying even a sidearm. ?We must get them to love us? is his central theme.

A part of me applauds his Isaac Jogues? missionary zeal in endeavoring to convert these tribal peoples; another part, however, strongly suggests that I wouldn?t want my son or daughter serving in the Army under this monastic ascetic.

The 60 Minutes piece, in my view, should help convince clear-thinking Americans that bringing our soldiers home safely, ASAP, should be our highest priority in Afghanistan.
Reply to this comment
by upstate60 October 1, 2009 4:25 PM EDT
As I watched your excellent broadcast last Sunday evening, I kept asking myself "what's wrong here?"

Then it began to dawn on me. We condemn serial killers to live out their lives in 5X8 cells, but General McChrystal thinks this is the perfect abode from which to lead our soldiers in Afghanistan and advise our President on American strategy.

I'm sorry, but the lives of our brave soldiers are at stake, and the more I watched the program the more I began to think: "HEY, THIS GUY IS PERHAPS ONE CASHEW SHORT OF BEING A NUT CASE!"

General McChrystal says that the assumption of more risk on the part of our soldiers is more important than killing the enemy. He thinks our US policy ought to be going out to play kissy-facey amongst the Afghans. He demonstrates his affection by not even wearing a sidearm. ?We must get them to love us? is his central theme. A part of me applauds his Isaac Jogues? missionary zeal in endeavoring to convert these tribal peoples; another part, however, strongly suggests that I wouldn?t want my son or daughter serving in the Army under this monastic ascetic.

The 60 Minutes piece, in my view, should help convince clear-thinking Americans that bringing our soldiers home safely, ASAP, should be our highest priority in Afghanistan.
Reply to this comment
by tango668 September 30, 2009 10:15 PM EDT
I was very disappointed by this interview. I think this bordered on fluff. Instead of asking General McChrystal the critical questions that the American public needs to make an informed decision, we saw Gen. McChrystal scurrying about his compound, in/out of aircraft and the tactical operations center.

What I wanted to hear from General McChrystal are answers to the following questions:
a. Within a national/regional government, weigh down by corruption, what?s being done to insure that the enlisted Afghan soldier will be motivated to fight for his/her country? What?s being done to insure that Afghan?s officer corps will faithfully serve their nation?

b. If the new strategy is to ?protect the population?, what type of training is being offered to both ISAF and Afghan soldiers to help them carry out this mission?

c. Does Gen. McChrystal anticipate resistance from the national and/or regional Afghan corrupted elements that would delay the development of the Afghan security forces?

d. If the answer to question ?C? is yes, what does he intend to do?

e. In a casualty-sensitive America [where public support is measured by the loss of American lives], does Gen. McChrystal really believe that it?s realistic to ask American service members to shed their body armor?

?60 Minutes? needs to schedule a second interview with General McChrystal and find the answers to the above questions. This time you can skip the ?dog and pony? show; just make it a table and a couple of chairs.
Reply to this comment
by magenta8 September 29, 2009 12:08 PM EDT
How refreshing it is to see a true leader!! General McCrystal knows the big picture. He is right about winning the hearts and minds of Afghan people. He is humble, but tough. He should run for the President of US someday. I'd vote for him in a heartbeat.
Reply to this comment
by jeffinorlando September 29, 2009 1:33 AM EDT
McChrystal's background is SpecOps. For civilians who don't know anything other than close quarters combat and direct action missions, most SF ops have to do with being force multipliers. Which simply means that a 12 man A-team can go in and train hundreds. But first you must build trust and rapport with the population. McChrystal knows what he is doing. It's a risk to do it this way, but in the end it is probably the only way that it can be successful. My guess is that "jovibu" has never had "Combat 101" and if he has he certainly never took "Combat 401" aka Pre-SFQC (Special Forces Qualification Course).
We should be using Afghans as target practice? Are seriously that ignorant?
Reply to this comment
by jcam951 September 29, 2009 12:22 AM EDT
Just more propaganda. What does it even mean to "win" this war? To talk about winning and losing misses the point that people are dying for no reason. The spread of democracy? How about creating an actual democracy in this country first? This rhetoric has been used to justify every war since WWII. You don't spread democracy through violence. EVER.

Bring the troops home before more people die.
Reply to this comment
by twrawls September 28, 2009 10:07 PM EDT
This segment was disappointing, because it left too many questions unanswered. How does Gen. McChrystal perceive his mission? What are his goals? I understand from this report that he feels a need to win over the hearts and minds of the Afghan people, but what are his objectives for doing so?

I presume that the Pentagon sent Gen. McChrystal into Afghanistan to do a job, but how does the General define that job and interpret his role there? Finally, according to the General, what will it mean to win in Afghanistan? That is, how will we be able to recognize victory, once we have achieved it?

Those who worked on this report answered the question "how?", but neglected the larger question: "why?"
Reply to this comment
by aliebeknecht September 28, 2009 6:49 PM EDT
I saw first hand how we (the US) attempted to push our beliefs and processes on our, then enemy, now friend, in Iraq. I saw people push their beliefs and processes rather than letting the locals conduct business as they want. A democracy can take many forms and ours is but one. Let's not be so arrogant as to think our way is the only way or best way to be a democracy. In Iraq, we got ride of a tyrant dictator and tried to force our way of democracy on the people. Not right. Gen. McCrystal is spot on, guess he'll get relieved or forced into retirement.
Reply to this comment
by liu_bei September 28, 2009 6:29 PM EDT
One misconception that seems to be repeated over and over again is that Afghanistan has never been conquered. That may be true over the last 150 years or so. But one only needs to go back to the empires of Genghis Khan and Tamerlane. Sure, using their methods of populace destruction and scorched earth policy would utlimately induce the population to accept us. But thats not why we are there. And I am relieved that this General does not seem to think in that fashion. I am worried though that he could get distracted by worrying about winning over the populace and ignoring the original mission at hand, to destroy or incapacitate
Al Quaida/Taliban. I agree the civilians are key to that, but one must also have a grasp for our fighting men and women and the real mission that they are risking their lives for.
Reply to this comment
by fjerins September 28, 2009 6:14 PM EDT
WOW! Is this general really going to do this? I think his job is to protect the oil fields and gas pipelines. What a waste. where is the Napom? Cluster bombs? bouncing Betty's. They worked in VetNam, they should work there.
If you want to win the hearts and minds of the people, then use it. Oh, I forgot, he's been talking to BO.
Reply to this comment
See all 43 Comments
  • 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