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.

McChrystal: Violence "Worse" Than Expected
Web Extras
Scroll Left Scroll Right
Add a Comment See all 48 Comments
by jimmytttulsa July 5, 2010 1:58 PM EDT
I think you have hit the nail right on the head, timrrrr1401 - well said.
Reply to this comment
by Timrrrr1401 June 24, 2010 1:58 PM EDT
And so the drumbeat just keeps on rolling as this impossible war bleeds the American people in both lost lives and waste.
General McChrystal is an intense man and appears very capable, yet the bureaucracy of this huge and political war machine is just not able to effectively get this done. So, we've now fired the General because he dared to publicly embarass the brass and speak his mind. Now, the work stalls, and a whole new commander, staff and bureaucracy will have to be installed and again the success of this war delayed. I am patently sick of the entire thing. Iraq will descend into chaos as soon as we depart as will Afganistan. Doesn't history teach us anything? Much like Vietnam, the people must have within them the burning desire for democracy and no matter how much we would like to instill that with American Money, improvements, good deeds and good intentions it cannot ever be achieved unless the people themselves desire it. We cannot buy this for them either in blood of brave Americans and coalition partners or with money. It just is not going to happen!
Reply to this comment
by spenccar June 22, 2010 1:18 PM EDT
I think Mr Mcchrystal should be replaced. His disrespect for the President's Office is unacceptable. Where is the progress resulting from his "leadership" ? The body bags are increasing and Afganistan corruption at American Tax payer Expense is on the rise.
Get rid of McChrystal. Replace him with a team player. Send him to Blackwater.
Reply to this comment
by twillweave June 1, 2010 7:26 AM EDT
General McChrystal,
Thank you for your work in Afganistan. It appears that you are succeeding.

Cathy Mathias
Reply to this comment
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
See all 48 Comments

60MinutesOverTime

60 Minutes Overtime is a weekly web show that begins where the weekly television broadcast ends