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
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- next
See all 43 CommentsNation 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.
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.
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.
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!
"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.
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.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- next
See all 43 Comments