McChrystal Rejects Calls To Lower Afghan Aims

New York Times:

The top military commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, rejected calls for scaling down military objectives there on Thursday and said Washington did not have unlimited time to settle on a new strategy to pursue the eight-year-old war.

Read the whole story: New York Times

Comments

[Ozarks]

01:14 PM on 10/05/2009

Why is this guy still in uniform?

[Builders]

04:16 PM on 10/03/2009

Can we remember general Singlaub? He publicly disagreed with Jimmy Carter. Mr. Carter, a man of courage and principal, summarily fired him personally. A solder does not speak out publicly taking positions opposing his commander. It is unthinkable and should land him in the brig.
Singlaub then went to work for the enemy, becoming an operative in Oliver North's subversive operation to thwart the will of congress by funding and arming the Nicaraguan insurgency.
Does Obama have the courage and conviction of Jimmy Carter? Let us see.

[bgofca]

11:53 AM on 10/02/2009

he should be removed from command. Just because Pres. Obama speaks about wanting his ideas, it doesn't mean he gets to run the war as he wants without the presidents direction. He hasn't been doing that great of a job and he is dishonest as demonstrated by his major involvement in the pat tillman death cover-up.

[polaris12]

01:54 PM on 10/03/2009

Reality check. The Pentagon and the military are a law unto themselves - their own government if you will.

[timewaster2dcore]

02:09 PM on 10/03/2009

But the US has a "Commander-in-Chief of the US Military", doesn't it? And that Commander in Chief has the final say. The Commander in Chief is President Barack Hussein Obama. So, if he says that the troops should prepare to come home tomorrow, the Pentagon has no choice but to heed him.

[Harpseal60]

11:07 AM on 10/02/2009

All this guy cares about is his Job Security.

[StJames]

09:36 AM on 10/02/2009

Who does this general think he is MacArthur? General do NOT make policy, they carry our the orders of the Commander-in-Chief. It's time to take this guy's stars and send him home, to dictate policy to his family. Poor family

[outnow]

10:23 AM on 10/02/2009

Get another commander and set policy goals and measurable benchmarks. Build infrastructure and increase educational funding. Maintain security for the people. Obama needs to do the same thing in the US. I'd rather see McChrystal invade Washington and Wall Street and clean out the corruption - remove the mote from our eye first, so to speak. Eliminate the banking Taliban in the US.

[arvay]

06:21 AM on 10/02/2009

Just a reminder, folks, we now have generals giving speeches on policy, in effect, presenting themselves as equals to the Commander-in-Chief.

Douglas MacArthur was fired far far less. And rightly so, even though he had a good case for his argument.

Just so you're not surprised when you read about Backwater acting to keep Americans in line, so Army volunteers don't have to be used to occupy US cities.

For decades, we supported banana republics in Latin America, and now we are becoming one.

[beartrack]

02:54 AM on 10/02/2009

The moderator must be fans of McChrsytals. I got scrubbed because I said he should be gone by the weekend. Insubordination of this kind can not be tolerated. HP is losing it's credibility.

[vinny]

01:39 AM on 10/02/2009

You do know that McChrystal is the commander most responsible for the Pat Tillman cover-up, yes?

[ilse]

06:17 PM on 10/01/2009

President Obama apparently found they were in Aghanistan for all the wrong reason and that's why we're pulling out. Maybe we are there for all the wrong reasons. War makes money for certain people, right? Some people like McChrystal cannot live without wars. That is what they live for.

[outnow]

05:21 PM on 10/01/2009

On NPR, Ahmed Rashid - a Pakistani reproter and writer of two books on the Taliban and the region -was interviewed. He made the case that the Taliban Model is spreading in China, India, Central Asia, Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Taliban is anti-education, women, and economy based on anything except opium. So far, there has been an outsourcing of tasks to the Taliban from AQ so that AQ can lay low. A regional strategy is needed, possibly including Iran's help against the Taliban.

Improved intelligence on the ground is now possible to guide missile strikes. The AQ message is afiling and we have to hand the Taliban their arses or the model will spread. Wannabe Talibam groups are watching the outcome in Afghnistan to test our will power and commitment.

Watching the movie, The Kite Runner, which is about the utter brutality might change some minds about the need to stop the Taliban and establish a strong central government there. I am beginning to support McChrystal's efforts despite a strong anti-war bias.

[richinkle]

06:19 PM on 10/01/2009

If we were able to hand the Taliban their asses, don't you think we would have done it by now - 8 years later. The simple minded notion that we can just "go in their and kick ass" has brought us Vietnam, Iraq, and now Afghanistan.

The fact is, war is destructive, costly and ruinous to all parties. Especially one that has overly-ambitious aims : invasion, military victory, toppling the government, occupation, nation-building, democratic institution building, economy building and political stabilization. It's a commitment in money and lives that most Americans do not want to make, or believe is worth it.

Better to limit your military and strategic goals to periodic, unpredictable and devastating air raids on known Al Queda targets and activity, or to stop ethnic cleansing, with spot invasions where necessary. This will drive Al Queda underground, and detach their hold on the Afghan govt.

Those are limited and achievable goals, without the dreadful cost or blowback.

[outnow]

09:24 AM on 10/02/2009

I agree with much of what you say above. I have come around to the viewpoint that AQ is symbiotic with the Taliban. The Taliban has spread trhoughout the Northern and other areas of Afghanistan and is performing much of the very activities of AQ on behalf of the AQ because of better intelligence and missile strikes on the leadership.

Our strategy in Afghanistan has been a mess since around 1978. The locals now trust the US and want them to remain to protect the people from the Taliban. To pull out and leave these people to their fate is something we must not do.

In Iraq they want us out but Iraq has been a former colony and had a functioning government with a strong central authority before we messed things up, but they have a precedent for governing whereas the Afghanis do not.

[polaris12]

06:41 PM on 10/01/2009

I didn't hear Ahmed Rashid's interview, but based on his writings such as, "Descent into Chaos," about the United States and the failure of Nation Building in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Central Asia, I doubt your interpretation of what he said. What Taliban model did he exactly say was spreading? The Taliban when they were in power did a better job of stopping the opium trade than anything the Karzai government and the US has done since. In fact, it is well established that the CIA has used the opium trade to finance its own operations in the region and elsewhere. From your various comments on this blog, i seriously doubt that you have a "strong anti-war
bias," since your main theme seems to be missile strikes and other warlike activities. War, in fact, seems to be your only idea for resolving issues there.

[outnow]

09:17 AM on 10/02/2009

Yes, the AQ model is not as popular as the Taliban model, according to the Rashid interview on NPR. AQ is on the ropes as it is an internation plan whereas the Taliba is local.

I am anti-war but I am also a humanitarian. Sometimes the two positions conflict. I appreciate that you are a reader of books but Rashid's opinions have definitely become anti-Karzai. He further sees a "model" of Taliban -"ism." The adjacent countries will suffer an infusion of Taliban activity and there will be illiterate and ignorant fundamentalist groups in China, India, Pakistan and Central Asia.

I advocate improved infrastructure and security. Peter Galbraith also resigned yesterday over the fraud in the Karzai elecytions permitted by the UN. Mr. Galbraith, another long=term expert in the region shares my viewpoint so I don't feel so bad being attacked as a war-mongerer.

It isn;t the military force but the infrastructure such as roads, hospitals, bridges, schools, and stability. The institution of a functioning central government would be appropriate. Also, I supported the socialist regime which the US undermined back in 1978 causing the Soviet invasion.

Peace be with you on Gandhi's birthday.

[riverhouse]

04:45 PM on 10/01/2009

Will someone please tell McChrystal he is not the President of the United States.

[LolaB]

05:33 PM on 10/01/2009

I second that! Time for him to zip those lips and follow orders like a good soldier....

[So Cute]

10:13 PM on 10/01/2009

I third and fourth it. It's a shame that this person wants to benefit off of something else's blood. Get our troops out. He rejects!!!

[sherbug]

04:40 PM on 10/01/2009

Now if anybody did this in the private sector, we would be escorted from the building with our box of stuff.

So I guess here's another one who does not hesitate to disrespect the POTUS. This is so shameful, that I don't know what to do.

[mcmchugh99]

04:37 PM on 10/01/2009

It would be very hard for Obama to fire him, since he just hired him a few months ago. Of course, I am one of the few remaining progressives who support the war, even though I have grave misgivings about the viability of Afghanistan itself.

Its government is at least as corrupt and unpopular as the one in South Vietnam, and it is hardly a unified country at all, much less a democracy. Economically and socially, it's a basket case after 30 years of war, and will take decades to "fix"--which is something only the Afghans can do for themselves, if it can be done at all.

The war is unpopular at home and will only become more so. Obama's own party oppose it, and the Republicans are just trying to sucker Obama into a quagmire, all the better to cut him off at the knees later.

Not good. Not good at all, but I cannot accept the cut and run idea, either, since that would leave the Taliban and Al Qaeda in charge of large sections of the country, and I do not believe they are really all that different in ideology and objectives.

I'm starting to get the feeling that many in the military are not looking for a reason to escalate and Americanize the war, but to get out.

[outnow]

05:28 PM on 10/01/2009

We must stay and establish infrastructure and governmental institutions. Afghnistan never has had a colonial government with a proper Paliament and common law since it has never been conquered completely. Even Iraq and other prior colonies have advanced governments whereas Afghanistan is a loose federation of warlords at best with a weak but functioning government from 1920 until 1979.

The Taliban Model is spreading and must be stopped politically and militarily. The stability and future of the entire region depends on this effort. China, India, Pakistan and Central Asia could become Taliban headquarters if we lose this fight in Afghanistan. AQ will then come in. mAQ's agenda is international in scope.

[dj5850]

09:57 PM on 10/01/2009

I have to ask; why do you, a so-called progressive, support this war?

[dgatlin]

04:35 PM on 10/01/2009

It seems to me that the things the general is commenting on are political rather than military. I don't believe that would be his expertise.

[dfortruth]

04:30 PM on 10/01/2009

I have a question for you Mr. President, how do you like your team of rivals?