Classified McChrystal Report: 500,000 Troops Will Be Required Over Five Years in Afghanistan

Congress Should Hold Hearings on Alternatives to Major Escalation

Embedded in General Stanley McChrystal's classified assessment of the war in Afghanistan is his conclusion that a successful counterinsurgency strategy will require 500,000 troops over five years.

This bombshell was dropped by NBC reporter Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC's Morning Joe on Wednesday:

The numbers are really pretty horrifying. What they say, embedded in this report by McChrystal, is they would need 500,000 troops - boots on the ground - and five years to do the job. No one expects that the Afghan Army could step up to that. Are we gonna put even half that of U.S. troops there, and NATO forces? No way. [Morning Joe, September 23, 2009]

Mitchell got the figure from an independent source. It was not revealed in the redacted version of the once classified report released by the Pentagon earlier this week. McChrystal has warned the administration that without an infusion of more troops the eight-year war in Afghanistan "will likely result in failure."

There are perhaps only two people in America who think that this level of commitment is sustainable by the United States and its allies, and they left office last January.

Thankfully, President Obama is re-thinking his Afghanistan strategy from top to bottom in light of McChrystal's report. In addition to the impossibility of sustaining the level of commitment this doomed-to-fail strategy would require are these stubborn facts:

• 2009 is already the deadliest year for U.S. forces since the war began eight years ago. Fifty-one of the seven hundred and thirty eight U.S. soldiers who have lost their lives in Afghanistan were killed last month alone.
• The national Afghanistan election that Ambassador Karl Eikenberry hoped would lead to a "renewal of trust of the Afghan people for their government" was a disaster and has had the opposite effect. The European Union election monitor has found that over 1 million votes for President Karzai, one third of his total, may be fraudulent. General McChrystal himself describes the Afghanistan government as "riddled with corruption". A government already mired in allegations of widespread fraud and corruption, now facing serious charges and compelling evidence that it has attempted to steal the national election, has no hope of regaining the support of the people of Afghanistan.
• A February 2009 ABC/BBC/ARD poll found that only 18 percent of Afghans support increasing the number of U.S. troops in their country. This should come as no surprise. Historically, Afghans have always forcefully resisted the presence of foreign military forces, be they British, Soviet or American.
• The presence of foreign forces strengthens the hand of Taliban recruiters. An independent analysis early this year by the Carnegie Institute concluded that the presence of foreign troops is probably the single most important factor in the resurgence of the Taliban.

Andrea Mitchell hit the nail on the head after revealing that 500,000 troops would be required over five years on MSNBC:

Would you prefer to have a president who doesn't shift strategy when he gets this kind of ground troop from the commanders?

Right question. And the answer is: NO!

Congress should immediately convene hearings to discuss alternatives to General McChrystal's proposal for such a massive escalation of the war in Afghanistan. It is time for the administration and Congress to demilitarize U.S. policy in Afghanistan and strike out in a new, sustainable, direction.

 

Comments

[mbaty]

So even though millions in America have lost their jobs and homes and have no health care, somehow this "war" in Afghanistan continues it's costly charade of inflated importance that we are told is necessary for our "safety." It's so important that no price is too high, in money or blood.
But we know peace is the way.

[sticksnstones]

" It is now clear that we are facing an implacable enemy whose avowed objective is world domination by whatever means and at whatever cost. There are no rules in such a game. Hitherto acceptable norms of human conduct do not apply. If the United States is to survive, long-standing American concepts of " fair play " must be reconsidered."

Game plan for fighting the "war on terror" and specifically Al Qaeda ?

VP Cheney's twisted rationale for using " enhanced interrogation " methods ?

A statement highlighting the risk and the wisdom of those in positions of power against pulling out of either Iraq or Afghanistan ?

None of the above. The quote is from the Doolittle Report commissioned by President Eisenhower in 1954.

Interesting how time changes, but some things never do.

[omobob]

half a million over five years. That dog won’t hunt. However the Military always asks for way to much then gets by on what it gets. Hell of a way to run a war. Time to push the reset button.

[sheema56]

It's time for the empirial mindset to go away. We as a country have NO RIGHT to impose our ideals or lifestyle on ANYBODY else. We need to bring all troops home AS OBAMA PROMISED IN HIS CAMPAIGN. Why MANY voted for him to begin with. We cannot win In Afghanistan as no one has been able to. UNOCAL wants a pipeline, let them hire Blackwater and whomever OUT OF THEIR POCKETS to "stabilize the region" and establish a government to their liking. NOT our responsibility as a country at the expense of the taxpayers. We as a country will actually be safer for it - they will go after these corporatists familes instead which just might be a plus for future humanity. Corporatism is a mutation of our political system and has got to end. The government and corporations should NOT be linked in any way for any objective. This also means letting the damn banks fail if they got in over their heads. END THE FED as well. No borrowing, no wars. COOL. It is an unholy alliance to the detriment of the average citizen and the country.

[robertogt]

The Russians must be rolling in the aisles. Been there, done that. For that matter, so have I in Vietnam. 500k. That's a nice round number...for five years? How much is that gonna cost? Where ya gonna get the money? I forgot..the Fed "prints" it. I guess we'll have to tighten up on the home front. So much for Social Security(Medicare is already toast). I guess we could raise taxes on the booming economy. BTW, would the 500k include the already 150k mercenaries like Blackwater?

[NotAnObot]

No mother with half a brain is going to allow her child to be blood sacrified for the elites' poppies and pipelines.

[lapdogs]

Where were all these Republicans and Generals demanding more troops for Afghanistan while Bush was President?

Oh, thats right. Bush had the soldiers fighting (and dying) in Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11 - but the do have OIL under their soil for Cheney's OIL Company.

Details, details.

[rose1123]

This whole McChrystal/Btrayus episode smacks of politics going back to GWb. This sudden request for such a large number of troops is designed to bring President Obama down. I have never trusted Btrayus, he's a Bush clone. Remember, the Retread Party has its hand in this notion. They will try anything to create a political dilemma for the President. Please remember, that General Btrayus has political aspirations of his own. The leak that Afghanistan is in such dire straights is so very odd, especially, after the President has said that there should be rethinking in regards to the stragedy, going forward. The leak was done for political purposes and Btrayus and the Retreads are behind it.

[stringer]

Hey look at the brightside, that's only what we had at, what, the heigh of our troops strength in Vietnam.

I'm seriously questioning if McChrystal wants to get out of Afghanistan himself and is just making insane requests and statements. Surely he can't be THIS tone deaf about not only what's going on in the country but what the military is even capable of supplying him with.

[TheReality]

Still waiting for somebody to point out that 500,000 divided by 5 years = 100,00/year, or about 41,000 more than the 59,000 currently deployed. For those of you making Vietnam comparisons, current levels are about 10% of what they were during the height of Vietnam (about 550,000). The prominent use of "500,000" here is very misleading, and frankly, irresponsible journalism. How can we have a healthy, respectful debate about important issues if media outlets are so blatantly biased?

[dream9]

Whatever the true numbers are, don't forget to add in an equal (or greater) number of very expensive paramilitary subcontractors.

[Ozarks]

500,000 --gee another Viet Nam type big time gift to the Military, where a lot of McChrystal's buddies will do a "tour" get it stamped on their "resumes" and go on to a merry career resulting in stars on their Shoulders. They will all be so happy.

[Tom Joad]

alternatively, we can bring everyone home and see how that goes...

[eciaccio]

Or, Obama could listen to the advice of Rory Stewart, a former British soldier now at the Harvard Kennedy School who has literally walked all of Afghanistan and lived among the Afghan people. He also has set up non-profits in Afghanistan to build schools and help Afghanis run small businesses.

Read Lynn Sher's interview with Stewart from last night's Bill Moyers' Journal:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/09252009/transcript4.html

[SoCalDaveO]

I can't believe that I am agreeing with the lefties here (my politics are right of Gengis Khan), but the spending of our boys in this useless drain of a failed state is a pointless excercise. Obama declared a bold new strategy 6 months ago, noting that this is a war of necessity.

REALLY? Think again.

[caribgirl]

I think that's what he's doing now.

[NCAV2]

You've got to be f n kidding me. And Obama is even considering this?

[mamameow]

and for what?????? i have not heard any reason to be there at all. you cannot bring a group of 4th century people into the 21th century. this IS vietnam all over again. we need to secure this country here. with the news today of terrorist activitey we need to beef up what we have in this country. remember, we fight them over there so they don't come here. well they are here and being over there will not change anything.

[SoCalDaveO]

I agree,

And while I think it is a good idea, generally, to beat up on terorists, Afghanistan is impossible to hold, conquer or - for the love of God - bring into the 21st Century. Lemme see: they export heroin and enslave women. That's a hard one to get behind. Is there a shale or sand shortage in the US? Ought we go there and take all the shale?

I am fine with war for the sake of protecting our interests and our safety, but not ok with getting our boys killed. Obama's increased use of drones in Pak and Afg is a good idea. Let's kill 'em from the sky, from planes, drones, space...anything but running around in the dirt.