McChrystal: More Forces or 'Mission Failure'

[DiveCon]

Top U.S. Commander For Afghan War Calls Next 12 Months Decisive

The top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan warns in an urgent, confidential assessment of the war that he needs more forces within the next year and bluntly states that without them, the eight-year conflict "will likely result in failure," according to a copy of the 66-page document obtained by The Washington Post.
Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal says emphatically: "Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near-term (next 12 months) -- while Afghan security capacity matures -- risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible."
His assessment was sent to Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates on Aug. 30 and is now being reviewed by President Obama and his national security team.
McChrystal concludes the document's five-page Commander's Summary on a note of muted optimism: "While the situation is serious, success is still achievable."

McChrystal: More Forces or 'Mission Failure' - washingtonpost.com

more at link

so, what will Obama do?

 

[Si modo]

For me, THIS is a pass/fail situation for BHO. He should take the advice of those who know a hell of a lot more about this than he could ever dream of knowing.

 

[Sidestreamer]

We need to know what failure means, how dangerous Afghanistan will be under Taliban rule and whether or not Al Qaida would operate or thrive in a neo-Taliban government. Then see if the net losses would be greater than the amount of money we're dumping there.

That's not the popular way of thinking but we have to be realistic at some point.

 

[Si modo]

Sort of like what the definition of 'is' is?

 

[Si modo]

Before we get into the inanity of Newspeak redefinitions, McChrystal clearly defines the potential failure if politiciaons don't step up to the plate. It's a military failure and the military knows how to define it.

 

[Sidestreamer]

Before we get into the inanity of Newspeak redefinitions, McChrystal clearly defines the potential failure if politiciaons don't step up to the plate. It's a military failure and the military knows how to define it.

Yeah, and that is the inability to stop the insurgency. Now, what does that mean for Afghanistan, the political situation there, the ability for the Taliban to take the country's government over and reinstate its totalitarian rule, our relations with Afghanistan's neighbors, Afghanistan's neighbors' stability, Al Qaida's future in Afghanistan...

 

[Si modo]

Before we get into the inanity of Newspeak redefinitions, McChrystal clearly defines the potential failure if politiciaons don't step up to the plate. It's a military failure and the military knows how to define it.

Yeah, and that is the inability to stop the insurgency. Now, what does that mean for Afghanistan, the political situation there, the ability for the Taliban to take the country's government over and reinstate its totalitarian rule, our relations with Afghanistan's neighbors, Afghanistan's neighbors' stability, Al Qaida's future in Afghanistan...

I suggest you read the article as those are addressed.

 

[Lycurgus]

Before we get into the inanity of Newspeak redefinitions, McChrystal clearly defines the potential failure if politiciaons don't step up to the plate. It's a military failure and the military knows how to define it.

Exactly! ............... Further, without ample forces on the ground, in the theater of operations, then we place the forces we have on the ground, in the theater at much greater risk!

So IMO the request is really two fold, proper completion and properly protecting our own!

Either we do that or we cut and run without hesitation, only to fight there again, years down the road.

Obama will either lead and lead his party to support our men and women in uniform, he will fail then or cut and run totally.

 

[JW Frogen]

More troops are needed for nation building but we could stop nation building, our war is with Al Qaeda and the Talaban, we do not have to pick and choose among the alternatives.

We could give Kabul financial support and arms, but also arm any other group who opposes the Taliban, including drug lords who know long term a Taliban victory would eliminate them, and use Special Forces and predator drones to relentlessly hunt the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Allow more violence but reduce our cost and keep the Taliban and Al Qaeda pinned down fighting a relentless war with a growing enemies list, this war we could fight for decades.

So the choice is between idealism or ruthless realism.

Surrender is not an option.

 

[rayboyusmc]

Either we do that or we cut and run without hesitation, only to fight there again, years down the road.

Not necessarily true.
Plus as said above, we went to punish the Taliban for harboring Ossama. They offered him if he would be tried outside the US. We refused. Then we let down our guard and moved on to Iraq. Now are we trying to defeat the taliban or Al Quaeda or both? They aren't the same entity.

How long do you keep pouring lifes and money into a hole that never fills up? At some point in time, you either go all out if possible or leave. I bet the Romans and Alexander the Grape, Genghis Khan also had there "we can't leave until we win" crowd.

They left.

 

[Si modo]

Either we do that or we cut and run without hesitation, only to fight there again, years down the road.

Not necessarily true.
Plus as said above, we went to punish the Taliban for harboring Ossama. They offered him if he would be tried outside the US. We refused. Then we let down our guard and moved on to Iraq. Now are we trying to defeat the taliban or Al Quaeda or both? They aren't the same entity.

How long do you keep pouring lifes and money into a hole that never fills up? At some point in time, you either go all out if possible or leave. I bet the Romans and Alexander the Grape, Genghis Khan also had there "we can't leave until we win" crowd.

They left.

Your post is based on little that is factual.

 

[DiveCon]

Either we do that or we cut and run without hesitation, only to fight there again, years down the road.

Not necessarily true.
Plus as said above, we went to punish the Taliban for harboring Ossama. They offered him if he would be tried outside the US. We refused. Then we let down our guard and moved on to Iraq. Now are we trying to defeat the taliban or Al Quaeda or both? They aren't the same entity.

How long do you keep pouring lifes and money into a hole that never fills up? At some point in time, you either go all out if possible or leave. I bet the Romans and Alexander the Grape, Genghis Khan also had there "we can't leave until we win" crowd.

They left.

Your post is based on little that is factual.

well, maybe he got his history from the veggie tales

 

[kwc57]

Top U.S. Commander For Afghan War Calls Next 12 Months Decisive

The top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan warns in an urgent, confidential assessment of the war that he needs more forces within the next year and bluntly states that without them, the eight-year conflict "will likely result in failure," according to a copy of the 66-page document obtained by The Washington Post.
Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal says emphatically: "Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near-term (next 12 months) -- while Afghan security capacity matures -- risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible."
His assessment was sent to Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates on Aug. 30 and is now being reviewed by President Obama and his national security team.
McChrystal concludes the document's five-page Commander's Summary on a note of muted optimism: "While the situation is serious, success is still achievable."

McChrystal: More Forces or 'Mission Failure' - washingtonpost.com

more at link

so, what will Obama do?

If I recall, Obama wanted to send more troops and was criticzed by the right. That being said, I've been unclear on exactly what the "mission" has been for many years know. At least since Bush chose to invade Iraq and let Afghanistan and the Taliban be second fiddle.

 

[Si modo]

Top U.S. Commander For Afghan War Calls Next 12 Months Decisive

The top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan warns in an urgent, confidential assessment of the war that he needs more forces within the next year and bluntly states that without them, the eight-year conflict "will likely result in failure," according to a copy of the 66-page document obtained by The Washington Post.
Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal says emphatically: "Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near-term (next 12 months) -- while Afghan security capacity matures -- risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible."
His assessment was sent to Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates on Aug. 30 and is now being reviewed by President Obama and his national security team.
McChrystal concludes the document's five-page Commander's Summary on a note of muted optimism: "While the situation is serious, success is still achievable."

McChrystal: More Forces or 'Mission Failure' - washingtonpost.com

more at link

so, what will Obama do?

If I recall, Obama wanted to send more troops and was criticzed by the right. That being said, I've been unclear on exactly what the "mission" has been for many years know. At least since Bush chose to invade Iraq and let Afghanistan and the Taliban be second fiddle.

The article clearly outlines the mission.

 

[Si modo]

Not necessarily true.
Plus as said above, we went to punish the Taliban for harboring Ossama. They offered him if he would be tried outside the US. We refused. Then we let down our guard and moved on to Iraq. Now are we trying to defeat the taliban or Al Quaeda or both? They aren't the same entity.

How long do you keep pouring lifes and money into a hole that never fills up? At some point in time, you either go all out if possible or leave. I bet the Romans and Alexander the Grape, Genghis Khan also had there "we can't leave until we win" crowd.

They left.

Your post is based on little that is factual.

well, maybe he got his history from the veggie tales

ROTFLMAO! I missed that. Too...damn...funny.

 

[HUGGY]

We need to know what failure means, how dangerous Afghanistan will be under Taliban rule and whether or not Al Qaida would operate or thrive in a neo-Taliban government. Then see if the net losses would be greater than the amount of money we're dumping there.

That's not the popular way of thinking but we have to be realistic at some point.

If "the mission" is to kill all of the taliban....we need to get out yesterday. It is not possible. If the mission is to kill all al kaida in the region and destroy thier infrastructure then do it yesterday and get out.

Afgahnistan will never be anything more thaqn a third world country that makes its living growing poppies and selling the main ingredient for heroin. They will never be a model for democracy. Every minute and dollar we we stay there and spend there we waste there.

 

[mal]

Bill Press, a Liberal Mouthpiece on Err Amerika, is pretty much Demanding that we get out... Of Iraq and Afghanistan... And some Elected DemocRATS Agree... "We have Failed".

We can't Win, and we are only Creating More Terrorists.

But wants to Keep a Strike Force that can Hit whereever Terrorists are...

Can you Imagine a Use Strike in London or Paris?...

What's the Standard, Bill?...



peace...

 

[HUGGY]

McChrystal: More Forces or 'Mission Failure'



I know this sounds stupid but?????


Will someone explain what the mission is again?

 

[mal]

McChrystal: More Forces or 'Mission Failure'



I know this sounds stupid but?????


Will someone explain what the mission is again?

The War on Drugs... Under Barry, that is.



peace...