General McChrystal’s Dire Warning About Afghanistan Should Give Us Pause
We do not often hear words as stark and plain as those reported today from U.S. and NATO commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal. There was no dodging around the point, or mixing the message. More troops are needed in the war being waged in Afghanistan or the effort will result in failure. The history in that troubled land is harsh, and should make sober-minded thinkers reflect long and hard. But there is a reason we are fighting there, and it is not only due to a direct result of 9/11. We are also there because of the dire consequences not winning this war would pose on Pakistan and the entire region.
While President Bush was right about going to war in Afghanistan, he was wrong to have been side-tracked in Iraq. We wasted time and resources in not fighting the war to its fullest in Afghanistan. We allowed warlords to do the heavy slogging for us so to minimize the number of troops we needed to send. I think that was the main reason we did not locate Osama bin Laden, and did not remove the Taliban to such an extent that their re-emergence was not possible. I also think that the lack of military feet on the ground has slowed, and and in some cases prevented ‘nation-building’, as one would define that term, in Afghanistan.
So the words today as reported by CNN are ones we do not often hear, and they should not be discounted. Too much is at stake, and time is not on our side by waiting.
“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,” U.S. and NATO commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal said in the document, according to the Post.
Bob Woodward of the Post — who wrote the article — called it “a striking thing for a general to say to the secretary of defense and the commander-in-chief.”
McChrystal “really takes his finger and puts it in their eye, ‘Deliver or this won’t work,’” Woodward told CNN’s “American Morning” on Monday. “He says if they don’t endorse this full counterinsurgency strategy, don’t even give me the troops because it won’t work.”
The document was “leaked” to the newspaper, but parts were omitted after consultations between the newspaper and the Department of Defense, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said.
“While we would have much preferred none of this be made public at this time, we appreciate the paper’s willingness to edit out those passages, which would likely have endangered personnel and operations in Afghanistan,” Morrell said in a statement.
President Obama is considering the assessment of troop levels completed by McChrystal over the summer, however, a review of U.S. strategy in Afghanistan won’t be driven “by the politics of the moment,” Obama said on Sunday.
“Every time I sign an order, you know, I’m answerable to the parents of those young men and women who I’m sending over there, and I want to make sure that it’s for the right reason,” Obama told CNN’s “State of the Union.”
The president put off questions about whether additional troops would be needed, saying, “I don’t want to put the resource question before the strategy question.” But he said Afghans need to show that they are “willing to make the commitment to build their capacity to secure their own country.”
The welfare state and the resulting entitlement mentality is the product of over 50 years of Democratic Party policies beginning with FDR and his ‘New Deal’ which dealt with relief, reform and recovery. Sound familiar? You can also thank the Dems and DFR for strengthening labor unions.
As for “why are we there??? ” An amazing question. Hopefully your opinion will change after hearing what this woman has to say about it.
Former Bush Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice weighed in with a pretty sharp message for Democratic lawmakers who don’t want to send more U.S. troops to an unpopular war in Afghanistan that seems to be getting worse.
“If you want another terrorist attack in the U.S., abandon Afghanistan,” she said.
She continued by saying, “The last time we left Afghanistan, and we abandoned Pakistan that territory became the very territory on which Al Qaeda trained and attacked us on September 11th. So our national security interests are very much tied up in not letting Afghanistan fail again and become a safe haven for terrorists.”
For the pacifists and anti-military; there are nations in this world who are working hard on a daily basis to literally destroy this country. Doing so would result in the deaths of millions. Believe it. To withdraw our military from places some feel don’t belong only aids in their goal. Believe that, also.
If the events on 9/11 can’t convince anyone of that then the topic should probably be left to those who understand the nature of the threat against the United States and worry about politics at a local level and labor unions.
Bush was wrong in the first place to go to war in the middle east. They have been fighting in this region since the beginning of time. Conflict here is second nature, one tribe against another. It never stops! Bush was foolish to believe that just because he said so everything [war] should stop. Money and lives have been wasted. McChristal addresses only that the Afghans should learn to defend themselves [we cannot fight their battles for them] but he fails to discuss all the money being wasted on bribes and corruption and drug sales. If so much money and lives are being wasted, why are we there??? We are doing this at the peril of our own economy. Twice the number from 911 have died in a war with a country that didn’t blow up the towers. right, I think not. A whole generation has sacrificed for not!! The last election in region was so illegal and ballots stuffed that no one should be winner. They just want the bribe money Americans seem willing to pay for what?? What is the point? Just let it go!! We lost something that could never be won in the first place-get over it, Cheney!
Unfortunately, if all soldier came home there would be no jobs for them either and that would mean more on gov’t dole. Until jobs that were outsourced come home [cancel NAFTA?CAFTA] and we really start buying and manufacturing American, no jobs will return.
Here in Maine [which shouldn't happen but has] manufacturing has been outsourced [shoe manufacturing, good example] [wood products another] and they sold or transported the equipment with the jobs. Result: empty buildings with no hope of jobs retuning. And Millinocket, where wood products had a slow down, still ride their ATV’s and snow machines and SUV’s and collect their union benefits and go to food cupboards and go to their camps for the summer.
A veteran is supposed to be able to return to their jobs here when their tour of duty over. No job left here, what to do? Unemployment is so wide spread; however, gov’t interference in the form of benefits being extended every 13 weeks has made people not want to work either. With these benefits in Maine comes free medical [Maine Care]. You can’t find a carpenter or laid off worker who wants to work. All are on benefits with free medical and the work is too hard, etc on a dozen excuses. If no excuse found here the Union can picket your job Walegreens job site in Bangor, paying $50 a day for 4 hrs standing there with sign [my sisters live in does this for his job, with benefits and this goes towards his need for so many work days before unemployment kicks in]. Did I forget, you get benefits also!
Can’t tell that I’m just so sick of the gov’t and their inability to solve a basic problem. they are too tied up in contributions to their back pocket that they have become deaf to change for the good.
To solve the health care problem…take away theirs! We pay for them and we are sick of it!!!
Feeling a bit radical today!
Why doesn’t McChrystal resign NOW. Same applies to EVERYONE in the military. Every single soldier in the military NEEDS to resign. These soldiers need to say NO to giving citizens the poison [soul condemning] swine flu shots and say NO to the NWO.
If people would just seriously WAKE THE HELL UP NOW, the NWO can be DEFEATED. There is STRENGTH in numbers.
Another good question, Skip. The answer is, believe it or don’t, diplomacy, used to negotiate a mutually agreed upon solution to a given problem affecting the countries involved.
When diplomacy breaks down ending in no acceptable solution for one or all countries involved you usually see the diplomats of one or all countries being called back home. Sometimes it is for consultation on what to do next, sometimes, as in this case, it is to protect the diplomats for what is coming next. Then the embassy is closed which is usually not a good sign.
When diplomacy breaks down the outcome is unacceptable for the country seeking an agreement, the next negotiating tool comes out; the military.
So, to answer your question, for the United States, there was no other acceptable solution which directly satisfied the demand for Osama bin Laden. The Taliban, after many warnings, belligerently denied these demands and the Taliban government paid the ultimate price.
That’s the way the world works. Pearl Harbor is a great example of failed diplomacy. So is the “negotiated peace” (appeasement) between WW-II Britain and Germany.
Regarding alternative, sure American could have engaged in more U.N. sanctions against Afghanistan, but after over 10 years of failed U.N. sanctions against Iraq, America had little appetite for them. Besides, American had been attacked on her own soil and over 3000 people had died causing deep economic turmoil costing the U.S. billions. The world was not immune.
To leave the attack unanswered is to invite more attacks. When you show you are timid and do not demonstrate a willingness to defend yourself count on other countries to take notice. Those among them who count themselves as enemies (North Korea, Syria, Iran, Iraq, etc.) will no doubt be emboldened and will be more tempted to act on their own.
Appeasement and pacifism is a dangerous policy to embrace. In short, there was little in the way of alternatives.
When you attack a country always expect a response in kind.
Here’s a short recap of the events leading to America’s war with Afghanistan.
The UN’s envoy for Afghanistan, Francesc Vendrell, said that if Washington found the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon were linked to Bin Laden it would have “incalculable consequences” for Afghanistan.
“The United States government had made it clear in the last three months to both me and directly to the Taliban authorities, that should any terrorist incident occur of the kind that took place in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam in 1998, or in terms of the US ship Cole [attacked in Yemen], that this time there would be no hesitation in carrying out some retaliatory measures,” he said.
————–
“On September 12, the North Atlantic Council met again in response to the appalling attacks perpetrated against the United States.
“The council agreed that if it is determined that this attack was directed from abroad against the United States, it shall be regarded as an action covered by Article 5 of the Washington treaty, which states that an armed attack against one or more of the allies in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all.
“The commitment to collective self-defence embodied in the Washington treaty was first entered into in circumstances very different from those that exist now, but it remains no less valid and no less essential today, in a world subject to the scourge of international terrorism.
“Article 5 of the treaty stipulates that in the event of attacks falling within its purview, each ally will assist the party that has been attacked by taking such action as it deems necessary. The United States Nato allies stand ready to provide the assistance that may be required as a consequence of these acts of barbarism.”
————–
September 16, 2001
In a thinly veiled warning to Afghanistan, the US defence secretary, Dick Cheney, warned that the US would come down hard on countries providing sanctuary to terrorists.
“They have to understand, and others like them around the world have to understand, that if you offer sanctuary to terrorists, you face the full wrath of the United States of America,” Mr Cheney said, adding that he had no doubt that Bin Laden’s organisation was involved in the attacks.
In return for its diplomatic troubleshooting, Pakistan has demanded huge economic aid, rescheduling of its $30bn (£20bn) debt and American help to resolve its dispute with India over Kashmir. As the pressure mounts on Afghanistan to deliver Bin Laden, the world’s most wanted terrorist again denied responsibility for the attacks.
The Taliban has threatened to wage war on any country aiding a US assault on Afghanistan.
“If any regional or neighbouring country helps the US attack us it would spark extraordinary dangers … It would draw us into a reprisal war,” said Abdul Salam Zaeef, the militia’s ambassador to Pakistan.
Pakistan has bolstered military security along its 1,500-mile border with Afghanistan, after reportedly agreeing to a US demand to seal the border.
————–
September 17, 2001
Afghanistan will be offered a final chance today to escape a devastating US military onslaught when a delegation from Pakistan delivers an ultimatum to the Taliban leadership to hand over Osama bin Laden, the prime suspect in the New York and Washington attacks, within three days.
The pressure on the US administration to exact revenge was underlined by a public opinion poll which showed that 84% of Americans supported military retaliation. Two-thirds of them would support it “even if it means many thousands of innocent civilians may be killed”.
Maleeha Lodhi, Pakistan’s ambassador to the US, sought permission from the United Nations to allow the delegation to go to Afghanistan, which is subject to UN sanctions. The UN will have no hesitation in granting it.
She said: “We will be urging the Taliban leadership to accede to the demand of the international community…to hand over the person that they are harbouring, Osama bin Laden, so that he is brought to justice.”
General Mehmoud Ahmed, the head of Pakistan’s intelligence agency, who has just returned from Washington, set off last night for the Taliban’s headquarters in Kandahar with the official delegation.
But the US-Pakistan move appears doomed. The Taliban leader, Mohammed Omar, who convened a meeting of his inner-circle to discuss options, vowed he would not hand over Bin Laden for trial in the US.
————–
September 20, 2001
The United States today rejected a call from the Taliban, Afghanistan’s ruling militia, asking Osama bin Laden to voluntarily leave the country.
A White House spokesman said that the offer did not “meet America’s requirements”, saying that it was time for “action, not words”.
“The president has demanded that key figures of the al Qaeda terrorist organization, including Osama bin Laden, be turned over to responsible authorities and that the Taliban close terrorist camps in Afghanistan,” he said.
The Taliban’s announcement came at the end of a meeting of several hundred clerics in the capital, Kabul, which was called to decide on the future of Washington’s prime suspect for the attacks on the Pentagon and New York last week.
The clerics set no deadline for Bin Laden to accept or reject the call.
————–
September 24, 2001
Pakistan has pulled out all of its diplomatic staff from the Afghan capital of Kabul, a spokesman for the country’s foreign ministry said today.
“In view of the abnormal situation, they were withdrawn over the weekend. They are all in Pakistan,” said Mohmad Riaz Khan.
Since 1996, the Taliban have given safe haven to Osama bin Laden, the prime suspect in the September 11 terror attacks in the United States.
Taliban officials said today they had not been able to locate Bin Laden for the past three days. They said they have been trying to find him to deliver a message from a grand Islamic council asking him to leave the country voluntarily.
But US officials dismissed that claim, saying they believe the Taliban know exactly where Bin Laden is.
Mullah Mohammed Omar, the leader of Afghanistan’s hardline rulers, says that the United States must withdraw its forces from the Gulf and support the Palestinians in their conflict with Israel if it wants to remove the threat of terrorism.
————–
September 25, 2001
Saudi Arabia cuts all ties with Afghanistan’s Taliban government, saying Afghan leaders were defaming Islam by harbouring and supporting terrorists. A fax from Osama bin Laden to Muslims in Pakistan calls on them to resist the “new Jewish and Christian crusader campaign that is led by the Chief Crusader Bush under the banner of the cross”.
————–
September 28, 2001
A delegation of high-ranking Pakistani religious leaders and government officials arrives in Afghanistan for talks with the ruling Taliban militia on the fate of Osama bin Laden.
The foreign secretary, Jack Straw, warns that Osama bin Laden may be planning further terror attacks – possibly upon Britain.
————–
September 29, 2001
Former vice-president Al Gore emerges from internal exile at the weekend to declare support for President Bush. To a standing ovation from Democratic party supporters, he announces: “George Bush is my commander-in-chief”.
————–
September 30, 2001
Osama bin Laden is being hidden at a secret location inside Afghanistan “for his safety and security”, the Taliban admits in a provocative statement.
————–
October 2, 2001
Nato secretary general Lord Robertson says the alliance is satisfied that the United States has provided “clear and compelling” evidence that points “conclusively” to the involvement of Osama bin Laden and his Al-Qaida network in last month’s attacks in New York and Washington.
————–
October 4, 2001
A Russian airliner explodes in mid-air over the Black Sea, killing all 78 passengers and crew. It may have been brought down accidentally by Ukrainian ground-to-air missiles fired during military exercises, American defence officials suggest, but Ukrainian officials deny responsibility.
Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, says it is possible that the plane had been targeted by terrorists.
Pakistan says it now believes there is conclusive evidence linking Osama bin Laden to last month’s attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon.
————–
October 5, 2001
Afghanistan’s ruling Taliban say they are prepared to put Osama bin Laden on trial in an Afghan court, but only if the US provides hard evidence against him.
————–
October 6, 2001
President George Bush and Tony Blair warn the Taliban regime in Afghanistan in the starkest terms that preparations for the war against them are complete and attacks could be launched at any time.
————–
October 7, 2001
The first airstrikes are launched against Taliban targets in Afghanistan.
Did you consider any alternatives to actually invading the Graveyard of Empires? How about aiding anti-Taliban Afghans, for instance? Why did 9/11 have to be dealt with invasion?
I failed to add this, Skip…. Yours was an excellent question. We should also remember the answer and once we commit to that answer we should never waiver. Unlike the Vietnam War, which a lot of people mistakenly like to compare the Afghan War to, America’s security is directly at stake.
Again, I would like to ask, when America loses a city by the actions of terrorists, who do we attack then? In such an attack I do not believe there will be any forensic evidence to help determine that.
Remember too, that prior to 9/11 and for several weeks afterward, the Taliban was providing safe haven to Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda. President Bush explicitly demanded for the Taliban leadership to hand him over to U.S. custody for prosecution. The Taliban declined to do so. If memory serves me correctly, we repeated the demand and again we were rebuked. Then the stakes changed. We then notified that if the Taliban leadership did not hand him over within a short time frame (hours, I think) they would than be talking directly to the U.S. military.
The rest as they say is history.
Afghanistan is key. If it falls to the Taliban they will have control of the poppy trade which provides them with lots and lots of money with which they can buy guns, supplies and bribes for Al Qaeda’s needs. It is also used to help fund operations in America i.e. airfare for sleeper cell members stationed in Colorado who need to fly to New York who can’t normally afford to do so on the salary of an airport shuttle bus driver.
In addition the Taliban will have a stable station of operations from which they can continue to threaten Pakistan, already rife with Taliban and Al Qaeda supporters. Pakistan’s nuclear storage facility is not far from its northern borders.
Several months ago the Taliban came within something like 70 miles away from those facilities but were pushed back by Pakistan forces. If those facilities come into the hands of the Taliban it is game over for Pakistan and then India gets real, real nervous. She’s armed, too.
Now what?
Under this scenario we have an avowed enemy of the U.S. who likes to blow things up in the first place and who now have nuclear weapons. For them that IS the ultimate goal. If this happens, 9/11 will look like nothing compared to losing a city with millions.
Who do we attack then?
So you see, Afghanistan is key.
Newt Gingrich gives us a clue about what America will be like when that happens:
“I think those of you who care about civil liberties had better be thinking through how we win this war before the casualties get so great that the American people voluntarily give up a lot of those liberties. ”
Tom Tancredo, who ran for president on the Republican ticket in the last election has a very, very, good understanding about what America is facing. Still, few Americans can grasp what we are up against. He gets it:
The national intelligence estimates show what Islamic Fascist are planning.
From the televised Republican primary debate held August 5, 2007, in Iowa, this question was asked of Republican presidential candidate Tom Tancredo.
Last week you said that, in order to deter an attack by Islamic terrorists using nuclear weapons, you would threaten to bomb Mecca and Medina. The State Department called that “reprehensible” & “absolutely crazy.”
To which he replied…
“Yes, the State Department–boy, when they start complaining about things I say, I feel a lot better about the things I say, I’ll tell you right now. My task as president is primarily to do one thing–not to make sure everybody has health care or everybody’s child is educated–my task is to do one thing: to protect and defend this country. And that means to deter–and I want to underline “deter”–any kind of aggression, especially the type we are threatened with by Al Qaida, which is nuclear attack. I read the national intelligence estimate. I see what they are planning. And I’m telling you right now that anybody that would suggest that we should take anything like this off the table in order to deter that kind of event in the United States isn’t fit to be president.”
With the fact that Obama is dragging his feet on fulfilling a request for more troops to beat down and eliminate the Taliban forces, it would appear that Obama does not “get it.”
The actions of 9/11 had to be dealt with against those who created them, and those who harbored them. In both cases it leads to Afghanistan.
Why was Bush right about going to war in Afghanistan?
If we lose Afghanistan the nuclear arsenal in Pakistan is for the Taliban’s taking.
THEN, we push the button.