More Forces or Defeat!

Link

In the WaPo/ here

"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 (leaked copy) obtained by The Washington Post.........

....he repeatedly warns that without more forces and the rapid implementation of a genuine counterinsurgency strategy, defeat is likely. McChrystal describes an Afghan government riddled with corruption and an international force undermined by tactics that alienate civilians.

He provides extensive new details about the Taliban insurgency, which he calls a muscular and sophisticated enemy that uses modern propaganda and systematically reaches into Afghanistan's prisons to recruit members and even plan operations......."

Posted by G, Z, & or B at 10:37 AM


US General Warns of Afghan 'Failure' without More Troops

21/09/2009 The top US military commander in Afghanistan has warned that more forces are needed within the next year or the war against the Taliban will be lost, the Washington Post reported Monday.

General Stanley McChrystal wrote in a classified report: "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."

The grim assessment of the eight-year conflict, obtained by the Post, was presented to US Defense Secretary Robert Gates on August 30 and is being reviewed by the White House.

McChrystal, who is widely expected to make a formal request to increase the 62,000-strong US occupation force, noted the campaign in Afghanistan "has been historically under-resourced and remains so today." As such, he wrote "inadequate resources will likely result in failure."

The weak resources "also risks a longer conflict, greater casualties, higher overall costs, and ultimately, a critical loss of political support. Any of these risks, in turn, are likely to result in mission failure."

The 66-page document - a declassified version of which is published at www.washingtonpost.com - describes a strengthening, intelligent Taliban insurgency.

McChrystal also slams the corruption-riddled Afghan government and a strategy by international forces that has failed to win over ordinary Afghans. "The weakness of state institutions, malign actions of power-brokers, widespread corruption and abuse of power by various officials, and (the International Security Assistance Force's) own errors, have given Afghans little reason to support their government," wrote McChrystal.

International forces, he said, "have operated in a manner that distances us - physically and psychologically - from the people we seek to protect... The insurgents cannot defeat us militarily; but we can defeat ourselves."

The general, who Gates nominated to take over operations because "new thinking" was needed as President Barack Obama attempts a new strategy for the war-torn country, also warns that hardline insurgents reach systematically into Afghanistan's bloated prison system for recruits.

McChrystal however does maintain a cautious optimism for long term outcomes in the conflict, insisting: "While the situation is serious, success is still achievable."
Obama weighed in Sunday on the debate over more troops in Afghanistan. "We're going to test whatever resources we have against our strategy, which is if by sending young men and women into harm's way, we are defeating Al-Qaeda," the president said in an interview with ABC.

"(If) that can be shown to a skeptical audience - namely me, somebody who is always asking hard questions about deploying troops - then we will do what's required to keep the American people safe," Obama said.
Gates said this week that the president needed time to assess US strategy and should not be rushed over such an important decision. "We need to take our time and get this right," he told a news conference on Thursday.

Obama 'skeptical' about more troops

Politico, here

"President Barack Obama is warning U.S. commanders that he’s “skeptical” about whethermore troops will make a difference in Afghanistan, saying he’ll approve an expected request only if the forces fit into a strategy to beat back al-Qaida and protect the United States.

U.S. generals are preparing to seek as many as tens of thousands additional troops for the increasingly unpopular conflict, but in several of his five Sunday talk show interviews, Obama made clear that he’s far from convinced about the need for a massive infusion of forces and won’t be rushed on the decision.

“We’re going to test whatever resources we have against our strategy, which is, if by sending young men and women into harm’s way, we are defeating al Qaeda–and that can be shown to a skeptical audience, namely me, somebody who is always asking hard questions about deploying troops— then we will do what’s required to keep the American people safe,” Obama said on ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos.”

Obama also said he suspects there is a predisposition among some military planners to think more troops is the answer to almost any problem.

“There is a natural inclination to say, ‘If I get more, then I can do more,’” Obama said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “But right now, the question is—the first question is, are we doing the right thing? Are we pursuing the right strategy?”

“We’re not going to put the cart before the horse and just think by sending more troops we’re automatically going to make Americans safe,” Obama told CBS’s “Face the Nation.”

Read more...

Posted by G, Z, & or B at 9:31 AM

CIA's presence in Afghanistan to rival massive stations in Iraq & Vietnam ...

LATimes/ Here

"...The influx parallels the U.S. military expansion and comes as the nation's spy services are under pressure from Army Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal to improve intelligence on the Taliban and find ways to reverse a series of unsettling trends. ........

The spies are being used in various assignments -- teaming up with special forces units pursuing high-value targets, tracking public sentiment in provinces that have been shifting toward the Taliban and collecting intelligence on corruption in the Afghan government. .."

Posted by G, Z, & or B at 12:52 PM