Petraeus to clarify strategy to commanders
In the Wall Street Journal, Julian Barnes writes that General Petraeus is going to make his strategy more clear to commanders and generally straighten out the way the war had been fought earlier this year. According to the WSJ;
…the officials said Gen. McChrystal put too much attention on hunting down Taliban leaders, at the expense of the U.S. counterinsurgency strategy, which focuses on protecting civilians and bolstering popular support for the government. Supporters of Gen. McChrystal dispute that assessment, dismissing any notion there were flaws in how he fought the war.
Now, I’m not saying that McCrystal fought the war that way, but, if he did, wasn’t that the strategy that Joe Bite Me wanted with his emphasis on ninja robot zombies? Is someone saying that Bite Me was wrong? In public? Dp I smell another witch hunt?
In the interim, it seems that forcing Afghanistan to expand their security forces faster than they can manage is allowing infiltrators and saboteurs into their ranks. The New York Times says Obama is losing support in Congress for the war;
For two months, Democrats in Congress have been holding up billions of dollars in additional financing for the war, longer than they ever delayed similar requests from President George W. Bush. Most Republican leaders have largely backed a continued commitment, but the White House was surprised the other day when one of Mr. Obama’s mentors on foreign policy issues in the Senate, Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, argued that “the lack of clarity in Afghanistan does not end with the president’s timetable,” and that both the military and civilian missions were “proceeding without a clear definition of success.”
I guess that’s the price you pay when you fail to recognize that Joe Bite Me, the self-proclaimed “Smartest Man in the Country” has been systematically wrong on every foreign policy issue since the early 80s.
Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden, Terror War
Gosh.
Find the enemy and kill them isn’t a firm military strategy?
Maybe if we could get the Taliban into sensitivity training we could all rap this up by Christmas.
Ooops, sorry…the Winter Break period.
Finding the enemy and killing them would be a fine military strategy…if the current administration wasn’t terrified of the military having a strategy in the first place. I mean, you know, they might go out and do something MILITARISTIC…
(sarcasm intended).
You know the saying about when the going gets tough, the tough get going? Yeah, well, all the tough guys are in the ‘Stan trying to get the job done…they left all the wimps in Washington, wringing their hands and trying to deal with reality.
Okay, so playing devil’s advocate, what would we do if a commanding general were killed during a war? We would appoint another one and go on wiht taking care of business. From what I can tell of petraeus’s perspective, the only way we get out of A’stan is if the populace backs us vs the Taliban and his strategy does that where McCrystal’s didn’t.
Gee wiz- I guess we’d have to come home if a gen’rul got killed.
dumbass.
My point was that the military is being hobbled from actually FIGHTING this war. Once again, our military is being ordered to play policeman, instead of being freed to do what they are trained to do. Commanding Generals are appointed by the Administration, that’s true; but they are TRAINED BY THE MILITARY. They are MILITARY OFFICERS. Their abilities — or lack there of — have nothing to do with who appoints them; but their EFFECTIVENESS might.
The populace will back us as long as we’re there with our weapons and money and medicine and structural support. The minute we leave, the Taliban — if it continues to exist — will take over again. THERE IS NO NEGOTIATING WITH THE TALIBAN. Why should they change, when they believe in what they are and what they’re doing? Don’t take my word for this. Go read their blogs and websites. Do you think they’re joking? Do you think they debate their beliefs, the way we do ours?
Dutch, since you claim to be an astronaught, why don’t you go play with your spoace shuttle and let the grown folks talk.
Pinto:
If you read many of the reports from mainstream, international and alternative media support for our presence is on an almost provincial level. There is confusion about why we ware there, a belief that we are there to hurt them and limited admitance that our presence is needed. Thus, Simply killing people is not the whole answer. Yes it is an important part of the mission, but inflicting casualties does not accomplish the goal of making them able to stand up for themselves.
One of General Mcrystal’s reasons for limiting the use of airstrikes is that the population bel;ieve that we are omnipotent and if civillians dies because of our weapons, they believe that we did it on purpose. In order to call this “a win” we need to get and keep the people on our side, kill those who will not come to our position peacefully and pursaude those who can be brought around to believe that there is no reason to fight the U.S. and our allies. We can’t always just kill people and break things and expect that it will work out ok.
#6 HM2…:
You made two very good points; I agree to some extent, and disagree also. Your next to last sentence (“In order to call this ‘a win’ we need…”) echo my sentiments exactly. While I agree that “simply killing people” is not the answer, I would disagree that that is what I said.
Perhaps it will sound better if I put it in a more positive frame: Our military is highly trained and motivated. Perhaps if our military commanders were allowed more freedom to assess their own needs, and given the political trust and latitude to internally address their own strategic as well as tactical situations, they would lay to rest most of the fears surrounding our presence in Afghanistan.
Good Morning Pinto:
I think we largely agree. Priorities are the issue for me. If the choice is between defending the village or go after a Taliban Commander, we defend the village. Wars of this nature are difficult to assess because they cannot be won by simply winning battles or influicting more casualties than the other guy. My point above was that killing the commanders anly creates opportunities for for other fighters to assume the commander’s role.
I also agree that commanders should have latitude. However, that only works to a point or the comprehensive strategy falls apart.
#8 HM2:
Sorry for the long delay in answering. (Time zones, I think).
I do think we’ve found common ground.
I do have a question for you: Do you think it is possible to make the Afghanis understand why we’re there? Or do you think the Taliban will be able to choke off the information the Afghanis will need to understand us and our reasons for being there?