PDA

View Full Version : Breaking News Alert:General Warns of Afghan Loss Without More U.S. Troops



megimoo
09-21-2009, 02:21 AM
General Warns of Afghan Loss Without More U.S. Troops (NY Times Breaking News)

Breaking News Alert The New York Times Sun, September 20, 2009 -- 11:57 PM ET -----

The top military commander in Afghanistan warns in a classified assessment of the war there that he needs additional troops within the next year or else the conflict "will likely result in failure."

The grim assessment is contained in a 66-page report that the commander, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, submitted to Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates on Aug. 30, and which is now under review by President Obama and his top national security advisers.
http://www.nytimes.com/?emc=na

AlmostThere
09-21-2009, 08:37 AM
The military commander says he needs more troops or we're likely to lose. It seems to me Obama has 2 choices. One, he gives McChryrstal the troops he needs or two, he fires McChrystal. What other option does Obama have?

The military commander says he needs more troops or we're likely to lose. It seems to me McChrystal has 2 options. One, he receives the troops he asked for and then proceeds to kick ass. Two, he doesn't get the troops he asked for and therefore resigns because he recognizes that it would be the only honorable thing to do. The men and women serving in Afghanistan deserve to have a leader who believes they can win. It doesn't sound like he has the confidence that he can do the job with the resources he has.

This may sound like I'm busting McChrystal's balls. Nothing could be further from the truth. The fact is I cannot begin to understand how a CIC could EVER get a report from his top commander warning of a possible impending loss and not give him what he says he needs to do the job. McChrystal was hand picked to fight this war. If he believes he can't win then he should be replaced. There is no thinking about it. It's one or the other. The only problem is that ANY commander chosen would likely lose if his hands were tied the way McChrystal's are.

The Dims are going to lose this war as sure as shit. I wonder how they'll spin it as Bush's fault?

stsinner
09-21-2009, 09:01 AM
That's a good post, AlmostThere.. But I think one of our problems is that Obama doesn't seem to listen to anyone about anything! To make things worse, we have all these armchair quarterbacks in Congress who think they know what it takes to fight a war when most have never even served in the military.. Obama is pig-headed and when you couple that with his lack of love for America and his disdain for the military, I'll bet he's pissed that he's put in a position where if he doesn't provide the resources he will look like he doesn't want to win, but on the other hand he really needs to win to gain any kind of respect from the Middle East who sees him as a pushover. This is Obama's war now.. He can no longer blame President Bush.

Jfor
09-21-2009, 09:23 AM
We either fight to win or get the hell out of there. Our guys are doing the best they can with with the BS ROE that they are given. Unleash the American fighting men and women and we will be out of there. We can win this if the politicians stay out of it.

stsinner
09-21-2009, 09:33 AM
We either fight to win or get the hell out of there. Our guys are doing the best they can with with the BS ROE that they are given. Unleash the American fighting men and women and we will be out of there. We can win this if the politicians stay out of it.

Unfortunately, we haven't fought to win in a long time.. Having embedded media prevents this because we would have to get primal and fight with ferocity, but testosterone doesn't' play well on the television at dinner time in our new gentrified society..

The best thing we could do is kick the media out and just go with Army photojournalists media releases that are appropriate.

It also doesn't help that our soldiers have to call for permission before a kill in most theaters now..

AlmostThere
09-21-2009, 12:07 PM
Unfortunately, we haven't fought to win in a long time.. Having embedded media prevents this because we would have to get primal and fight with ferocity, but testosterone doesn't' play well on the television at dinner time in our new gentrified society..

The best thing we could do is kick the media out and just go with Army photojournalists media releases that are appropriate.

It also doesn't help that our soldiers have to call for permission before a kill in most theaters now..

Specifically, Aug 9, 1945. Prior to Aug 6-9, 1945, we fought wars to win. We recognized that if we were going to ask young men to fight and maybe die in war, we were OBLIGATED to fight to win. We were obligated, if not for the American people, at least for the men we asked to die on their behalf.

There are at least 2 things you can say about war. First, war has to be the most horrific endeavor ever undertaken by man. It can scar a man or a country so deeply that the wound may never seem to heal. I think America was scared like that between the 6th and 9th of Aug in 1945. As crazy as it may sound, I think America was damaged far more than Hiroshima or Nagasaki ever were. I completely understand why we bombed those two cities and I believe it was the right decision. We didn't start the war with Japan, they did. And to end that war, a helluva lot of people had to die even after it was clear Japan had lost. It was either going to be a lot on both sides or a lot on theirs. Any choice by an American president different than the one Truman made would have been treason. Nevertheless, the death and destruction we inflicted in order to win a surrender seems to have sapped our will to fight decades later. We've paid a very high price for victory over Japan.

And the second thing you can say about war? Sometimes it is absolutely necessary and cannot be avoided no matter how hard we may wish otherwise.

AlmostThere
09-23-2009, 10:48 AM
I don't know how accurate the report is but I heard this AM that McChrystal might quit if he doesn't get the troops he's asked for. I'm sure he would be pilloried from the left but I can't help but think what an honorable decision that would be, not to mention a pretty strong rebuke of Obama. If he tendered a resignation that said something like "You hired me to fight this war. You won't give me the troops I need to win it. Therefore in good conscience I cannot continue to ask the troops in my command to go into battle when I know they don't have the resources to win and their leaders have decided they will not be provided.", he might just get the folks sitting on the fence to realize where Obama is taking us.