Oddly nobody is talking about Afganistan.

[headhuntersix]

Whats up Obamabots....anybody notice how Barry is now decided to hedge his bets on a war he said had to be fought and had to be won. Has Barry  decided that an alliance with the Repubs is more then he can handle. I posted before that I don't think he can get reelected and stay in Afghanistan. The Dems are backing out, he and the admin are on one said and the US Miliatry and Gen (ret) Jones appear to be on the other side. Barry put Stan in with a new plan..he already had a plan..now he wants to review his own plan after 6 months. Barry doesn't have a plan. Barry never had a plan. Afghanistan wasn't like this in 2008 under Bush....this is Barry's war and he's fucking it up. But he's the greatest Barry ever. When we cut and run from here, which will result in another smoking crater withing 10 years, on US soil....don't say we didn't warn u about Barry the Moronic.


NY Post
GEN. Stan McChrystal, an honorable soldier, has reported from Afghani stan: He wants more troops for a "classic" counterinsurgency strategy to secure the population, then win hearts and minds.

President Obama needs to make a decision: Either give the general the resources he believes he needs, or change the mission.

I'm for changing the mission. Concentrate on the continued destruction of al Qaeda and its allies. Nothing else matters in this mess.

Last spring, the president handed McChrystal an impossible mission: Turn Afghanistan into a prosperous, rule-of-law democracy cherished by its citizens. The general's doing his best. But we have zero chance -- zero -- of making that happen.

 
McChrystal: Has been handed an impos- sible mission.
Sponsored Links

Meanwhile, we've forgotten why we went to Afghanistan in the first place. (Hint: It wasn't to make nice with toothless tribesmen.) Here's a simple way to conceptualize our problem: A pack of murderous gangsters holes up in a fleabag motel. The feds raid the joint, killing or busting most of them. But some of the deadly ringleaders get away.

Should the G-men pursue the kingpins, or hang around to renovate the motel? Common sense says: Go after the gangsters. They're the problem, not the run-down bunkhouse.

Yet, in Afghanistan, we've put the bulk of our efforts into turning a vast flophouse into the Four Seasons -- instead of focusing ruthlessly on our terrorist enemies. It's politically correct madness.

What we really need is just a compact, lethal force of special operators, intelligence resources and air assets, along with sufficient conventional forces for protection and punitive raids. More troops just mean more blood and frustration.

Those who suggest pulling out completely and striking from offshore don't understand the fundamentals, either: We still need some boots on the ground, within grabbing distance of Pakistan's wild northwest, to strike fast to kill or capture elusive targets. And cruise missiles can't bring back prisoners, DNA samples or captured documents.

Our hunter-killer task forces should be deployed on a limited number of strategically positioned bases supported by air. Don't worry about the Afghan government -- Afghans don't.

The other alternative -- sending still more troops to die for Washington's fantasy of a Disney-World Afghanistan -- is disgraceful. Stop building sewage systems. Take scalps.

What of the notion that a surge could turn Afghanistan around since a surge worked in Iraq? Iraqis switched loyalties (temporarily) because al Qaeda turned out to be a far less pleasant occupier than we were. We were lucky in our enemies.

But the Taliban's the home team in much of Afghanistan. The dominant ethnic group, the Pashtuns, won't turn against the Taliban because they are the Taliban.

Then there's the subfantasy of "training up" the Afghan military and police (who, after eight years of our efforts, remain operationally ineffective and abysmally corrupt).

A great old soldier recently reminded me that it took us eight years to build a capable South Vietnamese army (which was then betrayed by Democrats in Congress). The difference is that, except for the Montagnards and other back-country folk, Vietnam didn't have tribes.

The Vietnamese had a unified ethnic identity. In Afghanistan, we're asking Hutus to fight for Tutsis and Hatfields to guard McCoys.

During the Soviet occupation, there was a serious Afghan military of over 300,000 men equipped with tanks and helicopters. At their peak strength, the Soviets themselves had almost 140,000 troops and tens of thousands of civilian advisers on the ground. Moscow still lost -- and not just because of the Stinger anti-aircraft missiles we gave the mujaheddin (a core group of whom became the Taliban).

The Soviets and their Afghan cronies lost because their enemies were willing to sacrifice more -- to give their lives for their heritage, however backward and cruel.

Afghans are willing to fight. They're just not willing to fight for us.

[headhuntersix]

Stan McChrystal is not responsible for assessing how we're doing against al Qaeda," said the senior administration official. "He's not assessing how the Pakistani military is doing in its counterinsurgency campaign. That's not his job. So Stan's report is a very important input into this overall strategy, but it's not the only input."
 

Sorry asshat lib douchbag...thats exactly what a 4 fucking star General gets paid to do and consider...look at the big picture. He knows exactly what the Paki's are doing. Where does Barry get these morons.



WASHINGTON -- The Pentagon has told its top commander in Afghanistan to delay submitting his request for additional troops, defense officials say, amid signs that the Obama administration is rethinking its strategy for combating a resurgent Taliban.

A senior Pentagon official says the administration has asked for the reprieve so it can complete a review of the U.S.-led war effort. "We have to make sure we have the right strategy" before looking at additional troop requests, the official said. "Things have changed on the ground fairly considerably."


 
GRIEVING IN ROME: A state funeral Monday honoring six Italian soldiers killed last week in Afghanistan drew thousands of mourners to St. Paul's Basilica. Above, Martin Fortunato, whose father, Italian Capt. Antonio Fortunato, was slain. Losses from Thursday's attack were the worst suffered by Italians in Afghanistan.
.Journal Community
Discuss: Will President Obama's Afghanistan strategy be successful?
.Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, recently completed a classified report asking for significant numbers of new American troops. Military officials familiar with the matter say the report lays out several options, including one that seeks roughly 40,000 reinforcements, which would push the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan to more than 100,000 for the first time.

But the commander has been told to delay submitting the troop request to the Pentagon at the direction of Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and other top civilian officials, according to defense officials.

The administration's call for a further strategic review -- which official said could take weeks -- comes as military commanders in the field say the campaign is running out of time and U.S. congressional and public support for the war is flagging.

.In a new assessment of the war submitted to the Pentagon last month and made public Monday, Gen. McChrystal wrote that if the Taliban insurgency's momentum isn't reversed in the next 12 months, defeating it may no longer be possible. "Time matters; we must act now to reverse the negative trends and demonstrate progress," Gen. McChrystal wrote in a "Commander's Summary" at the start of the assessment.

The senior defense official said the reviews are scheduled to be completed within the next few weeks. "There's a danger if you do this too quickly," he said. "But we all feel the sense of urgency."

A spokesman for Gen. McChrystal didn't respond to a request to comment.

View Full Image

Reuters
 
Gen. Stanley McChrystal
.Geoff Morrell, a spokesman for Mr. Gates, acknowledged that the defense secretary and other top officials are "working through the process" of how Gen. McChrystal's request will be submitted.

Gen. McChrystal's call for quick action appears to be increasingly at odds with comments from President Barack Obama, who has insisted in recent days that he won't be rushed into approving more U.S. troops for the war.

White House aides Monday again said there was no need for an immediate decision on troop levels for next year, adding that Mr. Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have requested "at least several" meetings with the president on strategy before any final troop decisions. "Gen. McChrystal wants a very fulsome approach. He might be right on that. But we have other options, and we have to look at them," said a White House official.

Mr. Obama's decision to put off a decision on further troop increases drew sharp criticism from Republicans in Congress. On Monday, party leaders attempted to raise pressure on the president to act, in part by insisting Gen. McChrystal come to Congress to testify on his findings. The Bush administration used a similar strategy to great effect with former Iraq commander Gen. David Petraeus.

Regional Violence
View Interactive
.Follow events in Pakistan and Afghanistan, day by day.
."It's time for the president to clarify where he stands on the strategy he has articulated, because the longer we wait, the more we put our troops at risk," Rep. John Boehner, the House Republican leader, said in a statement.

Since Mr. Obama announced his war strategy in March, the political situation in both the U.S. and Afghanistan has become considerably muddier.

Mr. Obama handpicked Gen. McChrystal, a veteran of the military's secretive Special Operations community, in June after unexpectedly ousting his predecessor, Gen. David McKiernan.

Mr. Obama's strategy was designed to gradually weaken the Taliban by pursuing a counterinsurgency approach meant to protect Afghan civilians and to improve their daily lives through economic development and better governance.

Last month's Afghan presidential election, which the administration had hoped would lend new legitimacy to the beleaguered government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai, has been mired in accusations of scandal that may not be resolved for months. In addition, U.S. and allied casualties have risen to record levels.

The senior defense official said top officials are re-evaluating the entire strategy in light of the flawed elections and the soaring number of Taliban attacks. He noted the Taliban currently control or influence 30% of Afghanistan's districts, up sharply from even earlier this year.

The troop request delay comes as some administration and defense officials debate whether the current counterinsurgency approach for Afghanistan is the right strategy for winning the war there. Critics argue that the U.S. should instead pursue a stepped-up "counterterror" strategy that aims to use unmanned drones or Special Operations personnel to kill specific militant leaders and financiers.

.Once the review is completed, the senior defense official said, top officials will consider whether Gen. McChrystal's plan makes sense and appears likely to succeed. Only once those two reviews are completed will administration and civilian defense officials ask for and review Gen. McChrystal's troop request, he said.

The Pentagon has run into similar turbulence with the Obama administration before, only to emerge with the president giving the department exactly what it asked for. The White House was initially reluctant to send an additional 17,000 reinforcements early in Mr. Obama's presidency. But Mr. Obama ordered the troops -- and, soon after, an additional 4,000 U.S. military trainers -- to deploy after Pentagon officials detailed the need for them to be in place during August's Afghan elections. "They aren't as comfortable with the process as the Bush administration was, but...he's done everything he's been asked by the Pentagon," said a senior military official.

Republican staff members on the Senate Armed Services Committee said military leaders in Afghanistan last month told a visiting congressional delegation that they needed decisions on resources and troop levels quickly.

View Full Image

Agence France-Presse/Getty Images
 
U.S. Marines listen to a briefing prior to setting out on a patrol in Farah Province in southern Afghanistan Monday.
.One senior administration official involved in Afghan policy acknowledged that the White House and Gen. McChrystal's headquarters may not yet be on the same page on the way forward in Afghanistan.

But the official said Mr. Obama needs to take a much broader view than the Afghan commander when deciding whether to send more forces.

"Stan McChrystal is not responsible for assessing how we're doing against al Qaeda," said the senior administration official. "He's not assessing how the Pakistani military is doing in its counterinsurgency campaign. That's not his job. So Stan's report is a very important input into this overall strategy, but it's not the only input