Afghanistan: 'Nobody is winning,' admits McChrystal

[Moonlight Graham]

I guess things are pretty much status quo for the operation in Afghanistan, more than 8.5 years after it began. A really good article from The Independent on the basic situation happening there now, worth a full reading.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai arrived in London yesterday as US generals express doubts that the fight against the Taliban is having any success.

The US and Nato commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, who was boasting of military progress only three months ago, confessed last week that "nobody is winning". His only claim now is that the Taliban have lost momentum compared with last year.

About Karzai:

Mr Karzai's reception in London and Washington highlights the political dilemma of the US and UK in Afghanistan since both have more or less openly denounced the corruption of his regime and the mass fraud at the polls by which he was re-elected last year.

In a leaked memo, the US ambassador in Kabul, General Karl Eikenberry, said Mr Karzai was "not an adequate strategic partner" and was interested only in using foreign troops to keep himself in power. One Afghan politician, who did not want his name published, added that "the problem is not that the Taliban is strong but that the government is so weak".

About the "surge", and the 'clear-hold-build' strategy:

Equally worrying for the American and British governments is the failure so far of General McChrystal's strategy of using his troops to seize Taliban strongholds and, once cleared, hand them over to Afghan forces. He sold this plan, under which he was promised an extra 30,000 US troops, last November but all the signs are that it is not working. Starting in February, 15,000 US, British and Afghan troops started taking over the Taliban-held area of Marjah and Nad Ali in Helmand province. Dozens of embedded journalists trumpeted the significance of Operation Moshtarak, as it was called, as the first fruits of General McChrystal's new strategy which was meant to emulate the supposed success of the "surge" in Iraq in 2007.

Three months after the operation in Marjah, however, local people say that the Taliban still control the area at night. Shops are still closed and no schools have reopened. Education officials who returned at the height of the US-led offensive have fled again. The local governor says he has just one temporary teacher teaching 60 children in the ruins of a school. Aid is not arriving. The Taliban are replacing mines, the notorious IEDs, removed by US troops and often use the same holes to hide them in.

Pentagon officials increasingly agree with the Afghan villagers that the Marjah operation failed to end Taliban control and put the Afghan government in charge. This puts in doubt General McChrystal's whole strategy which also governs the way in which 10,000 British troops are deployed. He is being held to account for earlier optimism such as his claim at the height of Marjah offensive that "we've got a government in a box ready to roll in". Three months later, people in Marjah say they have yet to see much sign of the Afghan government.

So much for "Taliban on the ropes". Karzai is continuing to show what a rat he is. It's unfortunate but i just don't see democracy shining in this country until they are ready for it, if that ever happens. Hopefully, no matter what happens in the war, it can be concluded with favourable results for Western/global security and the Afghan people (if that's even possible at this point ).

Edited May 19, 2010 by Moonlight Graham

[naomiglover]

It's a failure and will continue to be a failure.

I do hope that Canada stays its course and gets out of there as planned.

[wyly]

it was an unwinnable war from day one...this is what happens when right wing idiots refuse to learn from history, tens of thousands of people have died for nothing...

[bush_cheney2004]

It's a failure and will continue to be a failure.

I do hope that Canada stays its course and gets out of there as planned.

Why wait if it's a failure? What are you trying to prove?

[Sir Bandelot]

I wonder why McChrystal is being so open and honest in criticizing the current situation. It seems unusual for the top General to admit they're not winning. What's his motive?

Edited May 19, 2010 by Sir Bandelot

[eyeball]

I wonder why McChrystal is being so open and honest in criticizing the current situation. It seems unusual for the top General to admit they're not winning. What's his motive?

Moral dissonance?

[Moonlight Graham]

Why wait if it's a failure? What are you trying to prove?

Well, i'd ideally like Canada to be out ASAP, but there is certainly something to be said about making commitments to your NATO allies and sticking to them. If Canada promised a 2011 pullout and decided to leave now, what good is our word?

[Moonlight Graham]

I wonder why McChrystal is being so open and honest in criticizing the current situation. It seems unusual for the top General to admit they're not winning. What's his motive?

I agree. There's always a motive when top brass criticize the success of a military operation. Usually they are in ultra spin mode with the usual doublespeak and optimistic rhetoric.

[eyeball]

Well, i'd ideally like Canada to be out ASAP, but there is certainly something to be said about making commitments to your NATO allies and sticking to them. If Canada promised a 2011 pullout and decided to leave now, what good is our word?

What's the point of committing to defensive treaties with aggressive allies? Our word is only as good as our worst ally's.

Edited May 19, 2010 by eyeball

[bush_cheney2004]

I wonder why McChrystal is being so open and honest in criticizing the current situation. It seems unusual for the top General to admit they're not winning. What's his motive?

Reducing expectations, of course.

[DogOnPorch]

Everybody wants Rommel...but would complain re: his methods.

[bush_cheney2004]

Well, i'd ideally like Canada to be out ASAP, but there is certainly something to be said about making commitments to your NATO allies and sticking to them. If Canada promised a 2011 pullout and decided to leave now, what good is our word?

Who cares in the larger context of "thousands dying for nothing" in an "unwinnable war"...know from the "very beginning"? Does Canada only wish to fight wars with an ironclad guarantee of victory and medals for everybody concerned?

[bush_cheney2004]

Everybody wants Rommel...but would complain re: his methods.

So true....win the war and then go on trial for violating "human rights"....sheesh!

[DogOnPorch]

Being a modern General must suck the big kahoona.

[eyeball]

Does Canada only wish to fight wars with an ironclad guarantee of victory and medals for everybody concerned?

Apparently the perception of political momentum and fortune will suffice.

[bush_cheney2004]

Being a modern General must suck the big kahoona.

Ain't that the truth...all guts and no glory, booze, broads, or campaign trophies.

[DogOnPorch]

Ain't that the truth...all guts and no glory, booze, broads, or campaign trophies.

I'm sure if MacArthur was still around, he'd have Inchon'd the bastards and be well on his way to the North Korean/Red Chinese border by now.

[Moonlight Graham]

Who cares in the larger context of "thousands dying for nothing" in an "unwinnable war"...know from the "very beginning"? Does Canada only wish to fight wars with an ironclad guarantee of victory and medals for everybody concerned?

Canada has been has had boots on the ground in the war in Afghanistan about as long as any other country. Not widely known, but we sent in about 40 special troops from Canada's Joint Task Force 2 in late 2001, before the ISAF mission began, to operate with the USASOC and SAS etc. in super-secret-stealthy missions. Then Harper upped the troop levels when he first took office, when victory still wasn't guaranteed. There was no victory guarantee when Canada entered WWII and Korea either. So i would say no, an "ironclad guarantee of victory" isn't mandatory.

I think the interests of Canada should be priority #1, and getting out of combat soon is in that interest (unless some kind of negotiations with the Taliban are imminent and NATO needs to project strength). But i suppose international promises/commitments must also be factored in. I'm pretty sure if several years ago Canada committed to staying in until 2015, that commitment almost certainly be broken and troops brought home sooner.

Or in words you might say: Canada will do whatever the heck it wants with it's military and there ain't a damn thing you can do about it.

[bush_cheney2004]

Canada has been has had boots on the ground in the war in Afghanistan about as long as any other country. Not widely known, but we sent in about 40 special troops from Canada's Joint Task Force 2 in late 2001, before the ISAF mission began, to operate with the USASOC and SAS etc. in super-secret-stealthy missions. Then Harper upped the troop levels when he first took office, when victory still wasn't guaranteed. There was no victory guarantee when Canada entered WWII and Korea either. So i would say no, an "ironclad guarantee of victory" isn't mandatory.

It is widely known by those who care enough to pay attention. The Grits preferred to keep it quiet, and didn't want medals awarded because it would mean that Canada admitted to actually killing people on a "peacekeeping" mission. PM Harper and General Hillier disabused Canucks of that notion.

I think the interests of Canada should be priority #1, and getting out of combat soon is in that interest (unless some kind of negotiations with the Taliban are imminent and NATO needs to project strength). But i suppose international promises/commitments must also be factored in. I'm pretty sure if several years ago Canada committed to staying in until 2015, that commitment almost certainly be broken and troops brought home sooner.

Canada's stated interests and "values" is inconsistent with "leaving"....some role will remain for many years to come, with more casualites of war.

Or in words you might say: Canada will do whatever the heck it wants with it's military and there ain't a damn thing you can do about it.

Sure, but that wasn't true when they had to hitch a ride on the way in.

[Moonlight Graham]

Canada's stated interests and "values" is inconsistent with "leaving"....some role will remain for many years to come, with more casualites of war.

That's been the stated plan all along. It would obviously be irresponsible for Canada to completely abandon the area after our combat mission "ends". I fully support helping the development/reconstruction of the country, if the Afghans want us to stay that is.

[sleepyguy1]

That's been the stated plan all along. It would obviously be irresponsible for Canada to completely abandon the area after our combat mission "ends". I fully support helping the development/reconstruction of the country, if the Afghans want us to stay that is.

I heard from a few Canadian veterans that Afghan officials are trying to get Canada to stay because their afraid of the Germans taking over Canada's area of responsibility.

[Sir Bandelot]

Reducing expectations, of course.

I'm starting to doubt that. It seems very suspicious why the top General would be so vocal in his statements that the mission is not going well. Another theory is, that's what they want the public to believe.

From what I read, the Marja battle was more than 15,000 coalition troops against a couple thousand Taliban. The most high-tech army in the world, with overwhelming numbers against a band of peasant warriors with bent Kalishnikovs. How could they not win? It makes no sense, unless they don't want it to be over so quickly. And then all the negative publicity statements from the General makes sense...

[bush_cheney2004]

I'm starting to doubt that. It seems very suspicious why the top General would be so vocal in his statements that the mission is not going well. Another theory is, that's what they want the public to believe.

The public can believe whatever it wants, and often does. The current leader of the US Senate once opined that the war in Iraq was lost too. Big deal....

From what I read, the Marja battle was more than 15,000 coalition troops against a couple thousand Taliban. The most high-tech army in the world, with overwhelming numbers against a band of peasant warriors with bent Kalishnikovs. How could they not win? It makes no sense, unless they don't want it to be over so quickly. And then all the negative publicity statements from the General makes sense...

Define "win"? Killing everything with hair on it only invites more criticism about "collateral damage".

[GostHacked]

Who cares in the larger context of "thousands dying for nothing" in an "unwinnable war"...know from the "very beginning"? Does Canada only wish to fight wars with an ironclad guarantee of victory and medals for everybody concerned?

Well, one does not go to war against something if they want to lose. If you declare war it's because you want to win. If that is not the goal, then what are we fighting for? You do want to win against extremism do you not? Especially when it comes to those pesky Muslim fundamentalists!!?!?

"We're fighting for the Gods of War, but what the hell we fighting for" - Def Leppard !!! hehehe

[Sir Bandelot]

Define "win"?

Win means stay in the region much longer. Why go home and sit around on the base again, when we can keep playing army.