Oh.My.God.

I don't think. My orders are I'm not supposed to know where I'm taking this boat, so I don't. But one look at you and I know it's gonna be hot, wherever it is.

Chief Phillips, Apocalypse Now

Evidently Stanley McChrystal has scared the living shit right out of George Will. And why not? Given some of the details of General McChrystal's review/assessment of Afghanistan that are starting to emerge, he should scare the living shit right out of the rest of us, too:

The new commander of international troops in Afghanistan delivered a sweeping review of how the U.S. fights the war today, emphasizing a shift from fighting the Taliban to protecting the population, rooting out corruption, nearly doubling Afghan security forces and transforming how those Afghan forces are trained.

It gets worse:

Though not included in today's assessment, General Stanley McChrystal is soon expected to ask for more troops to fight a resurgent enemy.

And worse:

According to officials familiar with the report, it recommends increasing the target size of Afghan security forces, from a goal of 134,000 Afghan soldiers to 250,000, and increasing the target size of the Afghan police from 92,000 to 160,000.

It also recommends that U.S. and Afghan military command structures be more integrated, meaning U.S. forces would live, eat, and train together. It assesses that the Afghan Army could be in the lead within three years, though officials warn the Afghan police will take much longer.

On the one hand, we have McChrystal (and Holbrooke) telling us the government in Kabul is ineffective and corrupt, and now on the other he's telling us we should give Kabul billions to build a massive professional army and police force. If Afghanistan isn't even a functioning nation-state (no matter how you define the term) - and it isn't - how in the world can you really expect to successfully build and maintain a standing army? Or a police force?

Even more bizarre is the intention to de-emphasize the military's mission of fighting the Taliban. In fact, what McChrystal is now saying to the military is this: "Focus 95 percent of your time building relationships with them [the Afghan people] and, together with the Afghan government, meeting their needs." That leaves a whopping 5% of our military's resources dedicated to the defeat of the Taliban.

If there is one aspect of our mission in Afghanistan that does retain some public support, it is defeating the Taliban on the field of battle. Now, evidently, that is going by the wind. And what we're getting is something we've seen before:

It was called Vietnamization. 

Anyone recall how that worked out?

If Barack Obama doesn't fire Stanley McChrystal before the end of the year, you can bet your bottom dollar that by January 2011 we're going to have a war on our hands that will make you yearn for the good old days of George W. in Iraq. Guaranteed.

Comments

[Allen]

On the positive side some future poltical hopeful will describe his Christmas time penetration into Pakistan via a Swiftcamel.

Jesus, this is bad. I can see it now, large military forces, riddled with corruption and informers, moving out from established camps while the Taliban are merrily building support in the villages. The difference is that the Taliban is supported by many of the people, while the VC relied on terror and retribution in many cases.

This might have worked starting back in 2002-2003, but now? Three words: no fucking way.

[badanov]

The US Congress, dominated by Republicans and now dominated by democrats, have allowed US force readiness to decline while fighting two wars. That needs to be reversed.

The solution isn't to cut and run, nor is it to commit troops without a clear strategy of victory, nor are any "solutions' in between acceptable.

McChrystal's call is to my mind a requirement that force readiness must and should improve and that means expanding the number of available US combat troops, while improving their ability to sustain combat against a hostile enemy.

You should stop wearing your 'Viet Nam glasses," Dennis. Not everything the US does is or should be filtered through the past including Vietnam. The parallels are few, and the Taliban, IMO, can be defeated in the field.

[JeffS]

Dennis, it's possible that the 95% is too much. But what McChrystal is saying is pretty the strategy for the Iraqi surge. Except the percentages.

Yeah, this is a very slippery slope. No argument. But the slide in Vietnam-style war fighting hasn't started. Yet.

Maybe General McChrystal will turn this around; Obama sure as hell won't.

However, I agree: if we not actively killing Taliban on the battlefield, as a priority, the Afghan mission is well and truly screwed.

[PeterUK]

There is no political foundation to build a nation state in Afghanistan. It is worth noting that the British never invaded Afghanistan for conquest,the main aim was to keep the Afghans out of India and keep the Russians out of Afghanistan. This is simply part of the Great Game.

[richard mcenroe]

Oh, come one, Dennis, what does historical precedent have to do with anything? We were all told historical precedents were meaningless when we tried to compare Obie with Carter...

Remember the two key tenets of the True Progressive:

1. It's not a mistake if WE do it.

2. This time it's GOTTA work!

[DaMav]

Yeah, I remember how Vietamization worked out. The US was able to withdraw forces from S Vietnam and the South Vietnamese continued the war and protected their homeland.

Then Congress refused to allow the US to provide air support. Then they refused to allow the US to provide resupply of military weapons and supplies.

Then the North invaded with well equipped and supplied armored divisions and eventually took Saigon. But communism paid such a high price for Vietnam that it was no longer seen as attractive in the Phillipines nor Indonesia, and armed communist insurrection in those countries were brought under control. The dominoes did not fall. Not perfect by a long shot, but a lot better outcome than many expected.

Worth reading a few books on the military history of Vietnam instead of being spoon fed 'we lost, end of story' bull.

[Cassandra]

McChrystal doesn't set policy.

He's been told that Afghanistan is "the necessary war", and that we need to win without doing anything so unseemly as actually killing the bad guys. His job is not to set policy, but (having been told what his boss wants him to do) make sure we have what we need to implement his orders.

It's asinine to talk about firing the guy for doing his job. We've all been watching this guy for a while, wondering if he'd stand up for our Marines and soldiers in the field.

He passed the test. You want to fire someone, fire Obama - not a guy who is doing what way too many generals should have done in 2003.

[Simon]

But communism paid such a high price for Vietnam that it was no longer seen as attractive in the Phillipines nor Indonesia, and armed communist insurrection in those countries were brought under control. The dominoes did not fall. Not perfect by a long shot, but a lot better outcome than many expected.

Not sure how historical all that is DaMav. Indonesian communism was wiped out by Suharto in 1965 and that had nothing to do with Vietnam. Filipino communism was never seriously going to take over the country and its rise and fall didn't have much to do with Vietnam.

For Vietnamization to succeed I'd say we'd need 2 things - well led locals who are willing to put up a fight against the bad guys, and those locals must be good guys - otherwise a win for them is not a win for us

Do we have either of those things in Afghanistan ?

[richard mcenroe]

Isn't "Karzai" Pashtun for "Diem?"

Just asking.

[JeffS]

Then Congress refused to allow the US to provide air support. Then they refused to allow the US to provide resupply of military weapons and supplies.

And that couldn't happen in Afghanistan? We build up the ANA (assuming we can, of course), and then when the protesters at home complain enough, we withdraw in stages. Looks a lot like Vietnam to me.

Now, if we get our butts whipped by the Taliban, and the locals rise up with them against us, yup, you'd be right.

But, either way, we'd lose. Like we did in Vietnam.

And we DID lose in Vietnam, by any definition of the word. By effectively surrendering (refusing to fight any more) and effectively turning South Vietnam over to the VC. Betrayal can take many forms.

[Guesst]

The White House sought on Monday to pin the blame for the grave state of the war in Afghanistan on the Bush administration, which made Iraq its top military priority.

"This was underresourced, underfunded, undermanned and ignored for years," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said.

---
The left's position is that they aren't (have never been) antiwar, only anti-Iraq war.

Had President Bush sourced, funded, and manned the war in Afghanistan, it would have been (((crickets))) from the pro-war crowd.

[Simon]

Guesst -

How about if I say that I am not anti-war, just anti-Afghanistan war.

Can I now scream the same hysterical, querulous, contradictory comments that I have heard from the left for the last 6 years regarding Iraq -

why haven't you put more men into Afghanistan - we can't win without more men ?/why haven't you withdrawn - this is costing too much money
why don't you have free elections instead of just installing puppets ?/by allowing a free election you have now allowed the country to be taken over by our enemies
we just lost a soldier today - aren't you ashamed ? /the Taliban killed some civillians today - aren't you ashamed ? /we killed some Taliban today - but someone said they weren't really Taliban - aren't you ashamed ?
when are you going to do something about Pakistan ?/one of your drones just killed some people in Pakistan today - don't you know it's a sovereign country ?

Are we there yet daddy, are we there yet ? why aren't we there yet daddy ?

[Matt Osborne]

So I take it now we CAN oppose the war while supporting the troops?

What a relief. I've been waiting nearly eight years to hear that from a conservative voice.

[Simon]

Matt you definitely can, but only on the the proviso that you scream repeatedly "Obama is a baby killing fascist".

[Dennis the Peasant]

Matt-

I've been saying it since the middle of 2005.

[Guesst]

Hi Simon,

I should've written "Had President Bush sourced, funded, and manned the war in Afghanistan, it would have been (((crickets))) from the Left [nouveau] pro-war crowd".

All that marching and protesting and signage 'no blood for oil' was only because it involved Iraq, rather than Afghanistan. Right?

[JeffS]

So I take it now we CAN oppose the war while supporting the troops?

If you do so on solid, logical, and rational reasons, and not just because you hate the current President.

Which means no paper mache heads. I know that's brutal, but I'm sure that you can make do without them.

[bishop]

Yes, by all means, let's forget the lessons we learned after September 11th. Let's abandon the Afghan people, what could possibly go wrong, I have
an inkling.

[Dennis the Peasant]

Bishop-

This isn't about ignoring the lessons of 9/11. It's about not ignoring the lessons of Vietnam and Iraq. I would suggest that there are other options to the military/nation-building option when the mission is combating terrorism.

[J West]

1. The peasants don't support the taliban.
2. They hate the taliban a little less than they hate the foreigners.
3. What is Gen. McChrystal going to do?
4. Most of his troops are bundled up on FOBs or journeying along the roads in MRAP's and the like.
5. That is not in accord with FM 3-24. Not that I think counterinsurgency is necessarily workable.
6. Vietnamization did not fail because of Congressional curtailing of US air support. Failed because the US did not see it as essential to maintenance of national security.
7. To date, that appears to be correct.
8. When the Arabs (Afghans -whoever) come wading ashore at Myrtle Beach, weapons at high port, in their thousands -then we have a security threat.
9. We have serious means of dealing with threats to national security. Dicking around in the weeds in East Jesus keeps every one active and interested -full stop.
V/R JWest

[richard mcenroe]

JW Thanks for the headsup on #9. I was worried we had a threat to national security. I'll pass the word along to my brother that it's OK. Of course, it'll have to be a short conversation, he don't breathe too good since he stumbled out of that cloud in Lower Manhattan.

[bishop]

This administration makes
all these situations, all that more difficult. SAdly
we can't wait three years for a more sensible one. But it seems a really bad idea to start rationalizing
this kind of attitude. As for Myrtle Beach, consider
Beslan, Nord Ost, or Bali, Mumbai, not exactly the same thing

[J West]

1. RIP on your brother.
2. No, I don't think 9/11 constituted a serious national security threat.
3. Our response has been misdirected and ineffective.
4. A recent Rand Corporation report stated that the lead agencies in anti terror efforts need be police and intelligence.
5. We're half way there.
6. Moslem terrorists have been ineffective and instantly ratted out inside our borders since 9/11.
7. Our military efforts overseas have brought hell fire and brimstone down upon the heads of unwitting peasants, which might be satisfying, but has not done much to increase our security.
8. If a serious threat to our national security exists, use the big tools in the National Command Authority drawer. If those won't work, it is probably not that much of a threat.
V/R JWest

[Phil Smith]

"I would suggest that there are other options to the military/nation-building option when the mission is combating terrorism. "

Dennis, it's been a long time since I hung out here regularly. What are your suggestions on this topic?

[richard mcenroe]

I notice your fine attention to detail in your assumption my brother is dead.

Use the big tools? OK, who do we nuke? Your pick.

[Guesst]

Code Pink still hangs out at the entrance to Walter Reed every weekend harassing the families of our soldiers, don't they?

[J West]

1. Whatever on your brother.
2. You seem desperate to do something.
3. Am not as worried about external threats as I am about an intelligence organization that is incapable of detecting or correctly evaluating them.
4. A large portion of the problems we have worked ourselves into stem from that failing.
5. I reiterate: if the problems we face can't be solved by using the big tools, they are probably not serious threats.
V/R JW