TPM LiveWire
Top U.S. Commander in Afghanistan: I Need More Troops
Rachel Slajda | September 21, 2009, 8:49AM
Gen. Stanley McChrystal
Share
Send to a friend!
Gen. Stanley McChrystal, commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, told the administration he needs more troops there, without which the war "will likely result in failure."
In a 66-page document sent to Defense Secretary Robert Gates Aug. 30 and obtained by the Washington Post, McChrystal warned that if the insurgency isn't slowed in the next year, the U.S. "risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible."
McChrystal has not yet sent his troop request to the Pentagon, but there have been reports that he'll ask for 30,000 to 40,000 more.
President Obama said last week that he won't make decisions about troop increases until he has "absolute clarity about what the strategy is gonna be."
In his report, McChrystal agrees:
"Inadequate resources will likely result in failure. However, without a new strategy, the mission should not be resourced."
Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
Most Popular
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2010 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Stiggs
September 21, 2009 9:15 AM
Okay, no more troops and we lose - got it. But what do we get if we win? What exactly are we trying to accomplish? Are we really just going to continue bombing the fuck out of them until they love us? (Hint: that's not going to work.)
Didn't Obama ask for clarity about what the strategy is going to be when he first took office? It's 8 months later and the commanders haven't come up with an executive summary type answer yet?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
September 21, 2009 9:20 AM
No more troops and we lose. More troops and we still lose even if we win. They always say we need more troops. Well fuck that! The war is hopeless and lost no matter what we do. Why bankrupt the nation trying to make a military solution work when we know damn well it won't? Out of Afghanistan NOW!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ivy22
September 21, 2009 9:25 AM
If we don't get more troops, we will not win in Vietnam, I mean Afghanistan. If Vietnam falls, I mean Afghanistan, the dominoes will fall in Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, India... Gimme a map so I can find the Tonkin Gulf in Afghanistan.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cwnidog
September 21, 2009 11:00 AM in reply to ivy22
So Ivy, you've seen this movie before too. Too bad we already know how it ends.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
KeithL
September 21, 2009 9:37 AM
Hold on Stanley!
While someone (on your staff?) is busy leaking reports and "advice" to the President, you still have TWO count 'em TWO responsibilities:
1) Define Success
2) Define Failure!!!
Now I loves me the Gen'ruls as much as the next patriotic guy! Old Stanley may have been neck deep in the neocon, PR scam, LYING about the the Pat Tilman incident, and he may have ruffled a few feathers with his notorious Task_Force_6-26 antics, but Hey! he got Abu_Musab_al-Zarqawi didn't he?
Of course, in my world, military commanders should just report to their Commander-in-Chief and otherwise, shut the Hell up when it comes to trying to pressure the President's policy, sans bothersome little things like, oh you know, details, "metrics" and all that pundit talk kind of stuff.
At least he's never claimed that his God is bigger than da Mooslims' God. Do you think he'll stop the widespread distributions of bibles and bible thumpers in Afghanistan? That's one "metric" I could live with.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Former Federal Employee
September 21, 2009 11:23 AM in reply to KeithL
If your notion is to build a client-state capable of surviving the 10-15 years it will take for the next massive, decentralized insurgency against an unpopular central government, then more troops may do the trick. You have to convince a lot of the anti-government forces to commit to being killed in battle, but it's at least theoretically possible.
Note I didn't say that this was in our best interest long-term, or a flattering reflection on our national character.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CranialRectalLoopback
September 21, 2009 9:45 AM
We lost by going in.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JohnW1141
September 21, 2009 2:24 PM in reply to CranialRectalLoopback
Cranial,
exactly.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
September 21, 2009 9:50 AM
Obama brought this on himself with his grandstanding about Afghanistan, where we're accomplishing and will accomplish absolutely nothing except to kill 10 innocent civilians for every Taliban we kill. Then he compounded the mistake by appointing McChrystal, a questionable character at best and one almost uniquely poorly suited to "stabilizing" anything. http://www.esquire.com/the-side/feature/who-is-stanley-mcchrystal-051909
I have no doubt that McChrystal deliberately arranged for this document to be leaked.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
September 21, 2009 10:05 AM in reply to Steve LaBonne
Excellent point! Obama's naivete in listening to hacks like Emmanuel and other Washington insiders has done him in on this one. He should have maintained his antiwar stance because it was the right position, but now he has thrown himself in with the warmongers 100% and will have a tough time explaining how not escalating the pointless and hopeless Afghan war is the right move.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JohnW1141
September 21, 2009 9:54 AM
During the Iraq War I saw Senator Ted Stevens say on the Senate floor that "We're going to win this thing." It made me wonder what "win" means. The only accurate scenario I could come up with is; all our troops are out and the Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds march arm in arm under the umbrella of peace and prosperity and Democracy. I never believed that would happen.
I had a hard time believing there were actually any Iraqis, feeling instead that since Saddam fall there were only Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds living there.
Afghanistan is a failed state made up of different tribes that control their particular region of the country. Please one tribe, disappoint the others.
We should have never ousted the Taliban, as bad as they are, because now we can't allow them to return, can we? Our problem is with Osama and al Qaeda and they should be handled by Special Forces and the CIA.
So, here we are, its deja vu all over again in Afghanistan.
What circumstances must exist in Afghanistan before we can say 'we won' and then start withdrawing troops?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chubbco
September 21, 2009 10:01 AM
LBJ might have saved his Presidency if he'd rightly announced that the security of the US wouldn't be harmed a hair if Ho Chi Minh were running around Saigon in his pyjamas.
Can you say the same thing if the Al Qaeda leadership is out of the mountains and caves, given succour by the Taliban? Then we're really back to bombing.
Just suggesting this is more complicated than Afghanistan = VietNam.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ivy22
September 21, 2009 10:13 AM in reply to chubbco
Yes, Afghanistan is a way deeper quagmire than Vietnam. Does Agent Orange work on poppies? Does Pakistan rhyme with Cambodia? What does it take to win the hearts and minds of an Afghan? How do you bomb someone back into the Stone Age when they already live there?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JohnW1141
September 21, 2009 2:27 PM in reply to ivy22
ivy,
there are no Afghanis, there are only a number of self-interested tribes living and fighting in an area we call Afghanistan.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GTFOOH
September 21, 2009 10:18 AM
Feed the military complex, or we'll all die! Sure you don't want a series of warning lights to go with that?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hoppycalif2
September 21, 2009 10:46 AM in reply to GTFOOH
Now we are down to the nitty gritty. Without a nice little war going on all of the time, the military budget might be cut, the armaments industry profits might be cut, and the pentagon might lose jobs. So, we must pretend that it is vital that we liberate Afghanistan. Obama revealed his utter lack of experience when he decided to go along with this bull bleep policy.
It isn't too late for Obama to learn. It is not far from being too late, but he can still demonstrate that his brain still functions, by ordering a withdrawal from that quagmire.
And, I agree completely, having been saying the same thing for several years, that we have yet to see a definition of "success" for Afghanistan. Minus that, we can't possibly achieve it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EH
September 21, 2009 11:13 AM in reply to GTFOOH
The meat-grinder needs more meat. Oh and by the way, the customers don't want meat anymore.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JimmyBobby
September 21, 2009 10:53 AM
Gee, knock me over w/a feather! A general who wants more meat for his meatgrinder? That's a real first!
History teaches us that the end of empires entails wars of choice (how you gonna be the baddest guy on the block if you're not always beating up on someone?) that eventually erode the economy and lead to revolution in some form or another. We're well on our way down that track -- not too late to turn back, but with more troops going to Afghanistan I don't see Obama being the one to do it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
An Outhouse
September 21, 2009 11:13 AM
Fire the bozo. The report was clearly leaked from his office. I would show him what commander in charge really means.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
An Outhouse
September 21, 2009 1:08 PM in reply to An Outhouse
I mean commander in chief.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?