Posted by
Andy Zarowny on Tuesday, October 06, 2009 4:36:29 PM
I may surprise some of you
with this edition of my blog,
but I am actually somewhat
sympathetic to President
Obama's position in the dust
up with General McChrystal.
HOW ABOUT THAT!?!?
For starters, generals ALWAYS
want MORE. Patton wanted
400,000 barrels of gas. Back
in the Civil War, McClellan
always begged for more troops
and the time to train and organ-
ize them. So the fact that the
new man in charge in Afghani-
stan wants more is not out of
the ordinary. The real ques-
tions are how will they be used
and what is our goal?
Now, the goal question we may
lay squarely at Obama's feet.
One would hope our goal is
victory. The way some of the
Democrats in Congress, as
well as VP Joe Biden are now
talking, victory is not our ob-
jective. More and more are
advocating various forms of
retreat or withdraw. Thus far,
the White House is being very
vague as to what our long term
objectives are.
As for McChrystal, he does
have a chain of command to
follow. The last time I heard,
the Uniform Code of Military
Justice does list as a viola-
tion for military members to
make public statements
critical of elected officials. I
do not believe, from what
I have read so far, that he
said anything which would
violate the UCMJ.
How McChrystal will use the
extra troops is the matter at
hand. Word, or rumor, is
that McChrystal wants the
extra forces to be located
within the population centers
much as 'The Surge' in Iraq
was executed. He wants to
withdraw from the remote
outposts, where our forces
are more vulnerable.
Politically and demographic-
ly, Afghanistan is much differ-
ent than Iraq. The Iraq stra-
tegy was successful due in
large part to turning Sunni
leaders away from Al Qaeda.
Many needed to be bribed,
but most were just fed up
with Al Qaeda and their strict
adherence to Shiria Law. The
Sunni's, historically, were al-
ways a bit more cosmopolitan
in Iraq.
By building up from the local
towns and provinces, we
achieved excellent results in
stemming Al Qaeda and other
insurgent groups. In theory
this may work in Afghanistan
as most people do not trust
the national government in
Kabul. Indeed, the recent
elections are being challenged.
Dealing more directly with
local politicians, warlords and
tribal elders is probably a good
idea in general. Along with an
increase in troops to protect
towns and villages, additional
funds for training local security
forces, building infrastructure
and eradicating opium crops.
Some like Biden are calling
for a pull back to base camps,
and just launching periodic
missions against Al Qaeda and
Taliban targets. This is a bad
idea. It's the same silly 'fire-
base' mentality that failed in
Vietnam. On the other hand,
pouring large numbers of
troops into towns and villages
may also offend the locals,
creating more hostiles than
before.
Clearly, a well thought out
approached based on good
intelligence and discussions
with local leaders would be
the way to determine if a
surge would have positive
results. Defense Secretary
Robert Gates has repeatedly
stated in the past week that
such plans are being reviewed.
The Iraq surge took many
months to plan and execute.
We are now in week 5 or 6
since McChrystal's report to
Gates?
So we need to have a bit of
patience. It seems like every
issue these days must be
rushed. The war in Afghani-
stan will be a long one. It's
not going to be over anytime
soon. While there has been
an increase in violence, we
are far from a crisis situation.
So I will cut Obama some slack
on this issue and allow the pro-
cess to work it's way through
the system. I am confident that
should the weak sisters gain in
numbers, people like Gates
and McChrystal will resign in
protest. I am also pretty sure
that even with the proposed
surge, we will still be engaged
in Afghanistan come January,
2013, when President Palin is
sworn into office. HA-HA-HA!!!