nerdgirl 0 #26 December 5, 2009 Quote Quote “it [OEF/NATO ISAF] has been formulated under the pressure of (army) generals of Pentagon, the American Neo-conservatives and the wealthiest fews [sic] of America and for the protection of their interests.” "It" being Obama's strategy so I don't necessarily see that as blaming Bush as much as I see it as an attempted low blow at Obama. Different interpretation than I first made. You might be right. Quote Remember from September of 2008 "a surge won't work in Afghanistan"? I do. How do we go from that to a year long 30,000 strong troop surge strategy 14 months later? Perhaps this was a major part of the delay in decision making these past couple of months. I remember that too. It’s a good question, imo. I don’t think it had anything to do with the process underlying the most recent decision to authorize more deployments tho. One can look at it in at least a couple ways. GEN McKiernan, believed an Iraq-style surge such wouldn’t work in Afghanistan was replaced by GEN McChrystal. It was through listening to and consideration of his new Afghanistan commander’s advice that President Obama came to the conclusions that underly the decision to authorize additional troops deployments. Gen McKiernan said “what is required is a ‘sustained commitment’ to a counterinsurgency effort that could last many years and would ultimately require a political, not military, solution.” I still agree with that assessment. And that doesn’t really sound that different than what GEN McChrystal wrote in the leaked COMISAF Initial Assessment: “Additional resources are required, but focusing on force or resource requirements misses the point entirely. The key take away from this assessment is the urgent need for a significant change to our strategy and the way that we think and operate. “This is a different kind of fight. We must conduct classic counterinsurgency operations in an environment that is uniquely complex. Three regional insurgencies have intersected with a dynamic blend of local power struggles in a country damaged by 30 years of conflict. This makes for a situation that defies simple solutions or quick fixes. Success demands a comprehensive counterinsurgency (COIN) campaign." And in that, along with other parts of the assessment and other comments, is the place where I see the problem. It’s not just the complaints about a deadline because it supposedly signals something to the Taliban. Successful counterinsurgencies take, on average, 12-15 years. Does the American public -all of it- have the stomach or does the American treasury have the credit for 12 to 15 years? And do we have the political will to do what they keep saying we need to do, which has very little to do with military force structure? More importantly, im-ever-ho, focusing on deh surge or the tentative deadline, still does not address the critical need for a civilian side and reconstruction, or as GEN Petraeus noted, back in April: “a whole of government approach is required, one that integrates all tools available international and interagency partners.” That’s what I found so noteworthy (or was it prescient? … ) SecDef Gates during his Senate testimony on Thursday invoking Charlie Wilson and the “mistake” (from the days when Gates was CIA) of only supplying guns but not pursuing reconstruction efforts. Too much of the discussion here, in Congress, and in the media (including the blog-o-sphere) is still being framed in terms of ‘boots-on-ground’ as the single variable of importance, imo. To again cite GEN McChystal “new resources are not the crux …. Our strategy cannot be focused on seizing terrain or destroying insurgent troops; our objective must be the population.” One can readily understand why ‘boots-on-the-ground’ gets the focus. We do traditional military operations well. It’s the common point of reference for many here. “Reconstruction” sounds too much like foreign aid. SecDef Gates has been speaking publically since at least fall 2007 (the Kansas talk) about the need for increased civilian capacity, i.e., the |R| of SSTR. He continues to speak about the critical need. One of the biggest faults -- & this reflects my priorities – that I have had thus far with President Obama is the delay in nominating a director of USAID. Finally got a nominee in November, and while he’s clearly a smart and capable individual with some private sector experience (in the Gates Foundation, ironically enough ), I don’t see anything in his record to suggest that he can spell COIN. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skyrider 0 #27 December 6, 2009 Presidentual Addresss??? Ohhh Gooody.... I was afraid I wouldn;t get to see him again real soon.. MY Gawd...what a camera Whore...WHEN is he running the country? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
