I believe he did just that. Think the deadline has become a guideline.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Gen. Stanley McChrystal: on the job market soon ... ???
- Thread starter A4sForever
- Start date
I believe he did just that. Think the deadline has become a guideline.
So.......then the question that begs to be asked to my AW brethern, is "victory" tenable in Afghanistan??
I hate to parse words on what victory means in this case, and I really have no idea what the criteria for it is either. If it were to eradicate the Taliban, that would be something tangible. But, in the pursuit of a more nebulous AQ enemy that has no borders, no allegiances, no capital cities, industry/infrastructure to the ends of the earth....and then pretend that occupying some real estate in SW Asia is "victory"......??? I think that's pretty fatuous.
I hate to parse words on what victory means in this case, and I really have no idea what the criteria for it is either. If it were to eradicate the Taliban, that would be something tangible. But, in the pursuit of a more nebulous AQ enemy that has no borders, no allegiances, no capital cities, industry/infrastructure to the ends of the earth....and then pretend that occupying some real estate in SW Asia is "victory"......??? I think that's pretty fatuous.
There can be no victory in a war against an abstraction. There will always be terrorists in the world, and we will NEVER be rid of them. As long as there are fanatics along whatever spectrum you choose to examine (religious, political, environmental, moral, any of them work), there will always be violent factions at the fringes of said spectrum. It is a reality of our world. Anyone who says that we can rid the world of terrorists (or for that matter, drugs or back-alley immigration), is thinking with their head in the clouds. The best we can hope for is containment, and that's asking a lot considering the state of the world.
Regarding SW Asea, unfortunately the best thing we're gonna get in Afghanistan is a somewhat-graceful exit, leaving a democracy of sorts in place. Either way, the Taliban and al-Qaeda are just playing the waiting game until July 2011, be it the deadline or guideline or whatever we're calling it now, then we'll see a marked uptick in violence in the area, count on that.
I think a reasonably stable Afghanistan, which doesn't provide significant support/oases for the Taliban, is definitely possible.
Not so sure about Pakistan, though.
Victory can mean what ever we want it to mean. We declared victory in Viet Nam yet South Viet Nam no long exists... We didn't necessarily declare victory in Korea but we've achieved a stalemate (at least for the last 60 years)
So, how do we want to define 'Victory' in Afghanistan? (IMO this is a topic that was discussed daily in the White House for the last 8 years).
If our goal is to remove the Taliban from power: Complete
If our goal is to establish a democracy: Complete
If our goal is to establish a functioning democracy capable or providing good governance: Not there yet, possibly attainable.
If our goal is to remove all aspects of Islamic Extremists: Not there yet, and probably never will be.
If our goal is to make Afghanistan a functioning democracy up to Western Standards: Not there, most likely never will be.
In my opinion the United States will become sick and tired of the money-pit that is Afghanistan. The culture does not recognize gov't about the Tribal level, there is no history of a national democracy that they people would respect. Most people affiliate themselves through tribal lines, so there is very little pride for the nation-state of Afghanistan, therefore there is very little interest in a federal gov't as we know it.
My thought is the US will try to get it 'good enough', declare victory and pull chocks. The assumption is that we'll have to go back in a few years and clean up; like Haiti. We'll deal with it when it becomes a raging inferno, but we won't deal with it at the 'brushfire' level of problems.
My opinion is that it is in our national interest to maintain a presence in Afghanistan for geo-strategic reasons. If you look to the west of Afghanistan you see the same country that if you would see looking east from Iraq. Last time I checked, we have significant military presence in two countries bordering a country that we don't get along with too well. I would think that it is in our best interests to maintain a presence in the same way we keep Gitmo. (Does Gitmo really contribute to US national interests; No. Does it REALLY, REALLY piss off Castro that we're there; Fuck yeah!!)
IMO we'll stay in both countries if only to provide some daily reminder to Iran that they need to stay within their box or else we're in the neighborhood and can respond immediately.
So, to answer you question, I feel that US gov't will make a determination what 'good enough' looks like in Afghanistan and depart. There is a book about the history of Afghanstan called 'The Graveyard of Empires'. You don't get a name like that by being an easy play to occupy.
Interesting analysis, IMHO. Aside from the emotional perspective, do you think Obama Administration will make the determination?
I would add the need to "stay close" to Pakistan and their nukes, in addition to the rationale for encircling Iran. Also important to the mix of "needs" is the Poppy Crop. Is not Russia sending folks down to the Afghan border to try to stop some of the flow of opium? I wish them luck on that front.
Excellent points. IMO, the war in Afghanistan has always been a war of emotional retribution for 9/11. Afghanistan will not become of functional democracy in any of our lifetimes because unlike Iraq, it has never really existed as a modern functioning state. The best we can hope for is a scenario where we can declare some kind of victory and pull the fuck out. Anything else is a losing proposition. COIN, however well intentioned, will never work in Afghanistan. Anyone who believes otherwise is a fool.
Brett
I think this Administration will have to look long and hard at the issue before making that call. For the simple reason is to look at the "Mission Accomplished" flak that GWB still takes. The last thing the Administration wants is to say we're done and have the country implode on CNN.
IMO the Administration will look to round up all the little victories in Afghanistan and display them as proof that the Administration is winning the war; another 4 year term is required to finish the job.
I couldn't agree more! The US basically abandoned Pakistan following the end of the Cold War since we didn't need them to counter the Soviet 'Stans' in the region. After we left, Pakistan was pretty much on thier own and the fundalmentalists rose to power within the country.
Once we wanted to go into Afghanistan and needed basing and tranisit rights through Pakistan we realized our mistake. Because Pakistan can be a stabilizing influence in the region and to ensure that the India/Pakistan issues remain 'just simmering' (vice boiling over) I think we'll remain engaged with Pakistan a lot longer than most people expect.
As Dennis Miller is fond of say; "of course that's just my opinion, I may be wrong."
Understanding Afghanistan
'When we understand that slide, we'll have won the war,' General Stanley McChrystal, the US and NATO force commander, remarked wryly when confronted by the sprawling spaghetti diagram in a briefing.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/wor...t-baffled-PowerPoint-slide.html#ixzz0rsEo22UX
'When we understand that slide, we'll have won the war,' General Stanley McChrystal, the US and NATO force commander, remarked wryly when confronted by the sprawling spaghetti diagram in a briefing.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/wor...t-baffled-PowerPoint-slide.html#ixzz0rsEo22UX
Attachments
It's seems the Taliban has released a press statement regarding McChrystal getting sacked.
They approve!!
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wor...w_us_afghanistan_war_chief_not_smarter_t.html
They approve!!
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wor...w_us_afghanistan_war_chief_not_smarter_t.html
Analysis of what Petraeus is facing compared to Iraq
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/24/AR2010062402982.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/24/AR2010062402982.html
Rolling Stone broke interview ground rules, according to DoD sources.
So it's apparently true, if the article is accurate, that this was nothing more than an attempt to put a scalp on some dirtbag reporter's belt. Apparently this is all a game to them. Take a staff's general off-the-record behind-closed-doors BSing, turn it into a conspiracy, and force the President to act. What a pile of garbage.
So it's apparently true, if the article is accurate, that this was nothing more than an attempt to put a scalp on some dirtbag reporter's belt. Apparently this is all a game to them. Take a staff's general off-the-record behind-closed-doors BSing, turn it into a conspiracy, and force the President to act. What a pile of garbage.
GEN William Tecumseh Sherman said:
I wouldn't say it's a game per se....IMHO, many in the Press feel they are the watchkeepers of what is right and do not truly respect the military or government for that matter. When it comes to a choice between what they want to report regardless of upfront agreements or guidelines, they will "burn" the subject of the reporting to tell their story in order to grab headlines or the inside scoop. Often times, reporters wrap themselves in a cloak of self righteousness when confronted and mask their ambition to score the inside story no matter who it hurts in their zeal for recognition and the elusive Pulitzer Prize. Ernie Pyle was last great combat reporter IMO. He would have never stood for this type of Investigative Journalism like it was a Reality Show in print.
I must have missed all that 'victory' in Vietnam stuff ... tell me what book to go to or what to Google so I can read up on how we 'declared it' ... 'won it' ... and came home w/ honors like our forebears did before us ... 'honors' for all our sacrifices ... ???
But to your Afghan ''if's'' ... I 'think' I agree w/ all, just for the sake of discussion.
But that's my problem ... having experienced 'victory', as you call it, 35+ years ago ... how does one tell a current-day trooper (while strapping on his Kevlar and counting magazines and water in preparation for a patrol) or an Aviator manning up his go-fast or his HELO for another 'mission' ... how do you tell them that ANY of your ''if's'' are worth THEIR lives ... should it come right down to that ... ???
How to tell 'em that -- after experiencing the waste -- the terrible waste of many years ago all done for political reasons --- and save for the guys who served -- nobody gave a damn -- how can you tell 'em that ... 'it's worth it' ... ???
War is shit. Either fight it to win or don't get into it from the get-go. And, as military men we know what 'winning' is ... we don't need to parse it or have some politician or bureaucrat tell us -- we know what 'victory' looks like ...
Fight it to win -- or don't get in. Anything less is insanity ...