Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Pentagon Doubts Grow on McChrystal War Plan
WASHINGTON - Although Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal's plan for wresting the Afghan provinces of Helmand and Kandahar from the Taliban is still in its early stages of implementation, there are already signs that setbacks and obstacles it has encountered have raised serious doubts among top military officials in Washington about whether the plan is going to work.
The Pentagon report on the war betrays similar doubts about the strategy being carried out by McChrystal, both by what it highlights and what it fails to say. (REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque) Scepticism about McChrystal's ambitious aims was implicit in the way the Pentagon report on the war issued Apr. 26 assessed the progress of the campaign in Marja. Now, it has been given even more pointed expression by an unnamed "senior military official" quoted in a column in the Washington Post Sunday by David Ignatius.
The senior military officer criticised McChrystal's announcement in February that he had "a government in a box, ready to roll in" for the Marja campaign, for having created "an expectation of rapidity and efficiency that doesn't exist now", according to Ignatius.
The same military official is also quoted as pointing out that parts of Helmand that were supposed to have been cleared by the offensive in February and March are in fact still under Taliban control and that Afghan government performance in the wake of the offensive had been disappointing, according to Ignatius.
The outlook at the Pentagon and the White House on the nascent Kandahar offensive is also pessimistic, judging from the comment to Ignatius by an unnamed "senior administration official". The official told Ignatius the operation is "still a work in progress", observing that McChrystal's command was still trying to decide how much of the local government the military could "salvage" and how much "you have to rebuild".
That is an obvious reference to the dilemma faced by the U.S. military in Kandahar: the entire government structure is controlled by Ahmed Wali Karzai, the much-despised brother of President Hamid Karzai. The U.S.-supported provincial governor now being counted on to introduce governance reforms, on the other hand, is generally regarded by Kandaharis as powerless, as Jonathan Partlow reported in the Washington Post Apr. 29.
These negative comments on the campaign in Helmand and Kandahar by senior Washington officials pointing to problems with McChrystal's plan suggest that even more serious concerns are being expressed behind the scenes.
The Pentagon report on the war betrays similar doubts about the strategy being carried out by McChrystal, both by what it highlights and what it fails to say. Damning with faint praise, the report says the offensive waged in the Marja region and elsewhere in Helmand achieved only "some success in clearing insurgents from their strongholds".
Paralleling the quote from the "senior military official", the report says progress in "governance and development" in has been "slow". Demonstrating that the Afghan government could provide "governance and development" had been announced as the central aim of the offensive in Marja.
The section of the Pentagon report on the state of the insurgency goes even further toward declaring that the McChrystal plan had failed to achieve a central objective, concluding that the Taliban strategy for countering the offensive "has proven effective in slowing the spread of governance and development".
The key finding is that the Taliban have "reinfiltrated the cleared areas" of Helmand and "dissuaded locals from meeting with the Afghan government" by executing some who had initially collaborated.
The overall negative tone of the analysis of what happened in Helmand appears to reflect a decision by Pentagon officials to withhold its vote of confidence in the McChrystal war plan.
The only feature of McChrystal's strategy which the Pentagon report treats as having proven effective against the insurgents is its most controversial element: the programme of Special Operations Forces (SOF) night raids against suspected Taliban in their homes, which has stirred anger among Afghans everywhere the SOF have operated.
In an indirect expression of doubt about the impact of the McChrystal strategy, the report suggests that the willingness of Taliban insurgent leaders to negotiate will be influenced not by the offensives aimed at separating the population from the Taliban but by the "combined effects" of the high-level arrests of Taliban leaders in Pakistan and targeted raids by special operations forces against "lower level commanders".
In fact, Taliban leaders have already indicated a readiness to negotiate, although not on terms the Barack Obama administration is yet prepared to accept.
McChrystal appears to have responded to the setbacks he has encountered in Helmand and Kandahar by setting aside his most ambitious counterinsurgency aim: the creation of a large zone of control covering both provinces. In late January, an official working for McChrystal at the ISAF told IPS, "The first thing you'll see is an effort to establish a contiguous security zone in Helmand and Kandahar accounting for 85 percent of the economic resources."
McChrystal referred to that same aim in his interview with the Financial Times published Jan. 25. "If we can protect 85 percent of the people and deny access to them from the insurgents, it's pretty hard for them to have a significant effect," he said.
But since the end of the Marja operation, neither McChrystal nor any other ISAF official has said anything about a plan to establish a "contiguous security zone".
McChrystal has to provide a one-year assessment of the progress of his strategy in December 2010, and senior administration officials told the Washington Post in late March that he will have to show that the "overall transition to stability and vastly improved governance" has been completed by that time.
McChrystal was confident in a talk in Kabul in late January excerpted in a NATO video that, by December, he would be able to "show with hard numbers and things, real progress".
But the failure to clear Taliban guerrillas from areas where they have been strongest, along with the inability to break the power of Karzai's brother in Kandahar and the absence of support from the population and tribal elders for military occupation in the province, is likely to make administration officials highly sceptical of such a case.
McChrystal's staff has made no secret of their hope to convince the U.S. public that his strategy is making such progress in Helmand and Kandahar that it should be extended past mid-2011, when President Obama has said he would begin a U.S. military withdrawal and transition to Afghan responsibility for security.
After interviewing members of McChrystal's team in Kabul, pro-war journalist Robert Kaplan wrote in the April issue of Atlantic magazine, "The very prospect of some success by July 2011 increases the likelihood that U.S. forces will be in Afghanistan in substantial numbers for years."
Gareth Porter is an investigative historian and journalist specialising in U.S. national security policy. The paperback edition of his latest book, "Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam", was published in 2006.
- Posted in
31 Comments so far
Show AllIf you work with a stockbroker she's going to tell you to keep buying and selling all the time. For you, it's a waste of your money. For her it's more commissions.
If you ask a general, she's going to tell you that more war is good for you. What good is peace to her?
After a bit of thought, I've decided that generals are little old ladies of both genders. Actually this is kind of offensive to little old ladies. I should have quit while I was ahead.
I'm sure the General's plan will be successful provided he gets the proper resources. Obama needs to give him an extra 100,000 troops and double the number of drones. I'm sure with those extra resources we can bring democracy and freedom to the Afghan people we love so dearly.
and spread it to Pakistan and Iran as well!
Any Bloodshed in Khandahar now will be on Obama's hands after announcing to the world he plans on invading it.
Tough, bein a war prez.
Bush and O' Bama have done for the US what Boris Yeltsen did for the USSR.
More bull from the MIC to advertise their eternal war on nothing--makes me sick how they have destroyed what was left of this piss-poor state of the USI.
For the MICC (Military Industrial, Congressional Complex) this is all gravy, win lose or draw. Remember, when you read that it costs a million dollars a year to keep one soldier on the ground in Afghanistan, most of that million goes back to the MICC.
Pashtuns make their weapons by hand, in caves. Cost negligible. They make their ammunition in caves. Cost negligible. Their fighters are virtually every person who has a blood feud with us because a relative has been killed or maimed by us.
Quisling governments are not recognized when put in power by us anymore than in Norway by the Nazis. The people fight them as they would enemy governors.
Finally, it takes only a bullet or two to put a million dollar warrior down or dead.
You do the math.
ONE WORLD DICTATORSHIP
All wars are won by the military most deadly, no morality involved just ignominy, no heroism just stupidity and no gain but to give more power to those the most corrupt and deadly.
For civilization started out with small tribes ruling everything, now we have Empire USA plundering all the earth, and soon a World War Three to decide if we shall for ever and ever rule over the earth. Surely from all parameters, a one-world order is inevitable and inescapable.
Unless of course you believe that the purpose of earth is to prove the harm in it, then of course in about six seconds will come an earth made new to end the misery of it.
Americans think this way:
"These Ragheads are kickin our ass and they want to negotiate?
That proves they're crazy!"
Pentagon Doubts Grow on McChrystal War Plan
What? The death squads (his "claim to fame") aren't working?
-the Taliban have "reinfiltrated the cleared areas"
I guess Obama's propaganda about clearing and holding hasn't been translated for the Afghans to read. Still, there is time to by stock in the drone manufacturers.
Join the War Resisters League now:
http://www.warresisters.org/
The ol' Chrystal ball ain't workin' too good. But if O dares to back out he'll get bumped off just like MIC did to JFK.
WTF- The only way to win this war is to kill everybody and start over. Not going to happen you say, well our stratagy so far has achieved nothing but cost untold amounts of money and killed untold amounts of lives. When are you going to be satisfied? Do the job, whatever that means. It's been 10 years now, what have we got to show for it but loses and disappointment. Better yet bring the troops home while they are still breathing. Admit it was a mistake and move on. As far as the drug trade is concerned, the Taliban had all but eradicated opium production BEFORE we envaded. Can't blame encreased opium output on the enemy. We are not making any friends over there.
The Islamist terrorist problem is a criminal problem not something that can be successfully dealt with by massing tens of thousands of western soldiers in far off lands. The age of colonialism is over, even if we need to figure out ways to insure access to vital resources like petroleum. The Chinese are playing the game in a smarter way, without having to rely on military conquest as we have in our neo-imperial adventures since 2000. Whether we like it or not we will eventually have to reach some sort of accommodation with people we don't agree with. What we are doing now is feeding the international jihadist movement not ending it. Is western capitalism so decadent, so devoid of imagination that the only thing it is capable of doing is creating an enemy in order to keep the military industrial complex and its hundreds of thousands of minions going? It certainly appears to be so. We should be settling the Israeli/Palestinian situation and other problems that are the source of Islamist fervor. The muslims are not going to go away. The question is which muslims we will ultimately be dealing with.
Bakunin2, you seem confused.
"The Islamist terrorist problem is a criminal problem..." Do you mean it is criminal to fight back against extremist, neo colonial capitalist usury and Judeo-Christian violent hegemony, expressed by the state terrorism, wars of aggression, torture, humiliation, and murder that America and its NATO allies purvey? Or do you mean it is criminal for the Pentagon, Mossad, CIA and MI5 to mount false flag operations infiltrate Muslim organizations all to prime the pump to feed the replacement for the cold war and stimulate a Jihad/crusade called the War on Terror. Do you really believe the official conspiracy theories?
"We should be settling the Israeli/Palestinian situation and other problems that are the source of Islamist fervor. The question is which [M]muslims we will ultimately be dealing with." Do you mean, which ones you decide to ultimately leave in charge? Or do you leave it to them to work out their own future and destiny on their own principals, and deal with what arises by their choice or system, as best you can? It is called respecting the sovereign rights and interests of others!
You analysed the problem, but you start from the same illogical preliminary assumption and land up in the same condescending conclusion that you have to hammer the world into a shape you can handle, so as the world must fit American values and interests and that America's might is right. It is not America's place to dictate the terms by which the world turns on its axis, and it has failed miserably all round in trying to do so.
"Is western capitalism so decadent, so devoid of imagination that the only thing it is capable of doing is creating an enemy in order to keep the military industrial complex and its hundreds of thousands of minions going?"
Yes. According to their credo, the only way to move forward is to harness self interest and greed. But you better think and get practice in living without it or its benefits because as a general system goes it is failing miserably too, except for the very few that it goes on benefitting. Just look around!
Is it safe enough to build the Pipeline yet?
Only when this is accomplished will the troops come home.
And that will not happen until we kill every man in that country.
I really can't offer anything new except to say that a nuclear war right about now would probably solve a lot of the problems of the world.
I also firmly believe that even if they don't actually start it, it will turn out that Israel was the root cause of it.
Whether it was an independent act of violence or whether, as Attorney General Holder says, the attempted bombing in Times Square was actually traced to the Taliban in Pakistan, is it any wonder why it happened.
Taliban offers to negotiate, Afghan tribal elders want to negotiate. U. S. wants big offensive in Kandahar province to make sure that we can kill some more Taliban forces and civilians before sitting down to talk.
Why would anyone want to hurt anyone in the U. S.? Beats the hell out of me.
Are we regarded by the Afghan people as liberators or as occupiers? Are we going to be more "successful" than the Soviets or the British? With a national debt of 14 trillion dollars can we afford to pay for our two plus wars and 725 military installations?
We are told by TV's trusted Theoretical Astronomical Physicists that this universe popped out of a singularity the size of a sub atomic particle and has been inflating ever since.... We are supposed to accept that because they are smarter than anybody else. So if we accept that without a question, why should we question what is affordable? In an infinite amount of parallel universes, anything is possible and this is not the church molding our vision of ourselves but "Science".
We have surrendered the ability to question scientific authority... and they are the new "Gods" because they are to be believed from reason and proof, not faith.
The full spectrum domination of the planet and space will proceed as budgeted.
I don't like it but our minds have been caged.
You know, I tell myself all the time: enough already with the apocalyptic imagery!
But I can't help feeling a creepy connection between the US Imperium's mad military misadventures and the new one we tore in Mother Earth's aorta down Mexico way.
The common denominator has long been on my short list of epitaphs (or post-mortems) for manunkind: "Here Lies Intellectual Hubris, Dead By Its Own Hand".
We've dodged apocalyptic bullets before, e.g. the Cuban Missile Crisis, Three Mile Island. But Fate has a way of rebuking those who fail to learn their lessons-- and humility in the bargain.
Another common denominator: bleeding out.
Does anyone really believe that our present civilian and military authorities are committed to avoiding this outcome? Or, for all their vast technocracy, infinite resources, and can-do charisma, can truly comprehend and control events?
So far, our leaders have turned out to have feet of clay, and a propensity for standing in their own shadow; this has brought us to a precipitous abyss, or loop, in which Plan B is defined as sticking to Plan A.
Resoluteness is all. Another one for the epitaph list!
McChrystal has many ideas and a new strategy as to how to fight the type of war he has this country involved in;up to its neck. However none of his "new" ideas will bring any form of "victory"to him or any further generals we will use to defeat the Taliban. All of his attempts to "win" in Afghanistan have been tried to excess in our loss in Viet Nam. And no lessons were learned then.
And yet McChrystal insists he can succeed. Hubris? I think so. If not why then does he insist in pursuing the same strategy that was used in Marja, where it failed. The Taliban have resumed their control in Marja and with no visible signs of defeat in any way.
The fight for Khandahar,if it occurs,will be long, bloody and with the loss of many of our troops and innocent civilians and result in inevitable defeat for our forces. And with our defeat the end of our obscene attempt to "democratize" Afghanistan by killing so many of the people and destroying the country will come,finally, to an end.
Half assed and half hearted, the credo of the Obama administration. There is nothing like having abunch of professional fuckups in charge of the war and the country! Well, thats not totally true, corporate America is getting everything they want,... from us!
If you want to understand what is most likely to happen in Afpak you must go back to Mr. Obama's statements beginning with his averring to the Chicago Tribune that he was not opposed to all wars, only to "stupid wars". During the presidential campaign it became crystal clear that he considered the war in Afghanistan a "must" if not a "must win" war.
How can this "soft" war monger leave Afpak without at least a semblance of a win? In my opinion he cannot because he will be painted by his Republican opponents as cowardly and soft on terrorism.
After having signed off on McChrystal's Kandahar strategy how can Mr. Obama save face by calling it off? There will be some kind of "Kandahar offensive". In essence Mr. Obama is in the same pickle as Mr. Hitler was before the Kursk offensive of 1943 (a.k.a. "Zitadelle"). You have already failed at least once. You must show the world that you are still virile even though several of your commanders oppose the offensive. When you go ahead you may well lose. When you call it off it is a victory for your opponents at home and abroad. The Pentagon is jittery because it does not trust the Commander-in-Chief very much.
The Prussian General von Clausewitz is best known for his statement about war and diplomacy. It is much less known that he also warned the King of Prussia that his armed forces do not like to be used for his personal adventures. That may well happen here if a real Kandahar offensive is not successful (a "win") and costs many lives of U.S. soldiers.
The only "clever way out" for Mr. Obama is to declare that the war in Afghanistan was really the "wrong" war and that the "clever war" is waged in Pakistan ("boots on the ground") and, conceivably, in Iran.
This is all almost too stupid to put into words!
Were borrowing trillions of dollars to subdue Afghanistan so Dick's buddies can put in an oil pipeline (see big, long target) to supply us all with the substance that is washing up on the shores of Louisana and not so slowly destroying the planet. All the while, we wait for the first Hurricane of the season to force these oil slicks further ashore.
The fishing/tourist industry in the gulf is basically screwed for decades, if not centuries. The US taxpayer will be picking up the tab for BP's ignorance and greed; or should I say our grandchildren and great-grandchildren will be paying for all of this, in more ways than one.
Afghanistan, AKA "The Graveyard of Empires" will suck the life out of America, just as it did to the Soviet Union when they departed Afghanistan, with their tail between their legs.
And when our troops do come home, with "thousand yard stares," they will be met by a pissed off populace angry about the ever climbing cost of gasoline, steadily declining quality of life and an unpayable national debt.
As an aquaintance said to me: "Dude, we don't have a future."
Obama didn't start our war on Afghanistan, but he sure as hell is continuing it, expanding it and escalating it. The fact that Obama appointed Stanley McChrystal, a known war criminal to head up this whole "mission" of ours in Afghanistan is even more disgusting. Doubt indeed!
McChrystal has a crazed look in his eye. He is proud of his four-hours-of-sleep-a-night-one-meal-a-day schedule.
Parallel: Nixon did not start the war in Vietnam either. He escalated it even further by bombing Cambodia and Laos.
Karzai is in the USA today attempting to get the USA to accede to negotiating Peace.
But what does the propaganda machine tell us ,NPR,
NPR says Karzai is here to beg Obomber's forgiveness.
Call it victory and withdraw, let the Pashtuns have their nation back.
Human nature... of course this latest general is failing! Didn't Gates just announce that there were TOO many generals in the Pentagon? Ah, yes, there's the rub: every military guy with any kind of medals dangling from his over - fed cheast will be dissing any other guy who might get his job! Horrors! Unemployed generals.... what a great idea!
I wonder how many Americans are killed with munitions that the U.S. supplied to the Afghans when they were fighting against the Russians? Boy, those chickens just keep coming home and roosting, don't they!
I wish you military guys would remember that WW II was a long time ago, and that was THEN and this is NOW! Although, I suppose that all those Blackwater/Xe and KBR peole need something to do, so maybe it is a good idea to keep them over there, as one wonders what havoc they would create here.
Oh, by the way, remember that LUCK has more to do with anything than military strategy. Custer was arrogantly stupid and unlucky, while Eisenhower was cautious but LUCKY. D- Day could have just as easily become GAME OVER day too.
Military intelligence is an OXYMORON, and while FORTUNE favors the bold, it punishes STUPIDITY!
That poor guy looks like he would give his soul just to be lost in the masses of mediocrity.