SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Throwing Darts for a Mission in Afghanistan
Sep 22, 2009
In yesterday's Washington Post, Bob Woodward, writing about General Stanley McChrystal, reported that "the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan warns, in an urgent" assessment of the war, "that he needs more forces within the next year" or the U.S.-led war "will likely result in failure." Quoting McChrystal, Woodward wrote, "without more forces ... defeat is likely." Woodward reported that McChrystal's "call for more forces is predicated on the adoption of a strategy in which troops emphasize protecting Afghans rather than killing insurgents or controlling territory."[i]
Yet, on the same day as Woodward's report in the Post, the Associated Press reported that another strategy altogether is under consideration at the White House, which "is considering expanding counterterror operations in Pakistan to refocus on eliminating al-Qaida instead of mounting a major military escalation in Afghanistan," and that "the renewed fight against the terrorist organization could lead to more missile attacks on Pakistan terrorist havens by unmanned U.S. spy planes."[ii]
It thus seems that while McChrystal's strategy is focused on getting more troops to Afghanistan to "protect Afghans rather than killing insurgents or controlling territory," President Obama's strategy is to kill al-Qaeda insurgents in Pakistan with drones.
Furthermore, McChrystal wrote that "without a new strategy, the mission [in Afghanistan] should not be resourced"--that is, additional troops and money should not be committed to the war in Afghanistan. And President Obama likewise said only last week (according to Woodward) that he will not send more troops to Afghanistan until he has "absolute clarity about what the strategy is going to be."
It thus appears that as of yesterday (September 21, 2009), there is little agreement between the military commander in Afghanistan and the president about military strategy in Afghanistan. This being the case, and given the standards of escalation stipulated by both President Obama and General McChrystal-the requirement of a clear strategy-no additional troops should be sent, or money spent, on the war in Afghanistan.
Also, Obama's strategy of bombing al-Qaeda in Pakistan lies outside the U.N. Security Council's mandate for the U.S.-NATO ISAF operations in Afghanistan, which is described on the NATO Web site as follows:
In accordance with all the relevant Security Council Resolutions, ISAF's main role is to assist the Afghan government in the establishment of a secure and stable environment. To this end, ISAF forces are conducting security and stability operations throughout the country together with the Afghan National Security Forces and are directly involved in the development of the Afghan National Army through mentoring, training and equipping.[iii]
At least McChrystal's memorandum on Afghanistan to Defense Secretary Gates (and by extension to President Obama) outlines a mission that lies within ISAF's Security Council mandate,[iv] while the president's reported goal of regularizing the bombing of al-Qaeda sanctuaries in Pakistan does not.
Finally, about the ISAF mission in Afghanistan, which McChrystal heads, he candidly reported that, after eight years of ISAF operations, "many indicators suggest the overall situation is deteriorating," and "we face not only a resilient and growing insurgency" but "a crisis of confidence among Afghans."
Given the apparent disarray on strategy between the White House and its commander in Afghanistan, and even looking at the war in Afghanistan from the narrow perspectives of the political and military leaders in Washington, it is hard to believe that a coherent military strategy for defeating al Qaeda and the Taliban is imminent, or even possible. Or how the always disastrous but dependable eventuality-a politically timid American president escalating yet another long and brutal war-will bring Afghanistan, Pakistan, or the United States any closer to peace and political stability.
[i] "McChrystal: More Forces or Mission Failure," Washington Post, September 21, 2009.
[ii] "Sources: US Eyes More Drone Hits in Afghanistan," Associated Press, September 21, 2009.
[iii] North Atlantic Treaty Organization: NATO's Role in Afghanistan, last updated September 18, 2009, at https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_8189.htm.
[iv] See McChrystal's August 30, 2009, memorandum to Gates at https://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/Assessment_Redacted_092109.pdf?sid=ST2009092003140.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Howard Friel
Howard Friel is author of "The Lomborg Deception: Setting the Record Straight about Global Warming" (Yale University Press) and with Richard Falk, "The Record of the Paper: How The New York Times Misreports U.S. Foreign Policy" (Verso).
In yesterday's Washington Post, Bob Woodward, writing about General Stanley McChrystal, reported that "the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan warns, in an urgent" assessment of the war, "that he needs more forces within the next year" or the U.S.-led war "will likely result in failure." Quoting McChrystal, Woodward wrote, "without more forces ... defeat is likely." Woodward reported that McChrystal's "call for more forces is predicated on the adoption of a strategy in which troops emphasize protecting Afghans rather than killing insurgents or controlling territory."[i]
Yet, on the same day as Woodward's report in the Post, the Associated Press reported that another strategy altogether is under consideration at the White House, which "is considering expanding counterterror operations in Pakistan to refocus on eliminating al-Qaida instead of mounting a major military escalation in Afghanistan," and that "the renewed fight against the terrorist organization could lead to more missile attacks on Pakistan terrorist havens by unmanned U.S. spy planes."[ii]
It thus seems that while McChrystal's strategy is focused on getting more troops to Afghanistan to "protect Afghans rather than killing insurgents or controlling territory," President Obama's strategy is to kill al-Qaeda insurgents in Pakistan with drones.
Furthermore, McChrystal wrote that "without a new strategy, the mission [in Afghanistan] should not be resourced"--that is, additional troops and money should not be committed to the war in Afghanistan. And President Obama likewise said only last week (according to Woodward) that he will not send more troops to Afghanistan until he has "absolute clarity about what the strategy is going to be."
It thus appears that as of yesterday (September 21, 2009), there is little agreement between the military commander in Afghanistan and the president about military strategy in Afghanistan. This being the case, and given the standards of escalation stipulated by both President Obama and General McChrystal-the requirement of a clear strategy-no additional troops should be sent, or money spent, on the war in Afghanistan.
Also, Obama's strategy of bombing al-Qaeda in Pakistan lies outside the U.N. Security Council's mandate for the U.S.-NATO ISAF operations in Afghanistan, which is described on the NATO Web site as follows:
In accordance with all the relevant Security Council Resolutions, ISAF's main role is to assist the Afghan government in the establishment of a secure and stable environment. To this end, ISAF forces are conducting security and stability operations throughout the country together with the Afghan National Security Forces and are directly involved in the development of the Afghan National Army through mentoring, training and equipping.[iii]
At least McChrystal's memorandum on Afghanistan to Defense Secretary Gates (and by extension to President Obama) outlines a mission that lies within ISAF's Security Council mandate,[iv] while the president's reported goal of regularizing the bombing of al-Qaeda sanctuaries in Pakistan does not.
Finally, about the ISAF mission in Afghanistan, which McChrystal heads, he candidly reported that, after eight years of ISAF operations, "many indicators suggest the overall situation is deteriorating," and "we face not only a resilient and growing insurgency" but "a crisis of confidence among Afghans."
Given the apparent disarray on strategy between the White House and its commander in Afghanistan, and even looking at the war in Afghanistan from the narrow perspectives of the political and military leaders in Washington, it is hard to believe that a coherent military strategy for defeating al Qaeda and the Taliban is imminent, or even possible. Or how the always disastrous but dependable eventuality-a politically timid American president escalating yet another long and brutal war-will bring Afghanistan, Pakistan, or the United States any closer to peace and political stability.
[i] "McChrystal: More Forces or Mission Failure," Washington Post, September 21, 2009.
[ii] "Sources: US Eyes More Drone Hits in Afghanistan," Associated Press, September 21, 2009.
[iii] North Atlantic Treaty Organization: NATO's Role in Afghanistan, last updated September 18, 2009, at https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_8189.htm.
[iv] See McChrystal's August 30, 2009, memorandum to Gates at https://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/Assessment_Redacted_092109.pdf?sid=ST2009092003140.
Howard Friel
Howard Friel is author of "The Lomborg Deception: Setting the Record Straight about Global Warming" (Yale University Press) and with Richard Falk, "The Record of the Paper: How The New York Times Misreports U.S. Foreign Policy" (Verso).
In yesterday's Washington Post, Bob Woodward, writing about General Stanley McChrystal, reported that "the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan warns, in an urgent" assessment of the war, "that he needs more forces within the next year" or the U.S.-led war "will likely result in failure." Quoting McChrystal, Woodward wrote, "without more forces ... defeat is likely." Woodward reported that McChrystal's "call for more forces is predicated on the adoption of a strategy in which troops emphasize protecting Afghans rather than killing insurgents or controlling territory."[i]
Yet, on the same day as Woodward's report in the Post, the Associated Press reported that another strategy altogether is under consideration at the White House, which "is considering expanding counterterror operations in Pakistan to refocus on eliminating al-Qaida instead of mounting a major military escalation in Afghanistan," and that "the renewed fight against the terrorist organization could lead to more missile attacks on Pakistan terrorist havens by unmanned U.S. spy planes."[ii]
It thus seems that while McChrystal's strategy is focused on getting more troops to Afghanistan to "protect Afghans rather than killing insurgents or controlling territory," President Obama's strategy is to kill al-Qaeda insurgents in Pakistan with drones.
Furthermore, McChrystal wrote that "without a new strategy, the mission [in Afghanistan] should not be resourced"--that is, additional troops and money should not be committed to the war in Afghanistan. And President Obama likewise said only last week (according to Woodward) that he will not send more troops to Afghanistan until he has "absolute clarity about what the strategy is going to be."
It thus appears that as of yesterday (September 21, 2009), there is little agreement between the military commander in Afghanistan and the president about military strategy in Afghanistan. This being the case, and given the standards of escalation stipulated by both President Obama and General McChrystal-the requirement of a clear strategy-no additional troops should be sent, or money spent, on the war in Afghanistan.
Also, Obama's strategy of bombing al-Qaeda in Pakistan lies outside the U.N. Security Council's mandate for the U.S.-NATO ISAF operations in Afghanistan, which is described on the NATO Web site as follows:
In accordance with all the relevant Security Council Resolutions, ISAF's main role is to assist the Afghan government in the establishment of a secure and stable environment. To this end, ISAF forces are conducting security and stability operations throughout the country together with the Afghan National Security Forces and are directly involved in the development of the Afghan National Army through mentoring, training and equipping.[iii]
At least McChrystal's memorandum on Afghanistan to Defense Secretary Gates (and by extension to President Obama) outlines a mission that lies within ISAF's Security Council mandate,[iv] while the president's reported goal of regularizing the bombing of al-Qaeda sanctuaries in Pakistan does not.
Finally, about the ISAF mission in Afghanistan, which McChrystal heads, he candidly reported that, after eight years of ISAF operations, "many indicators suggest the overall situation is deteriorating," and "we face not only a resilient and growing insurgency" but "a crisis of confidence among Afghans."
Given the apparent disarray on strategy between the White House and its commander in Afghanistan, and even looking at the war in Afghanistan from the narrow perspectives of the political and military leaders in Washington, it is hard to believe that a coherent military strategy for defeating al Qaeda and the Taliban is imminent, or even possible. Or how the always disastrous but dependable eventuality-a politically timid American president escalating yet another long and brutal war-will bring Afghanistan, Pakistan, or the United States any closer to peace and political stability.
[i] "McChrystal: More Forces or Mission Failure," Washington Post, September 21, 2009.
[ii] "Sources: US Eyes More Drone Hits in Afghanistan," Associated Press, September 21, 2009.
[iii] North Atlantic Treaty Organization: NATO's Role in Afghanistan, last updated September 18, 2009, at https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_8189.htm.
[iv] See McChrystal's August 30, 2009, memorandum to Gates at https://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/Assessment_Redacted_092109.pdf?sid=ST2009092003140.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.