McChrystal Faces a Tough Road Ahead in Afghanistan

The new commander headed to the war zone just after his confirmation

June 12, 2009 RSS Feed Print

On Capitol Hill last week, Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the special operations veteran confirmed Wednesday to take over command of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, predicted tough months ahead there, bluntly warning Congress to expect more casualties and more mistakes as new U.S. troops arrive this summer. "There is no simple answer," he said at his confirmation hearings. "It's the environment we have today and the place from which we must navigate a way forward."

Just what that way forward will be was the topic of the day. McChrystal boarded a plane on the heels of his confirmation to join Secretary of Defense Robert Gates in Brussels. There, he met with NATO partners before traveling on to Afghanistan, where he will begin a 60-day review of the military's way forward for the region. The results of that review will offer a window into the dilemmas that will face the Obama administration as it crafts its new strategy for the increasingly violent country, where attacks and roadside bombings reached record levels last week . McChrystal will be tasked with implementing that strategy at a time when violence throughout the country continues to rise considerably and stands 25 percent over June of last year.

These figures are up in part as a result of a surge of U.S. troops. There are now more U.S. soldiers available to "take the fight to the enemy," as Pentagon officials like to say. But it's also clear that insurgent attacks on U.S. troops and Afghan government security forces are also on the rise. Senior U.S. military officials say that these attacks tend to succeed at times when Afghan civilians, angry at the Afghan government or U.S. forces, look the other way. McChrystal said that civilian sentiment is one of his chief concerns. "How you operate, the impact of civilian casualties, collateral damage, cultural insensitivity," he noted, "often determine success or failure."

And as conditions in many parts of the country have continued to backslide, sustaining any gains made by a fresh influx of U.S. troops is a chief concern among Pentagon officials. One way to do that will be to develop Afghan security forces, McChrystal said. The current goal is to grow the Afghan National Army to 134,000 troops; there are some 86,000 Afghan soldiers now. But senior military officials believe that, given the size of the country and the level of violence, the Afghan Army will need to be twice that size—somewhere in the neighborhood of 200,000 to 250,000. McChrystal concurred with this assessment, calling the development of Afghan security forces "our highest priority task."

But there remains a critical shortage of trainers to mentor them. It is unclear, too, whether McChrystal will ultimately need an additional 10,000 U.S. troops, a long-standing request by outgoing commander Gen. David McKiernan. On this point, McChrystal said, "I don't know. It may be some time before I do." But he said that he was convinced he would get more troops if he needed them. "I believe that if I have a requirement, I can look [Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Adm. Mike] Mullen in the eye and tell him, 'That's what I need.' "

Given stepped-up resources, the question on the minds of many on Capitol Hill remained whether it is a winnable war. McChrystal responded that it was, with a caveat that hints at tough times to come for U.S. forces. "I believe it is winnable," he said, "but I don't think it will be easily winnable." To win at all, the Pentagon must first find a new way forward.

Tags:
Stanley McChrystal,
Afghanistan

Reader Comments Read all comments (6)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

More than four decades of “Made in Washington” policy in the region under successive Republican and Democrat administration has made a major mess in the region. America is a fair nation and we do not occupy other peoples lands or abuse minorities in our country. When we allow other nations who are occupier of other peoples land or abuse minorities and we follow a policy that is in their interest our image becomes a extension of those occupiers or abusers and is not in American interest.

Because of lack of democracy in Pakistan Military dictatorship of General Zia ul Haq allowed Pakistan to become a frontline State against the Soviet Union for the Western World without understand the longetrm consequences for his country and without getting anything in return for the social upheaval this would cause. The collapse of Soviet Union allowed our policy planners in Washington to pack up our bags and leave the region in a hurry after having won a war on the cheap on the backs of the Afghan and Pakistani people. During the war against the Soviet Union we learned quickly that people were quick to earn a new livelihood as we financed extremist schools to produce unlimited supply of volunteers to fight against the Soviet Union. For decades Historians are going to debate the causes of 911 but one cannot deny the fact we left Afghanistan a fertile territory for any extremist to use for their cause. Back in those days we could have created something similar to Marshal Plan in Europe after the WW 2 in Afghanistan and Pakistan to create jobs for a few billion dollars. Todate we have spent a trillion dollars in Afghanistan and Iraq wars.

Post 911 we embarked on the policy of bringing the terrorists of 911 to justice somewhere along the line our policy got sidetracked into putting minority Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras to rule over majority Pashtuns with the assistance of token Pashtun President Karzai who does not have any standing in his own Pashtun community. Before we entered Afghanistan Iran, India and Russia were unsuccessfully backing the Tajik, Uzbek and Hazara also known as Northern Alliance in a five year civil war. American treasure and blood managed to put the Northern Alliance in power but we did not get anything back in return. For hundreds of years the majority Pashtun population of Afghanistan had ruled the region. To achieve this goal we had as our ally another Military Dictator Parvaiz Musharaf who did not ask anything in return to spur investment and create jobs in his country except for a meager allowance below a billion dollars a year which is below the money required and like his predecessor did not take into account the social programs required to support the logistic effort being provided for our troops in Afghanistan and to fight our proxy war.

Today besides our wrong strategy of having a minority rule over majority Pashtuns in Afghanistan is an extension of Iranianian, Indian and Russian policy and we do not have alternate employment programs for the Pashtuns not fighting against us in Afghanistan or Pakistan. There was talk of establishing Free Trade Zones to spur investment and create jobs but that has fizzled out. As a result of Pakistani Military operations in Swat thousands of refugees have fled to the crowded city of Karachi and other cities without any jobs. Unless our Policy planners can include a major Economic Plan to spur investment and create jobs for refugees resulting from Pakistan Army operation we are going to create more extremists.

We have a window of opportunity as Pakistanis turned against the Taliban but we have not been quick in responding with anything economic in return. Afghanistan is a small country and our policy in the past of defeating the Soviet Armies has left us a major mess. Today when we push Pakistan to assist us without getting anything economically in allowing the minority Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazara to rule over majority Pashtuns is going to totally destabilize Pakistan and create many more extremists and is not going to be in the interest if United States.

We need to abandon the Iranian, Indian and Russian policy of trying to have minority rule over majority Pashtuns. India in the region has already taken over Goa, Hyderabad, Kashmir etc by force broken Pakistan in two and if it was not for Pakistan become a Nuclear power India may have continued on with their regional aggression. Today we are spending close to $100 billion a year to in Afghanistan war, spending a few billion dollars a year to create jobs will go a long way towards combating extremism.

Rehman of TX 5:55PM June 02, 2010

General McCrystal, This article was posted on June 12, 2009. Could you tell us what milestones have been achieved since last year in Afghanistan? The new dimension came into play is a talk with Taliban is that why Mr. Kazia getting frustrated and upset?

Nadeem Masood of CA 3:26PM April 20, 2010

pull back on the tatical air strike and close air support and reduce on full strength of the military out base defense and leave small forces on top of the hill is not a good tactic it a quick end strategy and a deathly blow to ya force if u set up battle that way. The F-18 speed is at march 1.8 good enought and well accurated to bomb the Taliban much better compare to F-15 and F-16 which are the speed level around march 2 and 2.5 not accurate for low level surgical air strike bombing as i watching fighter jet plane i discover they pulling F-18 back in the US instead of leaving them back in Afgan for the troop to using them as top air cover in 2009 watch this video on you tube ya know what i mean

VFA 143 Pukin' Dogs - CVW 7 - Homecoming 2009

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKnMsoPxi78&feature=related

VFA-103 Jolly Rogers - Homecoming 2009 - CVW 7

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIRya-3aguE&feature=related

VFA -131 Wildcats - Homecoming 2009 - CVW 7

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcVZfWZcfgg

Obama another idiot tatic to fight terrorist by withdraw large scale of CA 12:32PM October 04, 2009

advertisement

Latest Video