snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > SLC Central > War, What Is It Good For?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 26 September 2009, 08:14 PM
DesertRat's Avatar
DesertRat DesertRat is offline
 
Join Date: 02 May 2004
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posts: 4,502
Default The Afghan Imperative

As far as I'm concerned, Mr. Brooks is absolutely correct.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/25/op...s.html?_r=1&em


Quote:
Always there is the illusion of the easy path. Always there is the illusion, which gripped Donald Rumsfeld and now grips many Democrats, that you can fight a counterinsurgency war with a light footprint, with cruise missiles, with special forces operations and unmanned drones. Always there is the illusion, deep in the bones of the Pentagon’s Old Guard, that you can fight a force like the Taliban by keeping your troops mostly in bases, and then sending them out in well-armored convoys to kill bad guys.

*********
The record suggests what Gen. Stanley McChrystal clearly understands — that only the full counterinsurgency doctrine offers a chance of success. This is a doctrine, as General McChrystal wrote in his remarkable report, that puts population protection at the center of the Afghanistan mission, that acknowledges that insurgencies can only be defeated when local communities and military forces work together.

To put it concretely, this is a doctrine in which small groups of American men and women are outside the wire in dangerous places in remote valleys, providing security, gathering intelligence, helping to establish courts and building schools and roads.
__________________
“I rate, you don't, even though nobody rates, because it's NOT AUTHORIZED!!!"
--The Sergeant, "WTF Marine" Part 3
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 26 September 2009, 08:20 PM
jimmy101_again jimmy101_again is offline
 
Join Date: 29 December 2005
Location: Greenwood, IN
Posts: 2,159
Default

Well, it took what, 6 years or so for the "counter insurgency" plan to be applied to Iraq even though it probably should have been implemented within weeks of the tactical victory.

It probably should have been applied to Afghanistan several years ago as well.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 26 September 2009, 09:26 PM
Steve Eisenberg Steve Eisenberg is offline
 
Join Date: 15 October 2001
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 9,707
Default

Afghanistan Troop Request Splits Advisers to Obama

Quote:
As President Obama weighs sending more troops to Afghanistan, one of the most consequential decisions of his presidency, he has discovered that the military is not monolithic in support of the plan and that some of the civilian advisers he respects most have deep reservations.

Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal’s troop request, which was submitted to the Pentagon on Friday, has reignited a longstanding debate within the military about the virtues of the counterinsurgency strategy popularized by Gen. David H. Petraeus in Iraq and now embraced by General McChrystal, the top American and NATO commander in Afghanistan.

General McChrystal is expected to ask for as many as 40,000 additional troops for the eight-year-old war, a number that has generated concern among top officers like Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the Army chief of staff, who worry about the capacity to provide more soldiers at a time of stress on the force, officials said.

While Mr. Obama is hearing from more hawkish voices, including those of Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Richard C. Holbrooke, the special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, some outside advisers relied on by Mr. Obama have voiced doubts.
__________________
"Nothing is so firmly believed, as what we least know"
Michel de Montaigne
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.