McChrystal Plots Counteroffensive

McChrystal Plots Counteroffensive

It is worth reading Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s strategic review, which was put up on the Washington Post web site Sunday night, in full. While it doesn’t say anything terribly new for those who have been closely following the Afghanistan debate, it is a fascinating treatise on the challenges facing modern armies in counterinsurgency war and is a wake up call for those who think the U.S. military, even after eight years spent fighting two counterinsurgency wars, has mastered its complexities.

The insurgent threat in Afghanistan has been allowed to grow for too long, “unchecked by commensurate counter-action,” McChrystal says, “the insurgents currently have the initiative.” The fate of the Afghan war now depends on the success or failure of a counteroffensive to wrest that initiative away. “The short term fight will be decisive,” McChrystal says. “Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near-term (next 12 months) – while Afghan security capacity matures – risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible.”

Avoiding the “surge” word, McChrystal calls for “a discrete jump,” in troops and resources to carry out the counteroffensive and “definitively check the insurgency.” He identifies where the counteroffensive must take place: Kandahar city and its surrounding environs and Khowst Province.

Both areas are the most seriously threatened, populated areas and McChrystals say they are the “key” geographical objectives of the insurgent groups. “The [Quetta Shura Taliban] has been working to control Kandahar and its approaches for several years and there are indications that their influence over the city and neighboring districts is significant and growing.”

McChrystal’s bold strategy is similar to that laid out by former Afghan commander Gen. David Barno (ret.) earlier this year. Barno said 2009 would largely see a holding action while the needed counteroffensive would come in 2010, after a further buildup in U.S. troops levels. Another five years or so would be required to consolidate and build the Afghan security forces.

McChrystal calls for reorienting available forces away from empty mountains and desert to the population centers where the Afghan people are most threatened. I’m pretty sure McChrystal wishes he could have had a say where the Marines were sent and I don’t think he would have sent them to Helmand. Problem is in counterinsurgency, once you’ve moved troops into an area, you can’t just pull them out, otherwise the populace is left open to reprisal attacks. From what I’ve been told, former Afghan commander David McKiernan’s decision to send the MEB to Helmand, instead of to a more threatened area such as Kandahar, was one of the reasons he lost his job.

Any offensive will require a concentration of forces. At the moment, U.S. maneuver units are scattered across Afghanistan. What should have been McChrystal’s most powerful offensive force, the MEB, is tied down in Helmand. A concentration of force will have to come from new combat brigades that can be sent directly to Kandahar and Khowst. McChrystal will also need a battalion or two of highly mobile troops to serve as a “fire brigade” that he can shift about the country, exploit tactical successes and keep the insurgents off balance. What we are likely to see is a request from McChrystal for a short term “jump” of additional troops, on the order of 30,000 to 40,000, to carry out the counteroffensive.

If he is given the troops he needs, McChrystal will be able to wrest the initiative from the Taliban. As he points out in his assessment, the insurgents have numerous vulnerabilities that can be exploited. One of those is freedom of movement, the ability to shift mobile fighting units around the country. Taking away that freedom of movement will go a long way to breaking insurgent momentum.

The longer term war will be the bigger challenge. That war will be waged mostly in the shadows in local villages and between competing sets of governments: the insurgent shadow government versus the U.S. backed Afghan regime. “The insurgents wage a “silent war” of fear, intimidation, and persuasion throughout the year – not just during the warmer weather “fighting season” – to gain control over the population,” McChrystal says.

Whoever wins the support of the people in that silent war will win Afghanistan. As McChrystal spells out in candid terms, the insurgents are currently winning that war.

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

Join the Conversation

I definately agree that more troops are needed in the ‘Stan, as not only do coalition forces have insufficient coverage of the area, but the extra troops will help keep the troops alreadz there safer.

The taliban are currently doing very well in attacking remote, isolated outposts and patrols, where they can use their numbers to overwhelm coalition defences.

I just hope they take with them some of lessons learned in Rhodesia and Afghanistan when the russians invaded.

Once the coalition forces reach critical mass, then they will be able to cover a large enough area to prevent taliban fighters from doing hit&run attacks, and THEN, it will be on.

If they use an inkblot strategy to systematically eradicate taliban groups one by one, then the stability & security will come.

I just hope with all the hearts & minds approach things going on, the coalition forces dont lose sight of the fact that they still need to kill a significant amount of guerilla fighters in order to keep the population safe. This includes going after your opponents after they retreat, following them to their caves and systematically destroying them.

We have to win the people to win the war. The question is do we have the political will to remain in this country for the years upon year that it will take to win the people? If we are not fully committed, if we lose our political will, Afghanistan will be this generations Vietnam.

Greg. Great post, great info. (I think your link to the article is down)

I respect the hell out of Gen. McChrystal, but I think while he has a solid short term tactical response to the enemy, the Army and the Administration still lack a long term strategy that would secure any gains his counter-offensive would achieve.

uh didn’t the Marines and British just launch a counter offensive? also how does this “new” strategy jive with the desire to limit civilian casualties when the enemy is now placing themselves in reach of the population in order to safeguard themselves?

See: http://​www​.thebutter​-cutter​.com/​P​r​o​t​e​c​t​i​n​g​_​A​f​g​h​a​n​s​.​php

It sounds like the counteroffensive McChrystal is talking about is in Washington, not Kabul.

Solomon, the MEB counteroffensive is just in Helmand province. It looks like McCrystal wants to do something country-wide when he gets the joes to do it with.

Little does Gen. McChrystal know, that the Administration has no idea what it is doing and is making this up as they go along. They made it clear to the military that they wanted to proceed with a counterinsurgency strategy (and hand picked a counterinsurgency general), but now that poll numbers are down, and they have a failed election, the President now wants to flip the script on the Gen. McChrystal.

While the President takes his time with health care, financial system regulation, and economic recovery, good men and women are dieing in Afghanistan, from lack of resources. If the Adminstration doesn’t want to send more troops-fine, but then scrap the whole counterinsurgency/nation building strategy. You can’t expect to accomplish the current counterinsurgency/nation building strategy without a large build up of troops on the ground. Only fools like Senator Levin think one can’t go without the other. Please hurry up and choose Mr. President!

You know things are bad when a plan coming from Biden starts looking good.

http://​www​.nytimes​.com/​2​0​0​9​/​0​9​/​2​3​/​w​o​r​l​d​/​a​s​i​a​/​2​3​p​o​l​i​c​y​.​h​t​m​l​?hp

“Among the alternatives being presented to Mr. Obama is Mr. Biden’s suggestion to revamp the strategy altogether. Instead of increasing troops, officials said, Mr. Biden proposed scaling back the overall American military presence. Rather than trying to protect the Afghan population from the Taliban, American forces would concentrate on strikes against Qaeda cells, primarily in Pakistan, using special forces, Predator missile attacks and other surgical tactics.

The Americans would accelerate training of Afghan forces and provide support as they took the lead against the Taliban. But the emphasis would shift to Pakistan. Mr. Biden has often said that the United States spends something like $30 in Afghanistan for every $1 in Pakistan, even though in his view the main threat to American national security interests is in Pakistan.”

“and they have a failed election,”

That’s a key point right there. Set aside for a minute the military issues and ask where do I go from here? Do I support a corrupt HoS that has lost the support of his own people and further alienate them from me, or how do I remove that HoS legally and not get the blowback from his own supporters, avoiding a civil war in the process.

Militarily, no question the logistic footprint needs to be large enough to readily support additional combat forces should they be introduced. Sending forces and supporting them on a shoestring should be criminal.

It looks like the Pentagon as well as the WH needs to come to consensus on how to define then accomplish the mission.

Drake1…I would not even go as far to call president obama(please, note all LOWER care capitols)mr. president. I would personally call him Mr. Traitor To Our Cause. And even then, that is too good of a name for him.

obama fool is going to kill many more Americans with his flip floppy way of doing business. I mean, come on.…not wanting to win the war in Afghanistan is like lets say, signing the death warrants for many more American soldiers fighting over seas due to emboldened terrorists, and many more here at home due to Afghanistan regaining the ground it once was as the launching pad for some of the most horrific attacks this country has witnessed in a generation.

I know government officials read this from time to time, so I will ask, obama wht side are you on, the terrorists or ours?

Far be it for me to disagree with you, Mr. Church, since it’ll make me a traitor and whatnot, but Astan didn’t play that much of a roll in launching the 9/11 attacks.

Fact is, al-Qaeda is now mostly in Pakistan, and anyway, is a stateless terrorist movement. We should be interfering with that organization wherever it is, and not tying ourselves to COIN-nation building projects. As Col. Gian Gentile points out quite often over at Abu Muqawama, the kind of outside-in COIN we’re trying in Astan basically has never worked. Not that we have the forces to do it in any case.

The correct strategy flows from what we can do with what we have to do it. Enough of this binary rhetoric and fear-mongering. We can really do a hell of a lot, if we don’t try to do too much.

Should the increase in troops be only American? This is a NATO operation and our allies should contribute. The White House should engage our allies and move out smartly.

Look the President needs to understand we have these experts on fighting wars. They are called Generals. At home political considerations should not even be considered when listning to the advise of these experts. Didn’t he take an oath to protect and defend this country or did he take an oath to do everything he can do to win another term!!!

Shirley, the issue with NATO is they’re really not that keen on having too many troops in A’stan to begin with. Plus, every country is deployed with their own ROE, and some of them aren’t there to fight in the same manner as we are. We have NATO “allies” in A’stan that were told by their home governments not to fight.

Its very simple. Army Generals have got what they’ve wanted for two decades, approval to expand the force. If forced to drawdown in Iraq, they need a new war to send the troops, or Congress may cancel the expansion.

Charles D Phillips, LtCol, USAF (Ret) wrote, “It sounds like the counteroffensive McChrystal is talking about is in Washington, not Kabul.”

That’s a major part of it, but it’s NOT the essential piece. The essential piece of the plan is to come up with a battle plan that will work, and if Gen. McChrystal is as smart as I think he is, he will NOT let the moronic desk jockeys at the Pentagon plan it out, or even worse, the idiots (Bill Ayers, Axelrod, Emmanuel, or worse yet, Joe Biden) in the White House.

Gen. McChrystal’s got to use EXPERIENCED officers to map out the plan or he’s sunk.

DShirley wrote, “Should the increase in troops be only American? This is a NATO operation and our allies should contribute. The White House should engage our allies and move out smartly.”

LTC Shirley, evidently you don’t know squat about NATO. NATO is just a bunch of European countries on welfare from the US taxpayer. None of those countries are going to do crap over there except the bare minimum.

LTC Shirley, you can’t be a US Army LTC without being well-educated, but you didn’t learn crap in your classes.

I knew when Bush turned over Afghan ops to NATO it was going to be the flustercuck that it is… and if you could not see that, those silver leaves on your shoulders shouldn’t be there.

- UW Doctrine as was founded was not followed in the Mideast Theater of War from the beginning.

There have been problems with the Commanders NOT using a well designed, highly Mobil Reaction Force(s), is very clear.

More is not necessarily better.

The Cmdr​.In Chief has given clear warning to Nations, “The US is not going to rescue you every time, you MUST take initiative in your own defense”.

Sounds pretty clear to me !

The former Soviets misused their SOF,and Hvy Conventional Forces and lost.

This should be a lesson to the Strategists of this nation, –OR– Repeat History.

Hand Holding belongs to the State Dept. NOT DoD.

Mr. Gates,is working on the “Thinking Process” of the Pentagon, and rightly so.

The Cmdr​.In Chief is being slammed for “rhetoric” from the “Generals”.

He is trying to clean up the mess, caused by the “Incompetent” before he took the helm.

Stop with the Race,Religion,and Re-Election Card — It isn’t there People !

Way too many “Chicken Hawks” at the Pentagon!

you are hand picked to do this job by the president,and that is the end of his support..but you have help from them “lawyers” & “FBI”.…and make sure you read them there “rights“and after 72hrs, hand them back to the afghan’s to hold in there open door jails…GENERAL,you ask for it and now you got it.…to bad the CIA is out of business,they could give you a few pointers.…

Why do our so called Military Leaders fail to remember history, I know that these mental midgets went to the academy and one of the service war colleges to get this far. Go talk to the Russians if you don’t beleive what has been written. You CAN NOT win there in brigade format. The only thing that works is small unit tactics, that is if we can provide air and artillary support when called for.

Send the newly trained Iraq army to help out. It is time to get out of that world and let the countries that share their culture get the nation back to enjoying peace. Make it an international crime to sell weapons and bringing weapons of any kind into that part of the world. Stop the the money and weapons flow and they will all end up throwing sand into each other faces. Can you imagine having the Prussians coming into America during the Civil War and them trying to keep the Norht and the South fighting each other? Let’s get out of Afghan now!!!

Could this mean nearly 110,000 American troops in the country by next April at the earliest? Where are they going to be from? One story involved cutting back on the tail–those who are not trigger-pullers such as administrative, guards, etc better known from the Vietnam years as “REMFs” who lived it up in Saigon or elsewhere. I think the Russian force maxed out at around 140,000 with over 14,000 dead in ten years of destroying Afghanistan.

I love all the “arm chair” Generals on this forum that have all the answers. Here are some things to think about. What if the strategy in Afhganistan is simply flawed, which for too long is exactly the case? Would injecting 30–40,000 more troops make a difference? Don’t matter if you putting 100,000 troops in country won’t matter. Consider the way we are fighting this conflict it has been fraught with the lack of vision, aggressiveness and a definitive strategy (at the GO level). What exactly does winning the War look like? Remember we are talking about Afghanistan, we are assuming we can install a democratic government in a nation that has no concept of it and resist so-called occupation at every turn (review history). Hate to be pessimistic but these are important things to consider.
Whether we believe it or not I believe we are losing our national will to continue the fight. All the Taliban have to do is endure, not win, in reality we don’t win the war of attrition, in this case because we have way to many entities within our own country working against us (media, liberals, Generals etc).

“President needs to understand we have these experts on fighting wars. They are called Generals.” What would make one think POTUS doesn’t understand that? It’s likely he’s not getting a consensus view from the Pentagon itself on what it’ll take to succeed. Jones and Mullen may have different ideas than Petraeus and McChrystal. For as many generals/admirals there are, how many different ‘strategies’ can one assume float around the military on how to accomplish this mission?
This mission along with it’s creep now have more than a military solution that has to be recognized and dealt with.
I trust the stars to do what they gotta do, and POTUS needs to say what the end game is.
Is it to destroy AQ/Tali’s, rebuild A’stan, both?
Does anyone here know?

*required

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement