Now I Have What I Need: McChrystal

Now I Have What I Need: McChrystal

When Afghan commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal laid out his strategy this past summer, the one that was then leaked to the press, he said success required a “discrete jump” in troop strength to knock the Taliban on their heels and regain the initiative. Last night, Obama ordered just that, an additional infusion of 30,000 troops, bringing U.S. ground force strength in Afghanistan to nearly 100,000 by the middle of next year.

Within hours of Obama’s speech, NATO chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen said the alliance would send a fresh infusion of at least 5,000 troops, and probably more; that would bring the non-U.S. NATO contingent to 48,000 soldiers. The Afghan Army numbers around 94,000 troops and the Afghan police bring another 93,000 shooters to the fight. That will give McChrystal around 330,000 troops with which to launch a counteroffensive in 2010.

The Soviet 40th Army in Afghanistan numbered 118,000 at the height of the war in the 1980s. Of course the Soviets battled a far larger Mujaheddin enemy than the coalition faces today. The Taliban are believef to field no more than 25,000 fighters.


“The Afghanistan-Pakistan review led by the President has provided me with a clear military mission and the resources to accomplish our task,” McChrystal, in Kabul, said in a statement released after Obama’s address. He clearly appreciates the “commitment” to the war effort the troop surge demonstrates as he mentioned the word four times in a four paragraph statement.

Joint Chiefs chair Adm. Mike Mullen said in a Pentagon press release that the military leadership “fully and unhesitatingly” supports Obama’s strategy. That the Pentagon gets the political wrangling surrounding Obama’s decision was clear in a headline on the DoD web site that reads: “McChrystal Voices Support for President’s Strategy.”

McChrystal will use the reinforcements to hit the Taliban hard and reverse their momentum, said Brig. Gen. John “Mick” Nicholson, director of the Pentagon’s Afghan and Pakistan coordination cell last night speaking to reporters. “It’s important to get the forces in to reverse momentum as quickly as possible and buy space and time for the growth of the Afghan forces.” Fully recognizing the enormous logistical burden placed on the military by the pace of Obama’s deployment orders, Nicholson said it “can be done” and the infrastructure to support the movement of men and material to the austere battlefield in Afghanistan was already underway.

As for where the troops will be going: Nicholson said a Marine Regimental Combat Team would be sent to Helmand province to support the Marine Expeditionary Brigade there now. At least one Army brigade, and probably more, will be sent to Kandahar and the surrounding area and another brigade combat team will be sent to Regional Command East.

Nicholson said the additional U.S. troops would act as a “catalyst” to speed the training of Afghan soldiers and police; the Afghan police are currently fighting as light infantry, he said, because of a shortage of Afghan army soldiers. More trainers and key enablers, such as artillery, intelligence, combat engineers, route clearance teams will bolster Afghan army and police units. “The Afghans tend to fight well as infantry, and we can produce infantry units fairly quickly, but these enabling capabilities and the leadership in general are two areas where we act as a catalyst for their development,” he said.

The Center for Strategic and International Studies’ Anthony Cordesman, in a written commentary posted after Obama’s speech, said the speed of the President’s new troop surge is hugely important as it will give the Taliban less time to adapt.

Counterinsurgency adviser David Kilcullen emphasized that same point in a speech recently to a Washington audience. “One of [the Taliban’s] biggest strengths is that they’ve shown the ability to absorb and adapt to successive increases in foreign presence. Anything less than about 20,000 troops, going in at any one time, they’ll just take it in stride and adapt. They’ve done that four times already. They’ve shown the ability to really absorb and come back stronger the more troops we put in on the ground,” he said.

Obama’s timetable for the troop surge and then setting conditions to begin withdrawing troops by the middle of 2011 is almost exactly the strategy suggested by former Afghan commander, retired Gen. David Barno, earlier this year in Senate testimony. He said a troop buildup and counteroffensive should be launched in 2010–2011 and then a “transition” phase should begin, transferring security responsibilities to the Afghan security forces.

Current U.S. force dispositions, according to a Pentagon press release:

Some 8,000 Marines of the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade of Camp Leujeune, N.C., are fighting in southern and western Helmand province and in the western border province of Farah. Two U.S. Army BCTs are operating in RC South. The 2nd Infantry Division’s 5th Stryker BCT of Fort Lewis, Wash., operates in eastern and northern Kandahar province and western Zabul province, and the 82nd Airborne Division’s 4th BCT of Fort Bragg, N.C., performs advisory roles and training in the region.

Of the four Army BCTs operating in eastern Afghanistan, the 10th Mountain Division’s 3rd BCT of Fort Drum, NY, has operated in the Logar and Wardak provinces since January, and the 25th Infantry Division’s 4th Airborne BCT of Ft. Richardson, Alaska, has been engaged in Paktia, Paktika, and Khowst provinces since March. In addition, the 4th Infantry Division’s 4th BCT of Fort Carson, Colo., deployed to Nuristan, Nangahar, Kunar and Laghman provinces in June, and the 48th BCT of the Georgia National Guard deployed as an advisory brigade to Regional Command East in May.

Share |

Join the Conversation

Not what I would have done, but now that a decison has been made let us pray that it was the right one.

Good Luck and Godspeed to the Men and Women of the United States Armed Forces.

Unfortunately, with the poor infrastructure there, by the time we get places for everyone to live, chow halls, vehicles to drive, etc — it will be time to pull out!
The people that are gonna profit from this are the folks that lease out those Antonov cargo planes — they are all out buying new cars right now.

I am from fort carson how many more times to we have to go and fight for the ones sitting on their cans and telling everone how they would fight the war. I think its their turn to go. I want to watch my son grow up and not hear how he’s growing some where else.

Good Morning robert,

Well said Robert. I ‘m with you 100%, it’s time to share the burden of combat with all Americans. Afghanistan should have been a done deal long ago, but as you said “…we have to go fight for the ones sitting on their cans and telling everone how they would fight the war. I think it’s their turn to go.”.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

on your OOB, note that the 4th BCT Airborne of the 25th IDL is from Ft Richardson, AK, not Hawaii.

Now that he has what he needs, he needs to be held accountable. That means not complaining that he didn’t get what he wants and possible demotion if his mission fails.

I am very very skeptical of this boondo…mission. If we can stabilize and legitimize Afghanistan in 18 months we will have done what no nation has ever done before us.

Wouldn’t that be something?

Respectfully,

Daniel Russ
Civilianmilitaryintelligencegroup​.com

Hear a political creature ask a question that got me wondering…

Why 30,000 and not 40 or 50 or 10 thousand? Why 18 months and not 24 or 48?? Why are we sending so many troops to battle so few Al Qaeda members? If we’re at war with the Taliban then we’re involved in a civil war.…why are we taking sides???

I don’t like the costs both in lives and treasure of this conflict. My last question is this. And it comes from Cdr Salamanders post…

“That point in time and space at which a force no longer possesses the capability to continue its current form of operations.”

In my mind we reached a culminating point several years ago. We no longer possess the capability to continue operations in their current form. Time to come home. Too much money lost, too many lives lost, too little participation from the host country…too little gain in terms of our national security.

A discrete jump in troops to ——- Why discvrete? If you can keep your adversary in the dark he may not be aware of your new capabilities. It gives you many more options including possibly taking them by surprise and saving lives!!!! What is discrete about a presidental announcement , especially when it comes with a time limit. The enemy has now clearly been told all they need to do is hang on until the time limit is reached. No suprise capabilities and the light at the end of the tunnel is only 18 months away.

scott s.

Thanks much for the correction.

Best,

Greg

In order to WIN this fight in Afghanistan, you must STAY until the fight is complete. No end dates made in the press, just focus on and completing the main objective. That objective is quite simple. TOTAL VICTORY over the Taliban and its proxy ally Al-Queada. Find, Fix and destroy the enemy regardless of WHERE he is found. Anything less than that is criminal and won’t be tolerated by Americas veterans and its citizens. If No-bama can’t see the big picture here with the war on terror, then clearly he has NO BUSINESS being the President of the United States. Remember the fallen and remember 9/11 !!!

Incredible! How many times will we have to reenact history of those before us? As in Vietnam when we followed the French, no in Afghanistan we follow the British and the Russians decimating our youth with no clear political purpose.

Our initial purpose after 9/11 was to end sanctuary for Al Queda. We did that by deposing the Taliban, not by just punishing them. When they remained in control of their country, we could selectively punish their military strength and embargo them into denying sanctuary. Instead, we deposed the Taliban and began participating in a civil war in a country known for tribal warfare throughout its history. Now Obama (now Nobama as the disrespectful would put it), has put clear objectives in place that the U.S. and Allied Commanders can focus on and reasonably achieve for respectable withdrawal of foreign forces. That is in total reverse to the abyss created for American soldiers by our former Commander-in-Chief, GW Bush who I might remind you got us into the mess with unclear objectives in the first place. Obliteration of Al Queda is not an option given terrain and circumstances in Afghanistan. Let’s get real! Obama’s brave act of damn the domestic political objections, protect our troop presence, but get them out deserves all our support! From a 20 year Army Vet with Vietnam service…

Well you have two options:

1) Become a politician, and reintroduce consciption.
2) Look inward to see if you’ve made the right career choice. Sounds to me like you are having some regrets.

I know what you are saying. There are too many throwing their opinions around that have no clue and won’t join themselves. It sounds like you’ve been deployed too often and the thought of not seeing your son grow up can be quite demoralizing. Worst part is thta those sitting on their cans are the ones that don’t appreciate you heroes. God Bless and may he keep you safe.

Totally agree. If the enemy beleives that they are still fighting against the same number of troops and suddenly they appear to be everywhere and stronger, that would throw them off enough to consider themselves weaker. A time table will enable the enemy to intimidate the tribe leaders and remind them that they (taliban) will be there long after 18 months.

Seems like some here have forgotten though. Sadly, these same short memory people continue to put blame on Bush about what is happening right now. The number of troops that have lost their lives in the last few months is more than 5 years combined. Iraq is a better place now, but liberals focus on the damage and not the whole picture. Millions of Iraqis are no longer being tortured, kiled and thrown in mass graves. God bless our troops.

After watching the Senate Armed Services Committee hearings, I’m pretty much satisfied with the Administration’s new strategy. The General has said he has enough for the job, and Secretary Gates admitted (after being pressed 5 times) that the July 2011 date is subject to conditions on the ground. Secretary Gates successfully answered (more or less) concerns that a fixed date for draw down would not unnecessarily endanger our military personnel. Now how a fixed date for withdrawal would affect partners in the region is another matter, but I’m sure the Administration will allay our partners fears behind the scenes.

Ah, the oil, the oil, the oil.….;) Hearing the real news, from the JCS Mullen, instead of propaganda, you go to war with the surge for a reason, because there’s a big game being played and it’s definitely a war, whether they think it’s unjustified or not…It is the President’s decision as Commander-in-Chief to make the call, all JCS, and the commanders can give the President is information on the ground.

Deserted in cucumber fields brings on a surge, I guess ;)

“Surge” should have been the last resort, but sometimes, you never get a war to work out just the way you want it to. As many Presidents have been through wars, including World Wars, it really isn’t as easy as it looks, nor is there ever a strategy that lasts very long without full cooperation. War, like chess or football, is a bit harder intellectually to configure than cooking a full course meal.

Speaking of football, the Taliban does have home field advantage, and knows the area better.

A good example would be World War Two, Battle of Britain, Nazi Germany had advantage in manpower and technology, with a bigger war machine. Always ask yourself how Winston Churchill and a small civilian army on the ground, and small airforce, did defeat Hitler’s air advantage. Goring was exclaimed a brilliant commander of the Luftwaffe, yet was still defeated.

Guerrilla warfare and asymmetrical warfare.…you do realize that is how the Americans won the American Revolution. Like I said, strategy itself is difficult. And remember, you do have the most brilliant commanders in charge of this war. The outcome of the war not only depends on them, strategy, but also, their own military troops.

We can always discuss, like the Army War College, any tactical response to any given strategy at any given time, and run through a whole list of different weapons and armed artillery vehicles including air command, but that’s probably a waste of time, since you do have to decide the other side’s strategy as well.

Right now, the other side’s declaring victory, but then again, so did Hitler in the Battle of Britain. Manpower on the ground they claimed, as is the Taliban, and did takeover France. But, I do reckon, hubris was the demise of Hitler, as the hubris they’re proclaiming now. So, case in point, with that said, McChrystal’s response to their declaration of victory by sending in more troops, would’ve probably the first response to any given Commander that is currently in power.

In this speech, Gen McChrystal is referring to a definite step up in numbers, as in a discrete number, not keeping it quiet. Check the dictionary.

Before the invasion of Iraq I was accused by many colleagues of being unpatriotic and/or uncaring about our dead in NY, because I was against the Iraq invasion. Now you run the risk of being accused of not putting your money where your mouth is, for arguing for the importance of the continued military engagement in Afghanistan w/o enlisting.

Yeah let’s reintroduce conscription. The American people (though they declare their concern for the troops) wouldn’t abide it, the military doesn’t want it, and the party currently pushing for it wouldn’t vote for it-or the war tax.

How about we require conscription for all wars, peace keeping missions, and humanitarian disasters.

Good morning ‚what about if the enemies they RUN away to iran?

Then what is the strategie?

AlQueda leadership has also fled Iraq to Syria.

Secretary Gates stated in the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing that the Administration believes that the focal point of international terrorism is in South Asia (Afghanistan and Pakistan) and that that will not change for the foreseeable future.

Obama has stated our troop withdrawal from Afghanistan in July 2011 will be condition based. Most people assume he refers to the conditions on the ground vis-a-vis the enemy. Au contraire, mon frere, the conditions he means are the polls relating to the elections in 2012.

My best wishes to everybody home and oversea hope that you are all back home soon and to you all going back GOD Speed to you all

Huh. You’re fighting an air war from the ground with loss of peripheral vision. Hence, McChrystal ended up with civilian casualties instead of actual military targets being taken out. And, from what I gather, absolutely no military intelligence being brought in to have actual targets. Probably, the worst mistake being made in the war, and probably why more troops were needed in the first place.

What does conscription have to do with today’s war? If you volunteer, you volunteer, being given a draft choice is only necessary if things don’t go as planned, like in Vietnam. Eisenhower, then Kennedy, then a gradual escalation when South East Asia had a “democracy” spill over in the region. If you’re thinking like how they spill over from Pakistan into Afghanistan into Iraq. Pretty much a regional war. Since they cross the borders and they’re not as easy to cross unless you’re a native from the region.

Are you asking if it’s the same situation given the regional fighting since they seem to cross the borders, making more native fighters, so we have to send more troops?

BereavedMil, you should really think about condensing some of those posts.

The strategy is to mess up the war, let the region collapse, blame Obama for it failing, put their guy in the war, let that fail, so a new guy from the other party comes in. Yes, I do recall Vietnam, and I do recall how many presidents it was under. From Eisenhower to the last guys coming back under GERALD FORD. Speaking of endless political fighting, North Korea is STILL communist since the 1940’s. Wow, such progress. Look how long it took for Cuba to get a new leader, they had to do it themselves and Castro had to resign.

Yes It is in the Lord’s hands ..at the discretion of our brave officers of the US Armed Forces! Godspeed!

Conscription? How about desertion?

Air war and designated military targets, targets were not hit. Went to war on the intelligence we had…??? Apparently, the Air Command is receiving faulty military intelligence or none at all is what the prior reports done via the “news.”

There is no total victory in Afghanistan. Period. None. None whatsoever. You could put 10 million troops in Afghanistan and nothing would change there.

I agree with the advice of so many of our legislators and ex military: pull out.

Respectfully,

Daniel Russ
Civilianmilitaryintelligencegroup​.com

Winston Churchill won with little Air support.…what did you think about that, Mr. Goring? Good luck losing the War ;)

Imagine if you lost the battle and won the whole war.….sounds to me like asymmetrical warfare does not have an advantage point if it’s counter strike is with small groups of troops attacking like guerrilla warriors, but strategically placed. Military air strikes are simple with air support. ;P

I’m not sure if you are referring to me as “Mr. Goring”. Unless you mean Hermann Goering the head of the German Air Force? Oy. Pick up a history book or use spell-check.

But Britain did not win anything in the Afghan Wars but a few battles. At the end of the day, Britain lost all of their holdings there and were forced out by a bad British economy and a decision by the British government that Afghanistan was too costly and must be abandoned. So what exactly did the British win?

That said, this is what The President said the other night. I don’t agree at all with the escalation. But the rest of the paragraph is dead on.

“Finally, there are those who oppose identifying a timeframe for our transition to Afghan responsibility. Indeed, some call for a more dramatic and open-ended escalation of our war effort – one that would commit us to a nation building project of up to a decade. I reject this course because it sets goals that are beyond what we can achieve at a reasonable cost, and what we need to achieve to secure our interests. Furthermore, the absence of a timeframe for transition would deny us any sense of urgency in working with the Afghan government. It must be clear that Afghans will have to take responsibility for their security, and that America has no interest in fighting an endless war in Afghanistan.”

Respectfully,

Daniel Russ
Civilianmilitaryintelligencegroup​.com

No, I’m not referring to anyone in particular as “Mr. Goring” but a nickname for head of the Taliban. And I did say in previous postings that Mr. Goring was head of the Luftwaffe ;) Apparently, no history book is needed to BUMP.

And I am having my postings removed, if you must ask.

Ah, spelling, a frivolous point in making a remark toward current strategy.

A typo or two isn’t going to change a remark or two on current events. As for the British and the Afghan wars, I do recall Churchill being in Iraq in World War One. One of his military blunders it is referred to by quite a few people. He was blamed for the segregationist policy Shiite-Sunni-Kurd.

as a korean& vietnam vet, I say
UNTIE THEIR HANDS!
GIVE THEM RESOURCES;
THE HEALTH PROGRAMS CAN BE PHASED IN SLOWLY AND MORE ECONOMICALLY!
TRADE THE RUSSIANS PICKUPS FOR CARGO PLANE LEASES!
BUILD SEVERAL INDIAN OCEAN TO AFGHANISTAN 8 LANE HIGHWAYS! WE BUILT THE THE BURMA ROAD IN ONE YEAR!!!
THEN AFGHANISTAN CAN TRADE AG PRODUCTS WITH THE WORLD!!!

BereavedMil,

Wow. See your Doctor.

Respectfully,

Daniel Russ
Civilianmilitaryintelligencegroup​.com

Yeah funny that after 8 years we have NOW uncovered the secret to success in Afghanistan and it can be accomplished in only 18 months?..what a wonderful world of make believe we are said to be living in today. Perhaps for 8 years our military leaders and advisors were baffled by what to do and now with a new leader they have suddenly gained clarity or is it clairvoyance and it’s all so simple now. At any rate, I hope this doesn’t turn into a terrible meat grinder for the guys and girls ordered back to Afghanistan but I fear it will be little else.

Hoping I’m wrong

So would you say if we pull out and give more assistance to Pakistan that it would be a better conclusion? I was in support of victory in Afghanistan but after speaking with numerous mid level and/or field grade officers in Afghan and those who have been (most repeatedly) it seems they are all a little unsure of how successful the US can ever be in Afghanistan and with that being said I must concede that perhaps winning is not possible given the history of the region and the level of commitment from back home. However, I do believe for the sake of Pakistan and their nukes..let’s face it that’s all we really care about..we will have to make sure the Taliban or Al Q is not able to destroy the Pakistan govt. What are your thoughts Mr. Russ?

Curiously Unsure

@old commander
A’stan is a landlocked nation. Tha Paki’s and Iranians aren’t having that business w/o a payoff.

*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