War - what is it good for?

Pres. Obama has been deferring a decision on sending additional troops his Generals have requested for the war in Afghanistan. US and other NATO troops, as well as ordinary Afghans, are being killed regularly while information he needs is pending, so there is pressure on him to decide without undue delay. In the meantime, the public and our Congressional representatives should be debating whether or not we suppoert the military's Afghanistan mission, described below.

Gen. McChrystal's unclassified 30 August 2009 "Commander's Initial Assessment" report (attached) includes the following mission statement on page 2-2:
"... conducts operations in Afghanistan to reduce the capability and will of the insurgency, support the growth in capacity and capability of the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF), and facilitate improvements in governance and socio-economic development, in order to provide a secure environment for sustainable stability that is observable to the population."

I get concerned when a mission can't be stated in a simple sentence. The mission statement above sounds to me a lot like nation-building. It omits any mention of al-Qaeda operations in parts of neighboring Pakistan, or in other countries to which al-Qaeda might relocate. But I don't know what we give up to afford continuing the war, or what threat risks we face if we withdraw, and what additional threats we might generate by our continued presence in Afghanistan.

What do you think should be the military mission for US and other NATO troops in Afghanistan? Should the mission not be limited to Afghanistan but be aimed at destroying al-Qaeda everywhere? How much of our financial and human resources do you think the war worth?

Tags: afghanistan, al-qaeda, mission, pakistan, taliban, war

Attachments:

Assessment_Redacted_092109.pdf, 1.6 MB
Assessment_Redacted_092109.pdf, 1.6 MB

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by John Antonelli on September 21, 2009 at 8:11am: NOTHIN!!!!!!!; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Phillip McLaughlin on September 22, 2009 at 11:15am: I think that Afghanistan will be another Viet Nam for us if we don't get out now. We already are dealing with an ineffective Afghan government. It is unable to get its own people to join together in order to influence the Taliban. The Afghan army is unable to hold already secured areas without foreign troops assisting them. The Taliban has no qualms about hiding in highly populated civilian areas thus making it impossible to do surgical strikes without unacceptable civilian casualties. I am a Viet Nam vet and saw the same things happen there that are happening in Afghanistan. We need to pull our troops out, and offer financial support to the Afghan provinces toward health, education and agriculture. NATO or the UN can offer training to the Afghan army, not the U.S. No more providing American troops to a war that has gone on for decades, if not centuries. There is nothing to gain in keeping our troops involved.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Victoria Kim on September 24, 2009 at 12:02am: Thanks for your attachments; first time I've had the opportunity to see source documents not flappered through the media.

Clearly we cannot implement General McChrystal's mission without strong leadership amongst the Afghani people. I applaud the General for the direction he wants to take but very much doubt there is widespread support for such a campaign. We Americans are still provincial, do not share a global point of view. How many high schools even offer Farsi as a foreign language, if that's what they indeed speak? How many drill instructors, teachers, agriculturalists and suppliers would be willing to put themselves in harm's way to help Afghanistan get its act together? If we contract the necessary infrastructure development aren't we going to see more of the graft and thievery we saw in Iraq? We went on a "war on terrorism", not on a campaign of nation-building. We can't afford the cost. I don't think the United States should be in this business at all. I don't even think we can isolate an enemy such as al-Qaeda in that environment. Those billions of misspent dollars could have better been spent just shoring up our internal defenses and intelligence services on the ground around the world--and developing our own fuels. Our military ought to be a lot more teams of special forces who can execute quick, surgical strikes with good intelligence, based either on the sea or in bases in which we are actually welcome. We could have companies in Blackbirds ready to drop at a moment's notice. I'm tired of being the ugly American. Our quest for stability amongst nations belies our own origins.

It seems to me that the more we go after al-Qaeda with our current military culture of force, the more we will engender growth of anti-American forces. We are in their country. Our presence is what is bringing foreign insurgents. We need to have the appearance of getting out, while doing what we can behind the scenes to shore up the ANSF and perhaps arm the local militias. If our aid to the world were such things as affected average citizens, like education and health care (ha!), then we would embody what it means to be a superpower.

I apologize to all the well-meaning troops and contractors who have integrity. The bad apples always spoil the barrel.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Amy Moreno on October 1, 2009 at 11:54am: Thank you for posting the attached documents.

Someone from Afghanistan shared this link with me. What can I tell this man -- I'm sorry? Sorry isn't good enough.

http://www.zmag.org/zspace/commentaries/3986

When General McChrystal says we need more troops in order to win the hearts and minds of the Afghan people, that is Orwellian because that is not at all what we are doing over there.

What's interesting is the above article was written by an Australian journalist named John Pilger. I get the impression Pilger is a Socialist because in the below video (I'm posting) he's speaking to Socialist Workers of America.

Pilger tells the audience about an experience he had while covering the Vietnam war on location. A US General was giving a speech to the Vietnamese people, which was ludicrous in part because the people had absolutely no idea what the General was talking about.

The speech the General was giving was from the WHAM hand book -- actually titled "Winning Hearts and Minds"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXL998q7skI

Pilger also has a documentary on the history of US intervention in Afghanistan: Breaking the Silence; ▶ Reply to This