Stanley McChrystal: We will succeed
Tags:
Text Size
- -
- +
- reset
The top U.S. military and civilian leaders in Afghanistan, sometimes portrayed publicly as at odds, sought to present a unified front to Congress on Tuesday, referring to each other as old friends and pledging support for the administration’s new strategy in the war-torn country.
“I believe we will absolutely be successful,” Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, told the House Armed Services Committee. “What we need from the House Armed Services Committee and the American people is continued commitment and support for our force on this mission.”
The hearing, though, quickly turned to some of the reported divisions between the military commanders and the U.S. ambassador in Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry, a retired general who once commanded U.S. forces there.
California Rep. Buck McKeon, the committee’s ranking Republican, sought to explore potential rifts between President Barack Obama and the military over the size of the troop request and the potential for more later.
“The Washington rumor mill has been thriving the last three months,” McKeon said, adding he understood McChrystal’s initial request ranged from 10,000 to 80,000 troops.
“Did you ask for 30,000 troops in 2010?” McKeon asked.
“I asked for forces to be deployed as quickly as they could be deployed,” McChrystal said. “I didn’t ask it in that way.”
Asked whether he had recommended a U.S. exit strategy after 18 months, McChrystal said “I made no recommendations at all on that.”
Nothing in the war is without risk, he added, calling the new strategy “appropriate risk.”
The committee’s chairman, Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), referenced two memos from Eikenberry that were leaked last month, “expressing deep concern about sending more troops” to Afghanistan until the government there showed a willingness to confront corruption.
Eikenberry did not deny the memos, describing them as part of the administration’s review in which all participants were encouraged to provide their opinions.
“At no point did I oppose additional troops being sent to Afghanistan,” Eikenberry said, explaining the questions were what the timeline would be and in what context the troops would operate.
“I am unequivocal in support of this mission and exactly aligned with Gen. McChrystal to my right,” Eikenberry said.
Later, during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, McChrystal said capturing or killing the leader of Al Qaeda was the key to victory.
McChrystal called Osama bin Laden "an iconic figure," whose survival has allowed the terrorist organization to expand its influence.
Those comments came as Defense Secretary Robert Gates told NBC's "Today" show that bin Laden has continued to elude capture.
Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) also asked Eikenberry to explain apparent inconsistencies between the U.S. plan to begin leaving Afghanistan in July 2011 and comments made Tuesday by Afghan President Hamid Karzai that his country would remain dependent on assistance from the U.S. and NATO for another 15 to 20 years.
Even though the U.S. military would begin to draw down in 2011, Eikenberry said, "We have to have a long-term relationship with Afghanistan."
Readers' Comments (17)
grlrouse Party: NA
Reply #1
Dec. 8, 2009 - 12:12 PM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
Whatever1 Party: Independent
Reply #2
Dec. 8, 2009 - 1:21 PM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
Whatever1 Party: Independent
Reply #3
Dec. 8, 2009 - 1:22 PM EST
Sorry about the double post. - Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
Whatever1 Party: Independent
Reply #4
Dec. 8, 2009 - 1:30 PM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
Whatever1 Party: Independent
Reply #5
Dec. 8, 2009 - 1:49 PM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
ChangingTimes Party: NA
Reply #6
Dec. 8, 2009 - 1:57 PM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
ssky Party: NA
Reply #7
Dec. 8, 2009 - 2:15 PM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
HalfPastLate Party: Independent
Reply #8
Dec. 8, 2009 - 2:40 PM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
Obbie Party: N/A
Reply #9
Dec. 8, 2009 - 2:46 PM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
no_account_plebe Party: N/A
Reply #10
Dec. 8, 2009 - 3:44 PM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
no_account_plebe Party: N/A
Reply #11
Dec. 8, 2009 - 3:50 PM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
Obama Lawyer Party: NA
Reply #12
Dec. 8, 2009 - 6:13 PM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
Prospector Party: Independent
Reply #13
Dec. 8, 2009 - 8:39 PM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
splenda2 Party: Conservative
Reply #14
Dec. 8, 2009 - 10:46 PM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
maristi Party: NA
Reply #15
Dec. 9, 2009 - 12:36 AM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
CoffeeNerves Party: Conservative
Reply #16
Dec. 9, 2009 - 3:25 AM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
CoffeeNerves Party: Conservative
Reply #17
Dec. 9, 2009 - 3:25 AM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
Read all 17 comments in our forumCalifornia Rep. Buck McKeon, the committee’s ranking Republican, sought to explore potential rifts between President Barack Obama and the military over the of the troop request and the potential for more later.
THE RETHUGS ALWAYS LOOKING FOR A FIGHT! Please lets move forward on this.
Rep. Buck McKeon (R-Calif.) wants to clarify that Gen. Stanley McChrystal believes he has enough additional troops, and implies that Defense Secretary Robert Gates pressured McChrystal to lowball his resource request. “Can you tell this committee and the American people what were the different force options you requested, and the degree of risk?”
McChrystal: “That is a classified document.” But he explained there was a resource analysis behind his palette of options, “with associated risk.” He said he would make a “very direct recommendation of my chain of command of what my force level was, and I did that.” McChrystal said he was “very pleased” that the administration “demanded” he be “candid and straightforward.” He “thought it was a very healthy exchange… getting everything on the table, getting everybody clear.” President Obama’s decision “reflects resources that are congruent with what I recommend we needed, so I’m very comfortable with the outcome, resource-wise.”
McKeon tries again.Did you ask for 30,000 troops in 2010? “I asked for forces to be deployed as quickly as they could be deployed,” McChrystal replied. “As the flow worked out, that was gonna be about that, in 2010. But I didn’t ask it that way.”
What about the July 2011 inflection point? “I made no recommendations at all on that.” He gives a “wider context”: “In the long term, what in fact we have done, is provide the Afghans the assurance that we are likely to be strategic partners” in the long term. “If you are in the insurgency, that is a difficult fact to deal with,” McChrystal said, preempting the line of questioning about July 2011 allowing insurgents to wait the U.S. out. “I believe the next 18 months are the critical point in the war … the resources we have been provided … I believe, for this 18 months, we’re going to make tremendous progress with this … while we simultaneously build Afghanistan’s capability. I don’t believe the July 2011 timeframe, militarily, is a major factor in our strategy.”
He does concede that there are some who will “inappropriately” portray the 2011 date as a withdrawal date. In “information operations … they will try to describe it as something that it’s not,” McChrystal said.
-Washington Independent 12/8/09 (News without the taint)
So what happened with those leaked cables from Ambassador Karl Eikenberry doubting the utility of the extended surge? Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) wants to know.
Eikenberry explained that “all the participants in this very vigorous review process” were encouraged to be blunt. “I’d like to clarify that at no point during this review process, Mr. Chairman, was I ever opposed to additional troops being sent to Afghanistan,” Eikenberry said. “I shared [McChrystal's] views about the security situation.” There was a question “about the number of those troops, the timeline for those troops, the context for those troops.” And then the mission “was refined, the way forward was clarified, and the resources” are sufficient. “I am unequivocally in support of this mission and I am exactly aligned with Gen. McChrystal here to my right.”
And here’s the once skeptical ambassador to Afghanistan. “I believe the course the president outline does offer the best path to stabilize Afghanistan and ensure that al-Qaeda can no longer gain a foothold to plan new attacks against us,” said Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, one of McChrystal’s predecessors in military command in Afghanistan. “I can say without equivocation that I fully support this approach.”
He returned McChrystal’s compliment, “a professional colleague and friend of many years.” They’re “united in a joint effort.” So much for chatter about their icy relationship. “We could not accomplish our objectives without this kind of cooperation,” Eikenberry said.
The extended surge “is absolutely critical to regaining the initiative.” So much for Eikenberry’s cables expressing misgivings about that increase until the Afghans express greater commitments to effective and honest government. Why’s that? “By focusing on ministries that deliver essential services and security, we can accelerate the building of the Afghan government to one that is sufficiently visible, effective and accountable,” Eikenberry said, echoing what Brig. Gen. John Nicholson said yesterday. “Underpinning all these efforts is the need to combat corruption and promote the rule of law.” Eikenberry praised Hamid Karzai’s inaugural address promise of reform and autonomy.
“The narcotics problem will never have a solution without economic development,” he said, and while the administration will focus on “demand reduction” and detaining traffickers, development work, especially agriculture, will contribute to reducing the demand for the insurgency among the population. “We’re concentrating on what is essential and what is obtainable,” Eikenberry assured lawmakers.
“Two risks” he said he shares with McChrystal: in spite of “everything we do, Afghanistan may struggle to take over the task of governance and security on a timely basis.” The other is about Pakistan. “Unless there is more progress in eliminating the sanctuaries used by the Afghan Taliban and their associates inside of Pakistan,” Eikenberry said, the strategy will fall short.
But. “For the first time in my three tours in Afghanistan, all of the elements of our national power are being deployed, with the full support of the president. … Our mission was underresourced for years, but it is now one of our government’s highest priorities.” He said that he will, however, need more civilian resources for Afghanistan, much as Paul Jones, deputy to Richard Holbrooke, said yesterday.
Is there really a need for politico to leave out pertinent quotes? Have to have a controversy even if there is none.
double post.
McChrystal - succeed at what? I am beginning to see deja-vu from Vietnam and our military leaders making money on the drug trade (opium) and thus stayed in the war far too long. What other possible reason would they want to stay in Afghanistan other than the opium trade, and for heaven sakes use terminology like " we will win" or "until we succeed" - this is canned bunk rhetoric and I for one am not amused that our high officials use it on the American people. We have no reason to be there and when the crook Karzai wants us there until 2024 - is he crazy????? Get out now and leave Karzai and his criminal cronies to figure it out themselves. I want healthcare for the American people and not some mindless godless war for the military to get rich on. Do you hear me Washington DC - do you get it yet?
Hate to be a pessimist but McChrystal's remarks do not make me feel any better about Afghanistan. No other country has been able to succeed there and their tribes have been fighting for thousands of years. Our best chance was at the beginning when I still believe we could have found Bin Laden and finished what we had to do there if the administration had put their heart and soul into it instead of wanting to go to Iraq. It was a terrible decision and we have paid dearly for it in lives and money. Karzai is a crook, there is so much corruption in their government, and it is costing the U.S. billions. I fear another Viet Nam and we can't afford it.
Unlike Nam, bin Laden declared war on the US in 1996 and again in 1998 and WE can't allow him any place where al Qaeda can plan and prepare attacks like they did before http://www.pbs.org/newshour/te...
The Afghans need training then they should take on the Taliban while WE take on and eliminate al Qaeda. McChrystal's plan is to provide the time and training to get the Afghans up to speed.
The military should never be placed in harms way without justification.
I'd like to see the Bush Admin investigated for treason http://projects.publicintegrit... for doing just that in Iraq. If they had continued the mission in Afghanistan, then it would be over by now with bin Laden doing an aerial dance somewhere...
McChrystal can't be successful when we have an "Amatuer in Chief" running this war. Obama is completely out of his element. I don't no how McChrystal can look at this buffoon with a straight face. Obama... No respect....No morale....Our boys deserve better
General Custer was pretty sure he was gonna defeat a bunch of unorganized, under-equipped, ignorant savages too.
Trying to get a military leader to say anything but , "OOOOO rah!" is a waste of time.
No military commander is ever gonna question the mission ..... nor is he ever going to approach the mission with any other opinion than: "Failure is not an option".
The problem is...........We the People sent General McChrystal on a Fools Erand. Shame on US for allowing our elected officials and our bueraucracy to cook up this insane mission.
Whats even more embarrassing........Osama binLadin got away with it. No ones even attempting to catch or kill him.
I salute the troops and their leader as they march off to accomplish the impossible. This is a total waste of time, money, lives.
I agree, lets move beyond this ridiculous game of scoring cheap political points against each other. We live in the best country in the world - why are we trying to destroy it with hatred? Can't we disagree without being so personally offensive?
Let's try the surge and see if the generals were right. If it fails, we're outta there. If it works - fantastic! What is wrong with that strategy?
Dear General McChrystal,
I hope you do succeed, despite that donkey's hind Adm. Mullen, our pitiably inexperienced CIC, and his dufus VP. Listen to General Petraeus. He's a war winner.
Godspeed and Oorah, sir.
PO2 Joe Youngblood
BE SURE AND TELL THIS TO THE MR. DITHERS 'CAUSE HE ISN'T SURE OF HIS NAME RIGHT NOW! WITH THE POLLS KILLING HIM IN RATINGS AND EVERYONE FALLING OUT OF LOVE, WELL YOU KNOW, HE WAS A "ONE NIGHT STAND" AND NOW WE WOULD RATHER HE NOT SHOW HIS FACE SO MUCH OR AT ALL
!
The brillance of Obama's move is starting to become clear: He's put the generals on the spot.
You want your war? even though the country is tired as hell after 8 years? (not to mention broke) Fine, have the troops you're asking for and come back with results in a year and a half.
YOU have said you can succeed (whatever that means). In 2011 the country will be judging YOUR performance.
Oh and as a bonus now Karzai knows we're not going to be propping up his corrupt regime forever. He's got a lot to lose too.. if the Taliban ever takes it back he, his brother and family are as good as dead.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you! My sentiments exactly. Those words should have come from our Wussified President but it was nice to hear them from General McChrystal. He and General Petraeus are a class act.
2010 and 2012 can't come soon enough.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you! My sentiments exactly. Those words should have come from our Wussified President but it was nice to hear them from General McChrystal. He and General Petraeus are a class act.
2010 and 2012 can't come soon enough.