Thursday, October 08, 2009
Military to Obama Administration Civilians:
'This word, counterinsurgency ... I do not think it means what you think
it means.'
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/07/AR2009100704088.html>
Labels: counterinsurgency
<http://iraqnow.blogspot.com/search/label/counterinsurgency>, doctrine
<http://iraqnow.blogspot.com/search/label/doctrine>, Obama
<http://iraqnow.blogspot.com/search/label/Obama>, Politics
<http://iraqnow.blogspot.com/search/label/Politics>, Warfighting
<http://iraqnow.blogspot.com/search/label/Warfighting>
[CLICK HERE TO ENTER THE NET]
<http://iraqnow.blogspot.com/2009/10/military-to-obama-administration.html>
posted by Jason : 10:37 EST, Thursday, October 08, 2009 0 transmissions
this net
Morale Plummets Among Soldiers in Afghanistan
HOPE!!!!
<http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/Afghanistan/article6865359.ece>
American soldiers serving in Afghanistan are depressed and deeply
disillusioned, according to the chaplains of two US battalions that
have spent nine months on the front line in the war against the Taleban.
Many feel that they are risking their lives --- and that colleagues
have died --- for a futile mission and an Afghan population that
does nothing to help them, the chaplains told The Times in their
makeshift chapel on this fortress-like base in a dusty, brown valley
southwest of Kabul.
"The many soldiers who come to see us have a sense of futility and
anger about being here. They are really in a state of depression and
despair and just want to get back to their families," said Captain
Jeff Masengale, of the 10th Mountain Division's 2-87 Infantry Battalion.
"They feel they are risking their lives for progress that's hard to
discern," said Captain Sam Rico, of the Division's 4-25 Field
Artillery Battalion. "They are tired, strained, confused and just
want to get through." The chaplains said that they were speaking out
because the men could not.
That's a direct result, in my view, of the lack of resolve,
decisiveness, and leadership coming from the White House. If the trumpet
sounds uncertain, who will answer the call?
That said, the selection of soldiers who go see the chaplain isn't
always representative of the military as a whole. Soldiers who speak to
the chaplain about morale problems are naturally the ones with morale
problems.
But you can bet dollars to doughnuts that these chaplains are in a
position to assess the delta - the change, in morale - and if the
chaplains in two separate battalions are concerned enough to take the
extraordinary step of speaking to the media about it, then Houston,
we've got a problem.
This can be turned around, though. The morale problems on the ground
simply reflect the morale problems at home. And if Congress is
questioning the mission, and the folks back home are questioning the
mission, and the White House is questioning the mission, but none of
them our paying the price... it's only the US soldier, sailor and Marine
on the ground shedding blood every day for a mission the President can't
be bothered to sell (too busy trying to enrich Mayor Daley and the rest
of the Chicago mob with the Olympics), well, to quote Rudyard Kipling,
Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool, you be that Tommy sees!
Splash, out
Jason
Labels: Afghanistan
<http://iraqnow.blogspot.com/search/label/Afghanistan>, chaplains
<http://iraqnow.blogspot.com/search/label/chaplains>, Politics
<http://iraqnow.blogspot.com/search/label/Politics>, soldiers issues
<http://iraqnow.blogspot.com/search/label/soldiers%20issues>,
Warfighting <http://iraqnow.blogspot.com/search/label/Warfighting>
[CLICK HERE TO ENTER THE NET]
<http://iraqnow.blogspot.com/2009/10/morale-plummets-among-soldiers-in.html>
posted by Jason : 10:16 EST 0 transmissions this net
Wednesday, October 07, 2009
Obama the Undecided
The New York Times reports
<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/07/world/asia/07prexy.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss>:
President Obama told Congressional leaders on Tuesday that he would
not substantially reduce American forces in Afghanistan or shift the
mission to just hunting terrorists there, but he indicated that he
remained undecided about the major troop buildup proposed by his
commanding general.
The truth, however, is that Obama is undecided about the major troop
buildup he himself proposed during the campaign.
<http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/14/politics/main4261388.shtml>
Democrat Barack Obama said Monday that as president he would send at
least two more combat brigades to Afghanistan, where U.S. soldiers
face rising violence and endured their deadliest attack in three
years on Sunday.
The proposed force increase - about 7,000 troops - is part of
Obama's plan to pull combat troops out of Iraq and focus on the
growing threat from a resurgent al Qaeda in Afghanistan.
"As president, I would pursue a new strategy, and begin by providing
at least two additional combat brigades to support our effort in
Afghanistan," Obama said in an op-ed published Monday in The New
York Times, a day before he plans a speech here on his vision for
Iraq and Afghanistan.
"We need more troops, more helicopters, better
intelligence-gathering and more nonmilitary assistance to accomplish
the mission there," Obama said.
Obama hasn't articulated a contrary position since that time. McChrystal
came out in support of the only guidance Obama has publicly given so
far. Truth be told, it was Biden, not McChrystal, who 'put his cock on
the anvil' arguing a position contrary to the President. It was Biden,
not McChrystal, who was "off the reservation," with his proposal.
Biden should keep his council private and use the chain of command. If
Biden really has a problem with the Commander-in-chief, he should resign
now, and then he can go as public as he likes.
Democrats, of course, philosophically hold the same position -- and
blame McChrystal.
Splash, out
Jason
Labels: Afghanistan
<http://iraqnow.blogspot.com/search/label/Afghanistan>, Army
<http://iraqnow.blogspot.com/search/label/Army>, Biden
<http://iraqnow.blogspot.com/search/label/Biden>, foreign policy
<http://iraqnow.blogspot.com/search/label/foreign%20policy>, McChrystal
<http://iraqnow.blogspot.com/search/label/McChrystal>, Obama
<http://iraqnow.blogspot.com/search/label/Obama>, Politics
<http://iraqnow.blogspot.com/search/label/Politics>, soldiers' issues
<http://iraqnow.blogspot.com/search/label/soldiers%27%20issues>, War on
Terror <http://iraqnow.blogspot.com/search/label/War%20on%20Terror>,
Warfighting <http://iraqnow.blogspot.com/search/label/Warfighting>
[CLICK HERE TO ENTER THE NET]
<http://iraqnow.blogspot.com/2009/10/obama-undecided.html> posted by
Jason : 11:07 EST, Wednesday, October 07, 2009 0 transmissions this net
Tuesday, October 06, 2009
...In Which I Rise to the Defense of General McChrystal
So General McChrystal is getting excoriated by the leftards in the
media, by Gen. James Jones, Obama's National Security Advisor, and now
by Generalissima Pelosi herself for providing a forthright answer to a
question directly in his purview by a member of the media.
The treatment he is getting is outrageous.
Why?
1.) The question was whether the General would support Biden's
suggestion to dramatically lower troop strength in Afghanistan, and try
to fight it with special operations forces and Predator strikes. The
general said he would not.
There are strong doctrinal resources for this: COIN doctrine, however
imperfect the fit with the Afghanistan battlefield, holds that the "key
terrain" in the counterinsurgent fight is the population itself. The
fight is not for control of real estate, but for the loyalty of the people.
That takes boots on the ground.
The second doctrinal reason to reject the Biden plan is that COIN, by
its nature, is intelligence driven. The best source of battlefield
intelligence is a strong relationship between our soldiers and marines
on the ground and the local population. If we enact the Biden plan, the
result will be a rapid retreat from the battlefield, leaving the
population, including many who risked everything to support us, to the
tender mercies of Taliban reprisals. If we retreat even a little from
our commitment to village and tribal elders who have stuck their necks
out to support us, word will spread like wildfire and the village and
tribal elders will cut their own deals in order to survive.
In my view, we may already be seeing this happening: In a vicious
firefight last week, in which an American outpost was in danger of being
overrun, the Taliban was able to stockpile hundreds of weapons in a
nearby village mosque. Large numbers of villagers must have known. And
yet no one alerted coalition forces.
The logistics for massing materiel already underway, the Taliban managed
to quietly gather in battalion strength to launch two deliberate attacks
against American and Afghan outposts... and again, no one alerted
Coalition forces.
This is symptomatic of a huge tactical intelligence failure on the
ground. American forces were not, apparently, present in enough strength
to defend the position and patrol aggressively simultaneously - with
disastrous but not unsurprising results: A poor relationship with the
people of the neighboring village and the ceding of the tactical initiative.
General McChrystal is seeing the same compromise being made all over the
country: Troop strength being spread too thin. And Biden, without
acknowledging the strategic and operational tradeoffs that MUST come
with a reduction in troop strength, and without adjusting the General's
mission in Afghanistan, wants to spread those troops even further.
So General McChrystal sticks up for his mission - and what's more,
advocates precisely what President Obama himself /is already on record
as advocating/: a substantial increase in troop strength in Afghanistan.
<http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=5417331&page=1>
/"I said a year and a half ago that we needed more troops in
Afghanistan -- at least two brigades," Obama said. "John McCain, at
the time, didn't think that was necessary, and now there's a
convergence around the notion that we need at least two and maybe
three brigades in Afghanistan." /
McChrystal, then, was simply articulating a view already publicly
endorsed by the Commander in Chief. As far as we know, the President has
said nothing since that piece was published that would contradict that
view. He has long held that Afghanistan is the central front on the War
on Terror Group Hug Against Scary Things, and has repeatedly called for
more troops in Afghanistan to prosecute that war. McChrystal was well
within his guidelines, and when the President has been as vague and
noncommital in policy statements as he has - despite a direct request
from McChrystal for more troops, what else does McChrystal have to go on
besides Obama's own public pronouncements?
Further, given the President's repeated calls for an increase of two to
three brigades in Afghanistan, it wasn't McChrystal speaking out of
school, it was Biden. I would argue that the Biden plan is the outlier,
not McChrystal's statement that he would not support it.
What's more, there is no way that McChrystal can possibly be seen to be
bucking the chain of command... because A.) Obama, the commander in
chief, is already on record as calling for MORE boots on the ground, not
fewer, and B.) Biden is NOT NOT NOT in the chain of command in any sense
whatsoever.
I'm very cognizant that subordinates at all levels should take care not
to pain their leadership into a corner. But that obligation goes both
ways - leaders owe subordinates clear guidelines and directions. And
that goes ESPECIALLY when the battlefield situation is vague.
I've noticed for several months now that Afghanistan policy was coming
apart at the seams. Not from any one thing, but from having read a
variety of news reports and hearing things through the military
grapevine, the infantry mafia, the blogger boys club, and the intel
syndicate. I haven't had time to blog them lately, and I regret that
now. But this was a long time in the making.
McChrystal used the chain of command. He submitted his request to his
boss,, General Petraeus at CENTCOM. And that, apparently, is where it
languishes, because the President and his National Security
decision-making apparatus has not yet produced a product useable for the
commanders in the field.
McChrystal used the Chain of Command... the Chain of command,
unfortunately, is not functioning.
McChrystal is entitled to know what he is expected to accomplish. He
needs to know in order to issue orders down the chain. Every soldier and
marine and corpsman and airman on the ground is entitled to know what he
or she and their units are expected to accomplish.
Everyone involved in the effort is entitled to a decision from the
President.
It's not like he didn't know the Afghan war was waiting for him when he
got to the Oval Office.
Splash, out
Jason
And Pelosi's an ignorant twit.
Labels: Afghanistan
<http://iraqnow.blogspot.com/search/label/Afghanistan>, Army
<http://iraqnow.blogspot.com/search/label/Army>, COIN
<http://iraqnow.blogspot.com/search/label/COIN>, McChrystal
<http://iraqnow.blogspot.com/search/label/McChrystal>, soldiers' issues
<http://iraqnow.blogspot.com/search/label/soldiers%27%20issues>, USMC
<http://iraqnow.blogspot.com/search/label/USMC>, War on Terror
<http://iraqnow.blogspot.com/search/label/War%20on%20Terror>,
Warfighting <http://iraqnow.blogspot.com/search/label/Warfighting>
[CLICK HERE TO ENTER THE NET]
<http://iraqnow.blogspot.com/2009/10/in-which-i-rise-to-defense-of-general.html>
posted by Jason : 21:27 EST, Tuesday, October 06, 2009 2 transmissions
this net
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
