CBS: Without McChrystal, Afghan Strategy Could Change

[Elmore Furth]

The military solution for what is actually a political civil war is not usually going to yield good results. McChrystal is using the blunt force weapon for what the RAND Corporation says does not work in most cases.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-kovalik/rand-corp----war-on-terro_b_116107.html

McChrystal submitted his resignation following Tuesday's publication of disparaging comments he and his staff made to Rolling Stone magazine about the Obama White House. McChrystal has been called back to Washington to meet with Mr. Obama Wednesday.

Couric: Lara, if Gen. McChrystal's resignation is, in fact, accepted, how will it change the way the war is executed?

Logan: Well, Katie, there are basically two schools of thought on this. One says that commanders change all the time, this doesn't affect the strategy; the mission goes on.

The other school of thought says that this will have a huge impact, that you have to have continuity of command and that right now McChrystal's top leadership in Afghanistan are sitting watching this in horror, and they're waiting to see where the ax will fall next, particularly if McChrystal is replaced, and in that climate and with so much political opposition and politics riding on this, they will be reluctant to move forward, which leaves the soldiers on the battlefield somewhat in limbo, right in the line of fire. There are some who say this could potentially cost American lives.



Without McChrystal, Afghan Strategy Could Change

[Rosa Luxemburg]

1. the strategy could change to stop wasting money and get the troops home

[gateley]

2. My God - the crises this President has had to deal with - unrelenting.

I just want to see our troops home.

My heart breaks for the Afghanis.

[YOY]

3. I got a great strategy! Time to get out.

If they aren't strong and/or motivated enough to protect themselves against the religious monsters who were removed then I guess the Taliban won themselves a country that was too weak to defend itself against a threat of which they knew full well.

Sovereignty's a bitch.

Hope that's pragmatic enough...

[WeekendWarrior]

4. "There are some who say"

I hate that phrase. I always figure the "some" is the person speaking.

[Oregone]

5. High school journalism

[BlueMTexpat]

6. I was against our going-in from the get-go.

It was a knee-jerk response against a truly reprehensible regime (and that the Taliban were and are) because they refused to give up Bin Laden.
We STILL don't have Bin Laden and have managed to help destabilize the whole region, which was pretty shakey to begin with given the repressive military regime we propped up in Pakistan for years. Afghanistan was just practice for Iraq and began the legal quagmire of Gitmo, where people still languish. We apparently learned nothing from the "practice." Iraq, in particular, has gone from one repressive regime to another (now under the facade of "democracy"), with less stability, religious or political freedom than ever.

[JDPriestly]

7. This explains why Petraeus fainted when appearing before Congress

a few days ago. Remember that.

He must be terrified to be dealing with that situation.

I wonder if he will also want to go or whether Obama will also ask him to go.

On the other hand, Petraeus could be given more responsibility if McChrystal resigns.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

8. The most important quote in the entire Rolling Stone article is this

When it comes to Afghanistan, history is not on McChrystal's side. The only foreign invader to have any success here was Genghis Khan – and he wasn't hampered by things like human rights, economic development and press scrutiny. The COIN doctrine, bizarrely, draws inspiration from some of the biggest Western military embarrassments in recent memory: France's nasty war in Algeria (lost in 1962) and the American misadventure in Vietnam (lost in 1975). McChrystal, like other advocates of COIN, readily acknowledges that counterinsurgency campaigns are inherently messy, expensive and easy to lose. "Even Afghans are confused by Afghanistan," he says. But even if he somehow manages to succeed, after years of bloody fighting with Afghan kids who pose no threat to the U.S. homeland, the war will do little to shut down Al Qaeda, which has shifted its operations to Pakistan. Dispatching 150,000 troops to build new schools, roads, mosques and water-treatment facilities around Kandahar is like trying to stop the drug war in Mexico by occupying Arkansas and building Baptist churches in Little Rock. "It's all very cynical, politically," says Marc Sageman, a former CIA case officer who has extensive experience in the region. "Afghanistan is not in our vital interest – there's nothing for us there."

This article illustrated better than anything else I can think of, that we need to leave today. It is over.