There’s a great story this morning in the New York Times about the Pentagon giving Gen. McChrystal a lot of leeway to put together his “dream team” of Afghan command.
It’s precisely what the doctor ordered and the kind of thing that folks like Nagl and the Kagans have been saying would be the key to success there. It’s the same kind of carte blanche control that GW Bush gave Petraeus — with great success in a very short time.
Also, it’s brilliant that McC wants these guys to stay on for three years instead of one year stints in their billets. They’ll become more invested in the success of the fight and have greater insight into the inner workings of Afghanistan.
The Times story says Gates and Mullen have impressed upon McChrystal that Afghanistan is the “main effort”…it’s about time from my perspective. And it’s a good thing that we have a steely-eyed special operator at the helm. He understands economy of force, unconventional warfare and rapid tasking — which is just the kind of mindset the conflict in Afghanistan needs.
Another interesting note…the Times piece mentions that McC asked Rear Adm. Greg Smith to be his chief of public affairs. Petraeus did the same thing when he asked Smith to come over to Iraq to assess the PA operation there and when Smith delivered his report said “OK, can you stay here and implement it for me?”
Smith was due to retire but has reportedly agreed to stay on with McC…true patriots all and we wish them the best of luck.
– Christian
o.O …Did a comment get deleted?
Don’t keep us in suspense. Please, please someone reproduce the amazing vanished comment.
It is good that the Army, Marines, USAF and SOF will be singing off the same sheet of music, but where is the increase from Dept. of State, USAID, and rest of the USG with our allies? We got introduce a code of law, clean Afghan law enforcement and court system and that will take a generation to implement. It is time to match the military effort with reforms for a legitimate Afghan government and reduce corruption while increasing the reach of good governance and civil society or the military portion of the solution is in vain. As the saying goes: We can
I agree with you, b. We need more than military force to fix the problem in Afghanistan. Most of that country doesn’t have electricity, running water, or roads. It’s no surprise that they’re going to struggle implementing democracy.
Personally, I think we should purchase poppies from the Afghani farmers in bulk. Pay good prices and they’ll sell to us. Al Quaeda gets much of their funding from heroin distribution. By purchasing the poppy crop (who cares what we do with it — burn it, dump it in the ocean, whatever), we allow the Afghani farmers to earn a living, we bring them over to our side, we deny Al Quaeda its chief source of funds, and we decrease the world heroin trade. It’s win-win-win-win as far as I can tell.
But overall, we need ideas and plans that will help set up Afghanistan as a stable country. We can’t do that with just war.
Seems like a no brainer. We put people who fought us in Iraq on the U.S. payroll, so why not put the poppy producers.
Even better, get the AQ guys hooked on it and sell it back to them. You could call it “72 virgins.” They’d be too bankrupt and sleepy to bomb anyone.
Of course to the finance the purchase of the opium crop they can just sell it to bored GIs who don’t know why they are dieing for a war with no objective. SOP.
Of course to the finance the purchase of the opium crop they can just sell it to bored GIs who don’t know why they are dieing for a war with no objective. SOP.
Posted by: Sgt Oblat at June 13, 2009 07:30 AM
Am i the only one who has noticed liberals who claim to be such intouch people and well rounded are the most bitter? Go pet a kitten or something. Buy a bunny?