60 Minutes Afghanistan piece Defeatist?

akv · 10-12-2009, 10:49

I was wondering what impression folks here had of the 60 Minutes piece on the Marines in the Helmand Province of Afghanistan this weekend?

In contrast to the McChrystal piece a few weeks back, I felt it was defeatist. The merits of the shift in strategy towards protecting Afghans instead of hunting Taliban is for the military experts to decide. To be fair they indicated increased cooperation with the locals is more important than body count. However, to me they focused on Marines being killed, their frustrations with ROE, IED's, and the terrain.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/...in;contentBody

kgoerz · 10-12-2009, 12:14

It was 60 Minutes. Any story they do on the Military is going to be spun in a negative manner. It was a frustrating piece to watch. There is no way they can provide security for the villagers unless they stay in the village 24/7. Or get the villagers to protect themselves.
We don't have the assets to post a platoon in every village, they won't protect themselves. So maybe we should put all our effort into killing the enemy. Having to bribe the Village elders in order to win their Hearts and Minds isn't going to work.

Utah Bob · 10-12-2009, 14:52

They talked about how how are "losing" in Afghanistan. Funny, I saw Fareed Zakaria a few hours earlier and he said "we are not losing".

I expect to see more and more anti-war reporting from the MSM as time goes by now. This will help Big O make his decision to pull out in a year or so.

dirt_diver · 10-12-2009, 15:33

It's all about playing to your audience. I'm sure they were shooting for the left with that story. The situation in Afghanistan is difficult to fix mostly because those in charge must decide whether we are nation building or fighting the enemy (AQ, Taliban, or a slew of others). Once that is decided it will be easier for the troops to get the mission accomplished.

That's just my $.02.

10-12-2009, 20:47

Wow!

I had a totally different take. I thought they made a good case for supporting General McCrystal's plan. Perhaps it was not intentional.

Sure, they dwelled on the frustrations. Sure, it was typical 60 Minutes spin. Perhaps I'm just seeing what I believe in this report.

jw74 · 10-12-2009, 21:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by akv

I was wondering what impression folks here had of the 60 Minutes piece on the Marines in the Helmand Province of Afghanistan this weekend?

In contrast to the McChrystal piece a few weeks back, I felt it was defeatist. The merits of the shift in strategy towards protecting Afghans instead of hunting Taliban is for the military experts to decide. To be fair they indicated increased cooperation with the locals is more important than body count. However, to me they focused on Marines being killed, their frustrations with ROE, IED's, and the terrain.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/...in;contentBody

I was taken back by the marine officer who said that if you killed 1000 enemy and 2 civilians then it was a failure. Perhaps I missed his overall point, but I do not agree with that mindset and I don't think it sends the right message to his Marines if they are victors on the battlefield but are made to feel like failures because of civillian deaths especially when the same 60 minutes story talked about how civilians were assisting the enemy in ambushing the Marine patrols.