McChrystal on Afghan Violence

Video preview of 60 Minutes segment of McChrystal on Afghan Violence

[cornelyj]

Was wondering if anyone caught the 60 minutes segment that was on last night. It was about 15-20 mins long.

He seems like a great man to serve under with work ethic that I could only compete with if on a cocaine and caffeine IV concoction.
I really like how his efforts to use technology and conferencing are working. His ideal portrayed on the "need to know basis concept" information sessions and meetings are impressive. I like his style, "kick the bad habits".

Quote from McChrystal,
"To a man that carries only a hammer, everything looks like a nail."
-On the Army operations with Afghan people

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by cornelyj

Was wondering if anyone caught the 60 minutes segment that was on last night. It was about 15-20 mins long.

He seems like a great man to serve under with work ethic that I could only compete with if on a cocaine and caffeine IV concoction.
I really like how his efforts to use technology and conferencing are working. His ideal portrayed on the "need to know basis concept" information sessions and meetings are impressive. I like his style, "kick the bad habits".

Quote from McChrystal,
"To a man that carries only a hammer, everything looks like a nail."
-On the Army operations with Afghan people

He is not the originator of that quote, though it is ironic to hear him use it, as a Ranger.

TR

For those who did not see it, the complete interview is now available here. General McCrystal - 60 Minutes

Originally Posted by The Reaper

He is not the originator of that quote, though it is ironic to hear him use it, as a Ranger.

TR

School house Rangers vs. Batt Boys. Often many forget that ranger school is a leadership course, not an MOS. Batt Boys train for specific mission objectives, (e.g., the Hammer). I like the style of McCrystal, we can only see what will happen. "Turning the patio into a shooting range", only because his wife back home won't let him.

Often one must give up the feeling of security in order to obtain security.

Who remembers the Marines under heavy attack leaving the green area, only to feel safer once they were in the city.

[Richard]

School house Rangers vs. Batt Boys.

GEN McChrystal commanded A-3/75th, 2/504th, 2/75th, 75th, and JSOC - lots of 'hammer carrying' time.

Richard

Originally Posted by Richard

GEN McChrystal commanded A-3/75th, 2/504th, 2/75th, 75th, and JSOC - lots of 'hammer carrying' time.

Richard

and I concur with TR's statement of irony. We will just have to watch and see how his vision plays out.

[incarcerated]

McChrystal at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London:

http://www.iiss.org/recent-key-addre...h-the-address/

http://www.iiss.org/recent-key-addre...he-qa-session/

[cornelyj]

Well I guess it is good that he figured out that smashing all the windows out and driving over the neighborhood dogs ain't good for business.

Has anyone here served under/above him? opinions?

[incarcerated]

Not to do so much with McChrystal, but posted here because I did not want to detract from Wet Dog's question to the group in post #29 of the "McChrystal: More Forces or 'Mission Failure'" thread.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1254...LEFTTopStories

Afghan War Units Begin Two New Efforts

ASIA NEWS
OCTOBER 6, 2009
By YOCHI J. DREAZEN
WASHINGTON -- The Pentagon is establishing two new units devoted to the Afghan war, highlighting the military's focus on the conflict even as the White House considers scaling back the overall U.S. mission there.

The units -- a so-called Afghan Hands program run out of the Pentagon and a new intelligence center within Central Command, which oversees the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- are designed to help troops deepen their intelligence about the country's complex political and tribal dynamics.

The Defense Department also is expected to announce that Brig. Gen. John M. Nicholson, one of the military's top experts on counterinsurgency, will assume the helm of the Pakistan-Afghanistan Coordination Cell, a Pentagon office established earlier this year to improve the military's performance in Afghanistan.

The moves underline the military's efforts to remake itself in response to the Afghan war despite the Obama administration's signals that it is far from committed to the current counterinsurgency approach.

President Barack Obama met with Defense Secretary Robert Gates Monday as part of the ongoing White House review of Afghanistan policy, which is being re-evaluated in light of the country's flawed presidential elections and the Taliban's recent gains.

A senior military official acknowledged that the Afghan Hands initiative, the most important of the new efforts, could be modified or scaled back if the White House decides on a new strategy. "None of this is inflexible or set in stone," the official said.

The strategic review comes amid worsening violence across Afghanistan. At least 16 U.S. troops have already been killed in October, matching the entire American death toll for October 2008. Mr. Gates, speaking to an Army gathering on Monday, said that Afghanistan was on a "worrisome trajectory," with violence up 60% from last year.

He said the military would implement whatever strategy the administration decides, a comment that came amid indications of tensions between U.S. commanders and civilian White House officials over the way forward in Afghanistan. "Speaking for the Department of Defense, once the commander in chief makes his decisions, we will salute and execute those decisions faithfully and to the best of our ability," Mr. Gates said to the annual gathering of the Association of the United States Army.

Military and defense officials said in interviews that the new Afghanistan units reflected a belief in the importance of developing cadres of officers who can do repeat tours to the country.

That's a change from moving officers from assignment to assignment based on overall institutional needs, which means troops can do deployments in Afghanistan and then not look at the conflict again for several years.

The Afghan Hands initiative is meant to immerse dozens of officers from each of the military's services in Afghanistan for three to five years. Troops selected for the program will do a year in Afghanistan before moving to the Pentagon's new Afghanistan office or to jobs at Central Command that are focused on the war.

In a classified assessment made public last month, Gen. McChrystal said that military and civilian personnel deployed to Afghanistan needed to "acquire a far better understanding of Afghanistan and its people," including its dominant languages.

The new intelligence center is meant to provide military and civilian officials in Afghanistan with detailed analysis of the country's tribal, political and religious dynamics. The center, at Central Command's Florida headquarters, employs about 150 troops, contractors and civilian officials.

Write to Yochi J. Dreazen at yochi.dreazen@wsj.com

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A6

[Richard]

Pretty good writing for a Marine.

Richard

Leaking for National Security
John R. Guardiano, The American Spectator, 5 Oct 2009
Part 1 of 2

The publication of General Stanley A. McChrystal's confidential assessment of the situation in Afghanistan has precipitated much tut-tutting by the chattering classes. The consensus seems to be that the leak of this document (to the Washington Post's esteemed Bob Woodward) was an unconscionable violation of professional ethics, a hindrance to good government, and a threat to harmonious civil-military relations. Duke University political science professor Peter Feaver has well summed up the conventional wisdom:

It is not good to have a document like this leaked into the public debate before the President has made his decision. Whether you favor ramping up or ramping down or ramping laterally, as a process matter, the Commander-in-Chief ought to be able to conduct internal deliberations on sensitive matters without it appearing concurrently on the front pages of the Post. I assume the Obama team is very angry about this, and I think they have every right to be.

Feaver never explains why, in an advanced democracy with an educated citizenry, the commander-in-chief "ought to be able to conduct internal deliberations on sensitive matters [of public policy] without it appearing concurrently on the front pages" of a major newspaper.

This may be because Feaver is a former National Security Council official in both the Clinton and Bush 43 administrations. As such, he may be accustomed to wielding power behind the scenes without much public scrutiny or public accountability. He thus likely prefers secret government to public government.

But just because U.S. government officials are accustomed to doing things discreetly, behind the scenes, and without much public notice doesn't mean that that is the best way to conduct the affairs of state. In fact, a strong counter argument can and should be made: "Sunlight is the best disinfectant," said the renowned Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis.

Indeed, would Iran-Contra, and its consequent marring of the Reagan administration, have occurred if the idea of engaging Iranian regime "moderates" had first been exposed to public scrutiny?

Would the CIA have made (as it did during the Cold War) ridiculous and wildly inaccurate estimates of Soviet and East European economic prowess had their analyses been subject to independent, outside peer review? Would Congress have permitted the surge if General Petraeus had not publicly testified about the situation in Iraq?

The answers to these three telling questions is likely, "No, no and no." This is important because, as Newsweek reporter Howard Fineman observes:

The way we have to make policy and get close to the truth is through the process of argument. And rather than arguing too much, which is the conventional wisdom -- you hear a lot of hand-wringing about it; 'oh, can't we all just get together and be nice' -- the fact is we can't; that's not the way we operate. And rather than argue too much, I don't think we argue enough about the fundamental things.

This is why General McChrystal welcomes a vigorous and robust public discussion about Afghanistan. He understands how American democracy works. He understands that informed and well-considered decisions are more likely to be wise and efficacious decisions.

"The process of going through a very detailed policy level debate is incredibly important and incredibly healthy," the general said during his speech last week at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London.

Publication of the general's confidential Afghan assessment greatly facilitates this debate because it makes this debate accessible to the public. In fact, it involves the public in the debate. And, in an advanced democracy with an educated citizenry, this is as it should be. No one, after all, has a monopoly on wisdom; and so, truly, there is wisdom in numbers.

Sure, public deliberation can complicate things for government officials. No government official, after all, likes to be second-guessed or preempted. "Leaks like this make it harder for the Commander-in-Chief to do deliberate national security planning," Feaver whines.

Too bad. That's what democracy is all about: empowering the public and giving people a voice in the public policy process. In the immortal words of President Harry Truman, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."

Indeed, if a president and his team cannot handle the heat of public scrutiny and public involvement, then they are not fit to preside over the executive branch of the United States government. Our republican form of government, after all, is based on democratic self-rule, or rule by the people.

In fairness to President Obama and his team, they are not complaining about the leak of McChrystal's Afghan assessment to the Washington Post; the chattering classes, led by people like Feaver, are.

Feaver, for instance, complains that "the leak makes it harder for President Obama to reject a McChrystal request for additional troops because the assessment so clearly argues for them."

Yes, it does, but that's not because McChrystal is engaged in some Washington political game of the kind that preoccupies the chattering classes along the Potomac. Au contraire: McChrystal is faithfully reporting the facts on the ground in Afghanistan, which lead to one inescapable conclusion: If you want to stabilize Afghanistan and drive out from that country the Taliban and al-Qaeda, then you must employ a classic counterinsurgency campaign, which will necessitate tens of thousands of more troops.

As the commander on the ground who is responsible for the safety and well-being of young American servicemen and women who are now risking their lives in a combat zone, General McChrystal has a solemn obligation to report the facts as he sees them -- and to do so without favor or prejudice, and without fear or concern for any potential political ramifications back home. McChrystal, remember, is a general, not a politician, and thank goodness for that.

Feaver's argument, then, is with the facts on the ground, not General McChrystal. His complaint is with the message (or reality), not the messenger.

Yet, Yale University Law Professor Bruce Ackerman insists that McChrystal is engaged in a "characteristic [Washington] power play... to pressure the President to adopt his strategy. This," Ackerman writes, "is a plain violation of the principle of civilian control" of the military.

No, it's not -- and it's disconcerting that a Yale Law professor would try to justify squelching the thoughts and insights of a top military leader at a time of momentous national and international significance. Ackerman confuses free speech and open debate with executive control and authority.

General McChrystal clearly is not questioning the President's authority; quite the contrary. He explicitly recognizes that, as Commander-in-Chief, President Obama has the final say about what U.S. policy and objectives will be in Afghanistan. But General McChrystal also recognizes that before the President makes his decision, the President, the Congress and the American people all ought to hear from the troops on the ground -- and especially from their lead commander on the ground.

Far from somehow "boxing in" the President, McChrystal instead is informing the American people and their elected representatives about the facts on the ground and what, in his judgment, must be done in Afghanistan. This is a public service that warrants praise and commendation, not rebuke and scorn.

As for the President, well Defense Secretary Robert Gates put it well: "The President always has a choice; he's the Commander-in-Chief."

Policymakers like Feaver often don't like public dialogue and debate because it can make their jobs more difficult; but again, that's too bad. Welcome to America. Welcome to democracy. Welcome to self-rule, civic argument and civic discourse. Here the people rule, and thank goodness for that.

Thus, what some allege is a "breakdown in civil-military relations" is, in fact, a pure fiction. Conflict and disagreement are endemic to the American way life and to the American form of government. "We were born and bred to argue," Fineman explains.

We were born and bred to argue because the American founding fathers recognized that argument is not insubordination, and disagreement is not disloyalty. Yet, we too often lose sight of this reality and thus sometimes try to censor dissent and free speech. Censorship is what happens when, for instance, government officials try to stamp out "leaks" -- aka the sharing of information with the American people.

Stifling dissent and free speech is unwise because it denies us the free thought and analysis that are integral to sound decision-making. Again, none of us has a monopoly on wisdom; and so, truly, there is wisdom in numbers. There is wisdom in the cacophony of voices that result from free and open dialogue and debate.

Thus, the President will make his decision about what do in Afghanistan. General McChrystal will accept and salute the President's decision, because that is what American Generals always do. However, if General McChrystal believes that he cannot execute the President's policy with the troops and resources given to him, then the right and honorable thing for him to do is to resign.

[Richard]

Leaking for National Security
John R. Guardiano, The American Spectator, 5 Oct 2009
Part 2 of 2

The reason to resign is not to cause the President political difficulties, though political difficulties may result from the General's resignation.

The reason to resign is that, as the commander on the ground, General McChrystal has taken a solemn oath to lead young men and women in battle. And if, as their commander, he truly believes that he cannot achieve victory with the resources given him, then it is unconscionable for him to send his young charges into battle under-resourced and under-manned.

In short, a decision to resign is about honor and integrity, not politics and partisanship. Civil-military relations in America, moreover, are fine. Our military and civilian leaders are big enough, mature enough and wise enough to handle dissent and disagreement.

Our republican system of government allows for, and even encourages, dissent and disagreement. General McChrystal understands this, and it seems that at least some of our civilian leaders in the Obama administration do as well. Here the people rule.

As for Bob Woodward and the Washington Post, they are to be commended for publishing General McChrystal's confidential assessment of the situation in Afghanistan. Doing so was a public service which has aided and abetted American democracy. We need more such leaks, more such newspaper reports, and a more robust and better informed public discussion about the great issues of our time. Bring it on.

John R. Guardiano served as a Marine in Iraq and once worked on the Army's Future Combat Systems (FCS) modernization program.

[incarcerated]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapc....deadly.fight/

Afghan insurgents pushed into U.S. base, official says

updated 58 minutes ago
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The battle Saturday in which eight U.S. troops were killed was so fierce that, at one point, U.S. forces had to fall back as attackers breached the perimeter of their base, a U.S. military official with knowledge of the latest intelligence reports on the incident said.
The new revelations about the battle that engulfed Forward Operating Base Keating in Kamdesh District are a further indication of how pinned down and outmanned the troops were at the remote outpost. The base, in an eastern Afghanistan valley, was surrounded by ridge lines where the insurgents were able to fire down at U.S. and Afghan troops.
The facility had been scheduled to be closed within days, CNN has learned. The closing is part of a wider effort by the top commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, to cede remote outposts and consolidate troops in more populated areas to better protect Afghan civilians.
The United States now believes that about 200 insurgents -- mostly local fighters, with some Taliban organizers and leaders -- had been planning the attack for days, hiding mortars, rockets and heavy machine guns in the mountains. Sources said the Taliban may have been watching the troops make preparations to depart and launched their attack at a time of vulnerability.
The Taliban were able to use their higher positions to fire into the base, pinning down the troops. As the attack progressed, the troops were forced back when enemy fighters managed to breach the outer perimeter of the outpost, the source said.
That led to especially intense fighting that continued until the U.S. troops could again secure the area, several sources said.
The battle erupted about 5 a.m. Saturday and lasted 12 hours, with the most intense fighting going on for about seven hours.
The United States was able to get air support overhead within half an hour of the attacked troops' call for help, but a series of problems hindered mounting any sustained counterattack. The source said smoke from a fire lit by the insurgents obscured vision on the ground and in the air, and the narrowness of the valley hobbled any intense close air support.
Instead, Apache helicopters went in waves of two to four, firing at the Taliban fighters. But return fire frequently forced the helicopters back. One Apache was hit.
It took hours to evacuate the dead and wounded. During much of the fight, medical-evacuation helicopters had a hard time getting in because the landing zone was under attack. Even when the helicopters were able to land, some of the wounded resisting leaving while the battle raged.
Eventually, the tide turned for the U.S. and Afghan troops. More than 100 militants were killed, according to NATO's International Security Assistance Force.
Remains of four of the U.S. dead were flown back to Dover Air Force Base on Tuesday morning.

[LarryW]

He is not the originator of that quote, though it is ironic to hear him use it, as a Ranger.

"If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." by Bernard Baruch
(per Brainy Quote)

[Guy]

The base, in an eastern Afghanistan valley, was surrounded by ridge lines where the insurgents were able to fire down at U.S. and Afghan troops.

Whomever was involved in choosing that location for a base; should be relieved IMMEDIATELY!!!!!

Stay safe.