"McChrystal is serious"

Thu, 10/01/2009 - 2:05pm

At one of those infamous Washington cocktail parties, I ran into someone I know from Iraq. She's a good soul, smart and dedicated. She's been through the mill, with multiple tours in Iraq. "What's next for you," I asked?

"Kabul," she said.

I told her I used to live there, and that I vastly prefer it to Baghdad. The summers can be hot, but no worse than Albuquerque, I think. (Not true of the south, but what are we trying to do in the Helmand Valley anyway?) She nodded and said, "That's good, because I'm going for three to five years. That's what McChrystal is asking for."

Well, I nearly spilled my Trader Joe's merlot. "Three to five years?" I said. What a far cry, I thought, from 2003, when Bremer's little GOP beavers would come out to the Green Zone for three to five months, or even a few weeks.

"Yeah," she said. "That's what made me interested in taking the job. When I heard that, I said to myself, 'Hey, this guy is serious.'"

unforth/flickr

Thomas E. Ricks | Permalink | | Comments? Login or register
( filed under: )


Advertisement

 

Maybe it will take a Cortes.....

by Bill Keller on Thu, 10/01/2009 - 2:53pm

burn the exit ships...stay until the Incas disappear.

The Taliban is more serious.

by Don Bacon on Thu, 10/01/2009 - 3:34pm

Your three to five years is nothing -- the Taliban are looking for a few good men and women who have lived there forever and never plan to leave.

That'll really cause you to spill your three-buck chuck (it's two-buck chuck out west here).

Yes, he's obviously deadly serious

by Norwegian Shooter on Thu, 10/01/2009 - 4:23pm

It's great that someone would volunteer for this merlot-spitting length of time, but it's not close to enough. Here's a comment from Rory Stewart on Bill Moyer's Journal last Friday:

[Y]ou can invest 20-30 years in Afghanistan. And if you were lucky, you would make it look a bit like Pakistan. I mean, unless you understand that Pakistan is 20-30 years ahead of Afghanistan, you don't understand where we're starting from. And Pakistan is still not an ideal state. But the Pakistan army, the police, the civil service, the financial administration, the education are whole decades ahead of the Afghan.

Read/watch the interview and you'll see that Stewart wants to help Afghanistan become like Pakistan, he's involved in it himself. He is willing to concede it will take this long of a commitment, but he realizes that the American people will not tolerate more than 10 to 20 thousand troops taking low causalities at that length of time.

He also thinks Obama put his back against the wall with his strategy review "strategy". He doesn't think there is a chance of anything but McChrystal getting what he wants. (And how about the balls on that one! Telling the president to hurry up and decide? In public!?!) But he wants a solid cap on the number of soldiers and marines at the coming level. And a plan to reduce our footprint ASAP.

When I hear 'ASAP'

by tom ricks on Thu, 10/01/2009 - 4:54pm

I cringe. We had enough rushing to failure in Iraq.
Worries,
Tom

Okay, I put words into his mouth

by Norwegian Shooter on Thu, 10/01/2009 - 9:18pm

My bad, just trying to wrap up the comment ASAP. Read/watch the real thing, it's worth it. As are his recent writings.

I cringe when people who want the status quo or an escalation criticize those who want to de-escalate on the speed of the withdrawal, cut and run, failure, whatever. Engage the argument for de-escalation, not the timeline.

Excellent

by Jason Sigger on Fri, 10/02/2009 - 7:40am

Never thought of that exact example, that the goal was to get Afghanistan up to Pakistan levels. Makes one cringe at the thought of all that energy, blood and treasure just to achieve that low bar.

I thought so too, Stewart's the bomb

by Norwegian Shooter on Fri, 10/02/2009 - 1:41pm

Well, maybe that's not a good metaphor. But he's a complete wonk who has also walked across Afghanistan (and lots of Asia) by himself. He runs a NGO in Kabul, to boot. Impressive chap.

For a shameless plug, I have written quite a bit about Afghanistan lately.

five years? no way - sure, if

by saintsimon on Thu, 10/01/2009 - 5:57pm

five years? no way - sure, if Obama commits to COIN as defined by FM 3-24 which also unfortunately means committing to nation building since Afghanistan is a medieval mess and he's also willing to forget about political consequences since such a thing would fracture his code pink base and doom him in 2012, sure, she could be there for five years - but of course there's no way in hell any of that is gonna happen. But hell, Israel will have us at war with Iran within the year so who really gives a shit about Afghanistan.

Five more years!

by JPWREL on Fri, 10/02/2009 - 12:15pm

Even the arrogant and flummoxed Ludendorf in the midst of his famous mental collapse in the autumn of 1918 had a better grasp of strategic and political reality than does the military/political complex in Washington, D.C. McChrystal thinks he is going to lock us in for five more years in Afghanistan? Just wait and see what public attitudes are after five more years of this insanity.

Strategic dithering

by Walking Wounded on Fri, 10/02/2009 - 12:40pm

The elephant in the room is what the nature of Pakistan is, and/or should be. We are partnered with the civilian face of a military regime whose identity is ever-jihad with India. In pursuit of that war, Pakistan's national policy has been proliferation for arms, promote terrorism/revolution in India, and to expand from British Pashtunistan (their side of the Durand Line) for strategic depth and canon fodder in the struggle. Pakistan smiles at US funding, but their strategic partners are China and Arabia, an odd menage.

Assuming a future Pakistan we can live with, our Afghan goal should be an independent Afghanistan, developing in balance (without overt domination) with the other regional players. But until some kind of grand bargain is achieved with those regional players, they all seem to have an interest in either bleeding us, or in keeping us strategically pinned.

When I consider what Russia, Iran, Pakistan and India's grudge-interests are; McChrystal's command is way up-country, arguing for a blank-check strategy. A mission to campaign until a grand bargain emerges? Crikey.

Pity the pashtun family hoping for food and education, or the professional infantryman's family. Must suck to be them.