The decision has been made and I sincerely wish President Obama, Gen. Petraeus at Central Command, Gen. McChrystal in Kabul but most importantly our fathers and sons and brothers doing the hard work of battling the Taliban all the best possible fortune in this war. I have a very personal stake in this war and he serves at the very tip of the spear and if we must do this thing then I can only hope he gets the material and morale support he needs. I have tremendous confidence in our men in uniform and those of our true ‘fighting’ allies; as usual they will do their part superbly and make us proud.

But alas, in today’s NYT Richard Cohen’s editorial pretty much sums up my own apprehensions that in the end this war turns out badly. We are sawing against the grain of history and culture in a place in the world which Americans have little interest. And since in the end it will all depend on the Afghans themselves to make this a success I wonder who will possess in the long run greater intestinal fortitude, determination and a willingness to sacrifice the Taliban or the Afghan Army and police?

I looked up his bio to see what connections enabled him to become a senior General. I was surprised that he wasn't from a West Point Dynasty family, but then I see he married the daughter of a four-star Army General, which assured him a star-track career.

When asked if the mission was doeable in the time frame alloted, I would have answered in old movie producer Louis B. Mayer fashion, by stating, "I can give you a definate maybe on that!"

Why by golly, going back over CENTCOM's response, I do believe that's what he said - indirectly?

What a load of crap. Denying AQ the ability to establish a safe haven in Afghanistan is not a meaningful goal (they already have that, in Pakistan) and by itself is not an appropriate goal for US intervention. If that's all we want to accomplish, buy off the Taliban. That would be a hell of a lot cheaper, and make far more sense.

Now, if we have a REAL goal in Afghanistan, then let's talk about that and what the appropriate strategy for achieving that goal is.

Obama put the fork in COIN last night. Once the debate on tax increases heats up, the public will scream to end it. No more credit cards for the worst generals in US history.

The little tin pot republican general now has a little less than two years to show us the kind of neocon hack he really is.

Glad we finally heard from General David Petraeus. That being said,a few points might be raised:

1.) We will never defeat al-Qa'ida. To expect this as a concrete objective is counter productive to our overall strategy. Islamic Puritanism is broad based and operates in a network like fashion. Cutting the head off in Afghanistan will not kill the snake, unfortunately.

2.) I respect Gen. Petraeus and all the commanders in the field. I must, however, humbly disagree with them. 18 months is not nearly enough to fix the corruption-the biggest roadblock in Afghanistan- of the Karzai government. Further, the drug trade, which promotes and funds corruption and the Taliban, will not be seriously dealt with. Our time frame for achieving our goals is much too short. If we are serious about Afghanistan and the threats it poses (if you believe the threats are any more real than other places like Somalia, Yemen, and Saudi Arabic) then must allocate the time necessary.

Further, Obama has signaled that U.S. "nation building" is our biggest goal. He, correctly, realizes that our strength at home is disappearing; which in turn hinders our ability to project strength abroad. Time to bring our troops home or stick to the fight for years to come (Holbrooke things over a decade). No more of this middle ground, please everyone politics.

the General and Army came to the West Point speech dressed to the style of honor their work imbues. They honored the President who has supported them.

Nice leadership example, General Petraeus.

I'm glad someone finally pointed out that the tasks will be "exceedingly challenging, complex, frustrating, and downright difficult." All this time I had thought that they would be exceedingly easy, simple, satisfying, and downright manageable.

This calls to mind a post a few months back on this blog which discussed saying nothing and referred the readers to George Orwell's essay on Politics and the English Language.

What I got from that is 'Gates will do the testifying', and 'allow me to contain your attention on this side of the border.'

With no quick way to improve on Kabul kleptocracy and provincial warlordism, with the embittered Egyptian and his bearded front-man over in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, how do four more brigades of what now passes for light infantry go about 'setting conditions' for success?

The 100,000 troops needed to deny the Pashtun insurgency safe haven already exist in Pakistan, well trained and equipped by regional standards. But employing them against the tribal areas, if the Pakistani generals were willing, would enlarge their civil war, and highlight the general strategy of whipping up islamic extremism for use against India/Kashmir.

Insurgency is partly about outlasting the enemy, while hoping for deterioration in the opposition's motivation. Counterinsurgency is much the same. The strategic center is far from the snipers and mines.

My sneaking suspicion is that the generals realize that eighteen months is not enough. And that really what Obama has proposed is an exit strategy and not a war winning strategy, which is politically and financially off the table.

If we were to withdraw now then it would be an overt American defeat in the eyes of the world. If we can make a show of rebuilding the Afghan Army and police then begin a phased withdrawal in eighteen months that might take years to complete then the defeat can be laid to rest at the feet of the Afghans themselves. We will have done our best but through no fault of our own our clients couldn’t measure up. Not so different from Vietnam where we left with our reputation bruised but not destroyed.

Tom,

From your comments a few posts ago on Petraeus and now his response which I thank you for posting, I don't buy this...

This is coming from the general who at the time bucked the establishment and commenced, rightfully so, a mini-revolution of military thought in the Army.

Now as a 4-star, a Combatant Commander of the region in question, which by the way is currently the most influential and vital of the Combatant Commands, yet he 'punts' this and refers to the mission as 'doable' and then defers to the Secretary to elaborate on the mission?

Does this not strike you as odd and out of character?

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate that he is lining up behind the strategy the President has set out...but sometimes things just stick out...and this is one of those times.

The Taliban never invited Bin Laden to there country. Hes was there when they took charge. After fleeing from Sudan in the early 90's. All they did is live by there moral Pashtunwali code. For his services in the Soviet invasion of there country. I believe the Taliban basically had Bin Laden confined to his compound at Daronta. The Taliban also initiated talks in Frankfurt in 2000 with the EU facilitated by Afghan-American businessman Kabir Mohabbat. To decide the fate of Bin Laden. The Taliban also gave Clinton the go ahead to launch a couple of cruise missiles at the compound. Believing it to be the easiest way to deal with the problem. So if the Taliban have a history of being our allies against Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Why the offical about face towards them? Especially with National Security Advisor James Jones saying there are less than 100 operating Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. As the former UK Ambassador Craig Murray disclosed, the purpose of the war is to protect Unocal’s interest in the Trans-Afghanistan pipeline or TAPI. Beside the obivious Karzai connection. Right now Europe is dependant on its oil from Russia. Russias control over the flow of oil gives them leverage over NATO related decisions. The US has been trying to build a pipeline without going through Russia or Iran. What better way to get the oil from Turkmenistan and neighboring countries than a pipeline through Afghanistan to the Indian ocean. This would be a cash cow for any US company involved. It would also represent a significant improvement in the geostrategic position of the U.S. in the region. Why else would we still be going to war with a country that didnt invade us. That has little Al Qaeda ties or involvment (until we showed up) and, That 57% of Americans dont support.

Isn't it pretty cool that Gen. Petraeus actually responded to Mr. Ricks question? This sort of validates the inordinate amount of time I spend reading this blog and many of the comments. From this I infer that the author is not some crazy dude in bunny slippers and maybe a lot of you commenters actually know what you are talking about. Thanks.

No mention last night by POTUS of the cost to our service members, and the need to support them on the back end of these wars... Divorce, suicides, unemployment,homelessness, bankruptcies, are all up for our servicemen and women and it will be the cost for our returning soldiers, some on their 6th tour.

As most of you know these are kids 18, 19, 20 some years old.. They will need support and government assistance for the rest of their lives.

Where is the speech to speak to their needs? We can not short change them and as of now we are woefully unprepared to deal with the long term affects of these policies on our armed service members...

Although obvious I still find it remarkable how the internet has changed the interaction between ordinary people, like us commenting, journalists and bloggers, and the military. Gen. Petraeus responding to your post is one example but an even more profound one is the U.K. military asking the Kings of War readers to help devise new doctrines. I'm not sure if this is good or bad but it is certainly interesting.

Second, in response to Dr. Lake's first comment, I am also skeptical about how vital our interests are given the costs and risks of the missions but your comments don't help. AQ's "safe haven" in Pakistan has caused them significant problems in funding, recruiting, and operationally planning terrorist attacks. With the exception of gaining alliances with other terror groups in recent years, AQ has been significantly weakened by being stuck in the mountains of Pakistan. Also, if we don't have forces on the ground, I'm not sure buying off the Taliban would be very effective. How would we enforce their compliance or even be positive that they were or weren't compiling? Also how could the Taliban keep AQ out if it wanted to when that we can't even control the borders or a lot of the territory and a NATO withdrawal would lead to a multi-dimensional civil war where what we call the Taliban would be at least three competing forces among many?

- in Portuguese Language (Brazil)

Quando chegou ao Iraque, o General Petraeus encontrou um país em chamas. Cento e sessenta mil Soldados Americanos estavam desorientados diante de um inimigo combatente ilegal que havia transformado Bagdá em um um lodaçal de sangue e pedaços de corpos humanos. Não havia um precedente para aquele cenário na História Militar e Petraeus do alto da sua condição de Comandante Combatente teve a humildade que só um estadista tem para perguntar como funcionava a mente terrorista. Sua atitude me impressionou profundamente e só fez aumentar a minha admiração pelo Exército Americano. Desde 11 de Setembro de 2001 eu observava cada movimento de bin-Laden até o ponto em que suas idéas não me surpreenderam mais. Enviei um e-mail para a CIA respondendo a pergunta do General e suportei em minha solidão a fúria daqueles que me confundiram com o inimigo. Hostilidades à parte, fui surpreendido pela eficiência com que a guerra foi conduzida por Petraeus. Eu tenho a capacidade de interpretar o pensamento terrorista, mas não conheço ninguém que tenha a capacidade de Petraeus de adaptar a Tropa aos rigores da guerra de guerrilha urbana em tão pouco tempo e impor uma derrota fulminante nas forças da al-Qaeda no Iraque e reduzi-la a grupos de desgarrados refugiados na fronteira com o pensamento concentrado na própria sobrevivência.
Petraeus é um estrategista brilhante e um gênio na arte de administrar limitações.
Em sua condição de Comandante Combatente, não cabe a ele questionar as ordens do Comandante-em-Chefe das Forças Armadas dos Estados Unidos, mas sim cumpri-las da melhor forma possível.
Petraeus tem consciência de que a Guerra Global contra o Terrorismo é um confronto de múltiplos fronts e que tomar decisões baseadas em fatos ou lugares isolados é um equívoco induzido pelo estrategista inimigo.
Petraeus é um dos raros pensadores que compreende a real dimensão do momento estratégico atual.
Em minha condição de observador, eu presto atenção em tudo o que ele fala e principalmente naquilo em que ele se cala.

Where have you been for the past seven years? He's been a public figure since 2003, and a very major public figure since 2007...not having read his cursory official bio by now marks you as an ignoramus who should not be inflicting their opinions on others.

Mens Custom Timberland Boots
$150.00 $84.00
Save: 44% off
Timberland Custom Boots menPremium Guaranteed Waterproof leather for comfort,

durability and abrasion resistance ; Timberland tree logo stamped on inside of

tongue ; Direct-attach waterproof construction keeps feet dry and comfortable ;

Durable laces with Taslan fibres for long-lasting wear ; Rubber lug outsole for

traction and durability ; Padded collar for a comfortable fit that locks out debris

; Rustproof hardware for long-lasting wear ; Embroidered logo on side

http://www.brawbuy.com/
http://www.myjerseysky.com/
http://www.ghdprincess.com/

Womens Roll-Top Timberland Boots
$143.00 $83.00
Save: 42% off
Timberland Roll-Top Boots womenPremium, full-grain, waterproof leather for comfort, durability and abrasion resistance ; Direct-attach, seam-sealed, waterproof construction keep feet dry in any weather ; Quarter panel crafted with rich shearling leather and is unconstructed so it can be worn up or rolled down ; Durable laces with Taslan? fibers and rustproof hardware for long-lasting wear ; Inside of shoe is lined with shearling - up to the toe box which is lined with breathable fabric ; Rubber lug outsole for traction and durability ; Embossed Timberland tree logo on the side ; Steel shank provides maximum support ; Waterproof

http://www.brawbuy.com/
http://www.myjerseysky.com/
http://www.ghdprincess.com/