It's possible that McChrystal's a Republican/right-wing political
PLANT -- a
false prophet or mole, intent upon helping to wreck Obama's policy-
making effectiveness, his credibility, and his very presidency!
Barack would do well to -- at a minimum -- replace McBackstab.
--------
"Faulted On Troop Statements"
"Public Campaign Hurts Review, Aide Says"
By Scott Wilson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, October 5, 2009
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER James L. Jones suggested Sunday that the
public campaign being conducted by the U.S. commander in Afghanistan
on behalf of his war strategy is complicating the internal White
House
review underway, saying that "it is better for military advice to
come
up through the chain of command."
Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, who commands the 100,000 U.S. and
international forces in Afghanistan, warned bluntly last week in a
London speech that a strategy for defeating the Taliban that is
narrower than the one he is advocating would be ineffective and
"short-
sighted." The comments effectively rejected a policy option that
senior White House officials, including Vice President Biden, are
considering nearly eight years after the U.S. invasion.
McChrystal's statement came a day after senior White House officials
challenged him over his dire assessment of the war, and what it will
take to improve the U.S. position there, during a videoconference
from
Kabul with President Obama and his national security team. Obama then
summoned McChrystal to Copenhagen the day after the general's speech
for a private meeting aboard Air Force One.
Speaking on CNN's "State of the Union," Jones said he had not spoken
to Obama since the president met with McChrystal. But he indicated
that the Obama administration, facing the most far-reaching foreign
policy decision of its time in office, expects McChrystal and his
military superiors to broaden the range of alternatives for how best
to proceed in Afghanistan as the strategy review unfolds over the
coming weeks.
"We will be examining different options," said Jones, a retired
Marine
general and former supreme allied commander in Europe. "And I'm sure
General McChrystal and General Petraeus and Admiral Mullen will be
willing to present different options and different scenarios in this
discussion that we're having."
Jones was referring to Gen. David H. Petraeus, head of the Central
Command, and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
A U.S. military official said Sunday that Pentagon leaders were
alerted that McChrystal was speaking in London and were not concerned
by his remarks.
"General McChrystal was simply speaking to the situation on the
ground
as he sees it and how he would execute the president's current
strategy -- the mission he has been assigned," said the official, who
spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive internal
matter. "He was not pushing his views or in any way trying to
influence policy."
Jones spoke as the White House and Pentagon reviewed the events
surrounding a Taliban attack Saturday on U.S. and Afghan combat
outposts near the Pakistan border. Eight U.S. soldiers and two
members
of the Afghan security forces were killed in what battlefield
accounts
describe as a day-long firefight against a numerically superior
ground
force.
The coordinated assault, resulting in the deadliest day for U.S.
forces in a year, could factor into the administration's Afghan
strategy review that so far has focused largely on McChrystal's 66-
page assessment of the war. Military officials said his command would
be investigating the attack, which is consistent with what Pentagon
officials describe as the tactics of an increasingly able insurgency.
"We have seen over the course of the last year or so an increasing
sophistication in tactics employed by the Taliban," the military
official said. "In many ways, they are proving adept at what we would
consider small-unit-like action."
One question at the core of the debate is whether the military
benefit
of sending additional U.S. combat forces to Afghanistan would
outweigh
the propaganda victory such a deployment would give the Taliban,
which
appeals to the public with messages of resistance to the foreign
occupation.
McChrystal, whom Obama sent to Afghanistan in May after firing his
predecessor, is calling for a new strategy that focuses on protecting
Afghan civilians from the insurgency. The plan would require perhaps
as many as 40,000 additional U.S. troops -- in addition to the 68,000
scheduled to be on the ground by the end of the year -- and other
resources to carry out a nation-building effort on behalf of an
Afghan
government whose legitimacy has been severely undermined by the
flawed
Aug. 20 presidential election.
In his report, McChrystal warned that a "failure to gain the
initiative and reverse insurgent momentum" in the next 12 months
"risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer
possible."
But senior White House officials and some Democratic congressional
leaders are challenging some of McChrystal's assumptions about how
the
war should be fought and whether the Taliban, a collection of armed
groups with different political and economic objectives, can be
managed in other ways.
Among the questions being asked of McChrystal is whether a return of
the Taliban to a position of political strength would automatically
result in a new sanctuary for al-Qaeda, the stated target of Obama's
Afghanistan policy. Military officials think the Taliban's return to
power would mean a new haven in Afghanistan for al-Qaeda, and a
sanctuary for Pakistan's Taliban from which to stage attacks against
that neighboring government.
Biden and others in the White House have argued for a narrower anti-
terrorism campaign, which would expedite the training of Afghan
forces, intensify Predator strikes on al-Qaeda operatives, and
support
the government of nuclear-armed Pakistan in its fight against the
Taliban, which administration officials say is proceeding better than
they had predicted. Republican leaders have urged Obama to approve
the
resources that McChrystal is seeking.
"I think the end is much more complex than just about adding X number
of troops," Jones said on CNN. " But I don't foresee the return of
the
Taliban, and I want to be very clear that Afghanistan is not in
imminent danger of falling."
[Staff writer Ann Scott Tyson contributed to this report.]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/04/AR200...
