Big push to capture / kill?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pragmatic Thinker
(taken from) Short term I think we will see a big push to "capture/kill" UBL, Zawahiri, Mullah Omar, and other key enemy leaders...
Well that should be easy. Steady now. Open sources have long indicated that Mullah Omar and other Taliban leaders are happily living in Quetta - with no apparent problems with their Pakistani hosts. I somehow think the 'will' to reach out and capture / kill is missing, let alone the reaction locally or in Pakistan.
davidbfpo
Pakistan remains part of the problem
Quote:
Originally Posted by
davidbfpo
Well that should be easy. Steady now. Open sources have long indicated that Mullah Omar and other Taliban leaders are happily living in Quetta - with no apparent problems with their Pakistani hosts. I somehow think the 'will' to reach out and capture / kill is missing, let alone the reaction locally or in Pakistan.
davidbfpo
Not to belabor a point that has been discussed ad nauseum but Pakistan remains part of our problem in the area... Not sure we will ever get a good grip on that portion of the equation, plus you're spot on with Mullah and his cronies living happily inside Quetta. At least the Soviets bombed Miram Shah and Quetta to deny some sanctuary to their adversaries. Anyway an interesting turn of events to say the least as we enter the summer months in the AF-PK region.
PT SENDS
Heh. I don't know anyone over the
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MattC86
But is there not any concern about McChrystal's time ...
(Not from me...)
Quote:
... is that not a detriment to us?
(Not an ounce more so than all the Iraqi and Afghan deaths that McKiernan presided over.)
Quote:
...appointing as commander of U.S. forces a man who has some questions to answer about his past.
age of 40 who does NOT have questions that can be asked about their past...
Very serious comment. War isn't nice and I provide four quotes that many will see as pointless aphorisms. Aphorisms they may be but they are far from pointless. Numerous Scholars, Politicians and ordinary people would really like to believe these statements aren't true. They are.
Quote:
"Every attempt to make war easy and safe will result in humiliation and disaster.
If the people raise a great howl against my barbarity and cruelty, I will answer that war is war, and not popularity seeking.
War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over.
War is at its best barbarism."
William T. Sherman
McCrystal did what he had to do as he saw it at the time. No one can ask for more than that -- you can expect more but you're unlikely to get it.
That said, I'm still not convinced he's the best guy for the job but that's on practical warfighting grounds, not on moral grounds. There is no morality in war, it is all immoral, every particle of it. Attempts to be excessively moral in combat kill more people than speed and force will. All wars are immoral but some are necessary. Once you commit, to be nice is to create more problems than you solve. A lot of US problems in war stem from those who dispute or ignore the comments quoted above.
The necessity of these two wars arose from the moral failure of four successive US Presidents to take necessary action to defend US interests. Where is the criticism of those four?
Does it address the real problems?
A lot of great points on SOF vs Conventional thinking. Also, some great background on LGEN McCrystal. However, we (US decision makers) may have missed asking the pertinent questions; What is victory in Afghanistan and how do we accomplish this victory? If it is "to kill AQ and Taliban leadership", then LGEN McCrystal is the man for the job. Having worked in direct support of him in Iraq, he understands how to hunt and capture/kill. The cost of the "to kill" strategy is we will never declare victory. We will only create advancement opportunities for the continually disenfranchised. Capture/killing AQI and insurgent leadership in Iraq was a very small, although vital, piece to stabilizing that country. I spent every morning for a year listening to Gen Petreaus giving his guidance and intent; most of which did not focus on the kinetic operation. Does the US have LOO's other than "capture/kill"? Is it possible to effectively execute those LOOs given the disparate and often chaotic command structure that is Afghanistan? Does LGEN McCrystal have the skills required to see beyond the kinetic, forge command partnerships, force mission focus, and facilitate the development of Afghan forces (civil and military) that support rule of law and allow hope to grow within the citizenry? David Killcullen was interviewed by George Packer of [I]The New Yorker[I] in Nov 08, and Bill Rogio of The Long War Journal 5 May 09 are just two of several folks who identify key issues well beyond the kinetic fight. Semper Fidelis
Ken: I Don't Know Why. . .
but it seems like we're always talking on different wavelengths. I'm always left going "that's not what I meant!!!" after your responses; but mean what you say and say what you mean, as it goes. I will try to respond.
No defense of McKiernan from me, but are you saying that McChrystal wouldn't take any more flak from the ME or Central Asia for having been in charge of some disputed detainee conduct than any other American general just for being a professional military officer and thus having "done a little killing of bad guys myself," (as I heard Nagl say once)? I take it this is what you mean when referring to Iraqis - McKiernan as Land Forces Component Commander for Franks in OIF I?
And I'm not asking for a record vetted by Mr. Clean. We've had arguments before on the blog comments and here about morality in war. I still say your position can be extrapolated to pure murder of innocent civilians in the name of "shortening the war," but I know we disagree and I will defer to your experience (not intended as 'oldness') and shut up.
I was deferring as well from commenting on the SOF/SF vs GP issue because persons with greater knowledge and experience than myself appeared to have the market cornered. I was curious as to whether anybody here, rather than the loons out in the partisan blogosphere, had picked up on this element of McChrystal's resume and was concerned.
You clearly are not; fair enough.
Finally, re: four presidents, I wrote one thesis this semester. No need write another one here and waste everyone's time. One person and issue is enough for me. ;)
Regards,
Matt
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken White
Not an ounce more so than all the Iraqi and Afghan deaths that McKiernan presided over
age of 40 who does NOT have questions that can be asked about their past...
Very serious comment. War isn't nice and I provide four quotes that many will see as pointless aphorisms. Aphorisms they may be but they are far from pointless. Numerous Scholars, Politicians and ordinary people would really like to believe these statements aren't true. They are.
McCrystal did what he had to do as he saw it at the time. No one can ask for more than that -- you can expect more but you're unlikely to get it.
That said, I'm still not convinced he's the best guy for the job but that's on practical warfighting grounds, not on moral grounds. There is no morality in war, it is all immoral, every particle of it. Attempts to be excessively moral in combat kill more people than speed and force will. All wars are immoral but some are necessary. Once you commit, to be nice is to create more problems than you solve. A lot of US problems in war stem from those who dispute or ignore the comments quoted above.
The necessity of these two wars arose from the moral failure of four successive US Presidents to take necessary action to defend US interests. Where is the criticism of those four?
I'm sure we do operate on different wavelengths
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MattC86
but it seems like we're always talking on different wavelengths.
and that should be okay. I can accept and respect your opinions even if I do not agree with them.
Quote:
No defense of McKiernan from me...
As an aside, I'll defend McKiernan. He's one of the good ones -- wrong man for the job in Afghanistan but that's not his fault, that's due to the systemic flaw that says anyone of similar background can do any job at their rank level. That has never been true. McKiernan deserved better and his de facto relief is domestically politically motivated and was poorly handled IMO.
Quote:
...but are you saying that McChrystal wouldn't take any more flak from the ME or Central Asia for having been in charge of some disputed detainee conduct than any other American general just for being a professional military officer and thus having "done a little killing of bad guys myself," (as I heard Nagl say once)? I take it this is what you mean when referring to Iraqis - McKiernan as Land Forces Component Commander for Franks in OIF I?
Yes. It'll be seized upon by the chattering classes (here and there) and possibly by the opposition as an info ploy but for most in the ME, one American General is too many and which one is broadly irrelevant.
Quote:
I still say your position can be extrapolated to pure murder of innocent civilians in the name of "shortening the war"
Many will agree with you, some will agree with me. I'll certainly agree you can look at it that way but my point has always been that trying to fight wars 'nicely' inevitably makes them last longer and thus results in more casualties for everyone including civilians. Thus, I'd ask who is being immoral...
Quote:
I was curious as to whether anybody here, rather than the loons out in the partisan blogosphere, had picked up on this element of McChrystal's resume and was concerned.
I think most picked up on it and I'm sure some are concerned. I am concerned -- but, not as I said over that aspect.
Ken et al, question from the peanut gallery ...
OK, no win in COIN (usual case: HN has a domestic violent non-state actor problem with possible transnational input(s)) or in FID (another nation assists HN in first situation). Think I got that - and generally agree as to the "acceptable outcome" philosophy.
But helogrunt raised another context:
Quote:
If it is "to kill AQ and Taliban leadership", then LGEN McCrystal is the man for the job. Having worked in direct support of him in Iraq, he understands how to hunt and capture/kill. The cost of the "to kill" strategy is we will never declare victory.
Assuming the target list is finite, and if all on list are killed, captured or converted (Turki's turkey), then there is victory as to that list.
Yup, new leaders will pop up, etc. - and then you have to decide whether to play whack a mole with them. Maybe there would insufficient reason to go after them - as opposed to the guys who murdered 1000s of us.
On the relief of GEN McKiernan
Ken, although we can't know for sure how well or badly done that relief was, we do have a few indicators. First, Sec Gates went to Afghanistan and personally delivered the bad news, very unlike the relief of GEN Fred Woerner in Panama in the summer of 1989. Second, Gates went out of his way to praise McKiernan for his service in public. Third, he took personal responsibility for it in public. So, all in all, it seems that it was as well done as it could have been in those circumstances.
From everything I've read,McKiernan simply was not the right guy to command in Afghanistan. That brings us to McChrystal. According to the reports I've read, he has a good relationship with Petraeus and is supportive of Petraeus' strategy. He is also part of the USMA class of 76 mafia that has done really well in the small wars world - includes David Rodriguez (to be #2), David Barno former commander there and now civilian head of the DOD NESA center, Rich Downie former commandant of WHINSEC and now civilian Director of the DOD Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies and intellectual mentor of John Nagl, and cAC Commander, Bill Caldwell.
Not entirely sure what this all means but it feels better to me than what we had going before.;)
Cheers
JohnT