Top American Commander in Afghanistan: Taliban Winning

blackascoal

The Force is With Me
Taliban Now Winning
U.S. Commander in Afghanistan Warns of Rising Casualties

The Taliban have gained the upper hand in Afghanistan, the top American commander there said, forcing the U.S. to change its strategy in the eight-year-old conflict by increasing the number of troops in heavily populated areas like the volatile southern city of Kandahar, the insurgency's spiritual home.

Gen. Stanley McChrystal warned that means U.S. casualties, already running at record levels, will remain high for months to come.

In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, the commander offered a preview of the strategic assessment he is to deliver to Washington later this month, saying the troop shifts are designed to better protect Afghan civilians from rising levels of Taliban violence and intimidation. The coming redeployments are the clearest manifestation to date of Gen. McChrystal's strategy for Afghanistan, which puts a premium on safeguarding the Afghan population rather than hunting down militants.

Gen. McChrystal said the Taliban are moving beyond their traditional strongholds in southern Afghanistan to threaten formerly stable areas in the north and west.

The militants are mounting sophisticated attacks that combine roadside bombs with ambushes by small teams of heavily armed militants, causing significant numbers of U.S. fatalities, he said. July was the bloodiest month of the war for American and British forces, and 12 more American troops have already been killed in August.

"It's a very aggressive enemy right now," Gen. McChrystal said in the interview Saturday at his office in a fortified NATO compound in Kabul. "We've got to stop their momentum, stop their initiative. It's hard work."

-- more at link
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124986154654218153.html

In case anyone disagrees with McChrystals assessment ...

NATO's Not Winning in Afghanistan, Report Says
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/30/AR2008013004314.html

The Taliban's Winning Strategy in Afghanistan
http://www.afghanconflictmonitor.org/2009/07/the-talibans-winning-strategy-in-afghanistan.html

Add to that .. just as in Iraq, NATO countries are already considering backing out of Afghanistan .. leaving the war and the dying there to the Americans.

It's now predicted by American commanders that Afghanistan will require another 10 years of war .. at best.
 
Our CIC is really fucking this deal up. Now that Iraq is out of the way why can't he kill or capture bin Laden and end this thing? *shrug*
 
US Commader: "Taliban getting stronger"...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/10/taliban-winning-afghanistan/


The Taliban have gained the upper hand in Afghanistan, the top American commander there said, forcing the U.S. to change its strategy in the eight-year-old conflict by increasing the number of troops in heavily populated areas like the volatile southern city of Kandahar, the insurgency's spiritual home.

Gen. Stanley McChrystal warned that means U.S. casualties, already running at record levels, will remain high for months to come.

In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, the commander offered a preview of the strategic assessment he is to deliver to Washington later this month, saying the troop shifts are designed to better protect Afghan civilians from rising levels of Taliban violence and intimidation. The coming redeployments are the clearest manifestation to date of Gen. McChrystal's strategy for Afghanistan, which puts a premium on safeguarding the Afghan population rather than hunting down militants.

Gen. McChrystal said the Taliban are moving beyond their traditional strongholds in southern Afghanistan to threaten formerly stable areas in the north and west.

IMO, the Taliban knows that they have a very small window of time to get the US to give up on them by increasing casualties.
 
Our CIC is really fucking this deal up. Now that Iraq is out of the way why can't he kill or capture bin Laden and end this thing? *shrug*

Iraq was never in the way in the first place.

We've been in Afghanistan for EIGHT YEARS and Obama has been in office for SIX MONTHS .. and you're wondering what's taking so long?

... transparent.
 
Iraq was never in the way in the first place.

We've been in Afghanistan for EIGHT YEARS and Obama has been in office for SIX MONTHS .. and you're wondering what's taking so long?

... transparent.
Iraq took a huge amount of US military resources- of course it was "in the way" of Afghanistan. Those huge resources are now almost fully available to do a simple job: kill or capture one tall skinny man named bin Laden, which of course has been the Democrat's stated goal since September 12, 2001. Why should that take more than six hours, never mind six months? *shrug*
 
Iraq took a huge amount of US military resources- of course it was "in the way" of Afghanistan. Those huge resources are now almost fully available to do a simple job: kill or capture one tall skinny man named bin Laden, which of course has been the Democrat's stated goal since September 12, 2001. Why should that take more than six hours, never mind six months? *shrug*

You argument is transparent and incredibly unlearned.

The war in Afghanistan began on October 7, 2001.

The war in Iraq began March 20, 2003.

SO .. for 18 months the US has no resource impediments to capturing or killing BIN Laden, or more aptly put .. more than 3 times the time that Obama has been in office .. yet, now you're wondering what's taking so long.

If it should only take six minutes, why didn't the guy you voted for get it done in 18 months .. leading into EIGHT YEARS?

Your argumnet is transparent and the only problem you're having is that you don't like the guy now in charge.
 
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/10/taliban-winning-afghanistan/




IMO, the Taliban knows that they have a very small window of time to get the US to give up on them by increasing casualties.
Absolutely, American's don't have any tolerance any longer for death and wounding. What pisses me off is that we started to take this fight seriously after wasting tens of thousands of troops lives, both through deaths and permanently disabling, in Iraq, where there was no terrorist threat. Who knows how many valuable experienced troops we lost to the Folly in Iraq that could have been much better utilized in Afghanistan. Don't get me wrong, I know that many of them would have died in Afghanistan as well, but not for some grudge held by the bush family.
 
Absolutely, American's don't have any tolerance any longer for death and wounding. What pisses me off is that we started to take this fight seriously after wasting tens of thousands of troops lives, both through deaths and permanently disabling, in Iraq, where there was no terrorist threat. Who knows how many valuable experienced troops we lost to the Folly in Iraq that could have been much better utilized in Afghanistan. Don't get me wrong, I know that many of them would have died in Afghanistan as well, but not for some grudge held by the bush family.

Can you imagine the reaction should D-Day have occurred in the days of 24/7 media? Or if the greatest generation had the fortitude of their kids/grandkids?
 
Can you imagine the reaction should D-Day have occurred in the days of 24/7 media? Or if the greatest generation had the fortitude of their kids/grandkids?
Yes, BAC the older would be screaming from the rooftops. "What is our plan!!!" "How many will we have to lose before we see we can't win!?!?!?"
 
Yes, BAC the older would be screaming from the rooftops. "What is our plan!!!" "How many will we have to lose before we see we can't win!?!?!?"

Nah... he would be shouting about a pipeline being the real reason we went into France.

2500 fatalities in a single day and the current left would have gone ape shit bug eyed nuts. The end of the world would have been declared and we would have surrendered faster than the French.
 
Yes, BAC the older would be screaming from the rooftops. "What is our plan!!!" "How many will we have to lose before we see we can't win!?!?!?"

Is that the best you can do?

WWII was not an American made invention of a war and it was not fought by America alone .. AND, there was an actual mission.

I take it you believe that with 24 hour news coverage, having an actual achieveable mission is no longer required.
 
Nah... he would be shouting about a pipeline being the real reason we went into France.

2500 fatalities in a single day and the current left would have gone ape shit bug eyed nuts. The end of the world would have been declared and we would have surrendered faster than the French.

And you and Soc would be sitting on the sidelines declaring how important "winning the war" was.

Chickenhawk warriors don't change.
 
Back
Top