General’s Afghan report just PR?

I have been trying to come up with a reason everyone but President Obama seems to have seen a top general’s request for more troops in Afghanistan. The request, which is part of a report that is expected to arrive at the Pentagon later this week, came from Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan. The report won’t be seen by the president until some still undisclosed time, according to published reports out of the Pentagon.

McChrystal warned in his report that the war in Afghanistan will be lost unless more troops are sent within the next year. U.S. troop strength in Afghanistan is already scheduled to reach 68,000 by the end of this year. But McChrystal is asking for an additional 21,000.

Even more remarkable, considering Obama still hasn’t had a look at McChrystal’s assessment, Gen. David Petraeus, the head of U.S. Central Command, said Wednesday that he and the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, Adm. Mike Mullen, endorsed McChrystal views of the situation.

As far back as the presidential election campaign, Obama talked of getting out of Iraq and beefing up forces in Afghanistan. But public opinion polls of late show that the majority of U.S. citizens are against sending more troops to Afghanistan.

So, does this mean there is a major rift between the administration and military leaders? Or is something else at work here? Could this whole discussion of McChrystal’s report being played out in the news media simply be a roundabout way of building up public support for what is now being viewed by the administration and the Pentagon as an unpopular decision to expand the war in Afghanistan?

What do you think?

Tags: Afghanistan

Afghanistan | admin September 24, 2009

4 Comments to “General’s Afghan report just PR?”

By laura vecsey, September 24, 2009 @ 6:49 pm

This administration doesn’t leak, not without reason. The Obama camp won the election because of their discipline. So, then, let’s assume that Karzai is far more alarmingly adept at playing the U.S. and the U.S. alarmed at having to commit to such dysfunctional place? That could mean leakers want to take an informal poll of Americans to judge their will to send troops and nation build. Bob Casey came back from Afghanistan two weeks ago railing against Karzai but saying he would wait to see what McChrystal said about strategy. THey like that general, so it’s hard to see how they wont honor the report that says you have to send more troops to have a chance at keeping Taliban and terrorists from really ruling the rubble.

I think we lost this one the minute we invaded Iraq, for no reason. So we should get out. I almost agreed with Pat Buchanan, which is mind-boggling. We aren;t in Yemen or Somalia, other wastelands where terrorists operate. So what can we expect to accomplish in Afghanistan? We screwed that up when we stormed across Iraq.
By admin, September 24, 2009 @ 7:50 pm

That all makes sense to me,except the part about losing this one. We were badly damaged in many ways by invading Iraq on false charges, but I think we could win the struggle for the hearts and minds in Afghanistan by using the United Nations and our state department there instead of the Pentagon. Massive and carefully monitored aid to all regions of Afghanistan along with UN peacekeepers might just win it.
By Michael Rosenfeld, September 25, 2009 @ 6:40 am

Win it? What does that mean?

I suspect the demand for oil being down, the funding is not there for the pipeline they want to build, so there’s no big need to win anything at the moment. Or maybe Karzai is bargaining for a larger piece of the pie and our not sending in more troops is a way of saying to him, “What pie?”
By admin, September 25, 2009 @ 8:26 am

By “win it” I mean that we could reach an resolution that would be good for both the people of Afghanistan and the U.S. And I do think you have a point about the oil pipeline. The leaking of the report could be part of a plan with with more than just one result.