Classified McChrystal Report: 500,000 Troops Will Be Required Over Five Years in Afghanistan

Classified McChrystal Report: 500,000 Troops Will Be Required Over Five Years in Afghanistan
Tom Andrews

September 24, 2009

Congress Should Hold Hearings on Alternatives to Major Escalation

Embedded in General Stanley McChrystal's classified assessment of the war in Afghanistan is his conclusion that a successful counterinsurgency strategy will require 500,000 troops over five years.

This bombshell was dropped by NBC reporter Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC's Morning Joe on Wednesday:

"The numbers are really pretty horrifying. What they say, embedded in this report by McChrystal, is they would need 500,000 troops - boots on the ground - and five years to do the job. No one expects that the Afghan Army could step up to that. Are we gonna put even half that of U.S. troops there, and NATO forces? No way."

...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-andrews/classified-mcchrystal-rep_b_298528.html

the question is how anyone ever thought it was going take significantly less to clean that hell hole up.

and gtf out.
theres no reason to be there.

seems like AM had scooped the correct info. She did say that 500k was combined US troops, Afghan troops, and other forces, but any way it's cut, there is no way the US can come close to committing to such a prospect.

I hope, hope, hope Obama sides with VP Biden on this and moves toward less troops and more focus on strategic targeting of specific groups and locations.

to get the details - making it into an "Obama won't listen to the generals and is asking 4 to 6 weeks to evaluate the request." That 4 to 6 weeks (to decide on a ramp up to what will be huge numbers) is being described as not being decisive and, I'm sure, "cut and run" is next - though the argument is really on which strategy to take, is just poor journalism.

The administration HAS played this close to the vest, but the SFRC had two excellent hearings last week where the various strategies were looked at. (http://foreign.senate.gov/hearing.html - click on hearing to get video or prepared statements) Obama, in March, went to the counter insurgency approach, that Gates and Clinton preferred. McChrystle, a strong proponent of this was placed in charge and that plan is what he and others feel is needed for a successful counterinsurgency. One problem is that many say that a counterinsurgency is not successful without an accepted, non-corrupt government. The perception on the Afghan government has changed for the worse since March - though Biden (and Kerry in the SFRC) saw the problems on this before then.

Once the administration has decided, it is critical that they make people aware of the set of bad choices available and make a strong case for what they choose. They need to define their decision, because we know how the right will characterize it.

catching the whole house on fire? We can't do this.

:)

time to fire up the antiwar people and get moving.

by it's adherence to the Democratic Party. With the party in power and the administration gung-ho for Afghanistan the movement is neutered. Makes ya wonder if they are really anti-war or if they were just anti-Bush.

United for Peace and Justice is working now to start things up..It makes me sad to think it might have been merely anti Bush.

This is Vietnam in spades. Time to pull the plug.

COIN warfare requires about a 25:1 civilian:troop ratio to be truly effective and the Afghan forces are mostly worse than useless since they are thoroughly infiltrated and compromised.

It's not gonna happen, get the fuck out of Dodge *now*..

:mad:

n/t

The Three Amigos would wipe out the Taliban in a week.