The Taliban is winning

[mousegunner]

From the Wall Street Journal yesterday....This I don't understand. How can the Taliban beat the USA? I don't get it.....

By YOCHI J. DREAZEN in Kabul and PETER SPIEGEL in Washington

Associated Press U.S. soldiers from the 5th Stryker Brigade take position next to Sari Ghundi village as they patrol near the Pakistani border in 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.

View Full Image

Reuters Two boys watch a U.S. soldier Sunday during a dawn patrol in Kunar Province in northeastern Afghanistan. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. commander, is making protection of civilians a priority over hunting Taliban rebels.

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."

In an effort to regain the upper hand, Gen. McChrystal said he will redeploy some troops currently in sparsely populated areas to areas with larger concentrations of Afghan civilians, while some of the 4,000 American troops still to arrive will be deployed to Kandahar.

The Obama administration is in the midst of an Afghan buildup that will push U.S. troop levels here to a record 68,000 by year end. There are roughly an additional 30,000 troops from North Atlantic Treaty Organization countries and other allies.

Gen. McChrystal's predecessor, Gen. David McKiernan, had a request outstanding for 10,000 more troops. Gen. McChrystal said he hadn't decided whether to request additional U.S. forces. "We're still working it," he said.

Several officials who have taken part in Gen. McChrystal's 60-day review of the war effort said they expect him to ultimately request as many as 10,000 more troops -- a request many observers say will be a tough sell at the White House, where several senior administration officials have said publicly that they want to hold off on sending more troops until the impact of the initial influx of 21,000 reinforcements can be gauged.

The U.S. war effort in Afghanistan is costing American taxpayers about $4 billion a month.

Gen. McChrystal also said he would direct a "very significant" expansion of the Afghan army and national police -- which would double in size under the plans being finalized by senior U.S. military officers here -- and import a tactic first used in Iraq by moving U.S. troops onto small outposts in individual Afghan neighborhoods and villages.

Outside experts are giving Gen. Stanley McChrystal an assessment of what the war in Afghanistan looks like on the ground, as WSJ's Peter Spiegel reports.

One person briefed on the assessment said it will call for boosting the Afghan army to 240,000 from 135,000 and the Afghan police to 160,000 from 82,000.

One official noted the emerging plans to double the size of the Afghan army and police will require thousands of additional U.S. trainers. The U.S. will also need more troops if security conditions in north and west Afghanistan continue to deteriorate, the official said. "At the end of the day, it's all about the math," he said. "The demand and the supply don't line up, even with the new troops that are coming in."

In earlier phases of the assessment process, Gen. McChrystal's staff conducted a "troop-to-task" analysis that weighed increasing U.S. troop levels by two brigades -- each such unit has 3,500 to 5,000 troops -- or by as many as eight brigades, according to officials familiar with the matter. A middle option of four to six brigades was also considered, these people said.

The prospect of more troops rankles some of Gen. McChrystal's advisers, who worry the American military footprint in Afghanistan is already too large.

"How many people do you bring in before the Afghans say, 'You're acting like the Russians'?" said one senior military official, referring to the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s. "That's the big debate going on in the headquarters right now."

View Full Image

Associated Press U.S. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, center, meets Afghan citizens in Canada's "model village" of Deh-e Bagh, Afghanistan, in June.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai has said publicly during his campaign for the approaching Aug. 20 elections that he wants to negotiate new agreements giving the Afghan government more control over the conduct of the foreign troops currently in the country.

Gen. McChrystal, however, says too many troops aren't a concern. "I think it's what you do, not how many you are. It's how the force conducts itself."

Regardless of how he resolves the internal debate on troop numbers, Gen. McChrystal's coming report won't include any specific requests for more U.S. troops. Those numbers would instead be detailed in a follow-on document that is set to be delivered to Washington a few weeks after the assessment.

The timing of Gen. McChrystal's primary assessment remains in flux. It was initially due in mid-August, but the commander was summoned to a secret meeting in Belgium last week with Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and told to take more time. Military officials say the assessment will now be released sometime after the Aug. 20 vote.

The shift came amid signs of growing U.S. unease about the direction of the war effort. Initial assessments delivered to Gen. McChrystal last month warned that the Taliban were strengthening their control over Kandahar, the largest city in southern Afghanistan.

American forces have been waging a major offensive in the neighboring southern province of Helmand, the center of Afghanistan's drug trade. Some U.S. military officials believe the Taliban have taken advantage of the American preoccupation with Helmand to infiltrate Kandahar and set up shadow local governments and courts throughout the city.

"Helmand is a sideshow," said the senior military official briefed on the analysis. "Kandahar is the capital of the south [and] that's why they want it."

Gen. McChrystal said in the interview that he planned to shift more U.S. troops to Kandahar to bolster the Canadian forces that currently have primary security responsibility for the region. Hundreds of American troops equipped with mobile armored vehicles known as Strykers are already in the province.

"It's important and so we're going to do whatever we got to do to ensure that Kandahar is secure," he said. "With the arrival of the new U.S. forces we'll have the ability to put some more combat power in the area."

View Slideshow

Emilio Morenatti/Associated Press U.S. soldiers took position near Sari Ghundi village as they patroled near the Pakistani border, about 60 miles southeast of Kandahar Monday.

Regional Violence

View Interactive

Follow events in Pakistan and Afghanistan, day by day.

• Taliban Militants Attack Afghan Town
  
• Taliban Leader's Death Spurs Turmoil
  

Journal Community

• Discuss: Will President Obama's Afghanistan strategy be successful?
  

Despite the mounting concern about the Taliban's infiltration of Kandahar, there are clear limits to how soon additional U.S. forces can be sent to the city.

Moving forces from neighboring Helmand is nearly impossible, because those troops have already set up forward bases and recruited help from local tribal leaders, who have been promised American backing. As a result, the additional American troop deployments to Kandahar have only begun in recent days, with the arrival of new reinforcements that will continue into the fall.

Gen. McChrystal defended the decision to focus first on Helmand. The current operation, one of the largest since the start of the war in 2001, was meant to disrupt the Taliban's lucrative drug operations there, he said.

The armed group reaps tens of millions of dollars annually from the sale of opium from Helmand, and the commander said he wants to have troops on the ground before local farmers start to plant their next batch of poppies in November. The U.S. is working to persuade Helmand's farmers to replace their poppy fields with wheat and fruit.

The roughly 4,000 Marines in Helmand have been charged with putting Gen. McChrystal's thinking about counterinsurgency into practice. They are trying to build local relationships by launching small development and reconstruction projects.

Gen. McChrystal said his new strategy had to show clear results within roughly 12 months to prevent public support for the war from evaporating in both the U.S. and Afghanistan.

"This is a period where people are really looking to see which way this is going to go," he said. "It's the critical and decisive moment."

Write to Yochi J. Dreazen at yochi.dreazen@wsj.com and Peter Spiegel at peter.spiegel@wsj.com

[Guest justme]

From the Wall Street Journal yesterday....This I don't understand. How can the Taliban beat the USA? I don't get it.....

They are doing it the same way the mujaheddin did it against the Russians. The Afghans are not afraid of dying, just like the vast majority of those fighting the US in Iraq, and like those who are fighting the Israelis--are not afraid to die. They are absolutely 110% committed to their cause. They see killing as a sport, and to them death if a fact of life. The Americans and westerners are by and large very much afraid of dying--we place a much greater emphasis on preserving human life. This is one reason why we will not beat the new mujaheddin--just like the Russians before us. The question I have--will we, like the Russians before us be completely and totally bankrupt financially when we leave Afghanistan? What will our national morale look like when this is settled?

Have you ever stopped to consider exactly how large Afghanistan is? Seriously--Afghanistan is slightly smaller than the state of Texas--and in 10 years time the Russians poured about 500,000 troops into that country--and when it comes right down to it--a raggedy group of goat herders and poppy farmers defeated a major superpower, and helped speed forward the collapse of the old Soviet--and Russia is only now beginning to recover militarily--as we all saw when Russia launched its campaign against Georgia in 2007, and yet they are a mere shadow of their former self. We should have learned something from the past--no country in modern times has ever to my knowledge successfully defeated Afghanistan. Why we think we will be any different is beyond me.

Edited August 11, 2009 by justme

[Guest Rem_700]

The commander who said that,got smacked down by the Pentagon,they said it wasn't true.If they would just pull the media and politics out of the country and let our military do what a military is supposed to do,all this could be taken care of in a matter of months. You have to be just as ruthless as your enemy,or more!

[strickj]

T Why we think we will be any different is beyond me.

Because our Military is bad ass

[Defender]

The commander who said that,got smacked down by the Pentagon,they said it wasn't true.If they would just pull the media and politics out of the country and let our military do what a military is supposed to do,all this could be taken care of in a matter of months. You have to be just as ruthless as your enemy,or more!

You are right! We could do it. What we lack is not the ability it is the will. Ever since Korea, and especially Vietnam, we have allowed nightly news broadcasts to control our military policy. Take the reporters and cameras out of the area and stand back! However...there WILL be collateral damage/casualties. When you have a populace that is aiding and abetting the enemy, for whatever reason, they will suffer too. Accept that and watch the U.S. military kick ass.

[tntnixon]

We haven't truely gone to war since WWII or been willing to do so. Back then, we believed that ruthlessness was necessary. We also weren't affraid to let our sons, husbands and friends die for the nation. We actually considered it our duty to do so.

Oh, a lot has changed in the last 65 years. We have no heart for real war. My grandfather, for instance, got on a boat in 1942 and came home in 1946. Now think 12 months is too long to be deployed.

Back then, when you took territory, it was yours. You didn't appologize for being there or try to bend your will to the local culture. You weren't there to make friends. People forget that the Japanese were just as "hard-core" as the jihadists, now. What we said to them (with our actions) was:We know you're willing to die for your Emporer. But are you willing to have everyone who looks like you, speaks like you and thinks like you die in the process? The answer was a resounding no!!! And my theory is, unless we make the jihadists answer the same question, we will always have these problems.

[Guest donfromtexas]

We haven't truely gone to war since WWII or been willing to do so.

I beg to differ with this comment. I seem to recall being sent to a desert way back in 90 with no regard to a 12 months was to long mentality. Everyone that went over there knew it was going to be a long long time before we got home (even though that was not the case), and were ready to tow the line.

When you have been shot at, blown up, and had to shoot back you can talk about willingness to "go to war". Every single person that is in the "war" is there voluntarily!

[tntnixon]

When you have been shot at, blown up, and had to shoot back you can talk about willingness to "go to war". Every single person that is in the "war" is there voluntarily!

I appologize, if you think I was referring to our troop's willingness. By no means did I mean that. I'm referring to the public at-large, and the political figures that control what our military is able to do.

I will correct you on one point, though. Contrary to popular opinion, most of the 16 million Americans that served in the military during WWII were volunteers(expressed a desire to enlist, you actually couldn't volunteer after the middle of 1942 because there were too many willing and there was fear of not being able to keep factories and farms running at home. But those who had expressed desire to enlist were drafted and there was no shortage). They waited in line to join the fight. Many, like my grandfather, lied about their age just to get in. Luckily, we weren't checking ID's.

Edited August 11, 2009 by tntnixon

[Guest donfromtexas]

I appologize, if you think I was referring to our troop's willingness. By no means did I mean that. I'm referring to the public at-large, and the political figures that control what our military is able to do.

I will correct you on one point, though. Contrary to popular opinion, most of the 16 million Americans that served in the military during WWII were volunteers. Very few were drafted, they didn't need to be. They waited in line to join the fight. Many, like my grandfather, lied about their age just to get in. Luckily, we weren't checking ID's.

Not a problem.

And I did not infer that WWII vets were not there voluntarily, I only meant to say that everyone there now is a volunteer.

[E4 No More]

Three words: Tactical Nuclear Weapons

[tntnixon]

Three words: Tactical Nuclear Weapons

You understood what I was referring too. Except I would take the "Tactical" away.

[Guest mustangdave]

Three words: Tactical Nuclear Weapons

Or...AC-130 Gunship...see video in the "general" section

[mousegunner]

I look at it this way: we just aren't supposed to be there to begin with. As General Patton said: Americans love to fight. It's true. But we must have a fight worth fighting. When we fight to defend our families, we will always win. When we fight to please some politician's goals, we will always lose.

[E4 No More]

I will never understand how some sheeple think that you can civilize an uncivilized act, so why do they insist on trying?

As far as the "Tactical" part, the neutron bomb is a pretty cool thing, and the tactical one is even better. For those who don't know, it was designed for Europe to kill people, but not destroy the historical buildings. Basically, it turns the area into a huge microwave oven. Can you say, "Pop! goes the Taliban."

[Guest mustangdave]

As far as the "Tactical" part, the neutron bomb is a pretty cool thing, and the tactical one is even better. For those who don't know, it was designed for Europe to kill people, but not destroy the historical buildings. Basically, it turns the area into a huge microwave oven. Can you say, "Pop! goes the Taliban."

and...remember who killed it?....Jimmy Carter...

[9teeneleven]

We haven't truely gone to war since WWII or been willing to do so. Back then, we believed that ruthlessness was necessary. We also weren't affraid to let our sons, husbands and friends die for the nation. We actually considered it our duty to do so.

Oh, a lot has changed in the last 65 years. We have no heart for real war. My grandfather, for instance, got on a boat in 1942 and came home in 1946. Now think 12 months is too long to be deployed.

Back then, when you took territory, it was yours. You didn't appologize for being there or try to bend your will to the local culture. You weren't there to make friends. People forget that the Japanese were just as "hard-core" as the jihadists, now. What we said to them (with our actions) was:We know you're willing to die for your Emporer. But are you willing to have everyone who looks like you, speaks like you and thinks like you die in the process? The answer was a resounding no!!! And my theory is, unless we make the jihadists answer the same question, we will always have these problems.

This is not entirely true. The U.S. was not behind WWII until very late in the game, partly because they got stuck with the bill for WWI. It was termed "The Phony War" here in the US.

[E4 No More]

and...remember who killed it?....Jimmy Carter...

I was in the Corps after Jimmy "No Balls" Carter, and I was certainly trained in tactical nukes in 1983. I also believe it was after my discharge that Europe went nuts over the idea of having the neutron bomb in their back yards. I didn't understand the logic behind that one either, but I don't understand why you say Carter killed it.

[E4 No More]

We haven't truely gone to war since WWII or been willing to do so. Back then, we believed that ruthlessness was necessary. We also weren't affraid to let our sons, husbands and friends die for the nation. We actually considered it our duty to do so.

Oh, a lot has changed in the last 65 years. We have no heart for real war. My grandfather, for instance, got on a boat in 1942 and came home in 1946. Now think 12 months is too long to be deployed.

Back then, when you took territory, it was yours. You didn't appologize for being there or try to bend your will to the local culture. You weren't there to make friends. People forget that the Japanese were just as "hard-core" as the jihadists, now. What we said to them (with our actions) was:We know you're willing to die for your Emporer. But are you willing to have everyone who looks like you, speaks like you and thinks like you die in the process? The answer was a resounding no!!! And my theory is, unless we make the jihadists answer the same question, we will always have these problems.

Our fathers and grandfathers during WWII did spend all that time in actual combat zones either. They were rotated off the front for rest, recreation, and replenishment.

[Guest HexHead]

We should have learned something from the past--no country in modern times has ever to my knowledge successfully defeated Afghanistan. Why we think we will be any different is beyond me.

Maybe not so "modern times", but at the height of their Empire, the British weren't any more successful against them either.

The Taliban have a unique ally in their fight with us. Us. Taking a play from the Vietnam (and OIF) playbooks, all they have to do is inflict casualties on our troops and the anti-war crowd will be out once again calling for us to surrender. And as Iraq showed us, that bar is set pretty low.

[tntnixon]

I was in the Corps after Jimmy "No Balls" Carter, and I was certainly trained in tactical nukes in 1983. I also believe it was after my discharge that Europe went nuts over the idea of having the neutron bomb in their back yards. I didn't understand the logic behind that one either, but I don't understand why you say Carter killed it.

You are both technically right. the neutron bomb was "postponed" in 1978 under Carter. It was susequently restarted in 1981 by Reagan.

As far as combat time for soldiers during WWII, it was a mixed bag. My grandfather for instance saw action in North Africa, Italy, France, Belgium(landed on a grenade in Belgium and was sent to England to be "patched up") after 2 months of rehab in England he was reassigned to the South Pacific were he also saw combat before coming home (2 bronze stars, a silver star and a purple heart). He was subsequently given a dishonorable discharge for being AWOL (he stayed 2 days late after the birth of my mother) but that was overturned. Guess what, he's still kicking.

My father-in-law's experience was different. He was in the Navy and had a hell of a good time (lot's of partying in England, Morocco, and Durban, South Africa) even though he was sank 3 times by German subs(never captured. The Germans just wanted the boats off the seas).

Edited August 11, 2009 by tntnixon

[E4 No More]

You are both technically right. the neutron bomb was "postponed" in 1978 under Carter. It was susequently restarted in 1981 by Reagan.

As far as combat time for soldiers during WWII, it was a mixed bag. My grandfather for instance saw action in North Africa, Italy, France, Belgium(landed on a grenade in Belgium and was sent to England to be "patched up") after 2 months of rehab in England he was reassigned to the South Pacific were he also saw combat before coming home (2 bronze stars, a silver star and a purple heart). He was subsequently given a dishonorable discharge for being AWOL (he stayed 2 days late after the birth of my mother) but that was overturned. Guess what, he's still kicking.

My father-in-law's experience was different. He was in the Navy and had a hell of a good time (lot's of partying in England, Morocco, and Durban, South Africa) even though he was sank 3 times by German subs(never captured. The Germans just wanted the boats off the seas).

Tell them, (particularly Grandpa), "Thanks" for me.

[creeky]

...in 10 years time the Russians poured about 500,000 troops into that country--and when it comes right down to it--a raggedy group of goat herders and poppy farmers defeated a major superpower, and helped speed forward the collapse of the old Soviet...

It is worth noting that they did not beat the soviets alone. The tide (correct me if I am wrong) didn't start to turn until we poured about a billion bucks into the region in the form of equipment and training.

I believe the stingers made a huge impact both physically and emotional for them.

They don't have a "Superpower" supplying and arming them, as far as we know anyway. While some comparisons can be drawn and SHOULD, we also need to keep in mind some of the differences.

*Disclaimer: I've never served in the armed forces, however, for four years did command roughly one thousand plastic army (Including two plastic tanks) in the late 70's. Sadly... all were lost and to this day... I... I... blame myself.

[tntnixon]

Tell them, (particularly Grandpa), "Thanks" for me.

Will do.

Interestingly, my grandfather is who talked me out of joining the Army when I was 18. He said "There are too many p***ys running things now. They'll get you killed."

Of course he also told me "Quit chasing women. That cooter will kill you." And, while it hasn't killed me, it has gotten me in trouble from time to time.

Hey, that's my granddaddy and he's one of my heroes.

[Guest 3pugguy]

The Russians and others have found out how hard it is to "win" any conflict in that God-forsaken land, run by tribal war lords and tribal tradition.

Why should it be any different for us?

All of our best efforts, well trained forces and technology are little match for those for whom life has little meaning and time is a concept of years being like minutes, i.e. they can wait for us to leave or fight us forever - either way is OK for them.

[Guest justme]

Because our Military is bad ass

well the Russians thought the exact same thing. Turned out they were wrong.....and it cost them dearly.

Edited August 11, 2009 by justme