Share

US Ambassador Dissents on Afghan Troop Increase

Wednesday 11 November 2009

Greg Jaffe, Scott Wilson and Karen DeYoung for The Washington Post report that the US ambassador to Afghanistan has urged the administration to hold up on sending any new troops to the country:

Strongly worded cables urge a pause until Kabul government shifts course.

The U.S. ambassador in Kabul sent two classified cables to Washington in the last week expressing deep concerns about sending more U.S. troops to Afghanistan until Afghan President Hamid Karzai's government demonstrates that it is willing to tackle the corruption and mismanagement that has fueled the Taliban's rise, said senior U.S. officials.

Ambassador Karl W. Eikenberry's memos were sent in the days leading up to a critical meeting Wednesday between President Obama and his national security team to consider several options prepared by military planners for how to proceed in Afghanistan. The proposals, which mark the last stage of a months-long strategy review, all call for between 20,000 to 40,000 more troops and a far broader American involvement of the war.

The last-minute dissent by Eikenberry, who commanded U.S. troops in Afghanistan in 2006 and 2007, has rankled his former colleagues in the Pentagon -- as well as Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, said defense officials. McChrystal has bluntly stated that without an increase of tens of thousands of troops in Afghanistan in the next year, the mission there "will likely result in failure."

Cick here to read more.

  

Comments

This is a moderated forum.  It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

McChrystal is, like most

 Thu, 11/12/2009 - 01:25 — Robert Walters (not verified)
McChrystal is, like most generals, anxious to make MORE war, certainly not less. That is, after all, what generals do. Nothing about his assessment is likely to differ from that objective, just as Petraeus' "assessment" in Iraq, and Westmoreland's in VietNam. These militarists, and their corporatist enablers, and other assorted war-mongers all are pressing their "case" with Obama, and there seems to be damned little push-back from others in the Administration and Congress who (might) oppose more war. Thank goodness for Ambassador Eikenberry!

"McChrystal has bluntly

 Thu, 11/12/2009 - 01:32 — Frank (not verified)
"McChrystal has bluntly stated that without an increase of tens of thousands of troops in Afghanistan in the next year, the mission there "will likely result in failure." What the ambassador is saying is, "WITH an increase of tens of thousands of troops,,,the mission...'will likely result in failure.'" I'd bet on Eikenberry, The last 8 years of military activity have failed to enable the emergence an Afghan government with minimal local or foreign credibility. Relying on the same actors (US with minor support from NATO partners), and the same means (very expensive but ineffective military force, with some "development" window dressing) to reverse the situation would be wishful thinking. THe last election was all about CHANGE. Present proposals seem to be Same-Old Same-Old.

New President, same old

 Thu, 11/12/2009 - 12:50 — Anonymous (not verified)
New President, same old hawkish policy. Thank you for your courage Ambassador Eikenberry. I agree with your assessment from all that I have read. I'm sorry for you, the troops and the Afghan people who will have to deal with the consequences of this warning being ignored.

It's about time that the

 Thu, 11/12/2009 - 15:03 — Anonymous (not verified)
It's about time that the President understood why we have civilian control of the military.