McChrystal Confident of Progress in 18 months
ABC News' Luis Martinez reports: The top US commander in Afghanistan told Congress today that he expects to see significant progress to take place in that country over the next 18 months that will lead to a “critical decisive point” in that country. Appearing before the House Armed Services Committee, Gen. Stanley McChrystal laid out a timeline of how he sees progress developing over the next year and a half in Afghanistan as 30,000 more troops will arrive by next summer to push US troop levels to almost 100,000.
“By next December, when I report back to you in detail, I expect that we'll be able to lay real progress out that will be clear to everyone," McChrystal told House lawmakers. "And by the following summer of July 2011, I think the progress will be unequivocally clear to the Afghan people. And when it's unequivocally clear to them, that will be a critical, decisive point." Later in the day, both he and US ambassador to Afghanistan, Karl Eikenbery, both told the Senate Armed Services Committee that they had seen progress since October, when Afghanistan’s election controversy was resolved. McChrystal said the fight against the Taliban had improved “dramatically” and Eikenberry cited “very significant improvement” on the political front as a result of the end to the election crisis and the positive feedback from President Hamid Karzai’s inaugural address. In that address Karzai pledged to take on corruption and set a goal of having Afghan security forces taking full responsibility for security in the country within the next five years. Eikenberry said that the Obama administration’s decision to set July 2011 as the date on which that security transition would begin had received a positive response from Karzai’s government. “President Karzai's initial reaction to it was positive,” said Eikenberry. “He said we need that kind of pressure, we want to stand up. But at the same time, as General McChrystal has said, we're going to have to be cognizant of Afghanistan's long-term needs for security.” He added that “we're seeing more confidence being displayed right now from President Karzai's administration.” Eikenberry said he was cautiously optimistic that some “generally good ministers” would be named to Karzai’s new cabinet in the next few days in a reflection of his new anti-corruption stance. On the security front, McChrystal said the partnering of US forces with Afghan Army troops was increasing daily. Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., had told McChrystal that during a recent visit to Afghanistan a marine commander had told him, “Our Achilles heel in Afghanistan … is not a shortage of U.S. troops. It's a shortage of Afghan troops.” McChrystal said more Afghan troops are on the way and they will be partnered with US troops. According to McChrystal there are currently 16,700 Afghan Army troops partnering with US troops in southern Afghanistan and those numbers will continue to increase as every Afghan new soldier is pushed to that part of the country. “We are fielding, as we speak, this month 1,900 additional Afghan National Army soldiers between December and January. That's 16 new ANA companies — all will go into the Helmand area.” Overall, McChrystal told Senate lawmakers, “I absolutely believe that we, and I mean the government of Afghanistan with coalition help, can defeat the Taliban … where they can no longer accomplish their objective of threatening the government of Afghanistan.” What will it take to defeat Al-Qaeda? Capturing or killing Osama bin Laden would help, said McChrystal, calling him an iconic figure whose “survival emboldens Al-Qaeda as a franchising organization across the world.” “It would not defeat Al-Qaeda to have him captured or killed, but I don't think that we can finally defeat Al-Qaeda until he is captured or killed,” he said.
Email
Can Mitt Romney Win Conservatives Back?
Possible Contraception Compromise in D.C.
So are we going to pay them not to fight, just like we did in Iraq? Where will we get the money, and what happens when we leave? (Oh yeah, according to AP, 120+ dead in a bombing in downtown Baghdad!)
If you are just keeping troops in a war zone, until your ready to withdraw them before the ’12 election… Just bring them HOME NOW! Why should they risk life and limb and be disfigured permanetly if we are just going to leave anyway… Why waste taxpayer dollars, and the lives of American soliders, when they are being setup to fail? BRING THEM HOME BARACK. Show some compassion for our men and women in uniform who VOTED FOR YOU!!!
Posted by: jafo | December 8, 2009, 8:07 pm 8:07 pm
Didn’t Karzai say just today that Afghanistan won’t have enough money to pay its military for the next 10 years or so?
Posted by: den | December 8, 2009, 9:00 pm 9:00 pm
I am sorta confident with the 18 year strategy Karzai has been mentioning.
Posted by: Huh | December 8, 2009, 10:43 pm 10:43 pm
as a Dem, and vehement critic of the ‘tea party’/conservative/neo-con/republican/Palin love crowd, I will confess, that despite all the policy descriptions and plans stated for Afghanistan by Generals & politicians, and the Pres. , I still see little reason for being there as there has not been a clarification of any kind as to what winning in Afghanistan is…..nor even whether it can be achieved
many parallels have been made to the pullout of American rebuilding support in Afghanistan after the Soviet invasion failed…and that it lead to the start of the Taliban/Al Queda takeover…
America did accomplish it’s initial goals there, save for capturing or killing Bin Laden.
how long, how many lives, how much will it cost.. will it really make America safer?
After a brutal and needless Iraq, and and ongoing Afghanistan it’s time to rebuild America, not suggesting a new isolationism, but it’s about time for America to look inward and spend some quality time on itself instead of trying to fix the world.
Posted by: yo | December 8, 2009, 10:52 pm 10:52 pm
yo-I think what you are suggesting is Ron Paul and the founding father’s brand of nonintervention. I am with you there.
Posted by: Huh | December 9, 2009, 12:39 am 12:39 am
think what you are suggesting is Ron Paul and the founding father’s brand of nonintervention. I am with you there.
Posted by: Huh
Ron Paul and others have ideas that make sense, but there is much I disagree with him.
regardless of party affiliation, it is amazing to me that people will vote to keep politicians who by any objective means are failures at their jobs, they would not rehire these folks for their own business, and yet, they will continue to vote for those who work against their own best interests, this is true for both Dems & Repubs.
We pledge allegiance to a quasi-mythological America and ignore the reality of the present.
Obama is correct on his basic premise of change, new solutions must be tried, certainly there will be ‘debate’ on what is worthy to try, and what should be changed, but, the status quo, doing nothing can’t be an acceptable option.
One only need to review recent events in the financial sector to see how things must change.
Posted by: yo | December 9, 2009, 2:05 am 2:05 am
I suspect the good general means 18 years NOT 18 months. Looks like full emplyment for the good general. These two wars ought to carry the good general very nicely into retirement.
Posted by: Doppelganger | December 9, 2009, 11:55 am 11:55 am