Skip to main content

Senior US commander makes first admission that the Afghanistan War could be lost

Given the way the government uses the MSM, this is significant:

Top US commander Gen. David McKiernan says the mission in Afghanistan is likely to fail if militants continue to gain power in Pakistan.

During his 40-minute briefing, the commander of the US forces in Afghanistan said, "Can you get to the right end-state in Afghanistan if you have a deteriorating or failed state in Pakistan? The answer is probably no."

The remarks came as US Defense Secretary, Robert Gates, visited troops in Kabul to see "what they need to prevent militants from crossing into Afghanistan from Pakistan."

McKiernan predicted that the US would need at least 2 to 3 more years to finish its mission in Afghanistan, adding that it is the length of time that Kabul would need to train nearly 134,000 forces to ensure the country's security.

More than 60,000 US troops will be stationed in Afghanistan by the fall, when the nation is to hold elections.


Given that Top US commanders don't talk about losing wars without their superiors knowing they are going to do it (or they are not Top US commanders any more), that means we are being sent the first of what will be numerous smoke signals.

My predictions:

1) We are being set up for a direct military presence in Pakistan (probably an assistance or training command, which will be necessary either (a) to avoid defeat in Afghanistan, or (b) to secure Islamabad's nukes.

2) This will necessitate and increase from 60,000 to 70,000 troops in the region, which--along with the slow-down of the Iraq withdrawal--will result in the unfortunate necessity that increasing operational expenses will lead to continued increases in the Defense budget despite reforms in weapons purchases.

I'd love to be wrong.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...