At 9:55 am (EST) on September 11th, just after the second World Trade Center was struck, Jo Moore, a former British press officer sent an email to her colleagues which read “It’s now a very good day to get out anything we want to bury. Councillors’ expenses?.” It is in her honor that I identify one story every Friday afternoon that our wonderful government tried (and failed) to bury.
This week’s story:
The White House didn’t want you to see what came off the wire at 4:30 pm on this fine Friday afternoon. The Washington Post reports that the newly arrived leader of the Afghan war effort, General Stanley A. McChrystal believes that President Obama’s strategy to prevail in Afghanistan will not succeed unless there is a drastic increase in the level of Afghan security forces.
What kind of increase are we talking about? Senior military officials told the Washington Post that such an expansion would require “billions” beyond the $7.5 billion the Obama administration has already set aside each year to build up the Afghan security forces as well as “thousands more U.S. troops” to serve as trainers and advisors.
How urgent is this? One senior US official involved in training Afghan forces bluntly told the Post that “without significant increases…we will lose the war.”
So to sum things up, the new general in charge (and I mean new… he hasn’t even been there 60 days) has basically said that America is either going to have to spend a lot more money and send even more troops… or lose the war in Afghanistan. No wonder the White House wanted to bury this story.
5 responses so far
1 barker13 // Jul 10, 2009 at 7:36 pm
Thanks for bringing this to our attention.
BILL
2 sinz54 // Jul 11, 2009 at 9:35 am
Thanks to Google News, I had heard about this already. But thanks for putting it up on New Majority for the rest of the nation.
This news could force a confrontation between Obama and the left wing of his party. Obama and Hillary have said repeatedly that Afghanistan is the central focus of the War on Terror. But the left wing of his party wants him to pull our troops out of Afghanistan altogether.
It may surprise some folks on NM that I’m sympathetic to the view that we ought to lower our sights in Afghanistan. Not because I enjoy seeing the U.S. lose wars as the left wing does, but because it’s clear to me that the war is unwinnable as long as al-Qaeda has sanctuaries inside Pakistan, where we dare not send ground troops.
The whole thing reminds me of how we tried to win the war in South Vietnam, while our enemies continued to have sanctuary in Laos and Cambodia to keep sending fresh troops and new materiel to attack South Vietnam at will.
If we’re really serious about destroying al-Qaeda, then I would give the Pakistanis just six months to clean out the place. Then I would order saturation bombing of the whole area, civilian casualties be damned. Nothing would remain alive–not a man, not a woman, not even a mouse. Mission accomplished.
3 midcon // Jul 11, 2009 at 11:26 am
Jeb,
I have to question whether this is really “news” (previously unknown information). Can we get out of Afghanistan without an increase in Afghan security forces? No. Do we need many more troops to stabilize the country and its government? Yes. Can we win a war in Afghanistan? No. Which one of those elements was previously unknown to you, me, or any other intelligent person? Did you believe $7.5B per year was adequate to accomplish our strategic purposes in Afghanistan? Come on. You’re a Colgate man. This isn’t news. As far as it getting buried…well that’s a bit irrelevant since it wasn’t news to begin with.
4 barker13 // Jul 11, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Re: Midcon // Jul 11, 2009 at 11:26 am –
Yeah… I see where you’re coming from, Mid, but it’s “news” in the sense that unless Obama simply withdraws our forces from Afghanistan (something I doubt he’ll do), the American People need to be told what are options are and what they’re gonna cost – in blood and treasure – as well as what the odds are of “success.”
(As you pointed out… none too good – “Can we win a war in Afghanistan? No.”)
BILL
5 balconesfault // Jul 11, 2009 at 7:32 pm
I don’t get the whole point of this article. According to the Post, their sourcing was:
“Officials spoke on condition of anonymity in order to discuss findings that have not yet been made public. ”
It’s not like a press release or government report was issued on Friday that needed covered. This is the WaPo deciding to run with inside info they had on Friday afternoon. So is the contention here that the WaPo is functioning as a house organ for the White House, releasing things to the wire on Rahm Emmanuel’s schedule?
You don’t know much about Fred Hyatt, do you?
You must log in to post a comment.