News Sections
Afghan war 'deteriorating,' U.S. NATO boss warns
CTV News Video
|
Watch: See all Videos in the Player
Font-size:
Share
Print
Comments(45)
Selected Comment
We need to take a stand on Terrorists/Al Qaeda and people that don't believe in human rights, rights of women, rights of freedom, etc I rather be fighting these guys over there than in our backyard.
Kevin
Afghan war 'deteriorating,' U.S. NATO boss warns
talking about
Afghan war 'deteriorating,' U.S. NATO boss warns
CTV.ca News Staff
Date: Mon. Sep. 21 2009 9:00 AM ET
Weeks after taking command of all NATO troops based in Afghanistan, U.S. Gen. Stanley McChrystal wrote a confidential report to the Pentagon, advising that the war was "deteriorating" and could be lost without sending in additional troops.
In a report dated August 30, McChrystal informed U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates that NATO would not be successful in defeating the country's insurgents if it didn't change its strategy and better organize its approach with allied forces.
"Although considerable effort and sacrifice have resulted in some progress, many indicators suggest the overall effort is deteriorating," McChrystal said in his report.
While McChrystal acknowledged in his report that "additional resources are required" to win the war, he wrote that focusing too heavily on "force or resource requirements misses the point entirely."
The Washington Post published the report on its website on Monday, with the exception of some portions that the U.S. government requested be withheld. The newspaper first reported the details of McChrystal's assessment of the war late Sunday.
Geoff Morrell, a spokesperson for the U.S. defence secretary, confirmed the report, but said the Pentagon would not release McChrystal's assessment.
"While we would have much preferred none of this be made public at this time we appreciate the paper's willingness to edit out those passages which would likely have endangered personnel and operations in Afghanistan," Morrell said in an email statement.
Additionally, McChrystal wrote that "there is a crisis of confidence among Afghans -- in both their government and the international community -- that undermines our credibility and emboldens the insurgents. Further, a perception that our resolve is uncertain makes Afghans reluctant to align us against the insurgents."
CTV's South Asia Bureau Chief Janis Mackey Frayer said that Afghan officials don't want to see any more foreign troops inside their borders.
"Afghan officials, and particularly those affiliated with the Afghan security forces, are saying that, really, international troops are the last thing that Afghanistan needs," Frayer told CTV's Canada AM on Monday morning from Kabul.
Instead, the officials would rather have money sent "to try to bolster, train and hire more Afghan forces," Frayer said. "There are currently about 130,000 Afghan police, some 80,000 Afghan soldiers and they (officials) are saying that should be the focus here, not to reinforce to Afghans that there is a foreign occupation of their country."
McChrystal's report is now in the hands of U.S. President Barack Obama, who is reviewing its contents while he decides whether to send more U.S. service members into Afghanistan.
A separate report from McChrystal on the Afghan war will soon be sent to the White House and the Pentagon, which will detail the troop and resource needs of U.S. troops. Weekend media reports suggested the U.S. general had completed the second report, though his senior spokesperson, Rear Adm. Gregory Smith said Sunday that it was not yet finished.
In a series of recent television interviews, Obama explained the questions he is asking the military as he considers what resources to provide them with.
"How does this advance America's national security interests? How does it make sure that al Qaeda and its extremist allies cannot attack the United States homeland, our allies, our troops who are based in Europe?" the president said.
"If supporting the Afghan national government and building capacity for their army and securing certain provinces advances that strategy, then we'll move forward," Obama continued. "But if it doesn't, then I'm not interested in just being in Afghanistan for the sake of being in Afghanistan."
The release of McChrystal's report on the Post's website comes at a time when a partisan debate on the future of the war is raging in Washington: Senate Republicans want to see more troops in the war-torn country, while many Democrats want to put on the brakes.
Since taking office, Obama has sent 21,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan, who pushed into Taliban-districts in the weeks leading up to the country's Aug. 19 election.
McChrystal officially took command of the nearly 90,000 U.S. and NATO troops in the Afghanistan on June 15.
With files from The Associated Press
User Tools
Related Stories
CTV News
Canada in Afghanistan
The latest news, photos and interactives from Canada's mission in Afghanistan.
Bios and Pictures
Canadian Casualties
We remember those who lost their lives in Afghanistan since the mission began in 2002.
In Pictures
Hockey night in Kandahar
Hockey night in Kandahar? Soldiers let off steam playing desert ball hockey.
Corrections Canada
Corrections Canada and Canadian Forces reconstruct and train at an infamous Afghan prison.
User Tools
About the tools
Need to get in touch with CTV? You can email the CTV web team using the 'Feedback' button.
-


Font-size
Print Article
Comments(45)-
Feedback
Share it with your network of friends
Share this CTV article or feature with your friends. Click on the icon for your favourite social networking or messaging system, and follow the prompts.
Most Viewed News Stories
Most Talked about Stories
I applaud the budget, even though Health Care and education may stay unscathed. Sadly this cannot last and I worry to later this year where cuts will become enviable. If anything, this provides the Wildrose Alliance plenty of ammo when an election is called.








Comments are now closed for this story
Roger T
0
said
0
The only reason the US and its allies is trying to put up a fake and false campaign front because they need to SAVE FACE, even thought the leader (US) is bankrupted.
The Man
0
said
0
Now the media is doing the same thing in Afghanistan. If we lose the war there, it will be because of the media, not the Taliban.
Kevin
0
said
0
terry in ottawa
0
said
0
Oshawa Duane
0
said
0
Martin
0
said
0
Looks like NATO has gone full-circle from the 1980's in realizing exactly which side was building the schools, the roads, and upholding the rights of women in Afghanistan back then.
Wade Ens
0
said
0
The new democracy is not perfect and there is some corruption. Let's not forget we had Gomery show us there was corruption here and a party running on stolen dirty money.
The young people are learning to read and write and 15 million educated women will change Afganistan forever.
We can never be wrong fighting for human rights and we cannot afford more 911.
Dale
0
said
0
They take credit for WWII, but they were about 2 years late entering, and thanks to a couple of big bombs.
Adele from Toronto
0
said
0
and Afganistan 1500.
Iraq is now stable and we see Iran screaming for fair and free elections.
Half the Senate and Congress is up for elections every two yrs for 4 yr terms. So you can expect positions to change from weak people who bend daily with the wind of polls.
The surge Obama has started is the right answer the war has been under resourced from the beginning. The most improvised explosives ied's are hitting the new troops who are just getting organized on the ground.
The big problem was the taking ground and then retreating because of lack of man power. Now the USA can do what Canada did and thats take it and hold it.
The surge needs a little time.
Peter Kavanagh
0
said
0
They need to step up , we just can't let these guys go back to treating their women like dogs .
DaveEast
0
said
0
We are in a total war against Islamic fundamentalists who want nothing short of our destruction. Knowing this, those who want us to flee the scene really don't get it.
Nancy : Concerned Student
0
said
0
Ignatieff wrote the Lesser evil saying we must fight evil by trafficiing in evil including pre-emptive war (invasion) corrersive interrogation. He also wrote A Just Pain, Blood and War and Blood and Belonging to mention a few.
I appreciate that mr Ignatieff did not have the money to retire in the USA and could get a quick pension back in Canada after a 3 yr stint in Canadian politics with a guaranteed liberal seat close to Toronto.
But the Ignatieff the self described American gamble too much and his books would be an embarassment to Canada and be used against us. We need the steady sure hand of the conservatives that always push for womens rights and human rights in a persitant way, not wreckless over the top stuff that last until the next polls like the Liberals.
Mark
0
said
0
They continue with their terrorist plans and 'sleeper cells' as we've seen in recent court actions.
So what do we do (Colin Kenney-are you listening?) just pack-up, allow terroristst their safe havens and admit that we dont' have the fortitude to stick it out?
We do need a comprehensive strategy. Shame it's only 8 years late in coming
Jake
0
said
0
Raj
0
said
0
Tyler Wyatt in Vancouver
0
said
0
Canada has the right balance and the USA is starting to figure that out give Obama another 6 months and he will get it right too.
John Global
0
said
0
fancythat
0
said
0
Martin
0
said
0
The Russians are stepping in, though.
David in Dartmouth
0
said
0
If that was the attitude in the last war... well.. the swastika would be flying over us instead of the red maple leaf!
Give the surge a chance,
This is just what Mr. Tallie was waiting for... enough angst over enough dead westerners and the country is there for the picking..
It is little wonder the locals are not throwing in with us, they are at least intelligent enough to know that our collective commitment is indeed very questionable, hence my earlier prediction when the decision was taken to go to Khandahar... we will stay until enough "bodies" are brought home.. I never thought it would be so soon.
Thanks a lot media, acadaemics etc., now you will debate for the next 30 years as to why we failed.. and it was not our troops, but those who supposedly supported them..!! SHAME ON YOU!!
Marc O
0
said
0
That used to be a tenet of the US military in Vietnam; to win over the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese people.
Of course, this is not Vietnam. In Vietnam the US military forces defended and propped an unpopular figurehead (Ngo Dinh Diem) in a war against NVA insurgents, led by Ho Chi Minh. In the end, the unpopular figurehead was arrested and assassinated by his own troops and the war went downhill from there.
No, THIS is Afghanistan. Our forces are propping a corrupt and possibly illegitimately-reelected, and highly unpopular figurehead (Hamid Karzai) in a war against Al Qaeda and Taliban insurgents, led by Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar, respectively.
Again, we're dealing with troops vying to win over the hearts and minds of the Afghan people. I also notice there hasn't been much said by General McChrystal about the highly tainted reelection of Hamid Karzai and the cynicism among the Afghani people over the legitimacy of the election, or the stuffed ballots, and the general knowledge that there is rampant corruption in the Karzai administration. No, this is not Vietnam.
Sometimes the cynic in me wonders if the stuffed ballot boxes that reelected Karzai were not planted by Karzai government officials under the guidance of the US government. Something is definitely wrong there, when you find a high-ranking American general being quiet over such a major stumbling block to winning the hearts and minds of the Afghan people. After all, fair, honest and transparent elections are the key to winning hearts and minds, isn't it? And that silence is as telling as an endorsement to me.
This is not Vietnam. Yet. But if the people of Afghanistan turn against their 'duly elected' leader and arrest him, it will be.
G. Helm
0
said
0
The Revolutionary War, the Spanish-American War, the Mexican-American war, the Civil War (if you consider it as a war against rebellious insurgents), World War 1 (late arrivals, but they were undoubtedly on the winning side and had made a useful contribution).
Steve in Ottawa
0
said
0
AlQueda started the current war in Afghanistan with the attack on the World Trde Center. Many Canadians died in the initial attack. Attacks have also taken place around the world on innocent civilians in public areas so it is a sustained effort by the radical Islamists and a sustained defensive effort by the West, which really doesn't want to fight there.
Nobody has ever won a war in Afghanistan. Russia, Britain, Ghengis Khan, Alexander the Great. They have all gone in, won a few battles and then suffered slow expulsion with the philosophy of the local population. But, Afghanistan is a sponge; every radical Islamist in the the world is focused on Afghanistan and Iraq. That is where they can attack. If they did not have this forum, they would be focused on the West. So, it is not a question of good or bad, it is a question of bad, worse and worst. Right now it is the best of a very big mess, one which is getting worse by the day. Staying there does not solve the problem, but neither does leaving.
Acorn
0
said
0
V aka Layton in Moncton
0
said
0
The Truth Hurts!.
0
said
0
Red X
0
said
0
Can you support the troops with out supporting the mission?!
J-L
0
said
0
Our troops are over there in order to preserve our freedoms here. Liberals constantly support suspected extremists, like Harkat, Charkaoui, and associates, and then also argue to withdraw our soldiers from Afghanistan.
I would argue that there are consequences domestically to a strategic withdrawal of our troops over there, and that would be, at the very least, a tightening on restrictions to our own rights and freedoms. They will eventually strike us, of that, there is no doubt. What is stopping them now is that our troops are keeping them busy.
If we bring our men home, lets tighten the laws on religious extremism and broaden police powers to fight it. Otherwise, it's foolishness, akin to giving your enemy a reprieve, while at the same time, letting your guard down.
WarmongersDon'tHeartheTruth
0
said
0
The war was lost before it even started.. how many billions and trillions of dollars and lives need to be lost for you to listen to the voice of reason?
I would conclude there is no voice of reason for the Warmonger posts as they only have Blood on their minds...
What a shame... wake up and bring the troops home!
Alan in Kitchener
0
said
0
This is not about supporting the troops, I do 110%, this is just basic math.
They cry for more till they've got excuse to lose.
0
said
0
Eventually no more troops are sent and the army blames the politicians or media for losing the war.
The Whiteman
0
said
0
Phil in London
0
said
0
I still feel it was the right thing to do but I doubt anyone really believed this would still be going on nearly 8 years later.
I believe this is a clear sign that NATO is not the answer nor the UN.
If the USA wanted this fight they should have done so under only one pretext, that they were declaring war for a stated purpose and let the chips fall where they may. Without trying to gain approval from these two bodies. Allies could come voluntarily, remain netural or support the Taliban if they chose to.
All I am saying is that without NATO/UN the US would have had a different set of calculations to make before it went to war.
The Canada of values being so staunch a member of NATO had no choice but to line up it's young men and women for a combat role when everyone else ducked and ran.
I'm not sure Canada wouldn't have made the same choice without NATO but it woudl have been under a diferent pretense than going to set a great example and then wondering why the Euro-coward countries weren't right there with them.
It's not the media and academics calling war lost
0
said
0
Of course he's trying to put the blame on anyone else instead of admitting he and the rest of the Pentagoons can't fight worth crap.
let afghanistan fall
0
said
0
Dave
0
said
0
It is the UN in Darfur not NATO. do your homework. And by the way, the UN has not been a crediable organization since Somilia.
Bill Steedman
0
said
0
Rick in NB, Ste Marie
0
said
0
General McCrazy is going to start crying.
0
said
0
Sgt Chris
0
said
0
Quote- "Karazai pleaded with us several time to show some care for Afghani lives but our typical arrogance would not let us listen."
---- Yes some innocent people die, thats a shame, but THAT IS WAR! You have NO IDEA the lengths NATO goes to to protect innocent lives! And for every civilian killed, there are probably 100 Taliban killed, and quite possible a thousand Canadian or American lives saved because those B*STARDS are dead!
My opinions on being over there, are another discussion, but I do know what I am talking about in this area- I have served over there.
GHW
0
said
0
I realize that for too many on the conservative far right this seems the only way to deal with the crazies in the world but your methods will be impossible to conclude anything unless you are prepared to wipe them all out laying waste everything in the way similar to the conclusion of WWII. This is simply not an option.
I’d like to also remind everyone that war in general is disgusting and reprehensible and should only be conducted as a last ditch attempt to protect ourselves from total loss. 9/11 was tragic and deplorable but the response was incorrect and played right into the hands of these wacko’s.
Mark my words; If humanity continues down this path it can only lead to one place. Satan weaves his webs in all corners of all societies and too many of us are getting caught.
WWJD
Allan Eizinas
0
said
0
The Taliban won that war.
Al Qaeda is in Pakistan. Separate Al Qaeda from the Taliban as the enemy, negotiate with the Taliban to keep Al Qaeda out of Afghanistan, declare victory and go home.
That is what Obama is going to do.
Rose
0
said
0
Afghans are not confident especially after the Radiation was found in their children and many adults.
UMRC’s Field Team found Afghan civilians with acute symptoms of radiation poisoning, along with chronic symptoms of internal uranium contamination.
Julie in Montreal
0
said
0
M
0
said
0