"Sir, some of the guys here, sir, think were losing, sir.”

[tekisui]

Source: Washington Post

The key moment in Rolling Stone's McChrystal piece
By Richard Cohen

Of all the names associated with the now-celebrated Rolling Stone article on Gen. Stanley McChrystal -- Obama, Biden, Jones, Eikenberry, Holbrooke -- the one that matters most is Hicks. He is Staff Sgt. Kennith Hicks, who, among other NCOs, confronted McChrystal over his policy to avoid, almost at all costs, inflicting causalities on the Afghan civilian population. The result was that more Americans were being killed and the war, in the view of the men fighting it, was being lost.

“Sir,” Hicks said to McChrystal at a combat outpost in Afghanistan, “some of the guys here, sir, think were losing, sir.”

(snip)

But the issue raised by Hicks is what matters. Men are dying in Afghanistan, some because that is the inevitable consequence of any war, some because of the peculiar nature of this war. If the only way to win -- which is to say not lose -- is to risk American casualties to avoid civilian ones, than this war cannot be won at all. The enemy will move among the populace more or less at will, killing when it chooses and where it chooses, until futility gets expressed in countless memos to POTUS and the troops are summoned home.

Some things don’t work because they are unworkable. The reason the U.S. could not come up with a realistic winning strategy in Vietnam was because there wasn’t one. It was always possible to put a million men into that country, but domestic politics here would not permit it. It was always possible to bomb the little country back to the proverbial Stone Age, but our own age would not morally permit it. It was always possible to keep the war going and going and going -- but, in the end, everyone realized that what was remotely possible was not in any way tenable. Plans do not fight wars, people do.

All this applies to Afghanistan. Troops are being asked to risk their lives so the Obama administration can go through the motions. It will fight until it no longer feels it has to, and then it will bring the troops home. If American interests were truly at stake, it would wage unrestrained war -- kill the enemy and anyone that gets between us and the enemy. But we don’t do it, not because we can’t do – we’re pretty good at killing -- but because we know it won’t get us anywhere. McChrystal is right. Every civilian death produces a family of enemies -- six degrees of enmity.

more: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/06/the_key_moment_in_rolling_ston.html

[Yuugal]

1. K&R

[IndianaGreen]

2. This war was lost back in 2008

and no one among the political elites has the courage to admit it publicly! American troops are risking their lives to save the face of politicians in Washington, just as it was during the Vietnam War.

[tekisui]

3. I just can't understand why any of them think this is a good idea.

There is no winner in this scenario. It is lost, they won't admit it, so keep it going, no end in sight. More loss of life, more constraints on our economy, more radicalization and blowback. Still no chance of win. Stupidity.

[hulka38]

6. I think if it was ever winnable, it was lost it with the pullout

to Iraq in 2003. We never had the resources to hold and build to gain confidence of the Afghans.

[roscoeroscoe]

12. right on

it was a true mess from the start, with dick cheney's beloved 'war in the shadows' type of plan. very light on conventional boots on the ground, a war based on special forces handing over suitcases of cash and calling in airstrikes. getting caught in the muddle of being played by warlords to attack their enemies.

war crimes hushed over. and in the end, the taliban slipped away, and the special forces were pulled out to prepare for the iraq war.

yikes.

[Uzybone]

7. It was lost once Bin Laden was allowed to slip away in 2001

since then its been a pointless muddle.

[Phx_Dem]

4. Also criticized in the article were McCain and Kerry.

But you'll never hear that from the media because God forbid they repeat something negative about Crazy John McCain, especially when it comes from the military. Can't have that.

"Politicians like McCain and Kerry, says another aide, 'turn up, have a meeting with Karzai, criticize him at the airport press conference, then get back for the Sunday talk shows.' Frankly, it's not very helpful."

[IndianaGreen]

5. The two party system has failed America!

It failed to defend the Constitution when it came under assault by authoritarians exploiting 9-11. It cheerfully supported the invasion of Iraq. It stands silently as civilians were slaughtered by the tens of thousands in Iraq and Afghanistan. It sends our brave troops to fight in a war that was lost years ago.

[Catherina]

8. This is unconsciable

"Troops are being asked to risk their lives so the Obama administration can go through the motions."

I'm so angry about this. So disgusted. So disappointed.

[boppers]

9. Lots of typing, not a lot of message.

"If the only way to win -- which is to say not lose -- is to risk American casualties to avoid civilian ones, than this war cannot be won at all."

Scorched earth warfare doesn't work in this media age. Perhaps the author could have saved themselves a lot of typing by saying: "War is unwinnable, so there."

[Hissyspit]

10. Yeah, we know...

Nine years into this. Almost two years into Obama's attempts to turn things around, when things are exactly where people predicted they would be, we have to nitpick every article that tries to point out how devestatingly futile this has become, because, well, we have a Democratic President, I guess.

I posted a thread sometime last fall trying to bring attention to the futility of our attempts there which pretty much indicated we would be where we're at and it hardly got attention.

We are blinded by party-inspired tunnel vision at the party's peril.

[boppers]

15. A slight rephrasing.

"Nine years into this. Almost two years into Obama's attempts to turn things around, when things are exactly where people predicted they would be, we have to nitpick every thing that points out how devastatingly futile this has become, because, well, we have a Democratic President, I guess."

Time to stop debate, nitpicking, long winded blogging, well thought critique, defensiveness, and GET OUT.

[Hissyspit]

16. Oops. Sorry. I was reading on my iPhone.

Didn't read it very clearly.

[amborin]

11. it was these revelations that led to McChrystal's canning....

[JVS]

13. Well duh! Promote those who have demonstrated their grasp of the obvious.

[Mimosa]

14. Who wants to be the last to die in a lost cause?

Tekisui, what do you think will happen? Will the US keep occupation troops in an unsecured Afghanistan for decades?

Or is there a chance that country will be stabilised? Is Iraq stabilised? I really don't know.

[mochajava666]

17. That's the first thing I thought of. too.

Once the mission of the war (which appears to be nation-building as part of a COIN strategy) is realized to be unobtainable, the question that remains is who is the last to die for a lost cause?

[Orsino]

18. An NCO confronting McChrystal? Brilliant!

I'm all for dishing on Imperial underpants, but McChrystal didn't keep us in Afghanistan, and the rules of engagement aren't why we lost.