WASHINGTON — President Obama could read the grim assessment of the Afghanistan war from his top military commander there in two possible ways.

He could read Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal’s report as a blunt and impassioned last-chance plea for a revamped counterinsurgency strategy bolstered by thousands more combat troops to rescue the beleaguered, eight-year mission.

Or he could read it as a searing indictment of American-led NATO military operations and a corrupt Afghan civilian government, pitted against a surprisingly adaptive and increasingly dangerous insurgency.

Either way, General McChrystal’s 66-page report with the deceptively bland title “Commander’s Initial Assessment” is serving to catalyze the thinking of a president — who is keenly aware of the historical perils of a protracted, faraway war — about what he can realistically accomplish in this conflict, and whether his vision for the war and a commitment of American troops is the same as his general’s.

Mr. Obama faces a deteriorating security situation in Afghanistan, growing opposition to the war at home from Democrats and a desire to put off any major troop decision while he still needs much political capital to pass major health care legislation in Congress.

But even as the president expresses skepticism about sending more American troops to Afghanistan until he has settled on the right strategy, he is also grappling with a stark reality: it will be very hard to say no to General McChrystal.

Mr. Obama has called Afghanistan a “war of necessity,” and in the most basic terms he has the same goal as President George W. Bush did after the Sept. 11 attacks, to prevent another major terrorist assault.

“Whatever decisions I make are going to be based first on a strategy to keep us safe, then we’ll figure out how to resource it,” Mr. Obama said Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”

“We’re not going to put the cart before the horse and just think by sending more troops we’re automatically going to make Americans safe,” he said.

The White House expects General McChrystal’s request to be not just for American troops but for NATO forces as well. This week, the White House is sending questions about his review back to the general in Kabul, Afghanistan, and expects to get responses by the end of next week.

Senator Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat who heads the Armed Services Committee, said in an interview Monday that he wants to know how the uncertainty surrounding the recent Afghan elections and a plan to reintegrate Taliban fighters into Afghan society could affect General McChrystal’s troop request.

Mr. Obama has had only one meeting so far on the McChrystal review, but aides plan to schedule three or four more after he returns from the Group of 20 summit meeting in Pittsburgh at the end of this week.

Aides said it should take weeks, not months, to make a decision. “The president’s been very clear in our discussion that he’s open-minded and he’s not going to be swayed by political correctness one way or the other,” Gen. James L. Jones, the national security adviser, said in an interview. “Different people are going to have different opinions, and he wants to hear them, but at the end of the day, he’s going to do what he thinks is the right thing for the United States and most especially for the men and women who have to respond to his orders.”

Senior officers who work with General McChrystal say he was surprised by the dire condition of the Afghan mission when he assumed command in June.

His concerns went beyond the strength and resilience of the insurgency. General McChrystal was surprised by the lack of efficient military organization at the NATO headquarters and that a significant percentage of the troops were not positioned to carry out effective counterinsurgency operations.

There was a sense among General McChrystal’s staff that the military effort in Afghanistan was disjointed and had not learned from the lessons of the past years of the war.

“We haven’t been fighting in Afghanistan for eight years,” said one officer. “We’ve been fighting in Afghanistan for one year, eight times in a row.”

In his assessment, General McChrystal also portrayed a more sophisticated Taliban foe that uses propaganda effectively and taps into the Afghan prison system as a training ground.

Taliban leaders based in Pakistan appoint shadow governors for most provinces, install their own courts, levy taxes, conscript fighters and wield savvy propagandists. They stand in sharp contrast to a corrupt and inept government.

And Taliban fighters exert control not only through bombs and bullets. “The insurgents wage a ‘silent war’ of fear, intimidation and persuasion throughout the year — not just during the warmer weather ‘fighting season’ — to gain control over the population,” the general said in his report.

Administration officials said that the general’s assessment, while very important, was just one component in the president’s thinking.

Asked on CNN on Sunday why after eight months in office he was still searching for a strategy, Mr. Obama took issue. “We put a strategy in place, clarified our goals, but what the election has shown, as well as changing circumstances in Pakistan, is that this is going to be a very difficult operation,” he said, referring to the Afghan election. “We’ve got to make sure that we’re constantly refining it to keep our focus on what our primary goals are.”

Peter Baker and Thom Shanker contributed reporting.

Obama should embrace a 'controlled chaos' strategy like the US did in Iraq.

JD21290 wrote:How about they actually ask the ladies and lads that serve what they think? after all, its them giving thier fething lives, why should someone else get to make that choice for them?

Really? Really? Did you just ask why volunteers in the armed forces aren't asked their opinion on strategic matters?

JD21290 wrote:I think ill leave this one for now, i can see me losing my account if i get into this one with you youngblood.
I think frazz knows my views on this kind of thing though..

ShumaGorath wrote:

Obama should embrace a 'controlled chaos' strategy like the US did in Iraq.

Except the situations in both countries are completely different.. Sectarian clashes over a power vacuum instigated through the toppling of a hardline authoritarian regime and extremist islamism with multicountry training and recruitment, funded by the drug trade is not going to be fought similarly.

Then Graham zeroed in. If that's the case, he asked, how is it that the Taliban are gaining ground? The problem isn't the Taliban, it's the Afghan government, isn't that right?
Mullen agreed. The problem, he said, "is clearly the lack of legitimacy of the government."
Graham pushed the matter. "We could send a million troops, and that wouldn't restore legitimacy in the government?" he asked.
Mullen replied, "That is correct."

A central plank of his strategy, led by General Graham Lamb, of Britain, would be to try to induce low and middle-ranking Taleban fighters to fight for the Government, repeating tactics pioneered by General Lamb in Iraq two years ago, Admiral Mullen said... When Admiral Mullen revealed that General Lamb had initiated an effort to win over Taleban fighters, he was asked why it had taken so long. “It has not been an area of focus,” he said.

Dal'yth Dude wrote:Pakistan has more problems than Afghans coming over the border.

Frazzled wrote:Mexico defeated the Zapatistas. Santa Anna defeated five insurgencies. missed the one in Tejas though...

Russians obliterated many an insurgency.

Frazzled wrote:We beat the crap out of the native American insurgency.

We beat the crap out of the Confederate insurgency.

Turks beat the Armenian insurgency pretty well.

Redbeard wrote:

Frazzled wrote:We beat the crap out of the native American insurgency.

The difference in technology levels was considerably greater there. The US committed considerably more resources to that fight, and were willing to commit acts of what would today be termed mass destruction (biological warfare using smallpox).

We beat the crap out of the Confederate insurgency.

Youmean unlike today where we have satellites and aircraft vs. guys with handsmithed AKs and garbage from Iran right?

ShumaGorath wrote:

Youmean unlike today where we have satellites and aircraft vs. guys with handsmithed AKs and garbage from Iran right?

There's a significant difference between counterinsurgency and genocide and internment.

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Youmean unlike today where we have satellites and aircraft vs. guys with handsmithed AKs and garbage from Iran right?

There's a significant difference between counterinsurgency and genocide and internment.