General McChrystal: ‘It’s the end of the beginning’

US now has overwhelming strength in Helmand, while Special Forces raise stakes against Taliban

Column LAST UPDATED AT 07:41 ON Wed 2 Dec 2009

Stealing one of Churchill’s most famous lines, "This is not the beginning of the end, but the end of the beginning," General Stanley McChrystal this morning heralded a new phase, almost a new campaign, in the war in Afghanistan.

He was speaking to his commanders in Kabul following President Obama's announcement of the dispatch of a further 30,000 US troops, a ringing endorsement of McChrystal's counter-insurgency strategy.

This gives the American general a total force of 150,000 international troops and 150,000 Afghan soldiers to turn things around before the first international force reduction promised by Obama for the summer of 2011.

It seems a tall order, given the reverses and setbacks of the past eight years which have seen the Taliban surge back and take over whole chunks of this country. But McChrystal was confident. "Yes we can do it," he said this morning. "We have the forces I need and now we must work with the Afghan government and people to improve their governance, security and economy."

His key concept is 'embedded partnering'. This means international forces working, living and fighting alongside Afghan counterparts. And McChrystal is leading from the front. He says he will work with President Karzai at every turn. "We are not here to occupy or conquer this country, we are here to defend the Afghan people and help them to defend themselves better."

"We have learned this from Iraq," said one of his senior advisers, Sir Graeme Lamb. "Don't get ahead of the government of the country you’re there to help."

McChrystal paid tribute to all soldiers under his command, and their wounded and dead. But above all he said he paid tribute "to the Afghan soldiers who have suffered and died in greater numbers than our forces, and the Afghan police who have suffered much greater loss than the Afghan army".

Most of the 30,000 troops now coming in will partner, train and mentor Afghan army units. They will fight alongside them in crucial areas of Taliban infestation already earmarked - southern Helmand round Marjah and the key river systems round Kandahar, home turf of the Taliban founder Mullah Omar, and homeland of President Karzai's own branch of the Populzai tribe.

The Americans will now have overwhelming force in Helmand, some 25,000 combat troops, whereas the British only have about 5,000 combat troops. This means the Americans finally have the weight of numbers to clear whole areas of the 'necklaces' of IED buried bombs and stay on the ground at places like Sangin and Musa Qala.

This poses a dilemma for the British. They can stay on, focusing on a small part of 'Helmandshire', but they would be far more effective operating elsewhere in more sparsely populated areas, where they would have the numbers and tactical skills to make a difference. However, this would mean them coming under direct American command as a mobile reserve. With elections looming, could Gordon Brown be seen to do this? Military expediency says yes, political vanity says no.

For all the emphasis on supporting Afghan civil society, a serious hidden war is going on in the shadows - and not entirely to the Taliban’s advantage. "They [the Taliban] look divided and fractured in several places now," says Lamb, McChrystal's old buddy from British Special Forces and now his adviser.

Special Forces strikes against known leaders and hardliners have gone up five-fold in the past three months. "We've made it plain to the hard men, and we must, that we're going to hit them till their eyeballs bleed," says Lamb with a wolfish grin. But, he says, most of the rural, local Taliban - the large majority - can be won over. · 

Comments

Having learned nothing from history, this retard general hasn't realised Afghanistan is a lost cause, no one has ever subjugated it and never will. If the might of the Red Army couldn't, what hope has America with its brainwashed, shaven-headed grunts taught not to think but jump on command, facing an enemy of individuals with no fear of death? There will be many more deaths and no resolution, and eventually America will hace to leave as it did in Vietnam, attempting, unsuccessfully, to claim victory in defeat. Meanwhile, the death toll, mainly of the newly born, in both Afghanistan and Iraq from depleted uranium [DU] used in shells, bombs and bullets by both the US and UK causing cancers and birth deformities is rising steadily, as this site shows http://planetark.org/wen/55780

Robert Fox is a warmongering madman whose fascist ravings have no place in The First Post. The comparison of O'Bomber with Churchill is utterly false, and signifies the empty thuggish logic of someone besotted with yankee-doodle neonazism.

Paul's comment echos in my memory back to the time when I served in Korea. While we were grateful for the kit and the food that the US supplied, we had little respect for them as soldiers. But to be fair, that was probably because of the way they were trained and led. As people they were invariably pleasant and generous. I remember reading somewhere that whenever the British commander of the Commonwealth Division was ordered to carry out a certain task or operation he would ask "Why? What are the objectives and what will it cost in killed and wounded? How can the objective be achieved most economically in terms of manpower and resources?" There was little love lost at the top it seemed. So what has changed? Looking back I have always been impressed by the fact that the Commonwealth Division was so placed to block the traditional invasion route from the north that led via the valley of the R Imjin straight to Seoul. It was during the defence of that line in 1951 that the Gloucester regiment was wiped out as a fighting unit and the 3rd Royal Australian Regiment nearly met the same fate at Kapyong. I like to think that when the American commanders were considering who to alocate to such an important section of the front they chose the best division at their disposal - the Brits, the Aussies, the Canadians and the Kiwis of the Commonwealth Division under British command. That is how it should remain in Afghanistan.

The difference between British troops and others is that the British fighting man is trained to think for himself, unlike his counterparts in other armies. That is what makes the Brits so successful.
British troops also expect good leadership; and someone has suggested putting them under American control? God help them if that ever happens.

Ye-har! Let's terminate the taliban and kill the Quadas!!

Comments are now closed on this article