GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Former top general in Afghanistan urges shift in U.S. effort

• 82354
  

  what a shame about the young men in afghanistan...... and this is there way of preventing terriorism. Well we shall see who wins. It is funny to see how much people waste their time and money. Indeed, maybe Gordon Brown is right, its going to be a long summer.. I feel sorry for the future generation!!!

  desert rose Posted July 12, 2009 3:12 PM
• 42534
  

  For those who know him personally, LTG Barno is not one to bluster, offer diatribes, or curry political favor. In fact, he's one of the few observers of the situation in Afghanistan who is willing to give a true assessment of the situation as it CURRENTLY exists, based on his extensive experience and contacts. It's sad that every time he opens his mouth, he's castigated by the Bush Bashers, who are too ready to believe that every General and Admiral simply takes direction from the Bush Administration.

  In fact, the situation in Afghanistan three years ago was different from the situation today. Al Qaeda, for all its weaknesses, is able to change its approach to counter our efforts because its command structure is permanent and builds on its past experiences and mistakes. If we do not encourage our experienced generals to offer advice and encouragement to the existing command structure, then we place ourselves in the position of re-inventing the wheel every time command changes.

  S.B. Pickering Posted January 30, 2008 1:55 AM
• 42180
  

  It all comes down to politics and newsworthiness. Neither should factor in either Afghanistan or Iraq but, both possess the authority of causing an effect in indirect and intangible ways. As for General Barno, the blustering diatribe of a former military commander is just that, political in nature and [unfortunately]newsworthy. The aggregate of insurgents in that region should have been determined previously when General Barno was in command requiring actions serving a larger purpose...eradication. That is the crux of the matter...since we must preclude from angering politicians intervening in areas where they've no clue, reporters with their own slant on stories, in many instances sensationalizing the news and Generals with their own agenda. The military's hands are tied and they must show obsequious deference to generals, politicians and news reporters. Politicians (and former commanders) attempting to gain favor and extend their sphere of influence by interference and inference while news accounts devised by reporters interesting enough to the general public but lacking in matters of importance, full of ambiguity, innuendo and derision. The focus of reports out of Afghanistan and Iraq is negativity and contrary to many of the worthwhile efforts of the military (which those of us who have deployed are cognizant), we are acutely sensitive to the posturing of politicians, retired Generals and reporters alike. Unfortunately, the military is the fodder for many and we refute the narratives fashioned to shock and misrepresent rather than involving matters of humanitarianism and heroism of major and practical importance to all concerned...yellow journalism at its best.

  CAE Posted January 24, 2008 3:43 PM
• 42177
  

  Roland,

  Seems you suffer from a bad case of BDS given that we are still in Korea.

  joe Posted January 24, 2008 3:26 PM
• 42157
  

  I don't believe what Gen. Barno said. I served there during that time and the only thing that really happened was every spring, when the snow melted, there was a resurgence of violence from the Taliban and Al Qaeda. DUH! It happens every year, but everyone thinks it is a "major" surprise. We knew what would happen during the spring over there, but the press picks it up like we are losing the war when the Taliban takes over a bunch of broken and damaged buildings they call a town and ran off the two people that lived there. What the press reports is bunch of crap.

  What needs to happen is we need to get serious with the Taliban and Al Qaeda and close off the border with Pakistan and just kill everything that comes over the border. We have the capability to do so, yet we choose not to. That would definitely keep the fighters from coming into Afghanistan. Politics will prevent this.

  There are also not enough troops or equipment there. They had minimal artillery support and air power sometimes took to long to get there that the fight was already over. If we had enough troops and assets there, we could do a whole lot better. There needs to be a firm commitment to actually go and seek the enemy out. When General Vines was there, he said "I am going to kill all of those bastards", and he did. We decimated them while he was there. Then Barno took over and it wasn't the same and the violence increased. Too bad Gen Vines didn't come back as he really did make a lot of progress and kill a lot of the enemy.

  D. Thomas Posted January 24, 2008 12:00 PM
• 42143
  

  This is another example of Bush blunders in the "War on Terrorism. If we had put half the troops we had in Iraq right now into Afghanistan right after 9/11, the Taliban leaders and Bin Laden would be long ago dead and buried. Furthermore, Barno should have spent more time destroying the poppy fields and less time trying to kiss up to an Administration that gave him a mission impossible because too few resources were devoted to Afghanistan, the true cause of 9/11. We are also going to have to stay in Afghanistan a long time, maybe even as long as we have stayed in Korea. The US Army and DoD under Rumsfeld were always in denial about that and too preoccupied with Saddam, who was not a real threat to us.

  Roland Meisner Posted January 24, 2008 10:34 AM