Adm Mike Mullen: US is losing war in Afghanistan

[avaistheone1]

America's highest-ranking military officer admitted that US forces were currently losing the war in Afghanistan and said they had 18 to 24 months to turn around the Taliban's momentum.

"This is the most dangerous time I've seen growing up the last four decades in uniform," Adm Mike Mullen told audiences of soldiers and marines, some of whom are weeks away from flying to conflict.

"We are not winning, which means we are losing and as we are losing, the message traffic out there to recruits keeps getting better and better and more keep coming."

Telling soldiers that he expected to be a tough fight and rising casualties in 2010, he said: "I don't want to be in any way unclear about that. This is what happened in Iraq during the surge and as tragic as it is, to turn this thing around, it will be a part of this surge, as well."


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/6762317/Adm-Mike-Mullen-US-is-losing-war-in-Afghanistan.html




I don't think this escalation is making much sense to Admiral Mullen either.

[polichick]

1. Doesn't it ever occur to the deciders that the U.S. needs to stop being...

...a posterboard for terrorist recruitment??

[avaistheone1]

2. I don't think so. I think the folks who will profit from this escalation have clouded the

Pentagon's and Generals' thinking for the most part. There are some exceptions.

[Captain Hilts]

4. That's why it's significant Gates put ADMIRALS in leadership positions. Their service

doesn't benefit from either the Afghan or Iraq Wars.

"Now, where's Osama, is he over here..."

[Captain Hilts]

3. President Bush and Rumsfeld consistently refused requests for more troops for Afghanistan

when it appeared to be spinning out of control.

[Vinnie From Indy]

5. Again, it should be asked of the general or anyone else using the win-lose paradigm

What exactly does victory mean? What does losing mean?

Is it the ability of a corrupt Karzai govt. to defend it's hold on power as opposed to the Taliban?

Is it an attempt to keep the peace in Afghanistan by trying to get a balance of power between warlords?


The reason this question is never answered is becuase any real examination of the issue ultimately leads to one unassailable conclusion - unless we are committed to killing tens of thousands of Afghanis in a ruthless imposition of our will, they will simply wait us out, bleed us dry and then go back to fighting each other when we leave. There is no victory in Afghanistan, there is only defeat because it is impossible for us to impose anything other than brutal suppression either directly or indirectly. It is our choice as to how expensive the defeat will ultimately be.

[LynnTheDem]

6. 1. Of course we are. 2. We only ever will lose.

3. You can't kill other people's kids and expect any kind of "win".

4. What's to "win"?

5. Duh.

[Clio the Leo]

7. You might want to re-read what you posted then...

.... if you are having trouble understanding his thought so the matter.

I watched most of his speech yesterday. To say that the escalation "doesn't make much sense to Adm. Mullen" completely misrepresents what he said.