Monday, September 21, 2009

General McChrystal Sides With Afghans Over US Troops

Just like his boss Obama, Afghanistan US General McChrystal, has chosen the civilians of Afghanistan over our great US troops. It is true that he wants more troops, but he clearly states that the civilians in Afghanistan are more important.

McChrystal is equally critical of the command he has led since June 15. The key weakness of ISAF, he says, is that it is not aggressively defending the Afghan population. "Pre-occupied with protection of our own forces, we have operated in a manner that distances us -- physically and psychologically -- from the people we seek to protect. . . . The insurgents cannot defeat us militarily; but we can defeat ourselves."

He fails to realize that we are defeating ourselves by fighting a politically correct war. Gen. McChrystal then follows in the footsteps of other US military "leaders" by making the following comment. Which basically means that the forces need to respect Islam.

McChrystal continues: "Afghan social, political, economic, and cultural affairs are complex and poorly understood. ISAF does not sufficiently appreciate the dynamics in local communities, nor how the insurgency, corruption, incompetent officials, power-brokers, and criminality all combine to affect the Afghan population."

The General then makes a statement that would make the great General Patton, spin in his grave. He admits that he will take troop members out of secured positions and place them in harms way, all to try to win the hearts and minds of the Afghanistan population. Funny, how that has not happened in approximately eight years there.

He also says that coalition forces will change their operational culture, in part by spending "as little time as possible in armored vehicles or behind the walls of forward operating bases." Strengthening Afghans' sense of security will require troops to take greater risks, " but the coalition "cannot succeed if it is unwilling to share risk, at least equally, with the people.

The general says his command is "not adequately executing the basics" of counterinsurgency by putting the Afghan people first. "ISAF personnel must be seen as guests of the Afghan people and their government, not an occupying army," he writes. "Key personnel in ISAF must receive training in local languages."

General McChrystal clearly does not understand that being the "guests" of Muslims, means that non-Muslims have to abide by the rules of Islam. That is not winning hearts and minds. That is bowing down to the ideology of the enemy.

General McChrystal is death sentence for our troops and he should be dismissed immediately. Our great troops deserve better, much better.


Anonymous said...

Alfred,I appreciate your explanation & definition of insurgency,but I think I understand how the counterinsurgency following
rigid rules could work in the oppositions favor,but please explain just what the alternative
is & how walking amongst the villagers (who are sometimes hostile & often work with the insurgency) therefore exposing themselves to attack when these places really haven't been secured.What's the point? They'll love our guys?---if they don't die.I'm not being sarcastic--I want
to know. Please explain.

ace said...

Why doesn't McChrystal resign NOW. Same applies to EVERYONE in the military. Every single soldier in the military NEEDS to resign. These soldiers need to say NO to giving citizens the poison [soul condemning] swine flu shots and say NO to the NWO fags.

If people would just seriously WAKE THE HELL UP NOW, the NWO can be DEFEATED. There is STRENGTH in numbers.

Alfred said...


Glad you found some use for my post, even though it seems it has been removed...

You ask some important questions: "What are the alternatives," and how will "walking amongst the villagers" help. I will try to answer as impartially as I can.

In order to get the answer to your first question, we must understand the goal of our operations in Afghanistan. According to General McChrystal, our objective is to "defeat the insurgencey threatening the stability of Afghanistan." You can read the rest of his statement here:

Next we need to look at the problem, or what prevents us from achieving that goal and why. Why are we having difficulty defeating the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan?

While there are many reasons that contribute to our difficulty, the most obvious is that they are difficult to find because they hide in extremely well established cave systems. We don’t have the manpower to search each system effectively, because once we encroach on their hide-out, they can quickly relocate into the next mountain range. And if they’re not in the cave system, they are usually hiding in plain sight among the population.

Now that we’ve identified the challenge to achieving our goal, we can look at courses of action or (COAs) to overcome that challenge.

In order to defeat the insurgents, we need to employ more troops. I know that it sounds counter-intuitive, but it works. With more troops, we can cover more ground. For example, instead of patrolling every other valley, we can patrol every valley and use UAVs to cover mountain ridgelines. That way, when they try to relocate to another cave system, we can catch them in the open and use combined arms to destroy them. Additional troops also help in more ways that just patrols. With more troops on the ground, we can use some for patrols and the rest for “walking amongst the villagers.” Why would we do this when it flies in the face of conventional warfare? Because, oddly enough, getting to know the people and their culture actually helps with our intelligence gathering, as well as showing them that we can provide a better life for them than the Taliban or Al Qaeda can. Or better yet, they (given the right training and equipment) can provide a better life for themselves. Does this mean we put ourselves at risk? Yes. Does it mean we accept a reduced defensive posture? No. In the end, a soldier on the ground who has an intimate knowledge of the customs of the population will be better prepared to spot something out of the ordinary. This is difficult to do if you only drive through town once per week, and when you do you’re encased in a blast-proof vehicle. While it does offer us protection, it sends the wrong message to the villagers who harbor insurgents. If we can gain their trust (trust and honor are extremely important to them), then they will feel more comfortable helping us. But they won’t help us if they feel that they’ll be killed for doing so, which is why we need to offer security while building personal relationships. I think the easiest way to think about this is to look at it from their perspective. Let’s use the British as the insurgents (because they look similar to Americans and speak the same language), and the French as the counterinsurgents (because they don’t like the British).

Alfred said...

Let’s say we lacked a cohesive government that couldn’t defend us. As a result, the British (who terrorize French embassies around the world) operated out of America. The British took away our weapons, our choices, enforced rules upon us that we didn’t like, etc. Is it time for a revolution? Perhaps, but we have no weapons, we’re mal-nourished, and untrained. Nor do we have the capability of getting those items because we’re poor. Then, along come the French. If the French came through town driving like maniacs in armored cars, damaging your property or worse – destroying your home with excessive military force, then how do you feel about that? You probably wonder if helping the French would be worth the risk of double crossing the British since both look equally bad. And if the British found out they might kill you or your family. Now, if a couple of cars rolled into town, the troops got out and asked you how your day was, what issues you’ve been dealing with, or how they can help you, you might be inclined to help them more. Especially if they actually kept their word and did help you. Now let’s take that one step further… Let’s say 15 armored cars showed up, and there were 45 troops. They stopped, brought some toys for your children, brought food and water, and helped with some of your issues. And when they were done, they stayed. The cars provided security for your village. Now would you be inclined to help the French? Most likely, because the British can’t operate with the increased security, and therefore you’re safe. At this point, the French have taken away the “center of gravity” for the British – the people. Insurgents have often been compared to fish, and the population compared to water. Take away the water, and the fish drown.

It’s not a great analogy because it’s obviously more complex than that, but hopefully it explains why we need to take some risk while we get to understand their culture and win their trust. This is why we can’t go into a town and call artillery anytime we get shot at; we need to provide a measured response. If we get shot at by a sniper, then we attack him with a squad. If we get shot at by a squad, then attack him with a platoon. If we get engaged by a platoon, we attack with a company, etc. Having said that, there will always be times when direct fire weapons won’t be enough. In those cases, we should use indirect fire weapons, but those cases should be determined by ground commanders in the fray, and they should not be restricted by the ROE, as is the case in Afghanistan. Point is, we need to be careful - but not stupid - when it comes to using fires to minimize civilian casualties and collateral damage, otherwise COIN operations will only take longer while we attempt to regain the population’s trust. And that’s if we’re lucky enough to regain it; it might be lost forever if we aren’t careful.

So, that’s COIN in a nutshell, and why we need to interact with the people. In 2005, it was thought that Iraq was all but lost. Some high ranking officials didn’t think that we would ever regain the Al Anbar province. But in January of 2006, President Bush approved a troop surge which was completed in June of that same year. Within months, we noticed a sharp decline in violence and insurgent operations because we adhered to the principles set forth in FM 3-24 (the COIN manual), and we added more troops to allow us to do so.

Alfred said...

But, what are some other COAs? LtCol Ralph Peters (USA, Ret) offers two approaches to Afghanistan that go against COIN. You can read his “Enemy focused approach[s]” on the last page of his article:

In short, the first says we should turn security over to the Afghans and reduce our “footprint” to 15,000 troops – the maximum amount feasibly supportable by air. This would deny the insurgents any capability to attack along supply routes that lie along the Afghanistan / Pakistan border. He further suggests, essentially, that we minimize our exposure to the population by creating one large base with a few satellite bases instead of multiple FOBs. He would have us use Special Ops forces to locate enemy forces, and use UAVs and helicopters to destroy them on sight. The issue I have with this that I don’t think SpecOps forces will be as effective as the primary means for defeating the Taliban. They certainly add to the fight, but there are not enough of them to surveil all of the Taliban’s hiding places. Also, part of the issue is that the insurgents live among the people. How the SpecOps forces would determine who’s who among them is not addressed by LtCol Peters. It could be done, but it would take significantly longer than traditional COIN operations, based on what we’ve seen in the past.

His second alternative would be to completely pull out of Afghanistan, and use over-the-horizon weapons to target insurgents when we find them. But how often did President Clinton waste a million dollar missile on an empty tent while attempting to kill Osama bin Laden? Furthermore, a complete pull out would allow the Taliban and Al Qaeda to re-group, and with the help of nations like Syria, Jordan, Pakistan and Iran, they could potentially launch another devastating strike on the U.S.

Personally, I don’t think either of these are viable alternatives, as tempting as they might sound. I also think that securing Afghanistan is critical, because if we can operate out of Iraq and Afghanistan, we can engage ANY extreme Islamist country on a two front war if required. If you look at a map you will notice that Jordan is between Iraq and Israel, Syria is between Turkey and Iraq, Iran is between Iraq and Afghanistan, and Pakistan is between Afghanistan and India. With the assistance of our allies, we could effective control those Arab nations either politically, or militarily. This assumption is not based on any intelligence or knowledge of future OPLANs – it’s just an observation I made. But I wouldn’t be surprised if some Generals in the basement of the Pentagon were concocting a 50-year plan to control the middle east…

For other COAs, you can look here:
And here:

Hopefully that answers your question as to what other alternatives have been publicly offered, and why walking among the villagers will actually increase our success in Afghanistan. If you have any other questions, or if there’s anything that didn’t make sense, let me know and I’ll be happy to answer them to the best of my abilities.

Christopher Logan said...

Were those 4 Marines that died because no one would send them air support part of this success?

Just disgraceful.

Look at the history of Afghanistan, they do not go down for long.

Meanwhile Iran will have a nuke very soon.

Christopher Logan said...

Control the ME, and let Muslim immigration bring down the West. What a brilliant plan.

Also oblivious to the fact that Muslims do not even have to fire another shot to takeover the West and that is what the plan of the Saudis and Muslim Brotherhood is.

Christopher Logan said...

If we look across the net, those that actually know about Islam, know that nation building in Afghanistan will not work and that there is no winning the hearts and minds of the Islamic world. Alfred is a company man who is purposely blind to Islamic history.

Russia could not defeat the Taliban in a brutal war, so a PC correct war will not do it.

Bring the troops home, a country that allows a law where husbands can starve their wives for not giving them sex is not worth US blood or money.

Christopher Logan said...

"as well as showing them that we can provide a better life for them than the Taliban or Al Qaeda can."

Islam is purposely ignored here and I see the plan is to support these people for decades, when we have no money. Another great idea.

Meanwhile Islam advances across the West, America included. The fight is now in our backyard. Let Afghanistan fend for themselves.

Christopher Logan said...

Notice what's missing (Islam).

Coalition intelligence-gathering has focused on how to attack insurgents, hindering "ISAF's comprehension of the critical aspects of Afghan society."

I'll tell you what hinders ISAF comprehension -- clueless Gen. McChrystal and all our see-no-Islam leaders, military and civilian, who are making a hash of US foreign policy on global jihad -- not to mention our troops's lives.

Christopher Logan said...

"Problem is, the same blind spot afflicts both strategies: the failure to understand that an infidel nation cannot fight for the soul of an Islamic nation."

Christopher Logan said...

Fitzgerald: "no one should ever expect to win Muslim hearts and minds. It will not happen."

From Islamic scholar Robert Spencer.

Chairman of Joint Chiefs seeks new ways to woo Muslims

"Because, you see, after billions to Pakistan, billions to Egypt, billions here and there and everywhere, we haven't been doing enough to show Muslim countries that we are their friends."


Maybe. But unfortunately the Admiral, like virtually everyone else in Washington on both sides of the aisle, assumes that the jihadists are merely reacting to actions by the United States. The possibility that they may hate us for reasons of their own that have nothing to do with what we have done or can do doesn't seem to enter anyone's mind. Yet it is precisely that possibility that is suggested again and again by a close examination of the belief system of the jihadists themselves. They believe that they are commanded to fight against us because we are Infidels. If we are arrogant or inconsistent in living up to our own values, that makes for good grievance propaganad fodder, but it is not the root cause of the conflict itself.

The sooner our government and Pentagon face these realities, the sooner we can bring our great troops home to safety.

Christopher Logan said...

From someone who clearly understands Islam.

About that “Hearts & Minds” Crap: The Story of Daoud Sediqi

By Debbie Schlussel

Whenever you hear our government and military officials spouting off about “winning the hearts and minds” of the Muslim world, think of Daoud Sediqi. He’s the cover guy for how it’s “working.” More about him later.

Remember, we don’t win Islamic “hearts and minds” by being nice, giving them Levis and “American Idol,” and allowing them to elect their chosen barbarians in free elections. You win hearts and minds by dropping bombs and, yes, killing people. In that part of the world, it’s the only thing they understand. And the only thing they respect. Period. They laugh at our “hearts and minds” crap.


It’s more of the “hearts and minds” crap we’ve been hearing not just from Obama administration lowlights, but from President Bush and his entire administration for several years. The latest utterance of this baloney comes from General Stanley McChrystal, who continues to focus on winning Afghan “hearts.” Good luck with that.

For the rest....

The people who left comments there also get it.

Alfred said...

I have read everything you've posted, and I continue to disagree with it because your solution would is simply unattainable the way you'd want it to be. Our country simply cannot wage all out war the way you'd like it to. Doing so would most likely draw in other countries. I can assure you that our technology falls far short of things that China and Russia are developing, and to wage all-out war against them would give them a reason to point the finger at us as "aggressors," and ally other countries against us (like Iran, Syria, Jordan, and Pakistan). We are technologically falling behind. Obama will allow the Japanese, Australians and Israelis to purchase our F-22s, but he won't give any to our Air Force. Sound right to you? Not to me... I'm sure that's at least something we can agree on. The new F-35 lacks the air-superiority capability that we would have had with the F-22. We won't win a war against multiple countries, should they ally against us. And carpet bombing Afghanistan could be the catalyst that makes that happen.

I get what you're saying, Christopher:
1. Keep Muslim immigration in check.
2. That I apparently know nothing about Islam.
3. That the Russians couldn't win in Afghanistan fighting a PC war, so how can we?
4. That COIN fails to address Islam.

My response is this:
1. I agree. Keep ALL immigration in check. I've been saying this for decades.
2. I haven't read the Koran, and you have. You've studied Islam for 7 years. That makes you an more knowledgeable in Islam than me, but it doesn't mean you've got a better grasp than I do when it pertains to warfighting. I've been studying and practicing warfighting for well over a decade, and even I wouldn't consider myself an expert - war changes too often, and no battle is ever the same. And that's coming from someone who's been there.
3. The Russians didn't fight a "PC" war. They fought a "conventional" war. the Russians saw no difference between the taliban and the average afghan commoner. The Russians made no attempts to build any relationships with the tribes and succeeded only in uniting the entire country against them.
4. COIN fails to address Islam because Islam, while certainly a major problem to contend with, is not the Center of Gravity in this war. Like I said, the CG is the people. They are the water; without them the fish drown...

Curious about a few things though:
1. What are your thoughts on the Al Anbar Province?
2. We can both agree that the ROE are unnecessarily restrictive. You've certainly said your peace many times on this. Could you post the link where you referenced the ROE?
3. If we followed your guidance and pulled out of Afghanistan, what do you think would happen as a result? How would we array our forces? Would we prepare for the stubborn defense? Would we pre-emptively strike? Would we defend, then take the initiative? Just curious where you see that heading.

Christopher Logan said...

Hi Alfred,

The failure in your strategy is that Islam is being left out of the equation.

I don't think that we should carpet bomb the entire country either. I said kill as many Taliban as possible and leave. Work on their strongholds. You will never get them all, history has proven that.

I truly respect your honesty about the US falling behind militarily. That is flat out stupid and sad. (Not your fault) How about cutting back on foreign aid and putting to good use, like the US military? We always need to deal from a position of strength. Obama will make sure that does not happen.

1.I have no problem ending ALL immigration either. Don't we have a right to know who is here? Don't we have a right to demand that people assimilate?

2.I freely admit that you know more about warfare than me. This time is different though as Islam is involved.

3.That's not going to happen, and it will always be an Islamic country that is not worth US money or blood. The infidel does not get to dictate terms in Islamic countries.

4.The people are Muslims.

1.You guys made Anbar safer, but when we leave Iraq things will spark up. The Sunni-Shiite feud will never be resolved. Goes all the way back to 632. To be honest I care about the non-Muslims in Iraq. Christians in Iraq have it worse than ever (because of Islam, non-Muslims have to pay a tax to Muslims. Called jizya. It is basically extortion.) and even the Iraqi government has shut them out. If Muslims cannot get a long that is their problem. The Islamic world does not deserve US blood or money.

2.We both know that things never change unless the people speak up. Even then there is no guarantee. But I believe we have to at least try. I am sure you agree to that.

Not sure exactly what link you want, but this may be it.

3.How does this strike you?

I think Afghanistan will remain a backwards Islamic country if we left. If we stay it is still a Sharia country. American values are not Sharia. If we left there, I would at a minimum end their immigration from there to here. In a perfect world, this would not even have to be announced. It would just be done, but no one can keep their mouths shut these days.

Someone has to take out Iran's nuke sites. Their president is awaiting the return of the Madhi. If you want more info, on this just let me know.

I know I keep saying Islam, but I have to bring it up again. The US and world as a whole is more Sharia compliant than before 911. This should anger you and this is where I think the White House and PC Generals have failed our great troops. If the West falls to Islam because of the political aspect of it, in the long run was it worth spilling US blood and treasure?

Only part of the war is being fought. Did you see that video trailer on my site? Islamic terror camps in America? I encourage you to spend the lousy $10 and purchase one. The video is over an hour long and you will not be happy with what is going on here, while you and your guys risk their life overseas.

It is said that what happens in the UK comes here. I have been warning people for years to look to the UK to see what is coming our way in regards to Islam. Well it has started here. If you want me to put together any info and videos showing how bad it is there, just let me know. But seriously check out the HomeGrown Jihad video at the top of my site. This info needs to get out there. You guys should be here raiding those camps!

My main concern is not wasting the efforts of the US military. That is why Islam/Sharia, especially in America must be addressed.

If you ever want to talk in private you can reach me here.

Have a good night Alfred.

Christopher Logan said...

I mean

Anonymous said...

Hi Alfred, I appreciated you responsing to my question. Well, I read alot of what you say & it makes sense. Here's what I propose: You do the fighting & war
stratgy stuff;with Chris doing the
background Islam intellience---you
guys might make a great team. But since I'm addressing you now; I'd like to try to impress on you how much the culture of that area effects everything &it's so strange,so foreign to us-----I was watching a Muslim protest a couple of months
ago. One sign said "Freedom Go
to Hell" You see, Freedom, our most precious gift, they don't want. We believe that the Creator
gave us "certain unalienable Rights,that among these are Life, Liberty & the pursuit of Happiness"
As i said, they don't want Liberty, they don't value Life (think:suicide bombers, mothers willing to martyr their children)
Happiness? Who knows?They only know
to SUBJECT themselves & SUBMIT to
Allah, which usually to the rules
of the local Imam & Sharia law. no Liberty or Freedom here.
Not very much free or individual
thinking. Most of it is really tribal law-----it has been that way for THOUSANDS of years.That's
what you are expecting to change
The Quran specifically tells them
not to befriend Jews& Christians.
Another discouaging aspect is that
the Quran CANNOT be changed. It is
THE word of Allah & cannot be modified in any way. The Quran is quite violent. That's just my
thoughts about a culture that is
so different that it's hard to conceive. Takes alot of reading
& time to absorb. That's my 2 cents for now.

Alfred said...


I agree with Maj. General Vallely's assessment in that we should not give up the fight, but we should give up the nation building. And honestly, I'd argue that a lot of grunts would probably agree to that as well. But we need to control the population in order to flush out the insurgents; it's the best way to kill as many of them as possible. In order to control the population, some degree of rebuilding will be required to maintain peace among the population. All I'm saying is give 'em a little food, water, and some electricity. Maybe even a school or two here and there. But nothing anywhere close to the amount of building we did in Iraq. Do we need to structure a government for them? Nope. We can act as the government while we conduct COIN. The only issue with that is that it requires more manpower. Once we're done securing the population, we can begin annihilating insurgents hiding in the mountains, and other rural areas. Once the area is clear, and we can keep the Taliban more or less confined to the borders, we can operate from within Afghanistan. We can send convoy upon convoy of troops and supplies to fight a potential war in Iran. We can attack them from the east, while our forces also attack from the west with the Israelis. Iran has a fairly robust anti-air network, and fighting a two front war would be the best way to bring an end to hostilities with them, while ultimately saving countless American lives. And once we're done with all of that, we can pull up the stakes and leave without continuing to rebuild Afghanistan.

MajGen Vallely's thoughts are aligned with LtCol Peters' in that we should use SpecOps forces from "lilly pads" to engage the enemy. But there are a lot of unanswered questions, like "how do we locate the enemy?" "What is the response time of the SpecOps units if they're operating outside of Afghanistan?" While satellites help, the imagery they produce are not always good enough "intel" to know whether or not terrorist activities are taking place. And if even if it could be determined from the photo, by the time the team was alerted, planned, stepped across the "line of departure," and began the attack, the situation might have changed. In the 6 or so hours that it took to alert the team, allow them to plan, equip, and move to the attack position, the terrorists may have gotten reinforcements, and might significantly outnumber the SpecOps team that was sent in to destroy them. At the very least, we would need some people IN Afghanistan, and due to the small numbers required to keep SpecOps clandestine, it would take an extraordinary amount of time to rid the country of insurgents. That's why I don't see it as a viable option. Well, I take that back. It's viable; it's just not efficient.

Diana West also mentions that Islam is the factor that's not getting address. If Islam is the problem, then how do we solve the problem? You can't really "attack" radical Islam because it's not a tangible thing, but you can attack the people that subscribe to it. And that's what we're trying to do through COIN.

Alfred said...

Sun Tzu said in his book, The Art of War, that "all warfare is based on deception." Think of COIN as "tricking" them into thinking we care about them so that we can accomplish our mission. If we don't, then we don't control the population. And when we don't control them, attacks will come out from every dark alley in Afghanistan (which will obviously lead to more casualties while being harder to fight against). This is why I agree with the COIN manual when it argues that the Center of Gravity -- that thing which most empowers the enemy -- is the people, and if we control the will of the people then we can significantly reduce the enemy's capabilities. Notice I used the words "control the will of the people," versus "winning hearts and minds." The latter implies that we actually care, whereas the former implies that we're doing it to control the fight. I know you think that only part of the war is being fought. And you're right. But all war plans have "phases." Some of those plans have phases that extend decades from now. It could be thought of as a "shaping" operation -- something we do to help make the fight easier down the road... Anyway, the point is that by using COIN to control the will of the people, we can eventually drive the Taliban and Al Qaeda out of Afghanistan. It's a small step towards a bigger goal...

Diana West has written for the Washington Times. Here is an article that posted today on their website by Dr. James Robbins:

Alfred said...


You're absolutely right that culture plays a HUGE part in all of this. We don't understand theirs, and they don't understand ours. Makes for awkward communication at first, but by spending time among them, we can learn them and the situation will improve.

I'm curious to know where the Muslim protest was located... Was it in the U.S., or was it overseas? And to be honest, I can't necessarily say I blame them. When 2/8 was in Iraq during the awkward transition period between defeating their government and trying to stand up another one, they had gotten into the very bad habit of spraying kids in the eyes with mace to keep them away from the vehicles. They were so used to people just coming out of crowds to throw grenades in their vehicles that they went overboard in self-protection. If my kids got maced by a foreign military, I'd be pretty angry, too. All because we weren't using COIN at that time, and didn't control the population...

Another thing that we're running into is the importance of Information Operations. We need to let them know why we're there, and how they can help us. Doing this will contribute to a quicker victory. The problem is that some of the Afghans have no access to ANY media, and therefore don't really have an understanding of what's going on. A good friend of mine told me that he was mistaken for a Russian when he entered a village in Northern Afghanistan. The old man had no idea that the Russian Afghan war had been over for 20 years! Imagine the amount of explaining we have to do in order to get this man to help us out -- "well, some dudes flew a plane into a building... Iraq... Hussein... transition... And that's why you should help us." I'm sure you can picture the blank stares they got when they tried to explain why his company was patrolling through the village... So, while your example of the Muslim protest could be accurately applied to places like Iraq or Iran, or Syria and Jordan, I can assure you that the Afghan people really don't care. They'd rather just live their lives without US or Taliban intervention. The key is to get them to understand that helping us is better for everyone.

As for the Quran, I can't say I've read the entire thing. I've read parts of it, and by no means consider myself an expert when it comes to it. But I have seen the "teachings" it provides (if you want to call them that), and I don't agree with them. But the U.S. military isn't interested in changing their religion because we know that in the end, we can't. The military also isn't interested in changing their Sharia law because that's really not our job -- that's the job of some other humanitarian organization. But we need to make it safe enough for that organization to work in Afghanistan (if we want to alter their religion / laws). It's not feasible, and it's not our mission.

If given the proper tools to win, as requested by McChrystal, we can defeat the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. After an operational pause, we can set our sights on to other things. All of this may be for naught, however, as it appears that Gen. McChrystal may resign if he doesn't get what he needs from Obama and Congress. It's a move I whole-heartedly agree with -- no officer wants to be a part of a war when they're set up to lose.

Christopher Logan said...

Hi Alfred,
I will make a short comment for now and then get back to you on the rest. Have you seen all the recent articles on Islamic terrorists in America the last few days? There were more today.

The enemy is here now and I and people across the Internet just do not care how Muslims live overseas.

They sit silently as Islam advances across the West, they deserve no help what so ever. Even countries like Egypt are two-faced, as the Coptics have been persecuted there for centuries. In the end it is pointless to fight them overseas and to let them come here. They do not belong here, and after 1400 of years of trouble they do not deserve to be allowed to come here. To be blunt the people I speak to do not care how the Muslims in Iraq or Afghanistan live, that is not our problem.

Make the government clean up the mess at home.

Alfred said..."We don't understand theirs,"

Well you should instead of letting terrorist supporting groups like CAIR BS you on Islam.

These so called leaders are beyond foolish.

"Mullen said the Muslim community is "a subtle world" that demands appreciation. The U.S. must demonstrate that appreciation if it wishes to succeed at supplanting the "extremist narrative."

What part of rape and terrorism are we supposed to appreciate?

Then this guy takes the cake and should at a minimum be dismissed with no pension.

"At the Fort Carson military base in Colorado, Maj. Gen. Hammond actually brought in local Muslim leaders to "educate" thousands of US soldiers on Islam.

"We want to talk to (soldiers) about this beautiful religion", Hammond said at the one-hour meeting..."

Would he be allowed to preach about Christianity like that? To be honest this guy is a disgrace to America. Has the US government ever even though of asking EX-MUSLIMS about Islam?

Islam can not be defeated, only contained. Takeout Iran's nukes site and end their immigration.

Christopher Logan said...

From a friend.

Reminder. In recent history, the general who “won” the Gulf War by NOT finishing the job, is now advising the bam on Afghanistan.
Had that general continued to Bahgdad and taken out Saddam Hussein, we would not have had to go back to finish what he started but left undone.
Had that same general not been given free reign as Secretary of State, to take the Iraq war out of the hands of the military and thrust it into the hands of “diplomats,” we would have not had the massacre in Fallujah. And up until the very end when he was finally replaced, he continued to undermine GW Bush at every turn.
He should have been replaced a lot sooner. Now, he has the bam’s ear, and I have always suspected him to be a closet muslim for far more reasons than I can disclose.
It was never bam’s intention to “win” the war in Afghanistan. It never will be. What we are doing to our Troops there is reprehensible. It has become a meat grinder, and that suits bam just fine. It is Pakistan and the corruption of the US backed Karzai government, if you can even call it a government, that needs to be dealt with and as harshly as possible, but it won’t happen.
Under Bush, State Department interference insisting on undermining Musharaf and sending the corrupt Bhutto back to “save” Pakistan was an ill conceived and fatal decision that not only cost her her life, but cost us dearly for the chaos it created in Pakistan.
Where we had at least some control, we now have none.
Too many mistakes have already been made. Many more are coming.
Under Bush, the insistance on “democracy” has given rise to Hamas in Gaza, a muslim Kosovo, Hizbullah in control of Lebanon, islam back in control of Turkey, Shia control of Iraq, allowed radical islam to gain the upper hand in Pakistan, and legitimized the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan by installing the corrupt Karzai.
We have allowed Hizbullah and Hamas unrestricted movement in Central and South America. We have allowed radical islam to build training camps on our own soil and collect money through “charities” and front businesses, invade every college campus, recruit in every prison, while we close our eyes to the clear and present danger.
We have made the world safe for islam, and ALL of this AFTER 9/11.
Our Troops do not deserve any of this. But they are paying the price for it and I am afraid of what is coming because it will be far worse under bam. Far worse.

Christopher Logan said...

Alfred, I basically agree with your assessment, when we first "met" I thought that you were still into the nation building.

Did you order the DVD? Charge it to the govt. Something has to be done about what is in that video and I do not have the power that you do.

Alfred said...

You're right, Christopher. The enemy IS here now, and they've been here for a while growing their numbers. We agree that something should be done within the borders. But something needs to be done beyond them as well, and I truly believe that COIN is the way to make that happen. The COIN manual doesn't stipulate that you have to completely rebuild a country's structure, which is why I believe we should only do enough to accomplish our mission. This is where Gen. McChrystal and I disagree (I could go into more details on all of this as to the specifics of where we agree and disagree, and some possibilities to consider, but I'm not going to waste anyone's time here). But pulling out of Afghanistan without defeating the Taliban will make the task of defeating radical Islamists (both abroad and within our country) much more difficult. If we brought all the "boys" home, we would have to transition to the defensive. While we could offensively target cells within our borders, we would not be taking the initiative to attack cells beyond our borders. At least, not as effectively as COIN allows. While defensive, you become much more predictable. The enemy knows where you are, and as long as you are in the defensive you allow him the opportunity to test for vulnerabilities. If we were on the offensive, we can go after the enemy where they live, and get inside his "OODA Loop" (a fairly simple concept devised by Col. Boyd which states that we Observe the enemy, Orient ourselves to him, Decide and Act; repeating this loop faster than he does will enhance our success). I liken it to a lizard... A defensive posture is like us cutting the tail off the lizard. It was designed to shed its tail, and while the lizard will run away and save itself the tail will eventually grow back. If we are on the offensive, we can strike at the heart of the lizard. The perfect answer is to strike from both sides and leave him no option of escape. To some degree we're doing this. The CIA, etc, works to find and destroy these cells, but we're a obviously playing "catch-up." Plus you get into political issues with liberals complaining about their personal rights being violated while we use the Patriot Act to attempt to keep them safe (this is why I hate the political issues that drive our leaders' decisions). We should do what's best for the country, and if people don't like it and if the actions are justifiable -- we don't want some dictator taking away our freedoms for no reason --then they can leave. But that's another rant for another time...

Alfred said...

You quoted me as saying that we don't understand their culture. And you said that "we should, instead of letting terrorist supporting groups like CAIR" tell us what to believe. I had to look CAIR up, because I'd never heard of them before, and I doubt most of the people I know will have heard of them, but I will ask my peers tomorrow. The military does take steps to train us on culture, but to be honest they don't really do it from a purely "Afghan" or "Iraqi" perspective... We read books like "Operational Culture for the Warfighter," that teach us to consider things we've never considered before... For example, building a well in a village might sound like a good, humanitarian thing to do, but in societies like we have in Afghanistan, we may have just put 10 people out of work. We thought we were doing something good, and it turns out that it was a bad decision that ends up hurting our cause. Books like "Operational Culture" don't focus on the specifics of a culture, they just help us think "outside the box" when it comes to COIN operations. As for getting to really understand the culture, the best way to do that is to immerse yourself in it. Live in the country. Live among the people. Learn their language and communicate with them. This is difficult for American forces because we literally travel all over the world. We don't "live" in any of these countries; the most we can hope for is 7 months (longer, in the case of the Army) to build a rapport. Then we have to pass off our relationships to an incoming unit and hope that they trust that unit as much as they trusted us... So, to address your point, we are learning about their culture, and we're actually learning about it from the most accurate source -- the people. It's just going to take some time, just as it did in Al Anbar Province.

Alfred said...

I think that Tyler Perry (from Combat Corner) was right when he said we're pretty much "talking past each other." And I think that Silence Dogood got us started off on the wrong foot by sending my opinion of the posted article to you without my permission. My assessment of your article was meant for her eyes; had she told me she was going to post it, I would have cleaned it up a bit to make it less "aggressive." No offense, but I still disagree with some aspects of your assessment of Gen. McChrystal because of COIN. From a military perspective he's strategically on the money with everything except nation-building (in my opinion). Tactically, he's on the money with everything except his overly restrictive ROE (also in my opinion). Both of those things, however, are largely beyond his control; he has his say, but those decisions are (in most cases) made at higher levels, which is the only reason I think many of your points unfairly attacked him because they didn't fully take into account the "why" behind his statements. And that's perfectly acceptable - I don't expect you to be an expert in COIN, but I definitely wanted to provide some thoughts on the matter so that hopefully you'll realize that while it may appear that McChrystal and others are complete idiots, they aren't making decisions in a vacuum. A lot of thought goes into this, and it's an extremely complex problem. Beyond that, I think you and I agree on many things except for how to deal with this Islam issue, and we probably won't ever fully agree. That's why this will probably be my last post here. It's been enjoyable and informative; you've broadened my horizons, and hopefully I've done the same for you, but I think we're just going to continue to go round 'n' round with points and counterpoints...

If you've ever got questions on military-related stuff, feel free to shoot me an email at (that goes for you, too, Anonymous). I don't check it often, so don't expect a quick response. If you need faster feedback, you can find me on Facebook's "Combat Corner." I will do the same if I have some Islam-related questions, since I've got your contact info, too.

Take it easy, Christopher...

Anonymous said...

I have learned more from this thread than anywhere else.

Alfred - it's clear you should be a leader. Why can't you lead our troops???

Chris - it's clear you know your stuff about Islam.

I think you should join forces. lol

Christopher Logan said...

Hi Alfred,

Please factor in that Islam encourages Muslims to lie.

From the Hadith:

Bukhari (52:269) - "The Prophet said, 'War is deceit.'" The context of this is thought to be the murder of Usayr ibn Zarim and his thirty unarmed men by Muhammad's men after he "guaranteed" them safe passage (see Additional Notes below).

Bukhari (49:857) - "He who makes peace between the people by inventing good information or saying good things, is not a liar." Lying is permitted when the end justifies the means.

Bukhari (84:64-65) - Speaking from a position of power at the time, Ali confirms that lying is permissible in order to deceive an "enemy."

Bukhari (52:271) - Recounts the murder of a poet, Ka'b bin al-Ashraf, at Muhammad's insistence. The men who volunteered for the assassination used dishonesty to gain Ka'b's trust, pretending that they had turned against Muhammad. This drew the victim out of his fortress, whereupon he was brutally slaughtered despite putting up a ferocious struggle for his life.

From Islamic Law:

Reliance of the Traveler (p. 746) - "[it is] obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory... Whether the purpose is war, settling a disagreement, or gaining the sympathy of a victim legally entitled to retaliate... it is not unlawful to lie when any of these aims can only be attained through lying. But is is religiously precautionary in all cases to employ words that give a misleading impression..."

Also their religion/culture is all about forcing non-Muslims to conform to their ways. That is not freedom.

I enjoyed talking to you as well.

Here is more info on CAIR.
CAIR in their own words and actions. They sued the owner of this site, but the judge let it remain as the site's owner is only using their words and actions against them.

Even though they are tied to terrorists, many of our politicians fall all over themselves to please them.

Stay safe and bring them home as soon as possible.


Christopher Logan said...

In a superseding indictment, North Carolina residents Daniel Patrick Boyd and Hysen Sherifi were charged with conspiring to murder U.S. military personnel. According to court filings, "Boyd undertook reconnaissance of the Marine Corps Base located in Quantico, Va., and obtained maps of the base in order to plan an attack on Quantico...Boyd possessed armor piercing ammunition...

Mr. America Kicks A$$ said...

I'm a first time responder and got this link off Combat Corner on Facebook.

Interesting stuff.

What is this about Quantico? And I agree with you Mr. Alfred. I think that C.O.I.N. is the only way that we will be able to win at preventing the enemy from spreading further.

And the country of Afghanistan is the right place to start.

Christopher I enjoy your blog very much. Thank you for bringing discussions like this to light. It brings REAL FACTS out from both sides. I understand the frustrations that come from both points, but ultimately, I have to side with Mr. Alfred with his assessment of the situation. but don't misunderstand - i do not like isalm at all. i enjoy the discussion on FB and hope it continues!

Christopher Logan said...

Hi Mr. America Kicks A$$,

We also have to stop the enemy from immigrating here. Check this out.

The Captain and I got off on the wrong foot, but all is fine now. We are all on the same side.

The story about Quantico, is that a Muslim convert from N.C. was going to try and attack the Marines there.

These charges were just added, here is the story on the original arrests.

Think that you guys should know about this NY based Islamic group.

US Muslim Site Calls for Muslims to Confront Troops in NYC

Thanks for dropping by.