$(document).ready( function () { talk_rendercallback({"enabled":"1","islive":"0","eid":5513,"total":"3","discussion":[{"nm":"Sean Coakley","rs":"0","ms":"Sir,\nI have worked for you deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq and have seen firsthand your dedication (especially in Afghanistan). You are a very hands on leader, who has never been afraid to see what the situation is down to the lowest level. Your leadership style created the flat environment that made a large and complex organization successful. I have full confidence that you can project your culture upon the current fight you command in Afghanistan. Based on my experience in Iraq (realizing that Iraq and Afghanistan are not the same) I believe the concept of engaging the populace is an effective plan. Each area of Afghanistan is different, with varying threat levels. Therefore, as you have noted the Force Protection will have to be at the discretion of the local Commanders. I believe you have very well stated the point that it will be dangerous and people will die, but they will make a difference. They will make a difference that cannot be made long-range from an armored vehicle. At first, I think many people second-guessed General Petraeus’ strategy in Iraq, but the reality is that constant close contact with the populace, denies the insurgents a safety zone within the populace. It also negates some misinformation, immediately, at the local level. I think you have taken an honest and refreshing approach by laying out the costs and benefits so that political leaders can make informed decisions and the voting public can understand. I am not in a position to decide if Iraq or Afghanistan is worth fighting, but I do know that I have been amazed what we can accomplish under good leadership. I hope that National Leadership defines their objectives clearly and the military is appropriately resourced to accomplish those clear goals.\n","pt":"Oct 15, 2009 22:25"},{"nm":"Roger da Costa","rs":"0","ms":"General,\n\nYou have demonstrated w/ extreme clarity and honesty the problems of the Afghanistan campaign, the process to follow to reach a possible acceptable solution, and you believe that the US and the world cannot afford to loose this one, and I agree with you, but I think there is a very low probability of sucssess in Afghanistan, maybe less than 30%.\nThe question is, General McCrystal, can or should, Nato continue the efforts in Afghanistan with such low odds of success?\n\nThank you\nRoger da Costa","pt":"Oct 14, 2009 12:24"},{"nm":"James Moran","rs":"0","ms":"In March this year I lost a friend in the war in Afghanistan.  My brother is in the National Guard and his unit has already been to Afghanistan, he has not gone yet but is set to deploy 2011. I have seen first hand the cost of this war and this nations sacrifice.  The problem is there has never been a clear objective in this war and the longer we are there the more problems we seem to encounter.  At first we went on the offensive to root out al Queda and find Bin ladden.  Then we made them adopt a democracy and manufacture some kind of Army .  Now the government is corrupt and the Army is useless.  Once there is no American forces on the ground to keep the taliban in the mountains they will infilltrate the goverment and Army and resume controll.  Now the stradegy is to win the hearts and minds of tribal Afghanistan by putting soldiers in harms way to walk through poppy fields loaded with mines ,IED\'s and insurgent snipers day after day to shake hands with drug farmers and taliban.  Provide them with infrastucture and protection.  Ambitious is an understatement Gen. McChrystal.  Sending 40,000 more soldiers is not the sollution.  There will be a United Afghan Nation when the Afghan people want a United Afghan Nation. It is obvious we do not trust the Afghan Army to do this task.  Why have we spent the time and resources on training there Army if it is never trusted to be used.  Soldiers are not diplomats and if this mission proceeds they will be forced to play this role.  I would think it would be hard to be freindly and helpfull when bullets are flying past my head.  This is to much to ask of even the best soldiers and it has already an obvious failure. Soldiers are not trained to be polititians or diplomats.  They are trained to put politics aside and go forth with the mission.  Politics is this mission call it whatever clever name you want.  Counterinsurgency is a very loose term General.  You said Americans should debate when we are sending Americans to war.  Well I certainly am debating this proposition Sir I believe this is a mission for the Afghan Army right now it would test the will they have to continue this fight after America sends 40,000 soldiers home.  My friend was there for a week when his vehicle was hit with an IED. How many more good Americans will die for this mission?  General McChrystal this is not are only option.  ","pt":"Oct 14, 2009 06:28"}]}); });