In a stark assessment of shootings of locals by US troops at checkpoints in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal said in little-noticed comments last month that during his time as commander there, "We've shot an amazing number of people and killed a number and, to my knowledge, none has proven to have been a real threat to the force."
The comments came during a virtual town hall with troops in Afghanistan after one asked McChrystal to comment on the "escalation of force" problem. The general responded that, in the nine months he had been in charge, none of the cases in which "we have engaged in an escalation of force incident and hurt someone has it turned out that the vehicle had a suicide bomb or weapons in it."
In many cases, he added, families were in the vehicles that were fired on.
Every two weeks, McChrystal participates in a virtual town hall in which soldiers in Afghanistan submit questions by chat that he answers over streaming audio.
TPMmuckraker has obtained a fuller transcript of the comments, which were first reported by the New York Times last week. The Times' Richard Oppel noted that since last summer U.S. and NATO troops killed 30 and wounded 80 Afghans in convoy and checkpoint shootings.
In response to a question about reducing such incidents, McChrystal told troops listening to the town hall:
"We really ask a lot of our young service people out on the checkpoints because there's danger, they're asked to make very rapid decisions in often very unclear situations. However, to my knowledge, in the nine-plus months I've been here, not a single case where we have engaged in an escalation of force incident and hurt someone has it turned out that the vehicle had a suicide bomb or weapons in it and, in many cases, had families in it."
He continued: "That doesn't mean I'm criticizing the people who are executing. I'm just giving you perspective. We've shot an amazing number of people and killed a number and, to my knowledge, none has proven to have been a real threat to the force."
Tadd Sholtis, a spokesman for McChrystal said in an email to TPMmuckraker that "the general was urging his forces to exercise courageous restraint (by suggesting that it is unlikely that erratic behavior at a checkpoint constitutes a threat) while also expressing sympathy for the confusing and threatening situations in which both soldiers and Afghans find themselves."
Sholtis added that McChrystal "works harder at reducing civilian casualties than any wartime commander in a generation."
Here is the full exchange, from the transcript provided by Sholtis:
Q: "On Escalation of force, have you considered engaging the local community on the issue? We could explain at the brigade/battalion level what behavior we find threatening, and how we are trained to react when we feel threatened. We could negotiate with the community leaders over mutually agreeable actions and reactions that are better understood by both and gives part ownership of the issue to the community and empowers them in line with our approach to reintegration."GEN McChrystal: "That's a great point. I don't know if we have, but we certainly ought to be doing that. We have so many escalation of force issues, and someone gets hurt in the process, and we say, 'They didn't respond like they were supposed to.' Well, they may not have known how they were supposed to respond, so as they approached an area or checkpoint or whatever, they may have taken actions that seemed appropriate to them, and when a warning shot was fired they may have panicked. I think this is a great thing to do, to engage people and tell them the kind of behavior on their part that would lower the chance that they would run into problems.
"I do want to say something that everyone understands. We really ask a lot of our young service people out on the checkpoints because there's danger, they're asked to make very rapid decisions in often very unclear situations. However, to my knowledge, in the nine-plus months I've been here, not a single case where we have engaged in an escalation of force incident and hurt someone has it turned out that the vehicle had a suicide bomb or weapons in it and, in many cases, had families in it. That doesn't mean I'm criticizing the people who are executing. I'm just giving you perspective. We've shot an amazing number of people and killed a number and, to my knowledge, none has proven to have been a real threat to the force."
jeaton
April 2, 2010 3:27 PM
(sigh)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Johann
April 4, 2010 9:26 PM in reply to jeaton
How to make friends and influence people.
.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The BBQ Chicken Madness
April 2, 2010 3:32 PM
Wow, that's an amazing admission. Kudos to him for having the guts to make it. I agree with him that the situation our troops are in a such a difficult one, I certainly can empathize with the position they may find themselves in and understand the outcomes can be tragic. In a tense situation, and very very few translators around to try and communicate.
All that said...can we now bring our brothers and sisters home?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DA in LA
April 2, 2010 6:44 PM in reply to The BBQ Chicken Madness
Yeah right. They military is trying to soften the blow of the Wikileaks video coming out on Monday.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Brownbagger
April 2, 2010 8:49 PM in reply to The BBQ Chicken Madness
Uh. Nope. It's not about them. It's about him. Sorry.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chard
April 4, 2010 10:19 AM in reply to Brownbagger
Obama should've fired this guy in November, when he "leaked" the report calling for more troops in Afghanistan.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Libertine
April 2, 2010 3:38 PM
An amazing number of people? (sighs and hangs head)
:-(
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Brownbagger
April 2, 2010 8:51 PM in reply to Libertine
C'mon, dude. Cost us a bundle, but he's got the high score on the machine. Awesome!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mass_murdock
April 2, 2010 3:42 PM
Just stop shooting everyone and maybe everything will be OK?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Johann
April 4, 2010 9:28 PM in reply to mass_murdock
It's more like "shoot everyone and things will finally calm down."
.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcrose68
April 2, 2010 3:43 PM
I know I'm often naive and overly hopeful - so here I go again.
Reading that exchange gives me hope.
The headline is sensational, while the exchange between McChrystal and the questioner is practical, brutely honest on a difficult subject, and actively seeking positive change that might reduce mis-understandings.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcrose68
April 2, 2010 3:48 PM in reply to mcrose68
"mis-understandings" is a sadly inappropriate euphamism for "innocent people being killed"
As long as McChrystal is being brutally honest, I should as well.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
April 2, 2010 4:44 PM in reply to mcrose68
No, it's misunderstanding that often leads to innocent people being killed. If you can reduce the chances that Afghan civilians and US soldiers will misunderstand each other at checkpoints and other encounters, then you will reduce the chances that innocent people will be killed.
I give the general kudos for being honest and admitting that far too often, innocent civilians are being judged as potential threats, and for being open to suggestions as to how to improve things. Not that the suggestion is without risk to the troops. For sure, when they make it widely known what behavior they would expect to see from people who mean them no harm, the suicide bombers will be sure to mimic it. And then things are back to where they started.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
onecrappyusername
April 2, 2010 5:00 PM in reply to slb
well said.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Johann
April 6, 2010 8:34 AM in reply to onecrappyusername
The "mis-understanding" is over who should control the profits from the oil found in Iraq, Iran, the poppies (opium) grown in Afghanistan, and the access to the sea from the oil and gas reserves in the caspian basin.
The USA is defending the "rights" of US oil companies to exploit those oil reserves and the "rights" of the CIA to finance themselves "off the books" with drug money, while the indigenous population is defending their "rights" to a share in those profits.
Follow the money.
.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcrose68
April 2, 2010 5:47 PM in reply to slb
Thank you - that is generally what I was after.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tiowally
April 2, 2010 3:46 PM
This cur is a war criminal and deserves to be tried, sentenced and jailed. And to think the least of his crimes was orchestrating the Tillman cover-up.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcrose68
April 2, 2010 3:51 PM in reply to tiowally
I will suppor that statement with respect to Rumsfeld and Cheney. As far as McChrystal goes. . . I'm no military historian, but as far as I can tell he's on the sane end of the spectrum.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Brownbagger
April 2, 2010 4:20 PM in reply to mcrose68
Sane end of the war criminal spectrum?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcrose68
April 2, 2010 5:44 PM in reply to Brownbagger
Sane end of the people who the previous administration allowed to retain their command.
aka not Rumsfeld, the christen warriors, or the shock-and-awe neo-cons who thought sexual humiliation and torture were useful for proving how bad-ass we are.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cornelius
April 2, 2010 4:19 PM in reply to tiowally
TY Tio! He is a war criminal. Of course the drones, they don't apply to the conversation at hand. As a Viet Vet I can tell you Generals lie all the time, it's in their interest to do so. The Tillman cover-up was disgusting. His mother and family had to fight for the truth. But the big question for me that no one can answer with any credibility is:
What the fuck are we doing there in the 1st place!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Brownbagger
April 2, 2010 4:24 PM in reply to Cornelius
Amen.
p.s. Got my ass kicked out of Westmoreland's tent for questioning kill numbers. Those were the days.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cornelius
April 2, 2010 4:42 PM in reply to Brownbagger
Yea, the 5:00 roundup I think they called it. Congratulations!
My favorite is Gen Peterus. He graduated high school during the middle of the Viet War - and chose to go to West Point first. And then of course go to war. 'Ah shucks, the war is over, I was so looking forward ..." he opined upon graduation. Classic chicken hawk. This guy never got shot at till Iraq. The Army used to imply he was in the thick of it. Let me tell you something else: Generals don't walk the point! PLEASE!
And Bush and the 4th Estate looked upon Peterus as the answer to Iraq. He was smart alright, smart enough to hide out at West Point for 4 years.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
April 2, 2010 5:38 PM in reply to Cornelius
And of course, everybody knew in 1970 that the US would be completely out of Indochina in four years, especially since Nixon was busy expanding the war into Laos and Cambodia at the time, and Petraeus would be sure that he would not be sent anywhere else to fight for a very long time. I mean, how unusual for him to choose to go to a service acadamy that was right across the river from where he grew up. What a clever ploy; one would have expected him to opt for a normal student deferment and go to Columbia or Cornell or some such place.
Get real: chickenhawks don't go to West Point. They get multiple deferments.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cornelius
April 2, 2010 6:43 PM in reply to slb
Across the river ,down the street. Doesn't matter. He had his chance and as a young man desiring a life in the military. Vietnam was the answer all lifers pray for. Two six month tours and he's back home going to West Point as a Captain. Easy call.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Brownbagger
April 2, 2010 8:54 PM in reply to Cornelius
OK, dude. If you were there, what's with the "sisterkevin" name and no avatar.
I will accept "None of your friggin' business" as response. Just curious.
Regards.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
truth > spin
April 4, 2010 7:38 PM in reply to Cornelius
This drivel deserves to get called on; every time.
The guy serves. What are you doing?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tiowally
April 5, 2010 11:40 AM in reply to truth > spin
Refraining from killing innocent people, mostly.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
truth > spin
April 5, 2010 6:41 PM in reply to tiowally
And, by extension, not preventing the killing of other innocent people, entirely.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tpmreader
April 2, 2010 5:20 PM in reply to Cornelius
In a suggested additional clarification and in concurance within your question,
The American people where verbally and with many written promises where promised 'Oversight and Accountability' and 'Federal Employee Whistleblower Protections Enhancement Restoraction Act' with their votes for our US Legislatures and President within the past 4 years.
The results are seemingly well known and seemingly opposite at this time within these areas of the verbal and written promises.
Also, it has been mentioned in prior years from formidable TPM blog comment replies that;
If you continue or make worse the former and/or Bush Administrations Policy's, 'You Own Them'.
It is not the action that undermines our Democracy, it is the reaction that may undermine our Democracy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lyleleander
April 2, 2010 3:54 PM
But, still, it's just SOOO great that we're in this country!!! We're accomplishing SOOO much!
And get ready for the tidal wave of calls from the right wing for McChrystal to be tried for treason and sedition, and executed in 5....4....3....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
susanthe
April 2, 2010 4:14 PM
The military is the US jobs program.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Brownbagger
April 2, 2010 4:21 PM in reply to susanthe
Yes. We borrowed that concept from ... the Roman Empire. How'd that work out?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cornelius
April 2, 2010 4:50 PM in reply to Brownbagger
All about cheap labor.
BTW - try adding fresh cranberries next time you whip up a few cans of tuna. On rye toast of course.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Brownbagger
April 2, 2010 4:59 PM in reply to Cornelius
I could go for that. Got to include chipped celery though. It's a childhood thing. Grazie.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sheerahkahn
April 2, 2010 4:41 PM
/facepalm
Can we now call it quits, please.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cornelius
April 2, 2010 4:52 PM in reply to sheerahkahn
Amen. No more.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
NobleCommentDecider
April 2, 2010 4:43 PM
Of course "real threats to the force" may not include attacks that send a half dozen or so troops home in body bags.
The meaning depends on the definition of 'force' and 'threats', if a PFC gets his head blown off Generals do not normally consider it a big deal, or a real threat to their 'forces'.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SqueakyRat
April 2, 2010 10:47 PM in reply to NobleCommentDecider
What's wrong with you?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
johnnydoughey
April 2, 2010 4:44 PM
War mongers will realize this is just job security. As long as we kill innocents along with bad guys, we will ensure a steady formation of future bad guys. Of course those war mongers will never be the ones actually in harms way... they will only be the ones sending patriotic folks and paying others who send patriots...
... and sadly, we are now a nation that seems to believe in violence and retribution and protecting those who torture and attack nations without reason...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
remblues
April 2, 2010 4:47 PM
Nice of McChrystal to admit to war crimes in such a straight-forward manner.
More evidence of such crimes against humanity is forthcoming:
"Whistleblower Web site WikiLeaks is planning to release a video that reveals what it's calling a Pentagon 'cover-up' of an incident in which numerous civilians and journalists were murdered in an airstrike, according to a recent media advisory. The video will be released on April 5 at the National Press Club."
http://rawstory.com/2010/03/wikileaks-release-video-civilians-journalists-murdered-airstrike/
Yet the "liberal" blogosphere gets all worked up over a bunch of aspiring right-wing domestic terrorists?
"Perhaps they shouldn't just be ignored, but until Glenn Beck's followers kill two dozen people in a remote village, I'm going to spend most of my time focusing on those with control over the tanks and nuclear weapons."
http://charliedavis.blogspot.com/2010/03/liberals-with-guns-scarier-than-tea.html
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
NobleCommentDecider
April 2, 2010 6:00 PM in reply to remblues
In case you missed the last 8 years of the right-wing George W. Bush administration, it was 'them', the GOP, that ginned up the fear and lies and started the two wars in which "numerous civilians and journalists were murdered".
If they were back in charge, as the Teabaggers demand, there would likely be a third war going already.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Johann
April 6, 2010 8:43 AM in reply to NobleCommentDecider
There are already two more wars ongoing.
Pakistan and Iran. Both are under the radar, but the USA is operating military forays into each of these two countries, only one of which (Pakistan - Predator drones and Hell-Fire missles) is being picked up by any news organization.
.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kristen Urt
April 2, 2010 5:16 PM
Certainly, we should pull all of our troops out of Afghanistan, suspend all UAV strikes and surveillance worldwide, and cut off support for the corrupt governments in the region. After that, a few choruses of Kumbaya, and a continuous chant of “all we are saaaaying, is give peace a chance” will certainly create a large positive impact on the region, not to mention creating a vast improvement in the security of the United States and our allies over the next few decades. While we’re at it, we should arrest all of the active duty generals that are serving in a combat theater, and try them as war criminals for the killing of civilians. Then we can go after the Sec. Def. and President Obama for sending more troops to the region, and actively approving UAV strikes that have killed civilians.
Or not.
Okay, that was a little over the top, but if someone can explain how pulling all of our troops from Afghanistan now will help stabilize the area, and not have a detrimental impact security of the United States and our allies, I’m very happy to support it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kristen Urt
April 2, 2010 7:27 PM in reply to Kristen Urt
>
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
larsvanness
April 3, 2010 12:38 AM in reply to Kristen Urt
It's a no win situation for us and the Afghans. Eventually we will withdraw like we were forced to from Viet-Nam and the Soviets were forced to from Afghanistan. The rhetoric is all muddled--"we have to fight them there so we don't have to fight them here"--that's from George Bush "the flight clown". I have heard in ten dozen different places since 9/11 the reference to criminal acts of terror and yet rather than use international law enforcement to deal with this criminal element "We the People" chose to stand with our political leaders at that time and use military force to pursue what would ultimately become an international political problem. We have been down this road before. Why haven't we learned the lessons?
Well now it's not going well and the argument between the opposing sides of this issue is escalating. We should have had this argument eight years ago...we didn't, too many flags were flying from to many gas guzzling SUV's and too many Americans were eating their patriotic oats and shouting about how we were being wronged because they hate us for our freedoms.
Well here is a little story. On Friday Sept 14, 2001 when I finally made it out NYC and back to the company office in Dutchess County to pickup my pay check the owner--my boss who happens to be a Viet-Nam vet as I am as well--and I were discussing the situation and he said one word that has stayed with me "Bhopal" and I nodded in agreement. And you can go to Wikipedia for an explanation of that tragedy and where culpability lies. And that is just the beginning of some of the legitmate grievances that third world people have against Americans, our government and our Corporate representatives. It's now time to have real national discourse on how to extricate our selves from that quagmire--poppy fields and Al-Queda havens be damned!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fkaZk0sm0
April 3, 2010 2:46 PM in reply to Kristen Urt
and then maybe we should have the military repurposed for knocking down straw men.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Johann
April 4, 2010 9:39 PM in reply to Kristen Urt
The perfect answer to your question is to use the example of Viet Nam. When the USA declared defeat and withdrew from South VietNam after 15 years of warfare, within the next fifteen years, Viet Nam became stabilized and a trading partner of the USA.
None of the fearmongering communist plot to take over the world took place.
Apply this solution to the Middle East situation, get Americans out, and in ten to fifteen years we can be trading partners with the legitimate governments there instead of wasting American lives trying to prop up regimes favorable to American oil companies.
.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GTFOOH
April 2, 2010 5:20 PM
Begs the question, "So why did you shoot them?"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mr.E.
April 2, 2010 5:50 PM in reply to GTFOOH
Read Malcolm Gladwell's "Blink" for a good explanation of why cops shoot innocent minorities, and training methods that save lives.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Brownbagger
April 2, 2010 8:47 PM in reply to Mr.E.
And then read "Bonk" to keep your sanity.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bill
April 2, 2010 5:45 PM
When you begin to compile your score card on the Obama year-to-date, consider the following list of decisions. The one referred to by McChrystal is Number Four (4).
You will find Obama' first-year decisions have formed the rest of his term.
And, you will notice they were uniformly wrong.
Here is the list of eight:
1.Ignoring previous Republican crimes, misdemeanors and profligacy – e.g. kidnapping, rendition, illegal wiretaps, torture, tax cuts for the wealthy.
2. Supporting a stingy stimulus that was half of what was needed and was one-third tax breaks, not jobs.
3. Accelerating the Bush bailout, $ 4.3 Trillions in bailouts, guarantees and purchasing assets from the private sector at well above market value.
4. Escalating a meaningless and fruitless war.
5. Gutting real financial reform and substituting finger wagging and silly taxes and fees, while banking fees continue up, lending freezes and credit tightens.
6. Not helping people with bankruptcy and mortgages remediation – accelerating middle class decline.
7. Fiddling around and not passing a jobs bill.
8. Rejecting the only option that would have extended coverage and cut costs (single payer).
Obama was believed to be a transformative leader; he has, in fact, been a center-right Republican.
Probably, the only reason left to vote for Obama is that Republican Party consists almost entirely of far right Republicans.
Unfortunately, it's hard to get people motivated to get out and work for you when the only reason left to vote for you is that your not the other guy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bill
April 2, 2010 5:46 PM
When you begin to compile your score card on the Obama year-to-date, consider the following list of decisions. The one referred to by McChrystal is Number Four (4).
You will find Obama' first-year decisions have formed the rest of his term.
And, you will notice they were uniformly wrong.
Here is the list of eight:
1.Ignoring previous Republican crimes, misdemeanors and profligacy – e.g. kidnapping, rendition, illegal wiretaps, torture, tax cuts for the wealthy.
2. Supporting a stingy stimulus that was half of what was needed and was one-third tax breaks, not jobs.
3. Accelerating the Bush bailout, $ 4.3 Trillions in bailouts, guarantees and purchasing assets from the private sector at well above market value.
4. Escalating a meaningless and fruitless war.
5. Gutting real financial reform and substituting finger wagging and silly taxes and fees, while banking fees continue up, lending freezes and credit tightens.
6. Not helping people with bankruptcy and mortgages remediation – accelerating middle class decline.
7. Fiddling around and not passing a jobs bill.
8. Rejecting the only option that would have extended coverage and cut costs (single payer).
Obama was believed to be a transformative leader; he has, in fact, been a center-right Republican.
Probably, the only reason left to vote for Obama is that Republican Party consists almost entirely of far right Republicans.
Unfortunately, it's hard to get people motivated to get out and work for you when the only reason left to vote for you is that your not the other guy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mr.E.
April 2, 2010 5:47 PM
I have no desire to defend any of the neocons from charges of war crimes, including Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Addison, or their preferred military leaders, but nonetheless, at the very least this admission by McChrystal is much better than a denial by McChrystal. Admitting a problem is often the first step of addressing and hopefully solving a problem.
And as to why we're there, there are at least two reasons:
1) Without us Afghanistan was and would again be a safe base for training and staging international islamist terrorism;
2) Afghanistan is currently producing the opium to make 90% of the world's heroin and is the world leader in hashish production - which is the primary funding for the same international islamist terrorism.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/04/01/world/main6353224.shtml
Without a stable and secure civil society, the problems will only get worse. Unfortunately, despite the fact that we've been at war there for 9 years, at least for the first 7 we didn't do enough to make the country a stable and secure civil society, and I'm not convinced we can we can do enough now, when the country is run by a man who stole an election, with a brother who is directly involved in the opium trade. But if we just left it would be worse. Hard to imagine how giving criminals and terrorists free reign wouldn't make the problem worse.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Johann
April 4, 2010 9:50 PM in reply to Mr.E.
Can you explain how it could be worse?
Afghanistan is, by US design, one of the two or three most corrupt countries in the whole world.
In 2000, when the Taliban was in control, opium production was almost entirely eradicated.
Also, you are ignoring the fact that 9/11 was perpetrated by Saudi's, not Afghans (none of the hijackers were Afghans) and was based on the fact that there was a major US presence in the Middle East (saudia Arabia). Remove that cause, and the cause goes away.
.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
expatjourno2
April 2, 2010 6:06 PM
Our troops are a bunch of trigger-happy cowards and bullies who like to shoot people and blow stuff up.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
shepherd wong
April 2, 2010 7:00 PM in reply to expatjourno2
No. It's the rules of engagement. The fact is, we sacrifice civilians to protect soldiers as a matter of policy to keep the public from turning further against the war. Iraq has seen roughly 4,500 American troop deaths to 10 to 100 times that many noncombatants. That's the policy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
KennyBoy
April 2, 2010 7:40 PM in reply to expatjourno2
Well really, who else would volunteer for a job killing people. And isn't it better to have these guys killing people in another country than it would be having them hang around Tea Parties and Militias or blowing up cops in the US?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
shepherd wong
April 2, 2010 8:05 PM in reply to KennyBoy
That's a broad brush you've got there. About a third of the troops deployed in Iraq in 2004 were National Guard. Those would be people who signed up to (probably) not even have to point a weapon at another human being. A bunch more were reservists who sure didn't expect to have to kill anyone on weekend deployments.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
larsvanness
April 3, 2010 12:41 AM in reply to expatjourno2
Go fry an egg turkey, 'cause you have no idea what your talkin' about!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
expatjourno2
April 20, 2010 12:57 PM in reply to larsvanness
The facts speak for themselves. Trigger-happy cowards.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Winston Smith
April 2, 2010 7:24 PM
Gotta train NYC cops somewhere, I guess.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Chabuka
April 2, 2010 7:56 PM
I am sure the repukes are all geared up to blame the Obama administration for this..revising history and convincing the gullible righties, that in fact, it was Obama who illegally invaded Iraq in the first place....encouraging all their little right-wing lemmings, who suffer from terminal short term memory loss, to run back in to the deep end of the pool and get back to the business of drowning themselves, for love of country and the "incorporated" GOP....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ohyeathatsright
April 2, 2010 8:01 PM
How amazing is it, General?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Thinking
April 2, 2010 10:25 PM
General,were the check point shootings in Iraq the same?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dredd
April 3, 2010 9:23 AM
We need a blood transfusion, not blood letting.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
thecrow
April 3, 2010 10:34 AM
“The governor said that the villagers have brought two tractor trailers full of pieces of human bodies to his office to prove the casualties that had occurred,” Mr. Farahi said. “Everyone at the governor’s office was crying, watching that shocking scene.”
"Mr. Farahi said he had talked to someone he knew personally who had counted 113 bodies being buried, including those of many women and children."
http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2009/05/11/the-gas-must-flow/
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
thecrow
April 3, 2010 10:36 AM
Was Pat Tillman a threat?
http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2009/10/07/tillman/
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tiowally
April 3, 2010 1:51 PM in reply to thecrow
The manner of his death was certainly a threat to the neo-con cheerleaders.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mikedrevguy
April 3, 2010 11:22 AM
as if to say, "Sorry..?.. Foul. My bad. No blood no foul." oh, right?!? yeah
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Eyepublius
April 3, 2010 3:40 PM
Ding ... this is more than a "stark assessment" of what the General says our forces in our name are doing in the conduct of this war in Afghanistan. Some would call it a war crimes admission?
Some also would say it's an admission of war crimes just like Cheney admitted we used water boarding, but that it was okay and not torture – that is absolutely false and incorrect. Water boarding is torture and has been for decades. Cheney and those like him and around him at the time are all war criminals – plain and simple.
Of course civilians die in war – they have in every war since the first one died as a result of military action... but I also believe as the General says, “We’ve shot...” shooting per se is not the same as randomly dropping bombs... there are “rules of land warfare.” Seems our guys put that book away some time ago?
The issue is really simple: "Who will press charges, or more precisely, who can press charges for any real or perceived war crimes (i.e., against Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush, et al)?"
We say we are a nation of right and just people who love law and order and peace and freedom, etc., etc., perhaps we were, but since 9/11, we have been everything except. But, then again Bush liked to tell us that “everything changed on 9/11).” Did it, really?
/Signed/ — Danny M. Francis (Watertown, NY); 1st Lt., USMC (Ret.); former Infantry Combat Officer and NCO; former Interrogator; former DOD civilian educator; and damn proud American who is very concerned about our national sanity and direction -- why aren't you?
http://www.danzview.blogspot.com
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Eyepublius
April 3, 2010 4:14 PM
F/U: Let's add Condi Rice to the list of war criminals, too (those who claim what torture is/is not)... watch this short 9-minue clip and listen to her words carefully.
Link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijEED_iviTA&feature;=player_embedded
Dan Francis (Watertown, NY)
http://www.halfwaypundit.blogspot.com (my torture file)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Owen
April 3, 2010 10:30 PM
So what are you, Justin Elliot, proposing to do differently in Afghanistan? Obviously things have gone wrong there, and pointing it out is like a homework assignment for 5th graders.
I understand that this is just presented as just a matter-of-fact quotation of McChrystal, but you quoted these particular statements for a reason. Why not say whatever those reasons are and argue your point?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Owen
April 3, 2010 11:07 PM in reply to Owen
Sorry, I realize that I may be engaging in the same sort of whispering campaign that Glenn Beck (and apparently Justin Elliot) engage in. My particular criticism is that if Justin has a suggestion for improving checkpoint protocol, why not let us in on it? If he just wishes that war would go back to the way it is the movies, why doesn't he say that?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
truth > spin
April 4, 2010 7:47 PM
At the same time, several years ago it was at these very check points that much of the insurgent activity was focused. Suicide bombers, using indiscriminate weapons, would hurl themselves at the people manning the checkpoints.
It was of no consequence to them that regular citizens, women, children, etc. might be lined up at the same time and take collateral damage.
In response, the US military stepped up checkpoint security and made these border / area crossing much safer. Given the hardness of those targets, the insurgents have now decided that indiscriminate roadside bombings and booby traps are more productive.
McChrystal deserves credit for his honestly. We should be shown all sides of the work being done in our name. But at the same time we need to be sophisticated enough to recognize that this checkpoint hardening - and the civilian deaths that have resulted - must be balanced against an impossible counterpoint: those deaths and the carnage we risk by allowing the insurgents to target the checkpoints.
There are no easy answers. Damned if we do; damned if we don't.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Johann
April 6, 2010 9:00 AM in reply to truth > spin
Is it really that hard to design a checkpoint where the troops manning that checkpoint are protected from car bombs and other types of assualt?
I think NOT.
It would be simple to erect concrete barriers that the troops could stay behind and vehicles, rather than people, could be targeted when there are checkpoint violations.
I also believe checkpoints could be developed which protect the troops from "terrorists" - make that unarmed civilians- on foot.
.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
stevebeast
April 5, 2010 3:46 PM
here's the video
http://collateralmurder.com/en/index.html
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
truthseeker77
April 7, 2010 8:58 AM
That's nothing new. We did it in Vietnam, Dominican Republic, etc. etc. Article is worth reading though.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
December 8, 2010 10:41 AM
This INVATION the general so carefully calls a "reintegration" is not working. To use that word, "reintegration", is a real f***ing insult. Otherwise I must say I'm kind of impressed with this guy, he is actually honest and reflected.
Of course one feels the need to defend yourself, but they are obviously not finding and catching these "bad guys" this way. They were able to take planes and redirect them in their favor, how can you think you can just walk into their country, hunt them down to stop their desperate measures. Because that's what they are; desperate cries for help.
The Americans have always had this thing with refusing to negociate with terrorists, and I get the basic idea, but this situation can easily be tranlated into a normal childs life who has a bully on his neck. There is a reason why the bully is doing what he is doing. He obviously struggles with something, and bullying is the only way he knows how to deal with it. If this was a child you knew, the bully, you would try to figure out what's going on and help him snap out of it, find a better way to do things. A more constructive way that can help other people too, instead of hurting them.
They have these meetings to write an agreement to leave eachother in peace, but what is a piece of paper? If you really want to change something, you hav to get to the core of the case or person and actually deal with the problem. Quick fixes and patches does not work in the long run, we have all witnessed that in so many different situations.
I think we should try to figure out what these guys actually want, cause they're not gaining anything for themselves, other than helping the USA keeping the US citizens in fear.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?