tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9092921073919323401.post2552227442183079104..comments2021-05-17T11:30:41.722-04:00Comments on Ripley Report: MCCHRYSTAL vs OBAMARipleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03084714996372103357noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9092921073919323401.post-49861630991014919302009-10-10T08:19:04.096-04:002009-10-10T08:19:04.096-04:00McChrystal isn't planning a surge. He's pl...McChrystal isn't planning a surge. He's planning a slaughter - of American troops.<br /><br />The difference between the "surge" in Afghanistan and the one in Iraq is pretty profound - in Afghanistan, our troops aren't allowed to shoot back in urban confrontations. McChrystal's philosophy is that we can't risk even one civilian casualty, so if the Taliban decides to shoot at our guys from an apartment building they're supposed to just stand there and die. <br /><br />And calling this a surge is ridiculous on it's face. The people who literally wrote the book on counter-insurgency estimate it will take a minimum of 450,000 troops to win here - and that's without deploying an overwhelming force to any one area. 1.5 times more than the planned initial troop deployment for Iraq, 4.5 times more than the half-assed deployment Rumsfeld ultimately forced on the Army days before they arrived. <br /><br />What it seems McChrystal is doing, faced with running an unwinnable war, is trying to run the body count up to the point that Obama will force him to withdraw. It's a strategy that may ultimately save American lives when compared to a 20 year long war, but the whole thing is sickening.La Mesahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05523619882283135466noreply@blogger.com