American troops are at risk of being defeated in Afghanistan if additional troops are not sent, says the special report that has become available to the Washington Post.
In his confidential report, Stanley A. McChrystal, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan says that the lack of resources may cause lengthy military operation that will be much more expensive and will likely result in a failure.
"Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near-term (next 12 months) -- while Afghan security capacity matures -- risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible," the newspaper quotes.
Stanley McChrystal warned that the military campaign will result in failure unless more forces will arrive to Afghanistan next year.
Since May 2009 more than 30 thousand soldiers have been sent to Afghanistan, which doubled the number of American forces there. By the end of this year the number of American military people staged in Afghanistan is expected to reach 68 thousand.
In August another report emerged in NATO and Pentagon. The report stated that Afghani people lose trust in the international forces since their presence and the war against Taliban do not improve the life of civil people.
The authors of the report did not directly call for the increase of American forces.
However, last week Admiral Mike Mullen , the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff told in the Senate that additional forces are required to fight Taliban.
American campaign in Afghanistan more and more reminds the Vietnam War. But as the experience shows, in guerilla wars (like in Vietnam and now Afghanistan) the increase in the number of soldiers will not guarantee successful military operations.
Pentagon and CIA are seriously concerned with the situation in Afghanistan where losses in the international forces grow every day.
CIA Director Leon Panetta emphasized that the Taliban fighters of 2009 are not necessarily the same as the Taliban of 2001, and that in fact there is no single Taliban.
"It's a mixed bag. You don't have just one brand of Taliban," Panetta noted. "The ones that we're most concerned with, however, are those that are obviously engaging in military action, are taking American lives, and are operating in a way that we see as much more effective and much more efficient in terms of warfare. And that's what concerns us, it concerns the president of the United States."
The US President Barack Obama says that prior to sending additional troops to Afghanistan, the USA have to make sure they have an effective strategy for eliminating al Qaeda and preventing terror acts against the US and their allies.
"The first question is . . . are we pursuing the right strategy? If supporting the Afghan national government and building capacity for their army and securing certain provinces advances that strategy then we'll move forward. But if it doesn't, then I'm not interested in just being in Afghanistan for the sake of being in Afghanistan," Obama said.
Republican leader, Congressman John Boehner stated in an interview with “Meet the Press” that Obama changes his goals and only talks about demolishing al Qaeda in Afghanistan in Pakistan. Although before he used to say that the US will not allow Taliban and al Qaeda to have a safe training base for the militants.
Panetta says the Taliban attacking NATO troops are still getting help from across the border in Pakistan.
"Well, we think that they continue to receive encouragement from al-Qaida in Pakistan, and they continue to receive encouragement from the terrorists who are located in Pakistan, and that because of that relationship we view them very much as a threat to peace in Afghanistan," Panetta said.
Do these statements mean that Americans sooner or later will expand their military presence to Pakistan? Today only CIA agents hunting down al Qaeda act in Pakistan.
If Washington decides to move its military pursuit of Taliban fighters to Pakistani territory, it may be catastrophic for the coalition forces upset by lengthy Afghan War.
Russia Today: Afghan war has to be ended through negotiation