CIA Chief Leon Panetta: In Afghanistan, U.S. Has Committed 1,000 Troops Per Each Al Qaeda

[G_j]

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/06/27/panetta-afghanistan/

CIA Chief Leon Panetta: In Afghanistan, U.S. Has Committed 1,000 Troops Per Each Al Qaeda Terrorist

This week, in announcing his choice of Gen. David Petraeus to replace Gen. Stanley McChrystal to lead the U.S. war in Afghanistan, President Obama emphasized, “this is a change in personnel but it is not a change in policy.” A key tenet of this policy, as Obama has reiterated frequently, is to “disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda.”

The U.S. has committed nearly 100,000 troops to the mission in Afghanistan. ABC This Week host Jake Tapper asked CIA Director Leon Panetta how big is the al Qaeda threat that the soldiers are combating:

TAPPER: How many Al Qaeda, do you think, are in Afghanistan?

PANETTA: I think the estimate on the number of Al Qaeda is actually relatively small. I think at most, we’re looking at 50 to 100, maybe less. It’s in that vicinity. There’s no question that the main location of Al Qaeda is in the tribal areas of Pakistan.

The 100,000 U.S. forces that have been tasked to dismantle the 100 or so al Qaeda members — a ratio of 1000:1 — is complicated by the fact that we are also engaged in operations going after the Taliban leadership. Panetta said the Taliban insurgency is “engaged in greater violence right now” than when Obama took office. “They’re doing more on IED’s. They’re going after our troops. There’s no question about that. In some ways, they are stronger, but in some ways, they are weaker as well.”

Addressing whether the U.S. is pursuing the right strategy, CIA Director Leon Panetta meekly responded, “We think so.” Panetta added that the U.S. is making progress in Afghanistan. “It’s harder, it’s slower than I think anyone anticipated.”

“Winning in Afghanistan is having a country that is stable enough to ensure that there is no safehaven for al Qaeda or for a militant Taliban that welcomes al Qaeda,” Panetta told Tapper. “That’s really the measure of success for the United States.” Watch it:

[RandomThoughts]

1. An interesting thought. Although not about the Taliban or Afghanistan.

“Winning in Afghanistan is having a country that is stable enough to ensure that there is no safehaven for (something that is wrong),” Panetta told Tapper. “That’s really the measure of success for the United States.”

I agree that extreamism and the methods of violence and coercion used by some groups are wrong, and should not be allowed to grow. Although I think that phrase can be applied to many groups.

There could also be many comments on stability. Stability is simply the protection of status quo systems. Stability itself has no moral component to it.

A prison is more stable then a free society. A police state more stable then a free one. Press that is controlled is more stable then a free press. However some levels of stability can be obtained by actions of control, or by actions of good faith justice and fair systems for people.

So really it is not about stability at all, but how things are 'stabilized'

Maybe life is a boggle cup, and when things stack up wrong, the cup is shaken...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

2. The "world's mightiest military" hasn't been able to defeat AQ in 9 years.

Could it possibly be that they're using the wrong tactics? Just maybe?

[msongs]

3. who r emembers when the goal of afghanistan was NOT the taliban. mission creep run amok nt