Actually, I think the opinion of the Generals are invaluable (meaning "men in the field") for tactical expertise. If McChrystal was not given the chance to voice his concerns among his peers or strongly objected to policy, he should have resigned his commission and spoken as a private citizen. As a soldier, that would be the honorable path. Unless the policy is 100% tactical, I don't see how he could imagine that his own viewpoints could cover all bases to bring about a successful outcome, since besides the battles, there is plenty of international politics involved too. He sounds a bit like McClellen might have been like during the Civil War.
Past performance shows the military does quite poorly when micromanaged (hobbled) in the field by arbitrary political machinations and lawyers. If it's a war let's treat it like one, if not our troops have no business there.
What it take Obama to respond to McChrsytal when he requested more troops, 4 months? What it take Obama to respond to McChrystal trashing Obama's ego, 1 weekend? Lesson- you want action from Obama you need to first call him out for the big baby he really is.
Pretty good analysis, although I think reasonable people can differ about the wisdom of a 25 year engagement. I am still trying to understand why we have troops in places like Germany, Japan and Korea, so I'm not really in favor of extending the empire. We can no longer afford to be the world's policeman. Doing so encourages other countries not to pull their fair share and also foment resentment. As for McChrystal, I think he would be a poor choice for conservatives to rally around as the anti-Obama. He claims to have supported and voted for Obama. As noted above, he was fired, not for any principled differences with the administration, but for shooting his mouth off in a highly unprofessional and injudicious manner in front of a reporter. The strategy we are pursuing in afghanistan is his strategy. He may have some quibbles about how long it took obama to approve it and obama not being willing to send the entire U. S. Army there, but he was foolish to advocate a strategy that required such a commitment.
Disagree. He asked for 30-40,000 more troops. 6 months later, he got a fraction of that. The "rules of engagement" there are like fighting with one hand tied behind your back. He felt handcuffed and saw too many of his command being killed.. all along trying to win a "politically correct" war. That's BULLSHIT! Either you're "in it to win it", or you should not be there.. I think McChrystal vented his frustration... and personally, I agree.
Obama was spot on in delaying sending more troops. Why? Becuase commitment of more troops will not win the war, even if half the US military is sent over there. If your opponent is employing guerrilla tactics no amount of men, advance in militray technology will win that war. And the enemy can sustain it for 100years.
Yes was wrong on bad advice - because all that a one guerrilla tactician needs to fight a war with 1000 men is an AK 47 and a Grenade. The 1000 men will not win.
We are not the "world's policeman" and rarely if ever have been. Any protections our allies (read vendors) receive is incidental. Our bases and troops are out there to protect our supply chains. We actually couldn't care less the type of government in those far flung places, so long as it (or the people under it) do not intefere with the free flow of resources to our industry. That's why certain calamities are completely ignored by our government, and other calamaties are immediately addressed. That's why a ruler is our friend one decade and a "madman" the next, or vice versa.