I’ve just read Michael Hastings' Rolling Stone article on General Stanley McChrystal and
The paradox was that on the one hand, the
The article also points out a salient fact: that the main Taliban rear areas in
Add to this the fact that the surge has been slow in getting off the ground, and that it is timed to end next year. It seems that in terms of strategy, the campaign is bound to fail: all the enemy have to do is remain in the fight. By not losing, they win.
As for General McChrystal: I got the impression of a tremendously competent man, a warrior, who should be out planning missions and kicking down doors than suffering through dinner in
The “trash talk” so magnified by the press honestly seems insignificant. The group of officers in that hotel room were blowing off the not inconsiderable steam that comes from being in a combat zone. While it’s unfortunate their comments had to be relayed in this way, I’m sure hundreds of thousands of other American citizens, government employees and members of the Armed Forces share similar thoughts.
It’s also interesting to note the double standard at work. None of the comments made by McChrystal or his aides were as vitriolic as those made by one senator against another in the 2008 Presidential race. Or by one senator against the President in a State of the Union speech. Both senators and generals are supposed to be leaders, and both are paid by the government, right?
When do you remember a US senator ever resigning for something they’ve said?