Damned For Siding With the President?

Why is General McChrystal being pilloried by the anti-war side for arguing that he needs more troops to defeat the Taliban and stabilize Afghanistan?

After all, unless I've missed something, defeating the Taliban and stabilizing Afghanistan is exactly the goal the president has most recently stated is our objective in Afghanistan. Indeed, that goal is exactly why McChrystal was sent by President Obama to Afghanistan to take control of the war.

Sure, it is clear that the administration is tempted by options that will allow us to retreat from the challenges in Afghanistan. But that does not erase the fact that the most recently articulated strategy by the president is exactly what McChrystal is trying to achieve. And the general is publicly defending a troop request to carry out the strategy he was sent by the president to Afghanistan to fight.

How can McChrystal be damned for supporting what the anti-war side assumes will soon no longer be the president's Afghanistan policy?

General McChrystal has the duty to carry out his lawful orders--no matter what. And if the Obama administration wants to order him to stay silent while the administration debates our strategy, McChrystal needs to do that--or resign.

I hope McChrystal stays even if he does not get his full troop request. Actually, I hope that he asked for more than he really needs.

But even if he doesn't get as many US troops as he believes he needs, he is supposed to be the general most capable of carrying out a counter-insurgency strategy in Afghanistan. He owes it to the troops who will fight and die in that distant country to stay, and do his best to win with what he is given.

Who the Hell ever gets as many troops and resources as they believe they should have? If no general took the field until they got everything they asked for, there'd be no military history.