McChrystal, Afghanistan, and the Era of Foreign Policy Austerity

So sad. Through out our History as a Nation, we find that civilian appointed individuals and president's run the military and make military decisions based on what, I ask? Our military chief's should be allowed to make their own decisions with a somewhat small 2 cents worth from the others. A commander should be allowed to comment as he or she desires without interference

great acticle- enough said, that these policies based on burning towers to mis guided idealistic military ventures on foriegn soils to eradicate an elusive enemy , dramitized un-realistically by a former republican president. The main point in McChrystal's approach was surgical defense and diplomatic out reach. A refined sense of counter insurgency. The message appears to be out there, is the only way that works. So, why carry the increbiable fiscal burden on the fabric of the middle class, when big muscle tactics don't work! Obama , keep them to the line, including the idiots praising BP

What happn to freedom of speech, miltary should be able to say what they think the same as any other person or person in politics.

Ask South Korea what the price was and is for not being prepared to defend yourself against someone who has superior technology and a will to use it to beat hell out of you. Ask Kuwait; South VietNam; Georgia; Heck, ask Iraq. The bottom line is that if we wish to maintain our defense we always have to invest our money into technologies. We also always have to stay vigilant against those who look to profit unfairly, unethically, and immorally from this process.

When wars don't go well there is always someone to blame. General McChrystal made the mistake of openly making critical comments about HIS commander and chief. I am certain that he would have sacked any junior officer under his command who openly made similar remarks about him. The general apologized and his commander gratiously praised his service while still forcing him to resign. That is the way our system did and should work. More importantly he was promptly replaced with an equally distinguished military leader. And that is also the way it should be. The much more important question here is whether the war is worth the effort. President Obama has already laid out the orderly framework for our disengagement. The reality is that we can not lose this war but we can not win it either. Like Iraq, we need to disengage. If the bombs still go off (as they are going off today in Iraq) at least Americans are not the ones dying. The bottom line is that there is probably a more efficient way to fight terrorism than putting 100,000 American soldiers in the field. It may not be as flashy but it may be just as effective if not more so.

Hoyer a moderate??

The largest airforce in the world? The U.S. Airforce
The second largest airforce in the world? The U.S. Navy.

The only airforces in the world that could possibly pose a threat? Our allies.

We outspend most other nations on the earth combined on defense. Ike called it.

Good post, Walter--except for your conclusion. You might recall that Vietnam was also called "the last protracted war of its kind"--yet we have had several more since. What happens is that the politicians end up telling us, and convincing us, that a so-called "optional action"--it's never called a "war" at the start--really isn't optional. Your conclusion requires both politicians and citizens to recognize IN ADVANCE that a proposed action is optional. I do not share that confidence.