McChrystal memoir: Trust was at issue in Afghan war planning

  • Article by: MICHAEL R. GORDON , New York Times
  • Updated: January 5, 2013 - 9:30 PM

The former U.S. commander in Kabul, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, says in his memoir that tensions between the White House and Pentagon had "costly" effects.

  • 9
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
  • 1 - 9 of 9
luzhishenJan. 5, 13 6:10 PM

Maybe Murdoch will try to get him to run for president the way he did Petraeus...oh, and by the way, time to GET OUT before the corrupt Karzai regime wastes another drop of USA's blood and treasure.

9
2
drfranktJan. 5, 13 6:34 PM

Why would the community organizer even consider any suggestions from the commanding general. Looking at a large number of liberal posts over the past 4 years, there are more than enough uninformed "liberal elite" that pray at the alter of this elitist, egotistical, socialist, savior of all that want to use OPM (other people's money) for there every wish and whim!

6
14
fdrebinJan. 5, 13 6:52 PM

Perhaps having a "president" whose biggest goal was to avenge the death of his worthless 'father" at whan Obama perceived as the fault of the West was not such a good idea. What a surprise.

2
10
pskellyJan. 5, 13 7:19 PM

Apparently, Gen McCrystal decided to ignore Mr Clausewitz. Otherwise, he would have acknowledged that war is the extension of politics by other means. Reality check: major decisions in Afghanistan are driven by domestic politics, just as they were in Iraq, in Viet Nam, Korea, etc. The main reason US forces are still in Afghanistan is that all hell is going to break loose when we leave and no politician is willing to face reality and own losing Afghanistan.

11
1
smccl001Jan. 5, 13 9:10 PM

Of course, McChrystal is going to say negative things about this administration. You never say good things about the boss who fired you, especially if you were fired for making snide remarks about that boss in the first place. What he has to say should be taken very lightly.

8
4
bobajoulJan. 5, 1310:34 PM

If you read the book about the decision for Iraq and Afghanistan, Woodwards book I believe, the generals continually did not give honest information and filtered things so they gave the picture they wanted. As Cheney had them do. That is why we have civilian oversight. A general's job is to execute a strategy, not question it. The never asked the question if the war was winnable. Petraeus did the same thing and was done in by his own views. And hubris. They should not be questioned as to whether they can fight, but rather should they.

5
1
comment229Jan. 6, 13 5:26 AM

Remember Eisenhower's comment, "beware of the industrial/military complex?" McChrystal is the poster boy for this concept followed by Dick Cheney (never met a war I didn't like) as the mascot. Long live Haliburton.

2
0
nonewtaxesJan. 6, 13 5:59 AM

Very few wars are really worth fighting.

3
0
fwallenJan. 6, 13 8:11 AM

How can this guy be getting paid for teaching "leadership". And the folks who hired him have some. --splainin to do.

1
0
  • 1 - 9 of 9

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT