Should he stay or should he go?
The sense in Washington seems to be unanimous that Gen. Stanley McChrystal has done enough damage to civilian-military relations and to U.S. efforts in Afghanistan to justify removal from his post. But the real questions go deeper:
Do his remarks REQUIRE his removal? What would do more damage to our national interests: bringing in new leadership at this pivotal moment in Afghanistan to carry out a strategy that McChrystal himself designed, or leaving the general in place, despite the harm he has done?
But even that isn’t the important question. The real question is: Do WE stay or do we go?
In comments yesterday, I noted that McChrystal’s staff in the Rolling Stone piece had floated the option of requesting even more U.S. troops next summer, the point when current strategy says we will start reducing our footprint in Afghanistan. So I posed a question in comments: Who believes such a step would be appropriate?
Not a single person, right or