Not good if the mission is poorly defined, not guided by grand strategy, and lacks effective and measurable goals. If the military leadership is still under the misperception that the last administration left – that is to say, we’ll accept no substitute but a shining democracy in Kabul and no gunshots or bomb explosions in the provinces – then McChrystal is off-base in asking for more troops. Yes, he has the responsibility to provide his expert opinion to the president, but more appropriately, he ought to demand that the president give him new guidance on exactly what the US forces in Afghanistan are expected to do. Oh, and ask the good general what he thinks about “whole-of-government” approaches and the very real underwhelming force that the civilian agencies have brought to his side.

Let’s try not to make the same mistakes in Iraq – using military troops to do civilian government stabilization programs – again in Afghanistan.

I think we’re talking past each other. I’m not making a judgment about the need or lack of need for additional troops in Afghanistan. McChrystal hasn’t announced any conclusions. I’m praising the idea that McChrystal would indeed tell us what the war’s costs are.

Good for you, Spencer. (it’s ok if I call you Spencer, isn’t it?)
I’m about half-way through “The Gamble,” and it’s striking how decisions were made in complete ignorance, public speech stuck to the White House line, etc. , until Sec. Gates came in and starting getting rid of the idiots. Prime of course, having been Sec. Rumsfeld – till have to hold Bush responsible for keeping him, not to mention choosing him in the first place, then ignoring his (obvious now) incompetence.

Almost the most shocking thing to me was a quote by an officer that Rumsfeld simply ‘never made decisions.’

I’m not sure about McChrystal – but Odierno seems to have changed his approach 180 degrees once he saw the light; I will hold off trashing McC and see if the same thing can happen with him.

I think we are talking past each other. Let me clarify. McChrystal, as a commander assigned with a particular mission, doesn’t get to set the metrics of success. That’s the national leadership’s responsibility, and it’s the national leadership who’s responsible for setting the limitations on resources for these operations. If McChrystal thinks that he doesn’t have enough troops for the particular mission, the solution is NOT to say, hey, give me $8 billion a month and I’ll accomplish what I think is the national mission here.

His response needs to be, hey, Mr. President, I can’t do what you’ve tasked me to do with those resources. I CAN do items a, b, c. I will not be able to do items d, e, f, and g without additional resources. But it isn’t up to him to assess those costs or to assume that additional troops are the answer.

We need to get past the Petraeus model where we let the military commanders determine the national strategic goals for military operations and let them present the bills for accomplishing said operations. That’s what I meant by referencing the “Iraq model” – make the policy makers in DC do their damn job and provide executable goals and appropriate resources to the commanders, and then watch them closely. War is too important to be left to the generals. There’s a reason why that quote is seen as wisdom.