That somewhat-ambiquous quote notwithstanding, McChrystal comes across extremely well in Filkins’ profile: a commander focused on granular calibration of what can and can’t retain the support of the Afghan people, and insistent that his subordinates transform the way they fight accordingly. His counterinsurgency guidance is no joke.

The same can’t be said of Richard Haass, the chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations. Maybe I’m not being fair to Haass, but I have a hard time with quotes like these:

“It’s not self-evident that doing more will accomplish more,” Haass told me. “And I’m skeptical about how central Afghanistan is anymore to the global effort against terror. I’m not persuaded that you can transform the situation there.”

Maybe I’m making too much of a nettlesome rhetorical style, but it sounds ike Haass is persuaded. Man, just make a counterargument! It’s one thing to be genuinely unsure that something will work — I would be surprised if McChrystal is certain that what he’s proposing will work. The issue is what strategy is most likely to have the most productive impact for the given interests at stake. If you think McChrystal has it wrong, just say that.

I don’t know, maybe I have this all wrong and Haass is genuinely undecided. That would, though, make him a weird choice to play McChrystal’s foil in the piece, but whatever.