Well guys, here's my take. The war is bigger than any individual - including McChrystal. He put his foot in his mouth and he paid the price. One of the basic tenets of democracy is the complete civilian government control of the military. Any and allstatements or actions by a military leader that challenge the policies or competence of the political leadership have to be firmly addressed.
I'm quite certain that the US military has the quality and quantity of leaders that will make it relatively easy to replace any one individual. The outcome of this war does not hinge on McChrystal being in command.
In fact there will probably be no point in this conflict where we can honestly say "we won". The Afghan people are very pragmatic. They will support whoever protects them, or doesn't kill them, for that matter. It would take decades, not years, to achieve the goals of the NATO countries on the ground there. The country is so backward that development to a point where they can run themselves in a manner tolerable to us, would take the rest of our lifetimes.
I fully supported the original invasion and Canada's subsequent participation. The Taliban leadership supported Al Qaeda, morally and materially, therefore, they were just as culpable as the 9/11 terrorists. They were told to hand over the Al Qaeda people in the country, but they refused and suffered the consequences. However, I don't think there was any clear-cut political goal behind the invasion. And in the end, all military actions are taken for political reasons and with political goals.
Then, there was the invasion of Iraq. I, and everyone else I knew (including those of us serving in uniform) said a collective "WTF!?!?". The lack of justification was one issue. (That's another topic and I don't want to derail this thread) But, what it also led to, was a division of forces that crippled the Afghanistan effort.
So, what remained in Afghanisatn was insufficient to fully control the country. There were/are enough forces and equipment to decimate any Talban who dares to openly challenge them. However, there are vast areas of the country that cannot be occupied. NATO forces show up, kick some a**, then leave! The remaining Taliban come right back in and take control. For them, it's a waiting game - NATO will eventually go away after they lose their motivation and then they will take control again.
I hate to say it, but it looks like Viet Nam all over again. I acknowledge that it's easy to say in retrospect, but the original aim should've been to go in and kill/capture as many of the Taliban and Al Qaeda as possible - then leave.
I don't believe that our presence, or lack thereof, makes a pinch of difference in the "War On Terror". There are just too many other countries in which Al Qaeda can plot and plan - Pakistan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Somalia, etc, etc. In fact, the biggest threat we face right now are the "home-grown" nut cases that in most cases, and fortunately for us, have been too stupid to succeed. As far as Afghanistan goes, if we left tomorrow, I don't think there will be any more danger to us at home than there already is.
I recall reading something about a conversation between an American general and North Vietnamese general after that war. The American said, "You know, we won every single battle we fought in Viet Nam." The Vietnamese general replied, "That is true. It is also irrelevant."
We can say that the politicians lost that war, but in the end the political goals were unachievable. I'm starting to think that the same may be true for Afghanistan.
The Afghan police are completely corrupt, along with most of the government. The army still needs its hand held to accomplish anything. I know that I may come across as a gloomy pessimist, but that's the only conclusion I can come too. If some day down the road, I'm proven wrong, I'll be the first to admit it.
