Bob Woodward of the Post -- who wrote the article -- called it "a striking thing for a general to say to the secretary of defense and the commander-in-chief."
McChrystal "really takes his finger and puts it in their eye, 'Deliver or this won't work,'" Woodward told CNN's "American Morning" on Monday. "He says if they don't endorse this full counterinsurgency strategy, don't even give me the troops because it won't work." CNN.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As several of you have noted Zbig has pointed out an obvious truth in the Daily Beast. An Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities would most likely involve overflght of Iraq. Iraq has no air force but the US does and is obligated by its agreements with Iraq to defend the country's airspace. The Iraqi government would certainly not accept Israeli overflights on the way to Natanz or anywhere else. If the United States did not prevent Israeli use of Iraqi airspace the whole of the Islamic World would hold the US equally responsible for the attacks. And then there are also the issues of recovery of aircraft with battle damage, search and rescue operations, etc. In fact, most Americans don't have a clue about any of this. If it happens, it will be a big surprise to the general public, most of whom would have a hard time finding either Iraq or Israel on a map.
And now we have reportage in the Washington Post on the substance of General McChrystal's analysis if the situation in his command's area of responsibility. This classified document was artfully leaked by those who wish to "bulldoze" Obama and Gates into accepting an unlimited commitment to a nation building counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan. McChrystal can not be faulted for having an opinion and for being honest enough to express that opinion, but he is walking close to the edge of the cliff if he begins to attempt to dictate the mission of his own command. Macarthur could explain that to him if he were still around. pl
