Gen Stanley Mcchrystal

There's nothing new about backbiting and bad chemistry among leading public officials. But when the carping comes from a senior military officer and is directed against the president and his civilian advisers, a wall has been breached. That's the case with a series of disparaging comments attributed to Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, in an article in Rolling Stone magazine. According to the article, McChrystal criticized or ridiculed U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry, special envoy Richard C. Holbrooke and (according to aides)

A Pentagon report made public Monday disputed the accuracy of a magazine article that forced Army Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal to resign last year as U.S. commander in Afghanistan. In the article, a June profile of McChrystal in Rolling Stone magazine, he was reported as making comments seen as disrespectful toward Obama administration officials. But on Monday, Acting Deputy Inspector General Michael S. Child said the inquiry concluded that "not all of the events at issue occurred as reported.

What would Gen. Stanley McChrystal and the hardened commanders on his staff have to fear from a bearded, pointy-headed reporter from a rock 'n' roll magazine? The general and his aides had faced down terrorists and the enemies of America. They had welcomed into their midst journalists from top news outlets. The result had been stories that mostly made the men running the war in Afghanistan look like a bunch of can-do warriors. But Team McChrystal and its leader met their downfall this week because they failed to recognize, as soldiers like to say, that the opponent, and the situation on the ground, had changed.

Army Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal was forced to retire because of remarks he made to a Rolling Stone reporter. Having read the article that led to his departure, I feel strangely validated. "The Runaway General" described by journalist Michael Hastings is exactly the arrogant individual I believed him to be. McChrystal was in charge of Joint Special Operations Command in 2004, when my son, Pat, was killed in Afghanistan. But I didn't become aware of him until March 2007. That's when someone anonymously sent an Associated Press reporter a copy of a high-priority correspondence.

President Obama and his top advisors on Friday began dealing in White House meetings with the task of deciding whether to send additional troops to Afghanistan. The president and his team pored over a report from the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Army Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, who warns that having too few troops could be fatal to the mission, but that extra military personnel do not guarantee success. The four-hour meeting, on the day when Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, produced no clear decision, and the military and civilian advisors plan to continue talks next week.

Reporting from Kandahar, Afghanistan, and Washington -- The top general in Afghanistan submitted a request for additional troops to his Pentagon bosses Friday, defense officials said, a recommendation that will be evaluated by a White House that appears to be increasingly skittish about sending reinforcements into the war. It is unclear how many troops Army Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal requested. Officials have estimated he needs between 20,000 and 40,000 additional combat forces to pursue an expanded counterinsurgency strategy.

"Frontline" checks in tonight with a gloomy assessment of the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan and an equally pessimistic view of whether the U.S. can prod/seduce/jawbone/bribe the Pakistani government into truly confronting Al Qaeda forces in its border region. In political terms, the title says it all: "Obama's War." President Obama has called Afghanistan "a necessary war" compared with the war in Iraq, which he opposed and vows to end. The rhetoric helped squelch Hillary Rodham Clinton -- an early supporter of the Iraq war -- in the Democratic primaries and defeat the hawkish John McCain in the general election.

Ten days after his predecessor was forced out over published remarks that laid bare a dysfunctional civilian-military relationship, the new American commander in Afghanistan sought Saturday to put a unified face on the U.S.-led war effort. U.S. Army Gen. David Petraeus, who arrived Friday to assume command of U.S. and Western forces here, made his public debut in Kabul at a Fourth of July weekend celebration at the U.S. Embassy. There, both he and U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, who presides over the world's largest American diplomatic mission, used brief remarks to drive home the message that President Obama's stern order to put aside internal rivalries would be heeded.

Six months ago, when President Obama was first confronted with a request from the Pentagon for more troops for Afghanistan, he faced a basic choice: Should he opt for a narrow, low-cost strategy of "counter-terrorism," focused on attacking Al Qaeda and its Taliban allies? Or should he embrace a broader, more expensive strategy of "counterinsurgency" -- sending troops to protect Afghan cities, train the Afghan army and bolster the Afghan government? In March, Obama ducked the choice.

All this talk about the couple who broke into the White House state dinner has been kind of interesting. But, for my money, the most fascinating gate-crasher this week on the Washington scene had to be Michael Ware. I'm talking about the CNN foreign correspondent who, though invited, descended on the cable station's otherwise temperate panels on Afghanistan like some feral creature from the vast, untamed Outback. The unshaven, unruly and apparently unfettered Aussie appeared on seemingly every one of the cable station's platforms in recent days, chiding President Obama for being unspecific, mocking the idea of anything like a clear "victory" in Afghanistan and warning of atrocities if America throws in with unsavory partners.

Ten days after his predecessor was forced out over published remarks that laid bare a dysfunctional civilian-military relationship, the new American commander in Afghanistan sought Saturday to put a unified face on the U.S.-led war effort. U.S. Army Gen. David Petraeus, who arrived Friday to assume command of U.S. and Western forces here, made his public debut in Kabul at a Fourth of July weekend celebration at the U.S. Embassy. There, both he and U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, who presides over the world's largest American diplomatic mission, used brief remarks to drive home the message that President Obama's stern order to put aside internal rivalries would be heeded.

What would Gen. Stanley McChrystal and the hardened commanders on his staff have to fear from a bearded, pointy-headed reporter from a rock 'n' roll magazine? The general and his aides had faced down terrorists and the enemies of America. They had welcomed into their midst journalists from top news outlets. The result had been stories that mostly made the men running the war in Afghanistan look like a bunch of can-do warriors. But Team McChrystal and its leader met their downfall this week because they failed to recognize, as soldiers like to say, that the opponent, and the situation on the ground, had changed.

There's nothing new about backbiting and bad chemistry among leading public officials. But when the carping comes from a senior military officer and is directed against the president and his civilian advisers, a wall has been breached. That's the case with a series of disparaging comments attributed to Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, in an article in Rolling Stone magazine. According to the article, McChrystal criticized or ridiculed U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry, special envoy Richard C. Holbrooke and (according to aides)

The Western military on Thursday condemned a Taliban video that shows a captured U.S. soldier pleading for the release of Afghan detainees to help secure his own freedom. Pfc. Bowe R. Bergdahl, an Idaho native who was captured by insurgents 10 months ago in eastern Afghanistan, was last heard from at Christmas, when his captors released a video in which the young private declared that the American military effort in Afghanistan was doomed to failure. "The continuing use of [Bergdahl]

All this talk about the couple who broke into the White House state dinner has been kind of interesting. But, for my money, the most fascinating gate-crasher this week on the Washington scene had to be Michael Ware. I'm talking about the CNN foreign correspondent who, though invited, descended on the cable station's otherwise temperate panels on Afghanistan like some feral creature from the vast, untamed Outback. The unshaven, unruly and apparently unfettered Aussie appeared on seemingly every one of the cable station's platforms in recent days, chiding President Obama for being unspecific, mocking the idea of anything like a clear "victory" in Afghanistan and warning of atrocities if America throws in with unsavory partners.

Eight years after the start of the war in Afghanistan, President Obama faces a decision about what to do in that troubled part of the world. It's a crushingly urgent moment for the young president and also the national media, still chagrined about the failure to more rigorously study claims that Iraq had to be attacked because of its stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. Perhaps two star network television correspondents had that history in mind when they marked last week's anniversary of the Afghan war with a watershed of their own -- shucking off their presumed impartiality to argue what they think should happen next in Afghanistan.

Eight years after the start of the war in Afghanistan, President Obama faces a decision about what to do in that troubled part of the world. It's a crushingly urgent moment for the young president and also the national media, still chagrined about the failure to more rigorously study claims that Iraq had to be attacked because of its stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. Perhaps two star network television correspondents had that history in mind when they marked last week's anniversary of the Afghan war with a watershed of their own -- shucking off their presumed impartiality to argue what they think should happen next in Afghanistan.

The top commander in Afghanistan has submitted his initial assessment of the war in Afghanistan, calling for a full overhaul of the military's war strategy, NATO officials said today. In his assessment, Gen. Stanley McChrystal has said that he would call for an intensified effort to train more Afghan security forces faster, pump up intelligence collection efforts and improve how that information is used and shared. He also has said he will discuss the need to develop a cadre of experts committed to the war and improve coordination between civilian and military efforts, particularly on development projects.

"Frontline" checks in tonight with a gloomy assessment of the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan and an equally pessimistic view of whether the U.S. can prod/seduce/jawbone/bribe the Pakistani government into truly confronting Al Qaeda forces in its border region. In political terms, the title says it all: "Obama's War." President Obama has called Afghanistan "a necessary war" compared with the war in Iraq, which he opposed and vows to end. The rhetoric helped squelch Hillary Rodham Clinton -- an early supporter of the Iraq war -- in the Democratic primaries and defeat the hawkish John McCain in the general election.

President Obama and his top advisors on Friday began dealing in White House meetings with the task of deciding whether to send additional troops to Afghanistan. The president and his team pored over a report from the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Army Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, who warns that having too few troops could be fatal to the mission, but that extra military personnel do not guarantee success. The four-hour meeting, on the day when Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, produced no clear decision, and the military and civilian advisors plan to continue talks next week.