Another commentator who has no idea what McChrystal said

The strange thing about this piece is that it shows no sign of having even the most rudimentary understanding of what McChrystal is arguing. According to this piece, which focuses exclusively on McChrystal's request for troops, all McChrystal is... doing is expressing standard military tunnel vision. But McChrystal's analysis of Afghanistan and the strategy he recommends are a radical departure from conventional military thinking in the United States, very much aimed at responding to the changing environment the country is facing. He says that the US has alienated the Afghan population by focusing more on killing Taliban and protecting themselves than on the safety of the Afghan civilians. McChrystal says American soldiers should not treat their own lives as more valuable than those of the Afghans and should take greater risks in order to save Afghan lives. He wants to use more troops in order to live closer to the population and protect them from the Taliban. You might disagree with the strategy. The American people might not support a strategy that risks American lives MORE. The military, which is used to arguing for overwhelming force to kill the enemy is deeply divided over the request precisely because they don't like the strategy and it departs from their normal way of operating. I don't Drucker would say about any of this but I do suspect that he would think the author should first acquaint himself with the issue before writing about it.Steven G. Brant: Why Obama Must Follow Drucker's (Not McChrystal's) Advice

Shared via AddThis