Skip this site's navigation and go to its main content


Receive Updates From Heritage

Receive Updates From Heritage

The Heritage Foundation
Leadership for America

Our Vision

Building an America where freedom, opportunity, prosperity, and civil society flourish.

About The Heritage Foundation

Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institution—a think tank—whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense. We believe the principles and ideas of the American Founding are worth conserving and renewing. As policy entrepreneurs, we believe the most effective solutions are consistent with those ideas and principles.


“McChrystal Light” Is Not a Strategy We Can Believe In

Posted October 29th, 2009 at 12:52pm in Protect America 1 Print This Post Print This Post

Apparently, after ten months on the job, the commander-in-chief still can’t figure out how to be commander-in-chief. This would be like if almost year after Pearl Harbor President Roosevelt was still seeking input on what to do. According to the Washington Post this morning, Obama has now asked senior officials for a province-by-province analysis of Afghanistan “to help determine which regions are being managed effectively by local leaders and which require international help.” He supposedly “wants the clearest possible understanding of what the challenges are to our forces and what is required to meet the challenge.” Fine, go out and get that information. Sounds useful. But why did it take 9 months to know he needed it?!

This is more evidence, that the President might be considering “McChrystal Light”, a strategy which includes protecting portions of the population, putting more emphasis on going after al Qaeda (something pushed for by the Vice President), but authorizing far less troops than the general asked for. That doesn’t sound right either.

That would be like saying go ahead and build the house, but you can only have half the budget. Adopting a strategy without fully resourcing a strategy is prescription for disaster. This sounds terribly like President Johnson’s approach to Vietnam where he incrementally increased forces trying to anger neither keep doves or hawks.

Unfortunately, when you adopt incrementally so does the enemy—and you never get ahead of the bad guys. A strategy of compromise is a strategy for disaster. All this news makes it look like the president is shopping for a rationale to justify a commitment that is “politically” acceptable in Washington.

The truth is the Pentagon has been scrutinizing the failures of our AfPak strategy for over two years and the new administration has benefited from all the work done before it took the White House. The argument that we need more study, or that half measures will do, is wearing pretty thin. We need a decision and pretty compelling rationale to support it…other than it is half way between Biden and McChrystal.

Tags: , ,

One Response to ““McChrystal Light” Is Not a Strategy We Can Believe In”

  1. Randell Hines, Jupiter, Fl on at said:

    I believe the war in Viet Nam could have been won if only we had political and public support. All the accounts and documents show the chinese and russians accounts could have been turned. Now we are with the same problem, providing support for our enemies by being divided. I am certain we can win with only one weapon, UNITED WE STAND.
    Randell Hines,Jupiter, Fl

Leave a Comment

In order to leave a comment, you must supply information for all of the required fields below (which are indicated by bold text).

Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.