McChrystal: More Forces or 'Mission Failure'

The top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan warns in an urgent, confidential assessment of the war that he needs more forces within the next year and bluntly states that without them, the eight-year conflict "will likely result in failure," according to a copy of the 66-page document obtained by The Washington Post. Full Story »

Posted by Derek Hawkins - via NewsRack (Afghanistan), Publish2 (World), Memeorandum, Real Clear Politics, Washington Post
Tags Help
Subjects: Politics, World, U.S.
Member Tags: government corruption, am update
Editorial Help
Posted by: via Publish2 - Sep 20, 2009 - 10:47 PM PDT
Edit Lock: This story can be edited
Edited by: Derek Hawkins - Sep 21, 2009 - 7:18 AM PDT

To:


Separate email addresses with commas.
25 recipients max.

Note:

Reviews

Show All | Notes | Comments | Quotes | Links
N1812091_2834_thumb
3.0
by Derek Hawkins - Sep. 21, 2009

Bob Woodward once again shows us how through the course of his career he's gone from government watchdog to sleek-coated lapdog. Last week, Obama says he's skeptical of a troop increase in Afghanistan. By Sunday evening, the Post is running a column-one story on McChrystal's "leaked" memo. The delivery boy? Woodward. All this story does is legitimize the theatrics of the standoff between Defense and the White House. Irresponsible.

See Full Review » (11 answers)
Silhouette_sml
4.3
by Philip Kreck - Sep. 24, 2009

This is simply a summary of a larger document, serving as a 'book review' of sorts. In that narrow capacity, it does a good job. It interjects facts here and there for readers unfamiliar with certain aspects of the Afghanistan situation, but otherwise just lays out the key pieces of McChrystal's report. Having read much of the full (unclassified) report, this article serves as a fair summary. Some people would prefer more analysis, but that can be found from numerous other sources.

See Full Review » (11 answers)

Comments on this story Help (BETA)

NT Rating | My Rating

Ratings

3.1

not enough reviews
from 2 reviews (23% confidence)
Quality
3.0
Facts
5.0
Fairness
5.0
Information
3.0
Insight
3.0
Sourcing
5.0
Style
4.0
Context
2.5
Depth
3.5
Enterprise
2.0
Expertise
3.0
Originality
3.0
Relevance
4.5
Popularity
3.6
Recommendation
4.5
Credibility
3.0
# Reviews
1.0
# Views
5.0
# Likes
1.0
# Emails
1.0
More
How our ratings work »
(See these related stories.)

Links Help

No links yet. Please review this story to add some!