Politic aside I don´t think very much of McChristal because I have never, ever, believed in low intensity conflicts nor in Special Forces or unconventional warfare. Sadly those "solutions" are for those without the will to do what´s necesary. The problem is that in order to do what´s necesary many people, including inocents, must pay. I do remember, still, Kurtz speech at Apocalypse now: "we need men that kill without judgement, without judgement, because it is judgement what defeat us..." Of course, saying something like this is to be wishing to be branded nazi or criminal, but the problem is that wars are not fought in the college classrooms of ethics and moral but in the battlefield. What I intend to say is that a moral standing is not only unnecesary but stupid in extreme: in WWII the US and Britain burned alive hundred of thousands of civilians in order to win. Afterwards both came with fairy tales to give a moral approach to the issue when, in reality, there is none needed: Germany and Japan were their enemies and they deserved what they got because, basically, they would have done the same if they had the resources. If the Taliban have the instruments to vaporize New York or Los Angeles they will do it with criminal happiness, so why is so terrible that the US took the decision of increasing the level of violence and even nuke the mountains of Afganistan in order to render those enemy refuges useless for the next hundred years... and if Mexico, Spain and Bangladesh put a censorship at the UN then it is time for the UN to go and install themselves in Port au Prince, Haiti without any US funding. Still Mexico , Spain and Bangladesh need to do business with the US as the people of Lebannon need to do business with Rome after they burned Carthage to ashes.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill