(Well, in fairness, even if the president did declare back in 2008 this war was a vital national security interest, and he did signal last spring he was on board with counterinsurgency, and even if he did appoint Gen. Stanley McChrystal to get the job done in May, the general’s recommendations only arrived in August, and the president didn’t look at them until, what, late September, and he’s been really busy this whole time letting Congress bollix his health-care initiative, throwing Eastern Europe under the bus and flying to Copenhagen, that kind of thing, so he’s only been able to squeeze in seven high-level national security meetings, or is it eight? Is it so unreasonable to ask for new options on top of the new options that he asked for on top of the new options that McChrystal gave him? Meanwhile, China’s ass wants kissing and then we’re into the holidays … )

OK, I get that the political piece is vitally important, and for Eikenberry, up to his armpits in scheming

I find this CIC so repulsive that I have no words.

So...you don't agree with the policies of the previous CIC. Do you undercut, desert, undermine, appease, confuse, diddle.....? Are the people of Afghanistan and Iraq better off than they were before? I guess it depends on who you're listening to...including those who live there. Who's propaganda do you choose to believe?