By all accounts I’m familiar with, General Stanley McChrystal, our leading general in Afghanistan, is a superb and remarkable soldier. But the administration would do very well to take his advice on Afghanistan with a great deal of caution.

Dalton Fury served under McChrystal, knew him well, and admires him highly as a soldier and officer. But–as has been reported elsewhere–he also illustrates an officer, McChrystal, who was willing to take risks–substantial risks–when the stakes are as high as could be imagined. Fury relates the following story about McChrystal, when the general held a lower rank:

I recall a conversation then COL McChrystal and I had in my office one afternoon. Colonels don’t commonly visit Captains so it was a slightly nervous, yet enjoyable occasion. He asked me what I thought about Delta founder COL Charlie Beckwith’s decision to abort the rescue mission of American Hostages held in Iran in 1979. It was an interesting and enlightening conversation. The essence of the discussion centered around COL McChrystal’s reasoning that Beckwith should have continued the mission with fewer operators and lift helicopters. Even though the risk would have increased significantly, COL McChrystal felt the embarrassment in the eyes of the world of failing to try was exponentially more devastating to our nation’s reputation than executing a high risk mission that might have even an outside chance of success. McChrystal believed the American people would never accept such a decision like that again.

While anecdotal, this account deserves serious thought. What is motivating General McChrystal’s unusually strong push up the chain of command to his superiors in Washington? Does he truly have a strategy that can win something of significance? Or is he simply gambling that by playing for time, he might find some way to avoid what he views as an American "embarassment in the eyes of the world"