Retired army general Stanley McChrystal admits War on Terror was not worth it
The War on Terror was launched with ‘good intentions’, but had been hampered by ‘fundamental errors’, the retired general said
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.The former head of the United States army in Afghanistan says it would be “impossible to argue” the War on Terror had been worthwhile.
Stanley McChrystal, the former Joint Special Operations Command and Afghanistan War commander, said the unending battle against ever-changing terrorist organisations, launched as a response to the 9/11 attacks, was not worth it.
“The outcome just hasn’t been positive enough to argue that,” the retired four-star general told Daily Beast contributing editor Spencer Ackerman for his new book Reign of Terror.
The US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq had been launched with “good intentions”, Gen McChrystal claimed, but had been hamstrung by “fundamental errors”.
“It was impossible to know if things might have gone differently had the US military planned for what came after the invasion phase of the two countries.
“Had we gone in with a different mindset, a totally different approach, which would have been more of a counterinsurgency approach, building through the state, would it have worked?
“I can’t say it would’ve, but I think it would have been a better approach.”
In April, President Joe Biden announced the withdrawal of all American troops from Afghanistan by 11 September, bringing to an end the US’ longest-running war.
The secretive departure timeline was brought forward to 31 August, and will leave just a small presence of around 1,000 troops to guard the US embassy, Kabul airport and other key government infrastructure.
Since leaving, the resurgent Taliban has continued to wage a bloody civil war against government forces, and this week closed in on multiple state capitals.
More than 2,000 US military personnel died in Afghanistan combat.
Foreign policy experts have called on a dramatic overhaul of the War on Terror approach to tackling international terrorism.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments