Stanley A. McChrystal Quotes

Someone should tell the president that U.S. forces would need to be in Iraq for two to five years, and they will not have an easy time there.

The big risk to British lives in 2013 is in Afghanistan. Our troops, diplomats and aid workers have made a big contribution there. But while there is an end date for Western engagement, 2014, there isn't a proper end game.

I don't think we handled the aftermath of the fall of Baghdad as well as we might have. But that's now history.

I think that Africa has made quite rapid progress and a lot of the conflicts that we saw on the continent have abated.

We can stay in Afghanistan and stabilize the situation, or we can get out and win, or we can get out and lose.

The UN could help the Iraqi government get on its feet and help the United States withdraw a bit more.

We can't have a failure in Iraq, but we also can't be there for the next 10 years because if we are, it's going to become, I think, a failure in and of itself.

The bottom line is that after we defeat the armed forces of Iraq, that we will want to and need to provide stability throughout that country.

I believe very deeply in the proposition that what we did in Iraq was the right thing to do. It was hard to do. It took a long time. There were significant costs involved.

I want the troops from Great Britain and the U.S. to be successful, but by the same token, Afghanistan has always been a screw-up.

Development is a lot cheaper than soldiers.

The United States must learn to rebuild states after overturning their regimes.

Our military knows how to invade and conquer a country, but we do not know how to run one.

You’re going to have to occupy Iraq for years and years. The idea that democracy will suddenly blossom is something that I can’t share...Are Americans ready for this?

To suggest that we need several hundred thousand troops there after military operations ceased, I don’t think is accurate…. We will in fact be greeted as liberators.

I watched the Bush administration overreact to the Clinton administration, who believed they did too much nation building, sustaining other countries, and that's why we never put the commitment on Afghanistan and Iraq that should have been in there under their policy leadership.

The Marines have landed, and we now own a piece of Afghanistan.

The best thing America can do to put the Middle East on a path that leads to more democracy, less terrorism, human rights and economic growth is to get the hell out of there while showing an absolute crystal clear determination to defend American interests with force whenever they are threatened.

We have to be realistic about what we can achieve in Afghanistan. The notion that the United States can build a Western-style democracy there is a myth

No one is talking about occupying Iraq for five to ten years.

If we fail to achieve our goals in Iraq - which the administration defines as a 'unified, stable, democratic and secure nation' - it won't be the fault of the ink-stained wretches or even their blow-dried TV counterparts. To argue otherwise deflects blame from those who deserve it, in the upper echelons of the administration and the armed forces. Perhaps that's the point.

A great deal remains to be done in Afghanistan and the jury is out as to whether the international community has the commitment and the patience to see the rebuilding process through.

Iraq will require US occupation of undetermined length.

Now, I know there are many Americans who say, 'Get out of Afghanistan. Bring 'em all home.' And there are others who say, 'Put in hundreds of thousands of more.'

By the time the 2008 election arrived, we had finally won the Iraq War, or we were on the road to winning it. We won starting in the summer of 2007 going into late 2011.