THAT'S DEBATABLE: Gen. Stanley McChrystal

Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, gave a speech in London last week in which he expressed the view that an additional 40,000 American troops should be deployed to the Afghan theater. The general’s speech apparently angered Obama administration officials. The next day, President Obama summoned McChrystal to a meeting with him aboard Air Force One. James L. Jones, the national security advisor, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi suggested later in separate news interviews that the general had stepped out of line by airing his views. “His recommendations to the president should go up the line of command. They shouldn’t be in press conferences,” Pelosi said. Do you agree?

Read more: THAT'S DEBATABLE: Gen. Stanley McChrystal

THAT'S DEBATABLE: Afghanistan

The Washington Post this week obtained Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal’s confidential report to the White House, in which he gravely assessed the war effort in Afghanistan. McChrystal, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, recommended that the U.S. send more troops there. Otherwise, he warned, the American military mission “will likely result in failure.” Were the Obama administration to endorse McChrystal’s recommendation and authorize a deployment of additional troops, would you vote in favor should this make its way to the House? Alternatively, how would you vote if the administration called instead for withdrawing or scaling back U.S. forces in Afghanistan from the current level?

I, along with many Americans, have some serious questions that must be answered regarding the situation in Afghanistan. First and foremost, the administration must clearly outline America’s strategy, its chances of success, and the role of our allies in Afghanistan.

I do, however, believe that a precipitous withdrawal would be unwise and prove to further destabilize the region. The efforts currently being undertaken in Afghanistan are under the auspices of international cooperation, but, thus far, the burden has been carried by just a few countries.

I have long said that Afghanistan will be a much tougher problem than Iraq. Our coalition partners must be willing to shoulder more of the burden and bring more to the table. Only then, with a clearly defined strategy and assurances from our coalition allies, will I be able to consider voting in favor of a troop increase.

U.S. Rep. John Campbell (R-Newport Beach)

THAT'S DEBATABLE: Iran

We asked Reps. John Campbell and Dana Rohrabacher about the disputed reelection of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran this past weekend.

I am deeply concerned, and have been concerned for some time about conditions inside Iran and its path of confrontational foreign policy. Iran's quest for nuclear weapons and regional hegemony has contributed to further destabilization in the region, and has ignited significant concern abroad.

Read more: THAT'S DEBATABLE: Iran

THAT'S DEBATABLE: GM

The Obama administration has pushed GM into bankruptcy reorganization and gave it some of the TARP funding to help the process along. Do you think this was the best way to handle the failing company? Why or why not?

I believe that it was important to keep GM from failing precipitously and completely because of the extremely high number of job losses that would have immediately occurred if it had failed.

Read more: THAT'S DEBATABLE: GM