Tuesday, June 22, 2010

It's Not Personal, Sir


Back in March, in a post entitled "Into The Fog", I requested, "...if any of you can think of a convincing argument in favor of continuing the war in Afghanistan...something other than the reason most of the kids who are there give, which is 'to look out for my buddies here'...by all means, fill me in." Today, I just finished the Rolling Stone  article by Michael Hastings.  You know, the one that will likely cost General McChrystal both his job and his spot in history; hereafter, he'll be known as the general who actually believed that a friendly Rolling Stone journalist would be one of the guys, first, and a journalist, second.  I wasn't buying our chances in Afghanistan in March, before our commanding generals buckled so publicly under the strain, and I'm not buying them now, either...for the same reasons.


We will leave Afghanistan because we can't afford to fight that war no matter how many good reasons we find.  It's the economy, sir.  It isn't personal.


 In my opinion, Michael Hastings should not have published that article; that might make me look hopelessly old school, but I don't care; Hastings had to have understood that journalists who are given personal access to war commanders still have some modicum of responsibility to national interests.  Nor, of course, should McChrystal have given Michael Hastings access to his inner circle; that was the failure of judgment that puts all the general's other, possibly better, decisions in a different light.  Once that access was granted, I don't think McChrystal, who's known for his swagger and his hard-ass humor, should have been so trusting of Hasting's judgment--or so lacking in self-restraint or restraint of his staff--because journalism has its priorities; they are well-known and they are not personal.


My husband, who's had some exposure to military hubris, thinks the general must have been really pissed at somebody, that he must have known what he was doing.  I don't have that much faith in hubris.  McChrystal's a four-star; he's got exactly one commanding officer, whether he agrees with that commander or not...whether he agrees with the commander's choice of vice commander or not.  That's the chain of command.  Is this a war, or isn't it?  This isn't about Stanley McChrystal, although he's the guy who now needs to fall on his sword.  It isn't personal. 


While I don't agree with Hasting's choices of what to include and what to exclude from his story, "The Runaway General, " (odd choice of words), I have to agree with his concluding paragraph.
After nine years of war, the Taliban simply remains too strongly entrenched for the U.S. military to openly attack. The very people that COIN seeks to win over – the Afghan people – do not want us there. Our supposed ally, President Karzai, used his influence to delay the offensive, and the massive influx of aid championed by McChrystal is likely only to make things worse. "Throwing money at the problem exacerbates the problem," says Andrew Wilder, an expert at Tufts University who has studied the effect of aid in southern Afghanistan. "A tsunami of cash fuels corruption, delegitimizes the government and creates an environment where we're picking winners and losers" – a process that fuels resentment and hostility among the civilian population. So far, counterinsurgency has succeeded only in creating a never-ending demand for the primary product supplied by the military: perpetual war. There is a reason that President Obama studiously avoids using the word "victory" when he talks about Afghanistan. Winning, it would seem, is not really possible. Not even with Stanley McChrystal in charge. 
And not even when he's not.


Stanley McChrystal made the mistake of getting personal with the people he disagreed with in front of a journalist who owed him no allegiance. That's the kind of mistake that you and I might make weekly, which is why they don't hand those stars out to just anybody--which is why we expect more from any four-star general. However it goes when the general meets his CinC, it will be about the mission, the war, and the nation's capabilities.  It will absolutely not be personal.

26 comments:

  1. Nance,

    I think the General's error may be analogized to drunk driving -- whatever the specifics turned out to be (and they were pretty disrespectful of several key players), the bad judgment lay in the initial decision to give such an interview. Nothing good was going to come of that. Why should a four-star general be granting an interview to a popular magazine like RS? Actors and artists do things like that, but career military people shouldn't -- at least not while they're still on active duty, much less in charge of an entire theater of operations. Reminds me a bit of Macarthur dissing Truman.... And we know how that turned out.

    I don't blame the journalist -- nothing printed directly compromises security (troop movements, etc.) But it certainly underscores a nasty, distracting rift between the president and at least one of his generals. That can't continue.

    I think you may be right about Afghanistan -- it's not at all clear how we are going to get to a successful outcome, and the effort has gone on for nearly a decade, though with greater intensity mainly on President Obama's watch.

    ReplyDelete
  2. No national security secrets breached, but the morale of the troops will be affected; they know what's up and, whether they agree with their General or not, their sense of being supported by the folks back home will now become a touch more tenuous.

    Interesting you mentioned McCarthy; DH and I were saying that, not since McCarthy has any commanding general made an egregious public gaff and stayed in command of anything. And that instance was one more than enough.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Wellllllll..... Maybe McChrystal wants out of this mission impossible. From what I've read, it was clear to the principals what was on the record and what was off the record, and Hasting did not publish any of the latter. And, for some reasons he preferred to to leave under a cloud.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It was just not McCrystal, but also his staff, which would most likely be fellow officers....and high ranking ones at that.

    Soldiers are dying in Afghanistan and their commanding officer is giving interviews to a rock magazine. The general even has a public relations advisor.

    Generals are not rock stars...no matter what they may think. I also think the the comparsion to MacArthur/Truman is invalid...

    MacArthur and Truman battled over war strategy...McCrystal was just whining and griping like a teenager...

    Big difference.

    If this is the best that our military has then its time to pull the plug on Afghanistan and cut the military budget in half.

    If the joint chiefs do not reccommend a court martial for McCrystal then the whole chain of command in the military is a fraud and it is obvious that the morale of the troops doesn't really matter.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Vigilante,
    Never, ever heard of a four star general preferring to leave under a cloud. If he did not want to lose a war, he could have plead all kinds of things; his long-suffering wife would probably have been willing to give him an excuse. If he did not want to order his troops forward, he could have worked that out in discussion with Petraeus and Obama in some more honorable fashion and allowed the administration to put its own spin on the matter.

    Perhaps it was clear to the principals that the general was talking on the record, but it is typical of the classic narcissist that they expect the world to just understand what they really meant, to give them credit for their larger-than-life, wondrously worthy intentions regardless of their words or actions. I haven't read the commentary or analysis on the article--just the article, itself.

    If McChrystal had such utter disrespect for the POTUS, he might have at least had some respect for the troops who will go on fighting and dying under that President until they all come home. What kind of leader poisons the field and then leaves his men to the fate of a commander he, himself, does not trust and would not serve under--one whom he despises so much as to publicly disrespect him? It gives "scorched earth" a bad name.

    If that is McChrystal's cowardly game, then may all dishonor come to him.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Well said, Nance.

    We Americans are unwilling to understand and accept that no foreigner wins in Afghanistan.

    Period.

    Are there no lessons to be learned from history?

    A rag-tag army of insurgents defeated the most powerful military force in the world when Britain had to fight the colonial revolutionaries over 3 thousand miles away.

    Mr. Obama gave McChrystal what he wanted, it didn't work. Time to bring the troops home.

    See how simple that was?

    ReplyDelete
  7. I think Shaw has summed up this episode best - the general wished to diss the country's commander in chief and didn't care if he had to throw all his troops under the bus to do so.
    He is not fit to command, he has broken his military vows and should be facing court martial and, at the very least, he should be dishonorably discharged because he is not an honorable man.
    The general is a coward.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I think it more likely that he will be "retired early" than face courts martial--for the same reasons that he should not be allowed to command our armies in Afghanistan: we still have men and women on the ground and they must be our primary concern at this juncture.

    A low hum in the back of my mind recalls me to what little I know of the history of coups: it begins with the military turning against their civilian leaders. Current conditions are obviously ripe for craziness--never more so. But I'm a worrier.

    I hope the President deals swiftly and decisively to pasture McChrystal to a QUIET and hard-earned retirement. And I hope the President does not overreact...or else this one will be ricocheting loudly off the walls for months, much to the nation's regret.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Sorry. The suggestion Rolling Stone should have not run this story is mistaken. We are in this mess in large part to a credulous 'media' given to taking dictation rather than engaging in actual journalism. If more people like Hastings had asked tougher questions we might not have become bogged down in the Middle East in the first place.

    I was interested to read Brit Hume's disparaging remarks about Rolling Stone and their scoop. The self-satisfied The endlessly dismissive and hugely partisan Hume with his dour expression and constantly raised eyebrow is the sort of hack we suffer constantly. Rolling Stone on the other hand has long provided lots of smart writing about the America Empire.

    Those contributions will be remembered long after Wills, Russert, Mathews, Dowd, Quinn, Huffington and their ilk are finished peddling their pathetic 'insights'.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I am with Nance on the narcissism piece. It makes no difference what you call it, pride or hubris or narcissism, the words mean the same. Of the Seven Deadly Sins, there is good reason why pride tops the list. It is the first moral and spiritual flaw from which all others emerge. When a narcissist commits self-sabotage, he/she takes down so many other people along the road to ruin. Always a tragedy, this thing about hubris.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The General is and was a jerk. He should have never been appointed to the post. I would have fired him after the Pat Tillman debacle. Let's see the prick lied to America and to Tillsman's family. Yeah I trust his judgment. There's a code in the military, you don't publicly say anything against command. You shut up and do what your told. You can't compare civilian lives to the military. A different world all together. If Obama let him continue, it would have been very bad for moral. The soldiers need to know who's in charge. Dissension in the racks will not do. Kudos to Obama.
    Oh and don't worry about the General, he has his place on Fox already lined up I'm sure.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Well, Pres. Obama relieved him of command. Good call and done in the right spirit -- part of his reasoning expressly had to do with keeping up the right relationship between the civilian gov. and the military leadership. That's where the general's remarks went so far off the boards, whatever he may have thought he was doing. David Petraeus is a fine choice to succeed him, even though it's sort of a demotion for the time being.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Bloggingdino, I believe General Petraeus was not only a fine choice but a unifying choice, one that will improve the confidence and morale of our people in the field and win the support of Republicans In Congress. Maybe even the only choice.

    Last week, during Congressional testimony, Gen. Petraeus seemed fatigued (even fainted due to dehydration, as I recall). Thus, I believe the good General is making a very great personal sacrifice on behalf of country.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Arthurstone,

    I think really good investigative journalism is as much about timing and about treating your sources properly as it is about uncovering news. Hastings doesn't see it that way...or maybe he's just as disconnected with home base as McChrystal, since he's in Afghanistan at the moment and claims to be innocently surprised at the brouhaha about his little piece.

    Fascinating interview with Hastings from Newsweek at http://www.newsweek.com/2010/06/22/rolling-stone-author-discusses-general-mcchrystal-interview.html.

    Hastings says,
    "The way I view journalism is you try to focus on the story, report what you see and hear, try to piece it together, and then tell the reader what is really happening. I did that, and the aftermath is not really something I can control. Especially when I have no Internet connection, the power keeps going out, and the occasional fighter jet flies overhead, which is not suitable for phone interviews, at all."

    Aa-n-n-nd...he's off to follow some troops on a mission. Maybe his article on McChrystal will make him the next Woodward. Maybe it won't, because Woodward knew how to take care of his sources and Hastings does not. If he wound up sending you an email tomorrow, asking you if he could sit in on your life for a few days and maybe do a little piece on you, how relaxed and open would you be?

    Absolutely, we needed bolder journalism in '02 and since. I have a great fondness for Rolling Stone, as all good aging hippies do...although I sometimes get a little confused about what kind of publication they mean to be...you know, Four Star General Stanley McChrystal tells all to Rolling Stone AND THEN Lady GaGa tells all to Rolling Stone. You gotta love that Lady G. cover...makes me think Concealed Carry is not such a bad thing, after all.

    It's over. The Prez handled it perfectly. And there's so much NEXT, next.

    ReplyDelete
  15. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I appreciate that journalists need to cultivate sources but the good general has no one to blame but himself for his predicament. Hastings did his job. And he did it well.

    For what it's worth I'm not sure we can afford much more Bob Woodward. Woodward's best work is far in the past and now he's a celebrity trading on his fame for access to other star politicians, pundits and sundry other movers and shakers. And Bob certainly followed the previous administration's lies in the run up to the Iraq war. He's pretty much worse than useless these days.

    A better example is Sy Hersh. Quality work. Sy spends less time in the limousines of the rich and powerful and more time with the obscure and in the know. Never a bad idea for a reporter. Pity more don't follow his lead. Not nearly so sexy (or lucrative) but serves the public interest so much better.

    As for Rolling Stone they are what they have always been. A focus on popular music with some of the best writing on politics to be found anywhere.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "The way I view journalism is you try to focus on the story, report what you see and hear, try to piece it together, and then tell the reader what is really happening."

    I think that this is known as making a genuine effort to report the truth. Hastings didn't slip McChrystal a mickey, nor did he coerce him into agreeing to be interviewed. I'm with Arthurstone, I don't see any fault with Hastings' reporting. McChrystal hasn't made a peep about being misquoted or his comments being taken out of context.

    Hastings didn't make up the content; he merely reported it. Censorship is the job of the subject of the interview. McChyrstal wasn't deep throat. He didn't ask for nordid he have any reason to assume that anything that he said was going to be reported anonymously. He wasn't a source, he was an interview subject. If he didn't understand that everything that he told Hastings was fair game, then he isn't really bright enough to be leading anyone any where.

    As to your question, Nance, I'd be fine with Hastings sitting in on my life for a few days. I actually had a journalist shadow me for a week when I was teaching. I attended a school board meeting where I publicly stated that I thought that one of the issues impeding garnering more public support for our schools was the the perception that classrooms were these places of secret practices ruled over by uncaring teachers engaging in some black magic rituals. A reporter approached me after the meeting and asked if he could visit my classroom. My principal agreed, stating that if it was okay with me, it was fine with her. My students loved being featured in the newspaper. Over the course of the week, I never made disparaging comments about the administration, my students, or their parents. Neither did I share any details about my former career as a pole dancer.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Sheria, did you know they have something called PoleFitness here in SoCal? Judging from the image on the sign, it's exactly what you'd rather not be thinking it is.

    Here's a link to an article I liked that helped me make sense of Hasting's piece. There was something internally inconsistent that bothered me. John Simpson, a writer and regular reader of ML, sent this along: http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/06/22/what_happened_in_paris.

    McChrystal was a fool to behave as he did in front of a journalist. It wasn't the first time; if it had been, the outcome might have been different. There's no love here for Stanley McChrystal. However, journalists embedded with troops in a war zone (as Hastings was before and after his unexpectedly long exposure to McChrystal in Paris) have additional responsibilities to avoid endangering the troops or the mission. Other journalists have lost their jobs that way. I think Hastings knew the sudden destabilizing effects his report would have. If he didn't realize his power, he's got no business walking out on patrol with the men and women who count on the structure of command in order to do their jobs. And, if he did know and did it anyway, get his butt out of there! There should be no Meritorious Conduct Medals in this mess. I have nothing good to say about either McChrystal or Hastings.

    ReplyDelete
  19. As they say in the South, I have a dog in this fight ... meaning I have a personal interest, meaning my daughter is a commissioned officer in the military and since I would not want to put her at risk, I would probably elect to walk away from such a story.

    If I didn't have a dog in this fight, as they say, I would feel more charitable to Hastings. He did what most journalists do ... merely acting as a tape recorder and reporting a conversation. There was nothing misrepresented, unethical, or immoral in that. That old cliche about loose lips and sinking ships ... McChrystal knew better but still messed up.

    ReplyDelete
  20. So the guy who reports on the nonsense which passes for 'leadership' somehow is a threat to our 'mission' and by extension the safety and morale of the troops while those actually responsible for establishing policy and strategy in our not so excellent Middle East adventure should be allowed their privacy?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Criticism of Hastings confirms what I have believed from the start of Obama's administration: this mission to save the Mayor of Kabul hangs on a narrow and fragile thread of belief. Not a big deal that BHO is filling the deck furniture of the Titanic with different asses.

    ReplyDelete
  22. From Wikipedia:


    June 7, 2010, marked the 104th month of US military engagement in Afghanistan, making it the longest war in the history of the United States (American involvement in the Vietnam War lasted 103 months).[29][30]

    But wait...


    "U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates says the war in Afghanistan is a "tough pull" (a hard job) but that momentum is shifting toward the United States and its partners."

    Whew! And here some of us thought the US had somehow stumbled into a quagmire.

    Wrong.

    Merely a 'tough pull'.

    Can you say Afghanistanization?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Nope, Arthurstone, that's not what I meant to convey. Certainly, you could be right.

    I meant to say that 1)McChrystal was stupid. Some of the readers on my home blog think he intended to let his staff get drunk and run their mouths to Hastings, so he could walk away from the failing policy he designed. Some say that he'll turn up on Fox next week. By saying that I lack that much faith in hubris, I mean that I seriously doubt McC. engineered his own resignation by using Hastings. The general blew it.

    Four-stars who command a war HAVE no privacy. When it comes to embedded journalists in war time, the sources of the news--the military people themselves--are constrained from speaking out about what they really think, feel and know about the conflict. Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, they are not supposed to speak about policy or their views about decisions made by military leaders or the President. I assume that also includes the Vice President and civilian members of the war cabinet such as Holbrooke.

    I also assume that Hastings would be considered a journalist embedded with the commander of the entire conflict during his access to McChrystal. That access was scheduled to be brief, but was artificially extended (and strained) by the effects of volcanic activity on flights out of Paris. The general was essentially on a war mission at the time of the interview (albeit a really bad job by central casting that sent McChrystal to act as diplomat to the French). He was on duty. It was his job to be always on duty.

    2) I'm sure I'm stretching the point to say that Hastings has broken the written contract for embedded journalists. Embedding journalists is a relatively new practice that still sits uneasy with both the profession of journalism and with the Pentagon. The journalists who embed all sign an agreement that states they will abide by the ground rules set by the Pentagon. Some information is deemed "not releasable since their publication or broadcast could jeopardize operations and endanger lives." I, and perhaps I am alone in this, believe that Hastings broke the spirit if not the letter of that contract by the nature of his report. I believe he crossed a line...and I can't applaud that despite believing that America needed the information he provided. He could have submitted the report without quoting the drunken statements by the general's staff. He could have said they got wasted and waxed disrespectful of the civilian side. Then, he could have dis-embedded himself, extricated himself from his privileged relationship with an active military "unit" and come home, where he could have reported whatever he chose as a conscious political piece.

    Then, there is the understanding that the troops and their leaders believe they have with embedded reporters--an understanding that individual journalists and the profession of journalism grasp and honor.

    Geert Linnebank, Editor-in-chief of Reuters until 2007, stated, "If you share a foxhole with a U.S. or British marine, he is your buddy. The incoming artillery belongs to the foe. Comrades become heroes. You demonize the enemy." Journalists generally seem to agree with that position--at least as long as the war effort seems to be succeeding. Apparently, all bets are off when things are going badly.

    I believe that McChrystal, who still has that Special Ops mindset and is pleased to be identified with the point man on patrol, viewed his Paris delay as he viewed his entire assignment: he was dug in with his men in enemy territory and there was a reporter, a buddy, with the unit. I think he counted on the time-honored military code that prohibits shooting a buddy in your own foxhole.

    I, myself, if I was on patrol, would not want Michael Hastings with me. I wouldn't want him with my son or my daughter.

    And I could be wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  24. And I hope it's really clear that I am not an apologist for McChrystal when I am critical of Hastings.

    I think the American people benefit by having reporters embedded; if we are at war and we aren't shown the caskets, we should at least be shown the the flying shrapnel or we cannot be said to have a clue what we're up to.

    But embedded journalism is controversial; it exists in a No Man's Land between journalism and the business of war. McChrystal and Hastings dealt that practice a blow that will be sorted out later by both the Pentagon and journalism's professional entities. I think we'll lose.

    ReplyDelete
  25. With all respect 'embedding' sits 'uneasy' with a far more important constituency than the Pentagon or 'the profession of journalism'.

    The American citizen.

    'Embedding' is nothing if not a transparent attempt on the part of our government to control the message we receive from the battlefront . That may have been the one lesson learned from Vietnam. And the wrong one.

    And it still surprises me, years after the Pentagon papers or Watergate, or the run up to Iraq or any of an endless list of lies we've been fed that when the powers that be are found out for what they really, truly are, the messenger is blamed.

    Sorry but to suggest Hastings work is 'shooting a buddy in your own foxhole' is preposterous.

    Personally I kind of want to know just who is doing what in my name. In my view the far greater damage done was (is) by 'embedded' reporters and news anchors who donned their armored vests & sunglasses & headed off into the Iraq and Afghan wastelands and reported how well all was going, how much the locals appreciated our presence and generally just how hunky-dory everything was going to be very, very quickly.

    But I may be wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Yep, and you could be right.

    ReplyDelete

We welcome civil discourse from all people but express no obligation to allow contributors and readers to be trolled. Any comment that sinks to the level of bigotry, defamation, personal insults, off-topic rants, and profanity will be deleted without notice.