Center for a New American Security

eviscerated

AM,

Come on, the book wasn't "crappy." It included a lot on Pat's life that could have been edited and unfairly blamed the Bush administration for tactical decisions. That said, a lot of the book was good. It brought Pat to life and it was the best reconstruction of the events that led to his death that I have ever read. Mr. Kraukauer's examination of how the Army dealt with previous friendly fire incidents was commendable.

As far as Gen. McChyrstal goes--the link you provided sums up Mr. Kraukauer's concern. Gen. McChrystal knew when he signed the award that the narrative in the citation was likely false. Further, to admit not to reading closely a Silver Star cititation for the most famous soldier in the Army concerns me. You may not think any of that is as big of a deal as Mr. Kraukauer does, but it bothers me because it begs the question of how other, less famous soldiers were treated.

Finally, Mr. Kraukauer probably shouldn't have been on the Meet the Press panel yesterday. He isn't an expert on Afghanistan and he isn't the type of journalist that goes on those shows regularly. If MTP wanted to do a one on one interview with him about the book then fine, but he was a fish out of water on the panel.

Maybe you should wander over to Huffpost. They're trying to run the Betray Us strategy 2.0 over there with this at least for today. Just another (re)opened another front on McCrystal in the political war to determine/undermine/promote the way forward/backward in Afghanistan in the coming weeks. How much of this publicity is Krakauer selling a book and how much of this is really people who want McCrsytal margainalized in the coming weeks?

I won't even start to address stereotypes, but IMO one of the hidden downsides of no national service. Allows those myths to perpetuate.

For my money, despite these attacks, its going to be around 10K extra troops (maybe fudge the numbers by not counting "support" troops) and pull out of the worst places leaving a CT mission up there.

By the way, did you see General Vandegrif.... er Conway on the Wash Times today? History... repeating...blah blah.

Thank you, this was a nice post.

Hckl, Exum, you should ask A. Huffington to write a text or two for the Huff-Post. Kick the lefties a wee bit.

I think almost everything written for a general audience reads better the less you know about it. I can't read the Economist editorials without groaning whenever they talk about Afghanistan or Pakistan, but if its about sex laws in Georgia suddenly it reads as very reasonable. That isn't a defense of Krakauer, as much pointing out the impossibility of pleasing everyone- especially people with expertise in the subject matter.

You have far more expertise than most, Andrew, but that is why your visceral takedown of Krakauer feels emotional rather than entirely based on what is on the pages. Dexter Filkins's review does note the distracting criticism of Bush officials, but praises the account of what happened in Afghanistan and the cover-up, the parts that have you the most incensed. While it is definitely true that Krakauer is going after General Macchrystal precisely because he is famous, that is kind of the deal with being a public figure and wasn't Macchrystal chosen in part because he was able to deftly handle the media like Petraeus? He is a good man, but no one escapes from a shit storm like that one completely untarnished.

It is nice to see the man defended, but I don't know if Krakauer deserves condemnation- he isn't the man Macchrystal is, or you are, but hell neither am I or 99.5% of the U.S. population. If it was easy, everyone would do it. That's why I try not to be a chicken hawk when I write, its a hell of a lot easier to advocate for others to be harms way than to enlist yourself.

" The odds are in favor of buffoonery -- the act whereby otherwise intelligent people make a series of stupid decisions -- being a more likely explanation for what went wrong than conspiracy."

I'm not too familiar with the details, but didn't they involve officers repeatedly falsifying reports, lying through their teeth on more than one occasion, and pretty much getting away with it, even after being discovered?

That sounds like conspiracy to me. It's hard to remember sometimes, but bog standard widely prevalent corruption in an organization, along with the further corruption that punishment is only for the other ranks, is in fact consipiracy.
Just as water is wet, even if the fishes don't notice.

And every time something like this comes to light, it's more and more likely that we're not seeing otherwise intelligent people making series' of stupid decisions, but intelligent people making very intelligent decisions (to lie), but having the bad luck to be discovered.

Filkins hardly "panned" Krakauer's book. His chief complaint is there's too much padding. That's a far cry from your criticisms, which are as politicized as you claim Krakauer to be.

I don’t know why, but I’ve always had a viscerally negative reaction to Krakauer. Perhaps it’s just that he’s a good story teller and stories are generally black and white — we have to have heroes and villains. If Tillman is the hero then it stands to reason that the Army and the Bush Administration had to fill the role of villains. Unfortunately, there was enough appearance of cover up to make the narrative plausible.

Let’s face it: it should be chrystal clear by now that the coverup — or the appearance of coverup — is almost always worse than the crime. There comes a moment in every one of these episodes when it dawns on someone at the higher levels of the chain of command that it appears someone has messed up. That’s when they need to get out in front of the news cycle and say “I know now what I didn’t know previously. This is serious and will be dealt with promptly and seriously.” Business, for the most part, has learned this. We no longer see drug companies insisting that everything is fine with a drug about which questions have been raised. Now they say that they are going to recall and investigate promptly. Government, both military and civilian, doesn’t do that, though. It keeps insisting that what was done was 100% correct until that position is so obviously wrong that they can’t say it with a straight face any longer.

What should have happened in the Tillman case was that as soon as questions were raised, someone on the chain of command — preferably high in the chain of command — should have contacted the Tillmans, advised them that he had heard about these allegations for the first time and would personally look into the matter. It would have been appropriate to tell them that, no matter how their son died, his death was an occasion of great sadness for everyone in the Army and that the Army’s sense of duty and honor demanded that the situation be promptly resolved. The Tillmans should have been kept apprised of all information as it came in and, when it became clear that there had been less than honorable action on the part of some officers, those officers should have been disciplined severely. At the very least, that battalion commander should have been dispatched forthwith to make a very personal apology for his part in the mess and to explain to Tillman’s family what happened, why it happened, the part that he personally played in the events that unfolded. If we want to change behavior then there has to be severe and public consequences for dishonorable acts such as his. They don’t necessarily have to include being relieved of command — that may not be appropriate — but they should be appropriate to the situation.

The military must understand that there is a vast reservoir of good will in the American people but that every time something like this happens it drains some of that good will away. It needs to know that when there is misfeasance or malfeasance, it needs to be dealt with swiftly, publicly and from the top down, not the bottom up.

Abu M, thanks for writing this post. Many of us feel exactly as you do.

Actually, rather than "buffoonery" this old Marine would use "ass-covering" and/or "career preservation." The #1 source of most military decisions. And General McC, for all his virtues, didn't get to be a general without being a skilled practicioner of the above. Nothing against him, just reality in today's flag ranks. This old timer would also remind everyone that motive questioning is a slippery business. You'll always be second guessed. Just like vehemently defending Generals whose checks you've cashed as an advisor. You may be speaking the truth, and your honor may be clear, but you're still exposing an open flank.

Actually, rather than "buffoonery" this Marine would use "ass-covering" and/or "career preservation." The #1 source of most military decisions. And General McC, for all his virtues, didn't get to be a general without being a skilled practicioner of the above. Nothing against him, just reality in today's flag ranks. This old timer would also like to remind everyone that motive questioning is a slippery business. You'll always be second guessed. Just like vehemently defending Generals whose checks you've cashed as an advisor. You may be speaking the truth, and your honor may be clear, but you're still exposing an open flank to your enemies.

“When reporting as a “journalist’ for the army, you quickly learn there is no news but good news. … I put my Ivy League English degree to use writing shallow propaganda. … I made it a game to see just how falsely positive I could be. … the Dept of Public Affairs in Washington DC named me one of the army’s “Outstanding Journalists.” … I had earned my first medal from the army for writing in a newspaper.”
-- Andrew Exum, “This Man’s Army” (2004)

“They ought to make a movie about this. Mr. Smith comes to Washington.” “Yeah, I called my pa last
night and he says, Judd boy, you been up there with them muck-a-mucks two days, now. Did they teach
you how to lie yet?”
-- James Webb, “A Country Such As This” (1983)

. . .

Andrew Exum asserts that “Stan McChrystal stands out as one of the guys who made mistakes but ultimately did the right thing … probably the least culpable guy in Tillman’s chain of command … who sent a memorandum up through the chain of command at the time of Tillman’s death warning his commanders … Stan McChrystal is one of the finest men I have ever known, and I hope I have sons who serve under men like him.”

Well, as one blogger wrote, “Phew, talk about a man crush. … the normally witty and sarcastic Abu Muqawama has turned into a walking billboard for Gen. McChrystal …”) Andrew Exum is a self-professed “fan” of McChrystal, during media appearances he lavished praise on General McChrystal: “… you really need a silver bullet …You have one chance to get this right, and you'd better get your A-team on the field." … “I do know that Stan McChrystal is an automatic starter in anyone's line-up”.

In his book review, Andrew Exum neglected to mention General McChrystal’s role in the Tillman case or disclose his close personal and professional ties with him. This past summer, Exum spent a month working closely with McChrystal in Afghanistan after being asked by McChrystal to join his Afghan war assessment team: ‘This [Afghan War Assessment] was written with about a dozen talented and good-natured co-authors (and the world's most intense lead author [General McChrystal]) who put up with my smart-assery -- often in enclosed spaces -- for a whole month’.”

And Andrew Exum is a fellow at the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), "Washington's go-to think tank on military affairs." CNAS has advocated for General McChrystal’s expansion of the Afghan War and has very close ties with McChrystal (meets with him weekly by videoconference) and his mentor General Petraeus.

Before reading this blog entry, I had assumed that Andrew Exum and CNAS were part of the bi-partisan “conspiracy” protecting General McChrystal, and that Exum had written his book review to whitewash General McChrystal’s central role in orchestrating the cover-up of Pat Tillman’s fratricide. Just before McChrystal’s confirmation hearing, Exum wrote “Confirm Him” in his blog: “The bottom line is, nothing is ever going to heal the wounds inflicted on the Tillman Family … And while I have nothing but respect for the Tillman Family…, their personal grief should not be a veto on the nomination of the man the president, the Secretary of Defense, and General Petraeus all feel gives the United States and its allies the best chance of victory in Afghanistan …

However, after reading this blog entry, I believe Andrew Exum is either awfully good at feigning self-righteous outrage or he is woefully ignorant of the most basic facts of the Tillman case. (And he thinks Krakauer’s hard on McChrystal? He ought to read Mary Tillman’s book “Boots on the Ground by Dusk” which eviscerated McChrystal!)

. . .

Unlike Exum, I know what I’m talking about. I’ve followed the Tillman case the past four years and have closely examined the reports from the various Army, IG and Congressional “investigations.” McChrystal was probably the most culpable guy in the Tillman case. McChrystal received confirmation of Tillman’s fratricide within two days, had the responsibility to tell the family, made the decision not to tell the family about fratricide, and he supervised the writing of the “misleading” Silver Star award, then sent his “timely” prevaricating P4 memo a week after he learned of the fratricide.

Here’s my take from McChrystal’s June 2, 2009 Senate confirmation hearing (excerpted from my 200 page binder, “Did They Teach You How to Lie Yet?” Senator James Webb, General Stanley McChrystal and the Betrayal of Pat Tillman):

1. McChrystal said that he first learned of suspected fratricide and the 15-6 investigation after returning back to Afghanistan from a meeting in Qatar with General Abizaid on about April 23rd:

“Corporal Tillman was killed on the 22nd of April … I arrived back into Afghanistan from a meeting in Qatar with General Abizaid on about the 23rd, and I was informed, at that point, that they suspected that friendly fire might have been the cause of death, and that they had initiated what we call a 15-6, or an investigation of that.” (p.18 transcript)

But during the Jones 15-6 McChrystal said that he "was in Qatar when I was told, about a day or two after the incident NLT the 25th...". [OK, that matches the 23rd, but was he in Qatar or Afghanistan?].

During his DoD IG interview General Abizaid said "Gen McChrystal informed him of CPL Tillman's death while they were in Qatar in a meeting .... he received no details and did not know friendly fire was suspected." [So we're supposed to believe McChrystal didn't tell Abizaid about fratricide while they were together in Qatar on the same day! Or, Abizaid lied about not being told about fratricide.]

And during his Congressional testimony on 8-01-07, General Abizaid said "on about the 23rd, Gen McChrystal called me and told me that CPL Tillman had been killed in combat and that the circumstances his death were heroic." [So was he told “no details” or “heroic”?]

But the DoD IG Chronology (Appendix B) states that after COL Nixon was told of possible fratricide and the 15-6 on the 23rd, Nixon only told McChrystal of the "death" of Tillman and then McChrystal told Abizaid only about Tillman's "death". [But McChrystal said on Tuesday hearing he was told of fratricide on the 23rd! McChrystal either failed to tell Abizaid about fratricide, or Abizaid lied about not being informed about it. And Nixon lied about telling McChyrstal about Tillman’s “death” and/or McChrystal lied about Nixon telling him only of “death”.]

So, McChrystal, Nixon, and/or Abiziad lied about when they learned about “suspected” fratricide during their interviews with the DoD Inspector General and before Congress. A look at their IG interviews would be illuminating and resolve this question [Scott Laidlaw at AP got these interviews through FOIA, but I haven’t seen them].

2. McChrystal said there was speculation early on that Tillman was killed by friendly fire, but that he and others were waiting for the outcome of an "initial review" [Scott’s 4/29 15-6] before coming forward with that information [sending P4]: “And so, we initially were waiting for the outcome of that initial review [CPT Scotts 15-6] before we went forward with any conclusions. So, it was a well-intended intent to get some level of truth before we went up.” (p. 18 transcript)

There was never anything speculative or “potential” or "suspected" about Tillman’s friendly fire death. The Rangers on the ground being shot at knew immediately what had happened. On the 23rd word was passed up “70% sure” by the CSM to LTC Bailey and on to COL Nixon. And on the 24th, the initial investigating officer CPT Scott passed on verbal confirmation (“I’m certain, I’m sure”) to LTC Bailey, who then called COL Nixon (McChrystal was next in the chain of command).

McChrystal knew of confirmed FF just two days after Tillman’s death! (If this isn’t “some level of proof”, what is?) Or, are we to believe Nixon never told McChrystal of confirmation during the following days they were working together on the Silver Star package?

3. McChrystal said that he sent his P4 message to inform his chain of command that he believed friendly fire was a possibility before the memorial service “which in retrospect looks contradictory.” (After the Wallace report came out, McChrystal was praised by the Secretary of the Army for acting "reasonably and quickly" by sending his “timely” P4 memo to alert his superiors on the 29th):

“I also sent a message informing my chain of command that we believed it was fratricide, and we did that when we were told there were going to be fairly high-profile memorial services.” And “… when I sent the message, the intent entirely was to inform everyone up my chain of command so that nobody would be surprised.’ (p. 18 transcript).

During the hearing McChrystal said he was told of suspected fratricide and the 15-6 investigation on the 23rd. Yet he didn’t send out his P4 until the 29th? How is waiting six days considered “timely”? [and as I pointed out, he actually had verbal confirmation of fratricide on the 24th!] Of course, in reality McChrystal told Abizaid on the 23rd, and then it was passed onward to the Secretary of Defense and White House.

And notice that McChrystal wasn’t concerned about Tillman’s family being surprised. He wrote in his P4, “I felt it was essential that you received this information as soon as we detected it in order to preclude any unknowing statements by our country’s leaders which might cause public embarrassment if the circumstances of Corporal Tillman’s death become public.” (P4 Memo)

Note the “if” not “when” it becomes public. And how is sending the P4 on the 29th “as soon as we detected it” when McChrystal said he was told on the 23rd?

Further, McChrystal wasn’t concerned with correcting the Silver Citation he had just forwarded to the Secretary of the Army the previous day and that had already been approved.

4. General Wallace cleared McChrystal of wrongdoing because McChrystal only “signed off’ on the Silver Star and “had no reasonable basis to question the recommendation that came up endorsed by the commanders in the field who were there and had firsthand knowledge of the circumstances of his death and his heroic actions.” But during Tuesday's hearing, McChrystal said he sat down with the officers (ie Nixon, Kauzerlich, Hodne, Bailey) and went over Tillman's actions on a whiteboard to satisfy himself that Tillman's actions merited a Silver Star!:

“I sat down with the people [Ranger Regiment officers] who recommended it [Silver Star]. … and we went over a whiteboard, and we looked at the geometry of the battlefield, and I queried the people to satisfy myself that, in fact, that his actions warranted that, even though there was a potential that the actual circumstances of death had been friendly fire.” (p. 18 transcript)

General McChrystal was in Afghanistan with the Ranger officers discussing what happened! McChrystal lead the Silver Star approval process! McChrystal wasn’t removed from the process. He didn’t just sign off on a piece of paper that just dropped onto his desk! He was intimately involved with the process.

“Potential… friendly fire.” As previously mentioned, all the Ranger officers and McChrystal had been told of confirmed friendly fire on the 24th!

5. McChrystal said that the Silver Star citation wasn't well written and that he didn't read it close enough to catch that it could "imply" Tillman wasn't killed by friendly fire:

“… my own mistakes in not reviewing the Silver Star citation well enough and making sure that I compared it to the message [P4 memo] that I sent were mistakes.” (p. 48 transcript). “… in retrospect, they [Silver Star and P4 memo] look contradictory, because we sent out a Silver Star that was not well written – and, although I went through the process, I will tell you now I didn’t review the citation well enough to capture – or, I didn’t catch that if you read it, you can imply that it was not friendly fire.” (p.18 transcript)

Absolute bull. The IG report discussion section (Appendix E) on the Silver Star concluded that anyone reading the citation would assume Tillman was killed by enemy fire: “… we concluded that an uninformed reader could reasonably infer that CPL Tillman had been killed by enemy fire although a careful review of the narrative and citation show no direct assertion that he was killed by enemy fire. As a result, the narrative justification and citation were misleading.” (p.55 IG report). As Brigadier General Howard Yellen later testified, “For the civilian on the street, the interpretation would be that he was killed by enemy fire.”

In fact, Maj. Hodne even said that he edited the narrative to ensure it didn't mention friendly fire!: “Maj.[Hodne] testified that he carefully prepared the narrative to avoid stating that the enemy had killed CPL Tillman and distinctly remembered removing a phrase asserting that CPL Tillman ‘died by enemy fire.” (p.51 IG report).

And the witness statements were altered by "someone in the approval chain" (i.e. Nixon, McChrystal, and/or Kauzerlich). “PFC [O’Neal] stated that he did not sign the valorous award witness statement .. also pointed out parts he knows he did not write and parts that were not accurate.” … Sgt [Weeks?] also pointed out parts that were inaccurate, in that he was unable to see CPL Tillman’s actions from his location.” IG Gimble preferred not to “speculate” as to who was responsible while testifying before the House Oversight Committee in April 2007.! “… we were not able to identify the specific drafter.” (p.53 IG report).

. . .

In his book review, Andrew Exum dismissed Krakauer’s assertion of a “conspiracy” by the Army and Bush Administration to cover-up Tillman’s fratricide. However, the opening lines of his review actually support just such a “conspiracy” theory. Exum wrote, “I was standing in an operations center in Bagram … watching two firefights on the monitors and screens [from a Predator drone] in front of me … I arrived back in Bagram to learn the name of that Ranger killed in action: Spec. Patrick Daniel Tillman.” Exum watched the video feed from a Predator drone of the Tillman firefight.

Yet, the Army denies the existence of that video that Exum saw with his own eyes. Krakauer wrote, ““The forward observer … heard an airplane flying overhead …’As I listened closer I knew it was a Predator drone.’ … equipped with cameras … headquarters later confirmed that a Predator was overhead during the firefight, and a civilian contractor at Bagram said that he remembered seeing the Predator’s video feed." During the numerous investigations that would be undertaken over the next three years, the Army and the CIA nevertheless asserted no such video existed.”

So … Andrew Exum must have been hallucinating when he says he was watching Predator footage of the Tillman firefight, since the Army says no such video exists. I guess that footage “disappeared,” just like all copies of the first investigating officer’s 15-6 report just happened to vanish! Must have just been another one of those “blunders”!

. . .

Andrew Exum criticized Krakauer’s “visceral hatred of the Bush administration” and for his being “eager to launch an inquisition into the crimes of the Bush Administration…” Here, I agree with Exum that Krakauer focused too much on the sins of the Bush Adminstration.

Krakauer’s story blaming Bush and the Army for the cover-up, with the Democratic Congress as the champions in pursuit of the truth is too simple. In reality, the cover-up has been a thoroughly bipartisan affair, with Congress and the Obama Presidency continuing to protect General McChrystal from punishment. And the New York Time’s and their Pentagon Reporter Thom Shanker playing their role as well.

Congressman Waxman’s so-called investigation (like the IG report) was not an honest attempt to get at the truth. I believe that sometime after the April 2007 hearing, Waxman got the word the “fix” was in, to lay off McChrystal. (Perhaps because of McChrystal’s important covert contribution to the “surge” in Iraq?) Waxman dropped him from the list of witnesses for the August 1, 2007 hearing and the testimony during that hearing was a praise-fest for McChrystal. Despite the concerns raised by the Committee during the April 2007 hearing about the falsified Silver Star, P4 document, etc. they never looked at McChrystal, who was at the center of these actions.

Like Pat Tillman, Senator Webb’s been a maverick and a fascinating character. I’ve read his novels for thirty years. His betrayal of the Tillman family cuts me the deepest. I’ve trusted his sense of honor for thirty years. If anyone in Congress should have cared, it would have been him (For example, Webb, as a young Marine veteran spent 8 years to clear the name of a dead Marine for his mother’s sake!)

Yet, during the same time in April – May 2008, after he received my letter imploring him to help Mary Tillman, he was conducting a secret “review” of McChrystal’s actions in the Tillman cover-up. Shortly afterwards, while Mary Tillman was in DC on her book tour, the Senate Armed Services Committee (headed by Levin and McCain) held their secret “executive session” to hear McChrystal testify. Shortly thereafter, the Senate promoted him to Director of the Joint Staff.

I’m hard on Webb not because I dislike the man, but that I’m disappointed by him. As an old man and politician, he’s turned into exactly what he once reviled as a young soldier! I find it tragic to see Webb compromising his sense of honor (perhaps even Pat Tillman would have done so as well, if he had lived long enough?). I even believe Webb’s doing it with the best of intentions, that he believes McChrystal is indispensable to the Afghan war. But I still don’t forgive him for it. Or like it.

And I’m certainly not casting all the blame for the sins of Congress onto Senator Webb. Henry Waxman, Chairman Carl Levin, Senator McCain, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid and others in Congress bear greater responsible than Webb. It just happens I know more about Webb and his role and have had personal interactions with his office.

In my binder, “Lies’s … Borne Out by Lies If Not the Truth,” I discuss The New York Times role in whitewashing McChrystal’s role in the cover-up of the Tillman fratricide. I pretty much lay it all out in the binder, starting with an overview and going into more detail. I didn’t come away from my personal experience with Thom Shanker and “The Gray Lady” with any confidence in our “watchdog” media. And I’d like to point out that Thom Shanker also participated in the Jessica Lynch story in 2003. I haven’t dug into that side of the story much, although I included an article in the binder by Gregg Mitchell about it.

I believe that President Obama was certainly aware of General McChrystal’s involvement in the cover-up of Tillman’s fratricide. I cannot imagine that his staff did not thoroughly vet McChrystal before his nomination on May 12th. Yet Obama chose to give him a pass, and promote him to the Army’s highest rank and make him the new commander of the Afghan War. It’s ironic that the previous general was fired to make way for McChrystal.

However, it’s even more ironic that the following day Obama gave a commencement address at Arizona State University inside Sun Devil Stadium without once mentioning Pat Tillman! I’m sure that he didn’t want to bring up Tillman’s name to avoid anyone pointing out the connection to McChrystal’s nomination. (Bob Young’s “Obama’s Big-Time Fumble” (Arizona Republic 5-17-09).

It’s not surprising that after the initial fratricide cover-up fell apart, that Army officers and the Bush administration lied to protect their careers. Reprehensible, but understandable. But the Democratic Congress, after they took control of both Houses in 2006, could have gone after those responsible. Or at least not promoted them! Their hands are dirty as well with the betrayal of Pat Tillman.

. . .

Instead of addressing Krakauer’s evidence pointing to a conspiracy, Andrew Exum asserted that Krakauer, since he is not a combat veteran, cannot have the perspective to make any valid commentary on the actions of men in combat. Nonsense! (So your colleague Thomas Ricks can’t write about war since since he’s not a veteran?):

“Those who have spent time in the military … tend to err on the side of incompetence, while those who never have -- such as Krakauer -- tend to suspect conspiracy. … Krakauer does not appear to understand light infantry combat as well as he does mountaineering … there is nothing in Krakauer's life or experience that inspires similar confidence in his criticism of experienced combat officers ....”

Apparently, Andrew Exum is unaware that Jon Krakauer spent seven months embedded in Afghanistan in 2006 and 2007, “I accompanied troops from the U.S. Army’s Tenth Mountain Division, Eighty-second Airborne Division, and Special Forces Operational Detachment – Alpha 773 … on numerous combat missions along the Pakistan border.” Perhaps Krakauer even spent more time than Exum during his tours with the Tenth and his Ranger Batt in 2002 and 2004? Surely Krakauer’s experience would give him some standing?

And bashing Krakauer for his lack of respect for the military is absurd: “in the eyes of Krakauer … soldiers are either victims of circumstance or war criminals in waiting.” Krakauer donated proceeds from his book tour to veteran organizations and dedicated his book to a soldier he spent time with in Afghanistan, SFC Jared Monti who died winning the Medal of Honor.

. . .

Clearly, despite Andrew Exum’s background as an Army Ranger officer in Afghanistan, he was a poor choice to review Jon Krakauer’s book. He simply has too many personal and professional conflicts of interest with General McChrystal.

And, Exum hasn’t done his due diligence and done any significant research into the Tillman case. Instead of unsupported opinion and bluster, he needs to look at the source documents. He could begin by reading Mary Tillman’s book, perhaps give her a phone call, or I’d be happy to school him by passing on the information in my binders.

P.S.

Lest I be accused by Exum of being “on the fringes of the American Left,” I am not a Republican. Nor a Democrat. I’m an independent, disgusted with the corruption of both parties. Hell, I even voted for Nader in 2008! (maybe that does put me on the "fringes"!)

As far as my “martial virtues” go, I’ve spent the last eighteen years as a firefighter and the eight years before that with an LRRP company (1983 – 1991, SGT Co. “F” (Ranger), 425th INF MI ARNG).

(I liked your account of Ranger School in your book "This Man's Army." I've still got my notebook from where my writing scrawled off the page every other word when I feel asleep)

Kaboom. Total slaughter. Well done, Guy Montag.

Sorry- Guy, not Gus Montag. I guess Gus just sounded cooler.

HUS

Uh, whatever Guy

tl;dr

"What exactly was McChrystal's intent/motivation in any coverup of the Tillman case"

Well, I'm not going to get into McChrystal's head too much, since I don't know the guy and all, but since Tillman was probably the most famous soldier in the U.S. Army and whatnot, it seems to me disadvantageous for McChrystal in terms of good vs. bad career choices to announce that Tillman was actually killed by his own side when McChrystal's bosses were an administration intent on keeping the bad press in check.

I'll leave the second question to someone who has the balls to tackle it.

By the way, Exum, since you're good friends with McChrystal, can you tell him to stop this small arms military-industrial complex between America and Colt and start supplying us with some damn H&K 416 uppers for existing M4’s?

HUS

"Did Tillman deserve a medal for valor?"

Postscript: Mary Tillman asked the Army to tell her the last time anyone was awarded the Silver Star for getting killed by friendly fire. I don't think the powers-that-be ever got back to her on that. If anyone knows of such a example, let us know.

Great stuff guy. I love you AM, but Guy just made your ass bleed.

I agree with Guy, one "crappy" book report.

@ Guy Montag
"Lest I be accused by Exum of being “on the fringes of the American Left,” ... Hell, I even voted for Nader in 2008! (maybe that does put me on the "fringes"!)"

I'll accuse you of clearly knowing how to use quotation marks.
Meaning the lack of them throughout that enormous post where what you are quoting and writing is indistinguishable really shouldn't have been that godawful to read.
I gave up half way, but I got the impression you were suggesting you wrote somewhere else as well. If this is the case, WTF is your excuse for not knowing about "editing" ? Why here am I reading "Andrew Exum, a contributor to CNAS" ? Exactly how fkn retarded to you think I'm gonna look coming to your forum and explaining who you are, eh ? Seriously, either post a link to what you want us to read or put some work in and polish that shit up before dumping it wholesale into someone's comment section.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm, as usual Exum remains silent in the hope that VFW membership alone is suffice.

@Comment by HUS on November 2, 2009 - 9:44pm
""What exactly was McChrystal's intent/motivation in any coverup of the Tillman case"
"Well, I'm not going to get into McChrystal's head too much, since I don't know the guy and all...."

Why let that hold you back ?

@Guy Montag on November 2, 2009 - 10:36pm
(my lengthy post above is based on over 100 pages of test from three documents, not counting about 200 pages of Appendices).

Which I guess would make an admirable case study in quality vs quantity.

"After Tillman's death, word of Tillman's probable fratricide went up the chain of command no later than the next day, and confirmed fratricide within a couple of days."

A stunning revelation which you seem to have left out of earlier reports. Tell us about this where this confirmation came from, where it went and the terms in which Tillman dying from FF was confirmed as a fact or finding rather than a suspicion. No ?

To some extent, McChrystal was simply obeying orders from on high.

Again, this is fascinating, new information we haven't heard yet. Describe these orders in any way. No ?

I guess he could of said "No"

He can say anything you want him to considering it's your fantasy. Shit, get some whipped cream and a ferret involved if you like.

Now, I can see an obvious reason for Exum to come at this with a biased POV.
Your's on the other hand is quite obvious too. You see a writer who made grand conspiratorial claims based on nothing getting criticised for that. Obviously you've got to come to the defense of a comrade in arms.

"... I was the man who misrepresented your intentions with my ignorant words. You have told me about great works that I cannot understand, about marvels which are beyond me, of which I know nothing. ... I retract what I have said, and repent in dust and ashes."
-- Job (New Jerusalem Bible)

Sometimes silence is the best compliment.

However, after throwing down my gauntlet, I must admit that I am somewhat disappointed, although not terribly surprised, that AM has not deigned to respond to my post. Perhaps he has the good sense to remain silent after what DRONF termed "total slaughter."

But I expected a bit more fight from a scrappy East Tennessee redneck (not that I have anything against rednecks; my Dad was born in the Mississippi hill country just south of Memphis and grew up in the Delta. AM"s father Roy and my Dad both attended Ole Miss).

To a very limited degree, I actually agree with AM that Krakuer's book was "crappy." But "crappy" is too strong; I don't have an issue with most of the facts in his book. But as Dexter Filkins noted in his NYT review Krakauer's effort didn't quite hit the mark (I agree with AM that Gary Smith at Sports Illustrated did a much better job in his piece "Remember his Name" si.com 9-11-09 and Mary Tillman's book "Boots on the Ground by Dusk" gave a more intimate portrait). Krakauer's effort was hampered in that he lost the trust of Mary and Kevin Tillman who refused to have anything to do with his book after reading his first draft. And Krakauer didn't dig far enough into the story to uncover the Democratic Congress's role in covering McChrystal's ass. I think Krakauer could have included more detail about the cover-up instead of the background chapters on Bush and the Afghan war.

It would be nice if AM and his drinking buddy Nate Fick would read "After Pat's Birthday" by Kevin Tillman (http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/200601019_after_pats_birthday/). Perhaps they could raise a Guiness to toast Pat Tillman this Friday, November 6th. It would have been Pat's 31st birthday. Just about AM and Nate's age.

Kilo...

Calm down.

HUS

KILO needs to take a deep breath and center himself. But, I'll try to address a few of his remarks:

1. KILO: "I'll accuse you of clearly knowing how to use quotation marks. ... really shouldn't have been that godawful to read. .. either post a link to what you want us to read or put some work in and polish that shit up before dumping it wholesale into someone's comment section."

Guilty. I apologize for the lack of formatting of my post. The numbered sections were pasted from my Word documents and all my nice formatting didn't show up here. I wish I had a link to provide to my documents. They only exist in my WORD files and hardcopy. I haven't yet made time to create a blog and put my material into it. And I didn't have time to polish my work (I only had an outline and notes from the document I've been writing for the past month to put something together in a couple of hours).

And I'll grant that the section dealing with the fratricide notification dates to General Abizaid, McChrystal, COL Nixon isn't the easiest read without access to fuller material.

. . .

2. KILO: "There is no evidence you can cite where he [McChrystal] was provided confirmation of this [fratricide] prior to his memo of the 29th where he provided this assessment of his own, ..."

Well, I briefly mentioned testimony from General Jone's 15-6 report. Here's a bit more detail. These interviews were heavily redacted so you've got to fill in the blanks, although not hard to do once you know the players and the story (the "Jones" citations refer to the General Jones 2004 15-6 report):

. . .

From IG, p. 12:

“The operational chain of command for CPL Tillman’s unit … was:
1. Headquarters, Operations Team [LTC Bailey?]
2. Headquarters, 75th Ranger Regiment [COL Nixon]
3. Headquarters, Joint Task Force [GEN McChrystal]
4. CENTCOM [GEN Abizaid]

Sworn Statement of CSM Birch (Jones, CS):

“… by 1000 on the morning of the 23rd, I spoke with [Bailey] face-to-face and said, “This looks like it might be fratricide. You need to do an investigation and get to the bottom of it and find out the facts, sir.” (p. 2)

“… probably when I left that canyon to link up with [1SG?] in my mind, I would say I was probably 70 percent sure it was fratricide, sir.” (p. 8)

Sworn statement of LTC Bailey (Jones, Z):

“So you talked to [Nixon] on the 23rd and told him that it was your initial indication that he had been killed by fratricide? -- “Yes, sir.” (p.18)

“Sir, within 3 or 4 hours of being out here on the ground by the incident [23rd], I went back and told [Nixon] that I was certain that we had killed him. I mean, there’s some doubt and we need to do the 15-6. So, from that time forward, I never doubted whether or not we had killed Pat Tillman. In fact, I think just about everybody around knew that.” (p. 52)

“Sir, there’s no doubt about it [fratricide]. It can’t be anything but that. … I think that after the first day [of interviews, 24th] after [CPT Scott] talked to … the main kind of players out there … there was no doubt about it. It was a case where there were 6 or 7 Rangers that saw this vehicle shooting at them.” (p. 21)

“And certainly, by the next day [24th] when we did the investigations, I confirmed it. Because I called him [Nixon] back within a day or two and said, “Sir, I want you to know now, after getting the first five interviews” in fact, that was, I guess, the next day.” … “So, after [CPT Scott, 15-6 investigator] did his first five interviews, he came back to me and said, “Sir, I’m certain. I’m sure.” And then I called [Nixon]. … I think it was the 24th. (p. 53)

NOTE: I don't have any "proof" that Nixon then called McChrystal. But, he was next in the chain of command. Does anyone who served in the Army really believe that Nixon never passed this information to his boss McChrystal?

Sworn statement of COL Nixon (Jones, AM):

“…I believed it was my responsibility to tell the family once I had the facts involved with that. …And it took a considerable time to get truth or the best level of truth that we could get out of that investigation.” (p. 9 -10)

NOTE: “Considerable time” being two days! Scott “was certain. I’m sure” on the 24th! This fratricide confirmation was passed up to Nixon, and presumably up the chain of command!

“The night after or probably the day after the actual incident [I learned of possibility of fratricide]. … I think on the day of the 23rd I got some indication that there might have been some fratricide.” (p. 2)

“Sir, I believe it was on the [23rd?] 24th [that I directed Bailey to conduct an initial 15-6]” (p. 3)

. . .

As an aside, CPT Scott's 15-6 Final Report was passed up April 29th and was "disappeared". All copies were somehow "lost" by the Army, even the personal copy CPT Scott gave to General Jones (3rd 15-6 investigator). Kevin Tillman discovered the existence of CPT Scott's investigation when he was later assigned to the Sniper section commanded by Scott.

. . .

3. KILO: Here we find you lying about what Exum describes in his WaPo article, in order to advance your
conspiratorial claims:

'In his book review, Andrew Exum dismissed Krakauer’s assertion of a “conspiracy” by the Army and Bush Administration to cover-up Tillman’s fratricide. However, the opening lines of his review actually support just such a “conspiracy” theory. Exum wrote, “I was standing in an operations center in Bagram … watching two firefights on the monitors and screens [from a Predator drone] in front of me … I arrived back in Bagram to learn the name of that Ranger killed in action: Spec. Patrick Daniel Tillman.” Exum watched the video feed from a Predator drone of the Tillman firefight. Yet, the Army denies the existence of that video that Exum saw with his own eyes. '

"This, you know to be a lie. Not least of all because in very next sentence it is explained that the battle on screens is what Exum was deployed to."

Exum said he viewed TWO battles on the screens at Bagram. Exum led the quick reaction force to rescue the LRRP team, the other battle was the firefight in which Tillman was killed. Read his Washington Post 9-13-09 review "He Didn't Come Home" for the full quotation which makes this clear.

. . .

For some reason KILO didn't address McChrystal's role in the frauduelent Silver Star award. I'd suggest he take a look at the pertinent section in the IG's report and compare the citation and narrative and compare it to what actually happened; a work of fiction:

take a look for yourself: http://www.defenselink.mil/home/pdf/Tillman_Redacted_Web_0307.pdf

. . .

Kilo, thanks for taking the time to read and respond to my rather lengthy posting.

But, I've neglected my sick boy who's been watching PBS cartoons while I've been blogging this morning. And, I've got to go put some lunch on the table and tend to my bills, house, and ten acres.