Abu Muqawama: Post
Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS. Abu Muqawama retains the right to delete comments that include words that incite violence; are predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass; or degrade people on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. In summary, don't be a jerk.
Beers on the Table: Journalists and the Public Figures They Cover (Updated)
Now that Gen. McChrystal is gone and consensus has formed that Preisdent Obama was well within his rights to have fired him, it's worth going back and looking anew at the Rolling Stone piece that got him fired. On the one hand, David Brooks in today's New York Times and Schumpter in the Economist lament the fact that public figures are now all the less likely to actually open up in front of journalists and speak freely. I don't think this excuses the mistake of thinking you could speak freely to a reporter from Rolling freaking Stone whose opposition to your strategy had already been established, but I take their points. On the other hand, Andrew Sullivan, Glenn Greenwald and others seized on a comment in the Politico that this would likely not have happened had Michael Hastings, the Rolling Stone reporter, not been a free-lance. The logic is that a reporter from the New York Times or the Washington Post would have been more servile to the people they cover because they do not want to burn their sources. After enduring some members of the White House press corps who do, frankly, seem to exchange favorable coverage of the administration for access, I can understand their complaint.
But -- and I have not worked in the newspaper industry since I was, oh, 19, so I am simply an amateur observer here and do not approach this subject with any claim of expertise on media-government relations -- I think there surely must be some kind of balance to be struck between honestly reporting a story and allowing public officials to speak their minds freely from time to time. A friend of mine, a brave journalist who has reported from such warzones as Afghanistan, Iraq and the District of Columbia (and is not afraid to drop the hammer on military officers or politicians who screw up), wrote in to the blog with his thoughts on the Rolling Stone article. Worth reading, even if you disagree:
Forget background and off the record stuff: that piece reeks of a violation of the 'beers on the table' rule. When sources are socializing with reporters, if you're smart and want to keep sources or even get future ones, you don't print drunk riffs that could be heard in any office in Washington -- or actually in any city where stressed-out powerful people battle rivals.
I'm not saying he did anything wrong because I wasn't there, but I sense that Hastings had heard a bunch of shit-talking, reported his story about soldiers hating COIN and then used the quotes as a way to sex up an otherwise understandable debate among military guys over tactics. Most guys join the military precisely in order to drop giant bombs on shit, not to play pretend mayor of Spin Assrape. That they don't like it might be a story -- but it's a better one if the French get to be 'fucking gay' at the beginning.
A few of the scoops in Hastings' article:
1) That Joe Biden is a blow-hard? I know him a little and respect him a lot. Look me in the eye and tell me POTUS doesn't wince when the man talks in public. Or private.
2) Colleagues aren't always excited to receive emails from Ambassador Holbrooke? Ever talk to the guy? Goodness, Milosevic found him so irritating that he actually stopped a war. There could be a reason the Taliban don't want to talk to us.
3) The thing about M4's reaction to meeting Obama is thin. From an off the record source who works for, to be fair, in a house full of ego maniacs. JSOC guys, for better or for worse, often do think the president should be pretty stoked to meet them. But even in this case, it's a harmless claim.
Anyway, what I'm getting at is that all of these things could probably be said in front of a reporter who knows the difference between important rifts and office bitching AND recognizes that 'beers are on the table' and guys might not be saying them in an effort to make them public but rather because they like and trust you to know what's important. It's ambiguous. But it can suddenly become unambiguous (for some lesser men) when you need some hot-ass quotes to please an editor.
M4 absolutely had to go because these things were published and the team in place wasn't going to be able to function well in a new era of 'emotional honesty made public.' And maybe it showed an attitude or cockiness that POTUS decided were wrong for the job. And maybe it should be OK to regularly can generals who fail or even annoy. But I'm not sure Hastings didn't just buddy-fuck some guys who'd never seen Capote or Almost Famous. And in doing so, he just made my job a lot harder.
UPDATE: There are already some great comments from readers. Keep it up, gang.
UPDATE II: Well, this makes things more interesting for the debate raging in the comments section of this post.
UPDATE III: I have just been reading the comments, and David Quigg's comment at 5:45 strikes a chord. I really think the quotes sadly distract from the bigger issue that should have been discussed.
As a former freelancer, I
As a former freelancer, I would say that you still don't want to burn sources. In fact, you probably REALLY don't want to burn sources as your next rent payment might well involve a follow up story. The beers-on-the-table speak was relevant in this case as it seems to be central to the topic being looked at. If the loose talk was about, say, how much fun it is to get drunk in Bangkok with hookers, then it would be dubious to use it. Although it might provide leads to be followed up later. My feeling is more along the lines of the Indy article that suggests that people who are used to sneaking around killing people in a world where everything is classified are not very good at dealing with journalists. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/how-lessons-in-the-dark-arts-of-special-ops-led-mcchrystal-to-the-edge-2009975.html I wonder how some of our other journalist readers see this..Your journalist friend seems
Your journalist friend seems to be making the same argument in favor of not running the story that Brooks et al made. that he shouldn't have ran this story because it was "bad form" not that it was bad journalism. I'll take a journalist who violates the "Beers on the table" rule over someone who's willing to protect a public figure as to not offend them/lose them as a source.
Also a point to mention is that the RS editor Bates stated in a recent article(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/22/rolling-stone-editor-mcch_n_620...) that not only did McChrystal and his aides know he was on the record. he also knew the contents of the story two weeks before it printed.
So that would suggest that this unwritten "Beers on the table" rule wasn't broken.
I've exercised the "beers on
I've exercised the "beers on the table" exception before. It makes sense, when we're talking about junior or mid-level officers. But when we're talking about the inner circle of the top commander of the entire war effort -- well, sorry, those guys are held to a higher standard. Especially if they weren't clear from the beginning what was on the record and what was off.
-nms
I think the "beers on the
I think the "beers on the table" rule depends on context. If I'm just having a beer with a buddy after work, then no, I'm not going to quote him. But if you're writing a profile about someone - and there are no ground rules explicitly putting you off-the-record - then it's all fair game, whether or not there's booze involved.
More generally, sure, everyone knows Biden shoots his mouth off and Holbrooke can be abrasive. But Gen. McChrystal's relationship with his civilian bosses (and how that relationship impacts the war in Afghanistan) has been a subject of debate for a year now. So the quotes from him and his staff, while not terribly surprising, do fit into a larger picture - they're not just irrelevant off-hours bitching.
Watch "Almost Famous" with
Watch "Almost Famous" with Kate Hudson.
I think Noah is spot on with
I think Noah is spot on with this. I'm not a reporter, but as a former junior officer who's had to deal with media, I never would have said that stuff on the record (off the record might be a different story). And I certainly would have expected the same (or more stringent) tight-lippedness from higher headquarters staff. Beers or no.
These are great comments,
These are great comments, gang, keep it up.Were I still in the Army I'd
Were I still in the Army I'd probably have a problem with Michael Hasting's piece. But I've been a civilian for 18 years now, and the larger perspective gained from being a civilian tells me that Hastings was in the right place at the right time and did the right thing. If post-Hastings journalism is thereby harder, so be it. The alternative is the American version of Pravda, which too much American media has become--reflecting, of course, what America's becoming, which is the larger issue.
What ever happened to the old newsman's principle that the purpose of journalism is to afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted?
RH
But.....isn't this SOP for
But.....isn't this SOP for McC?
The Tillman coverup, the troop strength leak, and now the RS story seem to represent attempts to shape perception and policy outside of his charter.
My impression is that McC believes the end justifies the means.
and .......given that
and .......given that Hastings wrote this book.... and surely McC was cognizant of who he was.....that it was a deliberate choice?
"Weigel: In the end it was a freelancer who didn’t give a damn about how many bridges got burned who brought the general down, a reporter who’d lost his fiancé in Baghdad in 2006 (she was a reporter, too) and who wrote an unloved memoir about it (the Times panned it) and who when I met him last year exuded the sort of undiluted hypervigilence that I have always associated with people who have untreated PTSD. (Full Disclosure: I ran into Hastings at the Norman Mailer Writers Colony last July and did two rounds with him at a local Provincetown bar, the name of which I predictably cannot recall.)"
Isn't it possible that Hastings was CHOSEN on the assumption the interview would be published?
Let me get this straight:
Let me get this straight: Taking an unsourced, racist comment from an Israeli officer after you completed your interview with him and closed your notebook and then turning it into a treatise about how the Israeli military and Israeli society in general are both racist IS kosher. However, quoting the commander of our war effort in Afghanistan -- when he had agreed to conduct an interview -- making what everyone can agree were completely inappropriate statements IS NOT ok. I fail to understand why the fact that McChrystal was drinking should provide any excuse. Bottom line, if you don't want something published, don't say it.
*And, judging from the response the profile has gotten, I'd say it was most definitely "newsworthy."
Exum says: ":..some of the
Exum says: ":..some of the folks in the comments section need to remember they are reading a blog with a Lego jihadi as its mascot. So while I do write serious commentary from time to time, and often on this blog, a sense of humor is recommended if not required for the readership."
Oh, so we have to be mindful that this blog is childish. There's a difference between being humorous, and being obnoxious and jarring. Your maladjusted, excitable groupies may think otherwise, but to me you're in the latter category. You try too hard to be cool. Which only shows that you're not.
lawl Abu Muqawama is ice
lawl
Abu Muqawama is ice cold.
bi la kayfah
Marja: you clearly dislike
Marja: you clearly dislike this blog and its author. So, why do you continue to read it and post comments that everyone seems to ignore?
Reading things you disagree with is understandable when you post comments that are insightful, but your ad hominems make me think that your time and efforts would be better spent following a blog with which you agree. Or at the very least, an author who you don't hate.
Seriously, I'm not being flippant. I need to understand.
While we can debate whether
While we can debate whether the things Gen. McChrystal and his staff said and did should have been off the record, I don't think anyone can debate that what they said was intentional. They knew they were in the presence of the media. I've worked with folks in the spec ops community and observed them almost always being very conscious of what they say and to whom, particularly around "outsiders". I believe they were either trying to impress Hastings' with their cavalier attitude or perhaps push some agenda using him as the tool, but overplayed their hand.
On another note, I haven't seen any articles talk about what Hastings' has done by painting the story in this light. Regardless of the fact that it will sell magazines and probably will get him a nice paycheck, it has weakened our cause in Afghanistan. While Hastings' may have disagreed with McChrystal's COIN philosophy, I wonder if he understood the fallout that he would cause by publishing this. Could Hastings' have predicted this outcome?
This whole thing reminds me of Col Jessup in "A Few Good Men":
"Col. Jessep: You f**in' people... you have no idea how to defend a nation. All you did was weaken a country today, Kaffee. That's all you did. You put people's lives in danger. Sweet dreams, son."
Journalism has been on a
Journalism has been on a slippery slope since Kennedy got banged in the Whitehouse.
Today, we get Monica and all the details......How's Gore doing these days?
It is good to see if the comments made by the sources in the Rolling Stone have legs. It is insight to how our trillion dollar investment is doing (what is more insane.....walking around Pakistan with a sword thinking you have devine guidance or dropping a trillion dollars for the same purpose.....the guys with the trillion would argue that they have God on their side too. but then so would the opposition......)
Not sure it was right to fire McChrystal.....he was just being honest.....do we fire people for that? Guess we do...the guys that lie we keep. Some thing is really screwed up in our values.
ignore Marja-centric, he's
ignore Marja-centric, he's the retard of the bunch.
Comment by TechnicallyDead
Comment by TechnicallyDead on June 25, 2010 - 12:11pm
This whole thing reminds me of Col Jessup in "A Few Good Men":
"Col. Jessep: You f**in' people... you have no idea how to defend a nation. All you did was weaken a country today, Kaffee. That's all you did. You put people's lives in danger. Sweet dreams, son."
AND not "Almost Famous" with Kate Hudson? Weird.
Beers on the table?
Beers on the table? Please.
If the guy your talking to is a reporter, and you're someone with public responsibilities, you're on the record. If you don't want to be on the record, there are rules for being something else. Not only Gen. McChrystal but his staff clearly knew these rules quite well -- it's why his staff were able to get themselves quoted anonymously, and probably why McChrystal himself isn't quoted saying something overtly inflammatory.
As for Hastings burning sources, well, I doubt it. He didn't quote anyone against their will, for one thing. And for another, some of the guys he did quote aren't going to be sources for anyone after Gen. Petraeus moves his own people in.
There is something else that probably ought to be borne in mind. The Afghan war has been going on for almost nine years, and it's not going well. That's going to change the rules for journalists covering the military, perhaps on the margins but still in important ways. The benefit of the doubt (or, less charitably, the "gee-whiz" factor) that journalists covering, say, the march up to Baghdad in 2003 might have extended to senior officers can't be assumed now. Most competent journalists covering aspects of the war effort know there's trouble somewhere, and they're looking for it. Whether they have political agendas of their own or not, whether they are hostile to the military culture or not, it's their job.
While I'm certainly no fan
While I'm certainly no fan of the perpetual news cycle -- which is dangerous and forces decision-makers to bend to a vindictive Big Brother -- Hastings was justified in his reporting. Just as Pres. Obama's team echoes his views, and are forcefully reigned in from expressing their own independent theories, Gen. McChrystal's aides understanding the chain-of-command and the wishes of their superior officer. In this article, they are speaking for McChrystal. Hastings had every right to expose the inner-workings -- especially after being invited into the "camp" -- of our top war-general's operation.
It's a shame that Gen. McChrystal -- and, ahem, his PR handlers -- did not see this coming. But it is no fault of the reporter or the publication.
Considering most of the
Considering most of the controversial comments came from a few days in Paris, I wonder how much of this was due to McChrystal and his team letting loose during a short libo from 20 hours days and the confines of Afghanistan? In which case Hastings was in the right place at the right time to gather sensationalist quotes for his story....
Obama was right to fire McChrystal, but that doesn't mean it isn't a great loss for our country.
Hey Zak's right. Gary
Hey Zak's right. Gary Bauer Faulkner didn't cost us a thing!!
And that is a less crazy idea.
Where did I put that sword?
BTW I claim Faulkner as pirate. And it's time we had our turn at bat, Ninja Muqawama. You creepy crawlies in your latent gay black leotards had 10 years. Step aside.
For anyone who thinks my reasoning is unsound, consider this: Astan has huge, huge reserves of Hash...
Argue with that.
Here's three issues that are
Here's three issues that are getting so much attention elsewhere that I won't mention them:
1) Was Obama right to relieve M4?
2) Was M4 right to trust Michael Hastings?
3) Was Michael Hastings right to publish his article?
The concern of this post is:
"Is Michael Hastings a douche bag?"
Hastings went to Baghdad with his girlfriend to cover the war. She was killed in 2007. Three weeks later he pitched the concept of a book about his girlfriend getting killed for $500,000 to Scribner. Am I crazy, or does this sound like a really exploitative move? Combined with his dubious execution on the M4 article, this guy is starting to look like a real opportunistic douche bag.
http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlny/books/newsweek_correspondent_propo...
I got my 3 days of fame.
I got my 3 days of fame. Now I'm going to Disneyland. You all can suck these nutz!!!
Next is CNAS. Expose, you homos!
You guys can lick the dark
You guys can lick the dark part of my anus region, then move on to my hairy nutz!!!
I'm a reporter, and I have
I'm a reporter, and I have to disagree with your buddy who's done time in Iraq, Afghanistan and DC. I dont know if Hastings is brilliant or a douchebag, or a brilliant douchebag. I dont care. He is a reporter. He is hanging with the McCh. and crew not because he's their friend. He is there to work. It was up to the subjects of his story to look out for themselves. These men werent poor migrant workers in Florida or factory workers drinking in a bar after their shift in Michigan, in other words people who have never or rarely dealt with the press. These guys deal with the media all the time. So, if Hastings walked into a bar with them or came to their table in a bar, they had to tell him before he put his butt in a seat and before their own sobriety was imperiled that the following would be entirely off the record, not quotable, basically never happened. I've had sources do this with me, and I was fine with it and respected it.
If Hastings is hanging around with the AfPak gang in some kind of offsite command post in a Paris hotel room, they need to watch their commentary on various people. Before the crew even met with him, they needed to talk first about the ground rules of dealing with a reporter who'd be shadowing them all the time.
The general and his team screwed up big time. It doesnt matter whether what they said was worse than regular office sniping. They exposed their bitching to worldwide scrutiny. I dont know if it bespeaks stupidity or arrogance. But I do agree it will make things much harder for other reporters. And I also agree with Londonstani that freelancers have even less incentive to burn sources than staff and beat reporters do.
Hastings is certainly
Hastings is certainly opportunistic, if nothing else. Not that that is necessarily a bad quality in a journalist, but I suspect in this instance it may very well bite him in the ass going forward, if he wants to continue to do investigative reporting in the national security/foreign policy/military field.
Visitor @1:30 PM Didn't know
Visitor @1:30 PM
Didn't know that about Hastings and his girlfriend. Thanks for the link.
Yup, the creep's definitely a douchebag.
Abu, Why would you stoop to
Abu,
Why would you stoop to dignify Andrew Sullivan- a homosexual, anti-Semitic woman-hating nutcase- by quoting him/her and linking to his blog? That creep has serious mental issues. You can do better with your fellow warriors than sharing the debate with a male who wears a woman's panties.
The Sonoran Liberation Army. Somewhere deep in the Mohave.
Huffington Post: "In the
Huffington Post: "In the hypercompetitive media world, some of the reaction to your story has been a little negative, that you have "hostile views" and that you're anti-war. Some have wondered how you could jeopardize your future access to sources. How do you respond to that?"
Hastings: "Look, I went into journalism to do journalism, not advertising. My views are critical but that shouldn't be mistaken for hostile - I'm just not a stenographer. There is a body of work that shows how I view these issues but that was hard-earned through experience, not something I learned going to a cocktail party on fucking K Street. That's what reporters are supposed to do, report the story."
It never ceases to amaze me
It never ceases to amaze me that, no matter what the group, if a writer hangs around with them for long enough they will forget that person is there solely to listen to what they say and watch what they do.
How much responsibility that puts on the journalist has always been a point for debate but, in my view, Hastings went too far to the point of abusing his access though others clearly disagree. Maybe the less media savvy the person is the more slack the author should cut them.
I hope that Hastings thinks that all the military, political and diplomatic fallout was a price worth paying for this month's pay cheque. One thing is certain though, getting the gig just got a whole lot harder.
Yes! You all can suck the
Yes! You all can suck the bottom portion of my nutz!!!
In Vino veritas
In Vino veritas
It was funny to watch how
It was funny to watch how Exum slowly began to throw McChrystal under the bus over the past few days. Might as well stick with the winning horse. Playing politics through blogs is truly an art, despite the fact that it is often uncomfortable to watch.
I must say that I actually enjoy Marja-centric's comments. Marja's words may be harsh at times, but they usually have some level of truth to them.
A case of youthful Cultural
A case of youthful Cultural Ignorance. I guess nobody in Kabul knew about Hunter S. Thompson's work @ Rolling Stone. The record speaks for itself. Some things are immutable. Duh!
That's because you are
That's because you are Marja-centric, nut licker!
And fuck you Michael Hastings. You brought a good man down, sir and imperiled this war. And all you can say for yourself, is 'lick my nutz'?
And to you Exum, fuck you for ass fucking your old commander. Shows character.
Of course the journo was
Of course the journo was within limits to publish the quotes, especially sine he actually sent them a freaking quotecheck. If the guy is a slimeball who sold the death of his ex for half a mill, that makes the stupidity of the McChrystal crew even larger. Dont the have mediahandlers?
Ah, yes. Our Talleyrand
Ah, yes. Our Talleyrand shall go far....well, farther...
I can't believe they relieved McChrystal for that interview. We have a seriously insecure Administration. What's next, he'll have us stand at attention while he plays the martinet?
Well... this went downhill
Well... this went downhill quickly.
As noted above there's no
As noted above there's no excuse for officers of this grade and experience behaving in such a manner. The General may not have offered much by way of outrage but clearly he allowed a destructive and contemptous command climate to exist.
I'd also agree with the above comment by Technically Dead in that SF folks know how to handle the media. Actually I'd go further and say that the General's coterie has made it a practice to try and dominate information and perception through a coordinated strategic communications campaign. They thought they could shape their operating environment (conceived in the broadest terms to include the Washington policy establishment and public sentiment) by sophisiticated interaction with the media. Of course this often resulted in leaks and spin that were transparent to those of us here in the D.C. policy community. Which leads me to....
He might well have survived if this had been a one off example of ill discipline - although that's debatable. However it wasn't a one off example but rather the culmination of series of irritating, and at times destructive leaks, of classified information. This began with the Assessment last summer and never let up. It's ultimately this well established pattern that made it clear that the General and his staff could not be trusted to execute our strategy in Afghanistan.
Nonetheless, it is profoundly sad to see a man that is unquestionably a patriot and a great resource to the nation dismissed in such a way.
The US needs a military
The US needs a military government under Gen. Petreus, not one led by the wimp Obama.
As a reporter, I spend a lot
As a reporter, I spend a lot of time reminding people that they're on the record, and generally trying to protect media-unsavvy sources from themselves - your everyday ranchers and senior citizens and bodega-owners and the like. But if someone is a) speaking for a government agency - county, state, federal, tribal or b) speaking for a major company or organization - then everything's fair game unless I'm specifically told it's off the record. And throw-away lines are sometimes the most indicative of larger attitudes. So quoting McChrystal's staff with "beers on the table"? Fine. The problem I have with the article is that it uses sensational quotes to paper over the fact that the rest of the article is pretty thin. Hastings doesn't back up his thesis that McChrystal "has seized control of the war by never taking his eye off the real enemy: The wimps in the White House." There's no convincing case that McChrystal - or the Pentagon - bullied Obama into ok-ing his strategy. Basically, Michael Hastings thinks COIN asks too much of the military, and pushes the military into more properly civilian diplomatic spheres. Sure, I agree. But is that McChrystal's fault? If anything, the article points up the flaws in the way the US allocates resources to military vs civilian efforts, and the dysfunction of the civilian diplomats right now. That's all way bigger than McChrystal.
I mean, what did Hastings prove here? That McChrystal's staff talks shit? That he lets them? That when he's had a few beers in Paris he gets sentimental about his crew? Sure, fire the man for unbelievably bone-headed indiscretion. But I wish the article had been more about worries that COIN asks the military to wear too many hats, and less about pinning these issues on McChrystal.
"There's a difference
"There's a difference between being humorous, and being obnoxious and jarring"
Yes, dear fellow, there is! Let's have civilized tea room discourse here, and never mind the fact that these young lads and lassies are getting their arses blown off here and there for some reason I can't really define - but it's important. The enemy must be defeated, regardless. And we have to have the population on our side. It is a "Just War", after all. Obama said so, and so did Bush, so it must be so.
And yes, nothing obnoxious or jarring. No George Carlin skits. Sure thing, pal. Astonishingly enough, some U.S. media outlet ran footage from Afghanistan over this:
Restrepo Afghanistan via youtube
Hope you didn't find that jarring, shite-for-brains.
A review of the comments reveals an obsession with image over substance, too. Which is the real problem here, maybe?
I think we passed the point
I think we passed the point at which the military was given too many hats to wear about fifteen years ago. COIN merely represents an effort to make better use of the resources the military has, and that civilian government agencies do not. In context, it also represents the bottom of the intellectual barrel, since it is being tried in Afghanistan only now under severely adverse circumstances, many years after it might have been successfully applied there at much lower cost.
As to the complaints about
As to the complaints about Marja-centric's complaints:
Every day I read a number of blogs on a variety of subjects. IMO the good blogs provide value to its readers. The great blogs have commenters who provide value. The truly exceptional blogs have authors and commenters who consistently share value with each other.
I read this blog regularly because there is value here. However, the manner/style (particularly the familiarity) of Mr. Exum's posts detracts from the value he shares and attracts a type of comments that are completely worthless.
Mr. Exum, your readers are not your "gang." Your readers who come here for the value are not interested in your name dropping, where you travel, or that you call your wife Lady Mugawama, ect. Such drivel is what you find on a teenager's Facebook wall.
I just got around to
I just got around to actually reading the entire Rolling Stone piece. It left me pissed.
(Quick disclosure about me: 1) I used to be a newspaper reporter; 2) I've never covered combat or served in the military; 3) Although invading Afghanistan was completely justified, I think we've deployed troops to a centrifuge, to a non-nation practically designed to fly apart into its various component regions and ethnicities; 4) I wish we could just walk away but don't think there's any moral way to do so at this point; 5) I believe that COIN -- by which I mean COIN that adheres to the principles and arithmetic laid out in the field manual -- is America's best hope for a military approach that's remotely consistent with human rights and other values that matter to me.
Some thoughts ...
The most insubordinate words in the Rolling Stone piece are not from McChrystal or his staff. They come in these two paragraphs:
"One soldier shows me the list of new regulations the platoon was given. 'Patrol only in areas that you are reasonably certain that you will not have to defend yourselves with lethal force,' the laminated card reads. For a soldier who has traveled halfway around the world to fight, that's like telling a cop he should only patrol in areas where he knows he won't have to make arrests. 'Does that make any fucking sense?' asks Pfc. Jared Pautsch. 'We should just drop a fucking bomb on this place. You sit and ask yourself: What are we doing here?'
"The rules handed out here are not what McChrystal intended – they've been distorted as they passed through the chain of command – but knowing that does nothing to lessen the anger of troops on the ground. 'Fuck, when I came over here and heard that McChrystal was in charge, I thought we would get our fucking gun on,' says Hicks, who has served three tours of combat. 'I get COIN. I get all that. McChrystal comes here, explains it, it makes sense. But then he goes away on his bird, and by the time his directives get passed down to us through Big Army, they're all fucked up – either because somebody is trying to cover their ass, or because they just don't understand it themselves. But we're fucking losing this thing.'"
I can sit here and try to argue with Pautsch and Hicks. I can appeal to fellow liberals to recognize that forsaking COIN strengthens the "drop a fucking bomb on this place" crowd. But forget that for now.
These candid words from Pautsch and Hicks matter more than any of the gossip-worthy quotes from McChrystal and his team. Similarly, the candor in a book like "The Good Soldiers" matters more. This candor -- these boots-on-the-ground dispatches -- are precisely what Hastings' piece will slam the door on. He's being celebrated for this. He's a REAL journalist because he's willing to burn his bridges and everybody else's bridges. Well, bullshit.
The McChrystal & Co. quotes would matter if they illuminated some larger truth. They'd matter, for example, if McChrystal badmouthed COIN or Obama or Biden or Petraeus in front of soldiers like Pautsch and Hicks. But he didn't. As Hastings documented, McChrystal was out there making this incredibly difficult case that Pautsch and Hicks and their buddies should show restraint and put their lives at greater risk for the good of the mission and the good of the country.
Glenn Greenwald and others I respect are making the case that Hastings is "such a good journalist" because he refuses to be a stenographer.
http://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/17029912834
But Hastings is simply a different kind of stenographer. He seems to have left it to the fact-checkers to read the shocking quotes back to McChrystal. The piece could have been WAY more illuminating if Hastings had called McChrystal out, had asked him to explain why the words didn't amount to insubordination, had asked whether he'd tolerate that kind of talk from his troops, had insisted on learning from the man himself what kind of stress or carelessness or frustration or egocentrism would lead seasoned officers to speak so harshly and unguardedly. If Hastings had done so, he might have been yelled at, might have been left behind in Paris, might NOT have been able to spend a month with McChrystal. But forget that. Forget that fast. Forget it because the hero narrative for Hastings involves us accepting the idea that he boldly, bravely didn't care about whether his actions would cost him access.
I apologize for going on and on. Just one more point.
McChrystal screwed himself. I cannot begin to understand why he gave this kind of access to ANY outsider, whether a journalist or a civilian contractor or an eavesdropping bellhop.
COIN, on the other hand, got sucker-punched. COIN didn't run its mouth. COIN didn't get drunk at Kitty O'Shea's. But it is COIN, much more than McChrystal, that got slimed.
Take this sentence: "The COIN doctrine, bizarrely, draws inspiration from some of the biggest Western military embarrassments in recent memory: France's nasty war in Algeria (lost in 1962) and the American misadventure in Vietnam (lost in 1975)."
Especially with the gratuitous, inflammatory word "bizarrely," that sentence simply does not fit with what I've read about COIN. In Nagl's book, for example, the whole point is that America failed to adapt enough in Vietnam and should have modeled itself on a "learning army" like the British in Malaya. That insight does not amount to drawing "inspiration from some of the biggest Western military embarrassments in recent memory."
When it comes to COIN, Hastings seems either sloppy or confused or intent on making sure readers mistake his straw-man caricature for a scrupulous critique. Even as Hastings correctly notes the severe restrictions McChrystal placed on the use of deadly force, he leaves the fuzzy impression that all civilian casualties are COIN's fault.
We should have a debate about whether COIN is feasible, about whether we can reasonably ask Pfc. Pautsch to go home in a body bag because he holds his fire on an insurgent whose death would create ten new insurgents. That's actually an important debate. Carried out intelligently, it's a debate that can prevent America from rushing into future Iraqs and Afghanistans. But what Hastings has done here threatens to make the debate far dumber.
All you
All you journalists/academics/think tankers out there....with the $100 educations.....
Ever think about asking McChrystal what he thinks? Lot of guessing out there.....opprotunity for a follow-up article. Maybe a book (title?....."Biden doesn't bite, but Obama does")
BTY.....Think about half the US of A would like to call Biden......"Bite me Biden"....sorta fits. Rings too.
David Quigg, Well done!
David Quigg,
Well done! Well done! I have thought this one fact interesting, and you sir brought it up as well...Hastings a hero? Didn't he get all the quotes but no follow up questions to the General about where he or his staff came to those conclusions they express? No. He was a coward! He didn't stand his ground and ask the hard question just ran back home and asked the staff to fact check. Hastings=coward McChrystal=foolish
"We should have a debate
"We should have a debate about whether COIN is feasible."
YES!
at least i think drones are obviously counter-productive. could we at least stop drones?
“After the jirga was over, one of the tribal elders came over and we chatted for a while over a glass of green tea. “Last month,” he said, “some American officers called us to a hotel in Jalalabad for a meeting. One of them asked me, ‘Why do you hate us?’ I replied, ‘Because you blow down our doors, enter our houses, pull our women by the hair and kick our children. We cannot accept this. We will fight back, and we will break your teeth, and when your teeth are broken you will leave, just as the British left before you. It is just a matter of time.’” – Theodore Dalrymple, the New Statesman, via Fallows.
But Abu Jamal.....given
But Abu Jamal.....given McC's apriori behavoir [Tillman, troop strength leak] i think there is is at least the possibility that McC MEANT to do that.
That he passionately believes in his cause and wanted to pressure Obama to do what he believes is the right thing.
Add your comment