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.
Rolling Stone
No, I have not read the Rolling Stone article on Gen. McChrystal. Yes, I was interviewed for it, but I don't think I said anything of consequence. The reporter was Michael Hastings*, who seems like a pretty stand-up guy if certainly against the war -- not that there is nothing wrong with that. I'm not sure if it's the wisest thing, though, to bring a guy who you know isn't the biggest fan of the war effort into your inner circle and just cut loose, but that's my impression of what happened. Now we have a huge distraction for everyone involved: Folks on the left are going to be screaming for POTUS to sack McChrystal for insubordination, and folks from the right are going to seize on this as evidence the Obama Administration is screwing up the war and not supporting his generals. Meanwhile, in Kabul, you have a commander dealing with a mess (that he made for himself, it must be said) that has nothing do with the Taliban or Afghan corruption.
I have long felt that a crisis in civil-military relations could be a kind of self-fulfilling prophesy whereby the civilians in the Obama Administration would be so suspicious of the uniformed officer corps from the start that they would in effect create the very crisis of which they were suspicious. Now a senior military officer has bungled a media engagement to such an epic degree that he has fulfilled all of the fears of the civilian decision-makers himself.
This is not good. This is just a terrible distraction, and I feel sorry that POTUS is going to have to deal with this.
*Of course, I say this having not read the article.
UPDATE: I have now read the article, and Talledega Nights references aside, it is not good. Hastings obviously thinks counterinsurgency is a scam, and the real thrust of the article is not so much anti-McChrystal but anti-COIN. I did not feel Hastings made any effort to include arguments for the current strategy despite having conducted a lot of interviews. (He only quotes Dave Barno, a former commander in Afghanistan, in reference only to his time at West Point, for goodness sake.) But Hastings is of course well within his rights to write whatever kind of article he wishes, and Rolling Stone makes no pretence of objectvity. As far as whether McChrystal should resign or be fired, I trust POTUS is going to do a cost-benefit analysis there and arrive at a decision. This is hardly MacArthur-Truman territory, but POTUS has every right to be furious, and there are good arguments both for and against the sack. I think the key question here is how much risk POTUS wants to run with respect to the war in Afghanistan. If this were, say, the mission in Kosovo, McChrystal would already be packing his bags. But the war in Afghanistan is a different beast, and POTUS may decide he can't switch commanders 12 months out from his June 2011 deadline for beginning a withdrawal. (On the other hand, he might also decide that at this point, the well is so poisoned between McChrystal, Eikenberry and Holbrooke that he simply must get a new commander.) This is not going to make people demanding that I give a yes/no opinion as to whether McChrystal should be dismissed happy, but frankly I think POTUS has a difficult decision in front of him and that he could opt to either retain or dismiss McChrystal and have cause for doing either. I've said it once, though, and will say it again: he has every right to be furious that McChrystal put him in this situation in the first place. I really admire Stan McChrystal, but he has put his superiors in an incredibly difficult situation.
Two interesting secondary questions:
1. What the hell was Duncan Boothby thinking setting up this article with a freelance writer (who can burn bridges more easily than someone at, say, the New York Times) who already has bias against the strategy? This is just awful media management, because the writer neither gives a flip as to whether or not his article might complicate the success of the mission nor has any interest in lending any balance to his own conclusions. Head slap.
2. In a weird way, Hastings is making the argument to readers of Rolling Stone (Rolling Stone!) that counterinsurgency sucks because it doesn't allow our soldiers to kill enough people. What, pray tell, is Hastings' alternative to counterinsurgency? Disengagement from Afghanistan? Okay, but what would the costs and benefits of that disengagement be? I am frustrated by the reluctance of the legions of counterinsurgency skeptics to be honest about -- or even discuss -- the costs and benefits of alternatives. Some do, but not many.
Wasn't leaking of his
Wasn't leaking of his recommendations for the escalation to force Obama's hand even more insubordinate?
It's obvious the guy has to
It's obvious the guy has to go. If you show that much tone-deafness in a counterinsurgency war, WITH YOUR OWN SIDE, you aren't cracked up to lead it....certainly not considering the complexity of the OTHER AFGHAN SIDE. He must have spent too much time in the black world in order to understand the complex relationships that are required in Afghanistan.
And to call Biden a wimp because he wants a footprint that goes after just terrorists? Hmm. That's just plain idiocy. It may not be a plausible strategy (although it's certainly looking like one), but I don't think there's anything particularly cowardly about it. Holy shit.
Stan the Man has to go.
More than anything its just
More than anything its just the latest case of everyone wants to be famous. Adding the caveat that I've only read the articles on the article too, its another (unfortunate) poor example of the immaturity that exists in the officer ranks. No better than a bunch of teenage boys falling upon Megan Fox at the beach. If McCrystal's posse isn't mature enough to figure out the importance of keeping their mouth shut, they aren't much better than the idiot who went to wikileaks. And in a sense its even more ergregious because what they just did affects something that is happening not something that happened. Great job guys! Hope thay at least get a signed copy.
Lasvegasreb, sn't the real
Lasvegasreb, sn't the real subtext of this amazing article that McChrystal seems psychologically to have admitted to himself that this past year has been a failure? So, if you've lost the enemy, why bother with your friends. McChrystal, if anything else, is eminently realistic and can't possibly view the current security situation in AF with pride.
McChrystal must be fired
McChrystal must be fired because of this but lets face it you do have an administration that is suspicious and maybe even a little hostile towards the officer corps. By the end of the day Fox will be spinning that Obama administration won't let the military do what needs to be done in Afghanistan and that it doesn't support the troops. What a mess.
I have long felt that a
I have long felt that a crisis in civil-military relations could be a kind of self-fulfilling prophesy whereby the civilians in the Obama Administration would be so suspicious of the uniformed officer corps from the start that they would in effect create the very crisis of which they were suspicious.
Well, that's a sweet way of blaming the civilians for a break-down in civil-military relations. The only way to removing this "distraction," as you term it, is for McChrystal to resign today.
Feuds like these are to be
Feuds like these are to be expected. Face it folks, it is part of a larger dialogue on where we wish to go as a country. This country is enamored of war. Regarding the so-called civilian distrust of the officer corps, I'm curious as to what AbuM thinks that actually entails. AbuM makes the fault for this lie with the civies. Poor McChrystal et al can hardly be blamed for their behavior.
It seems to me that Biden basically kisses M.I.C. tail on a monthly basis, and Obama daily spits in the face of his own base to make Bush et al feel comfortable and immune to prosecution. But maybe I'm wrong here. Honestly, Is it a case of not showing the proper obsequiousness to the lads in blue? No very American that, after all this country was founded to be a Prussian-style state with a cult to militarism.
The problem here is that Obama is a wimp, and Biden is pathetic, and McChrystal et al (and many conservatives) smelled it out. What Obama should have done is brought McChrystal to heel early on. You don't let your dogs or your horses know you are afraid of them. Great line from a movie on this topic was when Queen Elizabeth I said of Essex (who started acting up after he was shown to much love), "my dogs wear my collars, sir!" Actually the quote was taken from Elizabeth's rant against a subject, Nicholas Clifford, who came home from France with a decoration from a foreign government. [Which, off topic, raises the issue of our Constitutional prohibition against foreign titles and the fact that American citizens illegally accept knighthoods.] Simply put, Obama had better put these people in their place or they will walk all over him. When your Republican or otherwise bellicose friends tell you that if you give the "enemy" an inch he will use it to full advantage, it seems to me, they are projecting.
gets interviewed by Jeff
gets interviewed by Jeff Pearlman and proceeds to explain his feelings about Diversity. Rocker is then shocked that a guy named Pearlman disagrees with his views and publishes a hit piece in SI that makes Pearlman's career.
Rocker was a rube, didn't think McChrystal was one as well.
There's a copy of the
There's a copy of the Rolling Stone article already floating around. Ex, I'm not sure about whether you want to or should see it early, but I could send a copy to your KCL address so you can prepare for what's coming.
Sad part is, this is a
Sad part is, this is a situation that could have been avoided. The Pentagon has Public Relations Officers who screen reporters, questions and control how interviews are conducted. This Rolling Stone Interview is a hardcore reminder that many of our troops are not "staying in their circle". Remember your Code of Conduct Training Stanley? Perhaps he needs some in-service training down at Ft. Bragg? Did you forget the words, "no comment" Stanley? Perhaps the Code of Conduct should be rewritten to say this?
Code of Conduct I
If I become victim of a Rolling Stone Interview, I will keep faith with my fellow servicemen. I will give no information or take part in any action which might be harmful to my comrades. If I am senior, I will take command. If not, I will obey the lawful orders of those appointed over me and will back them up in every way.
Code of Conduct II
When questioned, should I be interviewed by Rolling Stone, I am required to give name, rank, service number, and date of birth. I will evade answering further questions to the utmost of my ability and defer to the DoD Public Relations Officer appointed to me. I will make no oral or written statements disloyal to my country and its allies or harmful to their cause.
Code of Conduct III
Actions every servicemen should resist include making oral or written statements and apologies, answering questionnaires, providing personal histories, creating propaganda recordings, broadcasting "lack of connecting with POTUS" and "Who's Joe?", providing any other material readily usable for propaganda purposes, appealing for surrender or parole, furnishing self-criticisms and communicating on behalf of the enemy to the detriment of the United States, its allies, its armed forces or other servicemen.
Code of Conduct IV
The best way for a servicemen to keep faith with country, fellow servicemen and self is to provide Rolling Stone Magazine with as little information as possible.
Code of Conduct V
I will never forget that I am an American, fighting for freedom, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free. I will trust in my God and in the United States of America. Also, I am not God, nor are the Field Grade Officers who serve below me.
Code of Conduct VI
A member of the armed forces remains responsible for personal actions at all times.
Code of Conduct VII
A member of the military service who is interviewed by Rolling Stone Magazine has a continuing obligation to resist and to remain loyal to his country, President, Vice President, service, unit and fellow servicemen.
===========================================================================
Stanley needs to retire this week, before he's relieved of his command. McCrystal and his staff being relieved of their command would be very embarrassing for all those involved. He's already been there too long, take the hit and retire with honor General McCrystal.
I would also like to say, thank you for your service to your country, your hard work and many years of loyalty and dedication. I wish you the best and hope you have an opportunity to teach what you've learned over the last 2 decades to students at West Point and wish you and your family the best in your retirement.
Very sad state of affairs. AM, what are your feelings on this Rolling Stone Interview?
This demonstrates how poor
This demonstrates how poor of a leader Obama is. He has a war in Afghanistan that the U.S. public generally supports, has NATO on board and has a new COIN trained Army. It does not get much easier than that and he has failed to implement a strategy and put the right people in place. His top two appointments have stark disagreements? Why put them both there???????????
Bush in 2006 faced widespread public anger, was losing allies and had a risky untested COIN strategy being pushed by a few people. His courageous decision looks even more so in light on this recent Afghanistan saga.
Visitor: The Code of Conduct
Visitor:
The Code of Conduct thing is lovely and all, but might I point out that Nate Fink, (Abu's boss here at CNAS,) did quite well in dealing with Rolling Stone. Perhaps Gen. McCrystal's staff fancied themselves the next principal in another war tourist mini-series intended to keep the bimbo-box driving middle Americans up late at night watching HBO?
@Andy, Civil Military
@Andy,
Civil Military relations "breakdown"....which I've always thought was the second most overblown meme of reporting on the military. The record holder being at the start of the current Iraq campaign, when reporters were convinced that soldiers constant streams of obscenity could only mean mutiny was near.
Andy why do you assume it's the military, other than it's always their fault? I haven't read the piece either, because I can't get to it...if it's online yet. The excerpts I see indicate it was more his staff then him.
And this is true: "The general said he felt "betrayed" by U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry, a former three-star general. In a leaked document last year, Eikenberry said he distrusted Afghan president Hamid Karzai. "Here's one that covers his flank for the history books," McChrystal told Rolling Stone of Eikenberry."
Well when Eikenberry runs his mouth, how is that not a breakdown of civil military relations? And Eikenberry did run his mouth, putting many in mind of Vietnam and Diem being undermined by the "gentlemen" of Foggy Bottom. Quite possibly Karzai had the same idea. He'd be Crazy not to...
If we're really having a breakdown, where did it start? 2009 with Mr "Diplomat" E-berry running his mouth in cables leaked by whom ? This White House. You might recall.
McChrystal apologized profusely in public. What he should do now that's he's recalled is hand over his resignation and not take "No" for an answer. That's actually best for him, it's his out. As in get the Hell out of there with the honor intact before it sinks.
I'm not defending said remarks to Rolling Stone or any reporter, nor really am I a fan of old media in this respect. If you want to say something get an internet connection.
But let's take this entire episode in context. The men on the ground with Mission Impossible have been getting undermined by these nancy boys who think they're tough guys from Chicago from day one.
@"lasvegasreb" - Stan the Man has to go. Well maybe, to be replaced by whom? You?
Anyone wanna take the job? You'd have to be Crazy. Anyone? AM?
There's reasons Franks walked away, and it got dumped on Sanchez, and only Casey was dumb enough to touch Iraq at that point (and he's really, really, dumb....)..
The ones who have to go are these posuer's from Chicago. And Stan the Man will be just the latest as of today to get away from them even if it hurts.
Don't worry Bammy. You'll always have Soros. Until he has no use for you.
Here is the article in .pdf
Here is the article in .pdf form
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM130_r1109mcchrystal.html
In two weeks, we have one
In two weeks, we have one general passing out from dehydration, and the other mouthing off at his chain of command. Back to basic training for our four stars!
Don't anybody worry. I am
Don't anybody worry. I am sure that once Gen. McChrystal is fired there are dozens of generals with similar skill sets that could take his place. Ridgeway replaced MacArthur and that war worked out ok.
Wow, that's a low blow. Et
Wow, that's a low blow. Et tu, Exum?
Gen. McCrystal took you into his inner circle. He gave you stature by giving you a seat at the table. He took you seriously and in effect launched your career. And you don't have a single nice thing to say about him in your post? Not the faintest of a defense? So that you can cover your own ass with the Obama administration?
I am really taken back by your lack of courage and gratitude.
The most "prominent" voice I
The most "prominent" voice I heard this morning calling for the General's head was none other than Joe Scarborough.
Perhaps Mr. Nathaniel C.
Perhaps Mr. Nathaniel C. Fick should be a full time Public Relations and CT/COIN Advisor for the Pentagon? In fact, I know Mr. Fick would do an amazing job, he has a very impressive education and is a excellent public speaker / leader. That being said, Mr. McCrystal just isn't as articulate and he / his staff have taken things personal... in a public format, which is totally unacceptable.
He has to go, dissing the
He has to go, dissing the commander in chief in the public prints isn't possible to apologize away
Ah...yeah, even bigger
Ah...yeah, even bigger problem, who would replace McCrystal if he were to leave? Is anyone smart and tough enough in the ranks for the job?
Elf, It's pretty simple. The
Elf,
It's pretty simple. The military is subordinate. Period. If the good General thinks he's getting fucked over by the civilians, then he should resign and then he can say what he wants. If he and his staff have policy disagreements then he needs to keep those private and salute smartly whatever the final decision is - or resign.
The military today is highly respected - so much so it borders on a fetish for some. Shit, I can't go out in uniform without people constantly thanking me for my service. The military, as an institution, is held in higher regard than just about any other government entity. Politicians fall over themselves to avoid criticizing "the troops." In that environment, I think responsibility for the breakdown in civil-military relations lies primarily with the military - specifically with generation of generals who think of themselves as policymakers and use that institutional respect and reluctance to "criticize the troops" to push for their own policy prescriptions. That's what ultimately led to General McChrystal's situation today.
In any government bureaucracy you've got to expect some politicking and political maneuvering, but some senior officers have gone too far. McChrystal is one of them. His comments are clearly UCMJ article 88 material and this isn't his only fuckup. The shit his staff said is even worse. They have got to go. If nothing else, they should be fired for being dumbasses and saying crap like that on the record to a reporter with known anti-war sympathies. WTF did they expect would happen?
http://timeswampland.files.wo
http://timeswampland.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/r1109mcchrystal.pdf
Visitor @ 10:34- Thanks was
Visitor @ 10:34- Thanks was looking for that
"1. What the hell was Duncan
"1. What the hell was Duncan Boothby thinking setting up this article with a freelance writer (who can burn bridges more easily than someone at, say, the New York Times) who already has bias against the strategy? This is just awful media management, because the writer neither gives a flip as to whether or not his article might complicate the success of the mission nor has any interest in lending any balance to his own conclusions. Head slap."
Welcome to the world the Bush administration had to deal with. You could put the NYT in the same group of people who are biased against the strategy in Iraq and who didn't "give a flip" about complicating the mission in Iraq
When I heard about this, I
When I heard about this, I thought back to how McChrystal encapsulated our COIN strategy by describing what is required of American counterinsurgents in Afghanistan:
"If every soldier is authorized to make one mistake, then we lose the war.”
Bitter, bitter irony.
I generally dismiss Abu M's
I generally dismiss Abu M's nonsense. But today he is a lone voice of sanity on this issue.
Look at the bright side. At
Look at the bright side. At least, he found an exit strategy.
"1. What the hell was Duncan
"1. What the hell was Duncan Boothby thinking"
You seriously think that M4 didn't do this entirely intentionally? You don't give him enough credit to do the calculation you just did about whether Obama can stick with him. This is an naked play for more time and more troops, bc M4 clearly believes he didn't get enough of either to be successful. Marjah shows him that he isn't getting the support he needs (as opposed to demonstrating the contradictions of COIN in Pashtun areas of AF). So, either he shoots all of his guns at once and then gets fired, ass covered, or Obama sticks with him and, by logical extension, grants him a lot of leeway.
"2." doesn't merit a response. Hastings is a freelance reporter, not a member of the "legion of anti-COINdinistas." He was brought in for a specific purpose. BTW there is a clear opposing position in the article, that of Biden's CT+, which the author seems implicitly to endorse. So the default to "well what is your bright idea" doesn't really work in this case.
salaams it is worse than you
salaams
it is worse than you think, brother.
McChrystal is pre-staging the blame for the eventual Epic Fail of COIN in the Graveyard of Empires.
There is no "winning" in the Graveyard, and McChrystal has realized that...he is throwing blame chaff.
We have already lost...the general has the raw data feed from the boots on the ground...he knows the truth.
Actually.....COIN, the "Surge", the "Mini-surge".....none of that ever worked at all, did it?
Open your eyes...the ghosts of our dead soljahs and dead muslims are walking the land....they died for nothing but America's cowardice.
the surge and the mini-surge were just cover for eventual retreats.
Now McChrystal would LIKE to be fired or replaced in advance of the bitter cup of fail that is coming to him.
I think he should have to be in charge of the withdrawal.
Such hubris can only be punished by forcing him to witness i think.
Ate.
salaams it is worse than you
salaams
it is worse than you think, brother.
McChrystal is pre-staging the blame for the eventual Epic Fail of COIN in the Graveyard of Empires.
There is no "winning" in the Graveyard, and McChrystal has realized that...he is throwing blame chaff.
We have already lost...the general has the raw data feed from the boots on the ground...he knows the truth.
Actually.....COIN, the "Surge", the "Mini-surge".....none of that ever worked at all, did it?
Open your eyes...the ghosts of our dead soljahs and dead muslims are walking the land....they died for nothing but America's cowardice.
the surge and the mini-surge were just cover for eventual retreats.
Now McChrystal would LIKE to be fired or replaced in advance of the bitter cup of fail that is coming to him.
I think he should have to be in charge of the withdrawal.
Such hubris can only be punished by forcing him to witness i think.
Ate.
"Look at the bright side. At
"Look at the bright side. At least, he found an exit strategy."
an invitation to an Afghan wedding party?
"Open your eyes...the ghosts
"Open your eyes...the ghosts of our dead soljahs and dead muslims are walking the land....they died for nothing but America's cowardice."
Don't count your chickens before they are hatched.
"What the hell was Duncan
"What the hell was Duncan Boothby thinking setting up this article with a freelance writer (who can burn bridges more easily than someone at, say, the New York Times) who already has bias against the strategy? This is just awful media management, because the writer neither gives a flip as to whether or not his article might complicate the success of the mission nor has any interest in lending any balance to his own conclusions. Head slap."
Exactly. Why risk talking to someone you can't count on being a stenographer for the powers-that-be? Perhaps AM's was refering to Thom Shanker when he wrote "someone at, say, the New York Times"?
Thom Shanker is the NYT Washington Pentagon Reporter who wrote the May 26th article that "exonerated" Gen. McChrystal of all wrong-doing in the Tillman case. Absolute BS, of which Shanker is well aware. But, apparently this sucking up is necessary to retain "access".
I discussed my June 2009 encounter with Thom in my document "Lies Borne Out by Facts, If Not the Truth" -- Thom Shanker, the NYT, and Senator Webb's Whitewash of Gen. McChrystal's Role in the Tillman Case" at
http://feralfirefighter.blogspot.com/2009/11/lies-borne-out-by-facts-if-...
What a piece of work.
Wretched piece of
Wretched piece of agenda-driven "journalism." True, he is within his rights to write whatever he wants.
The only quote attributed directly to M4 criticized Ambassador Eikenberry. The remark about Biden was clearly wargaming a response to a hypothetical question raised by the French attending his speech. The biggest mistake he made was in joking in front of a writer.
Other than that, all remarks were attributed to unnamed aides. Perhaps M4 needs to purge his staff of all anonymous staffers. I agree with Exum on all but his stand on taking a stand. Mine is clear; from the perspective of a Soldier currently serving in Afghanistan, who has been here for only a few weeks shy of a year, changing horses at this juncture would be ill-advised. I will stand behind the General. He is not the messiah, and perhaps he is a very naughty boy, but for the first time since 2007 I sense a shift beginning. Removing him now would stall that shift.
That's my story and I'm sticking with it.
Note to Rabi'a: send your grid, over. I've got a traditional American gift for Afghan weddings for you. ;-)
I have a feeling we're about to go "weapons free" again.
I think he will go, and it's
I think he will go, and it's a mistake. I don't think he'll have anywhere near a suitable replacement. A public letter of reprimand and public apology, maybe a little bit more would do, but I doubt if Obama can keep him if he wants to..because of media pressure.
Look this will be two Commanders in two years. Anybody wonder if maybe it's not the military? Or even the Administration past or current? I don't even agree with all of the strategy, and I think people know what President Elf would do to end it quick. Think - Truman. But there is much merit in what this man has implemented and trying to do...and I'm not sure canning him won't have a fatal blow effect on that effort.
BTW if it isn't obvious yet Rolling Stone has the long knives out for Obama.
@Andy,
Article 88 - well, I'm guilty. Anyone from time to time not? The only Article 88 offense that I've seen in excerpts is "Bite Me" for Biden. Petty. I don't see ambassadors or National Security Advisers listed.
I got to see Article 89 right after, and I don't understand why I never was court martialed.
The military is subordinate, period: We're slaves? He was given a mission and said this is what it takes...which leads me to ..."I think responsibility for the breakdown in civil-military relations lies primarily with the military - specifically with generation of generals who think of themselves as policymakers and use that institutional respect and reluctance to "criticize the troops" to push for their own policy prescriptions."
What General? Who? When? They are tasked with prescriptions on how to implement policy.
I don't think you've made your case. What General made the decision to go to war? What they are saying is what it takes to win. Who are you referring to? The closest example I can think of might be Colin Powell under Clinton, or Wesley Clark's somewhat mad urgings to the British to take a Balkans airfield the Russians were on already.
Should flag officers just be "subordinate" and say oh yes Boss that'll work? Were the Generals who told Eisenhower that to win in Vietnam (1954 - to save the French) would take 2 million men wrong?
More to the current point, if you are given a mission and then forced to fail in the most critical theater we've been in since WW2 should you just be subordinate and soldier on at what has the potential to be our Syracuse?
Like I said before though, I don't think people butting heads is a breakdown in Civil Military Relations. I think that's been overhyped since forever and certainly since Vietnam. Be thick skinned or get out of public life, the workplace, and for God's sake the Military.
Good Grief. Anyone else been through a candid AAR?
A Lot of this of course is the media and the Left attacking to defend their Boy God, tarnished though he is..
EOM to Andy
For those civilians only who think we're your slaves....especially you b*tches in the media, and you know you are...KISS MY @SS!! Most of you aren't fit as people to shine the boots of the guys we won't take on patrol. You really, really don't deserve our sacrifice. Sadly we have not yet found a way to separate defense of you from the ones who do deserve it.
Old Blue, im an
Old Blue, im an amerimuslimah.
Does COIN advocate strikes against homeland American wedding parties now?
I'm right, aren't I Abu? McC sees the raw data unfiltered. we aren't just losing......we have already lost.
he wants to be fired......his strat failed, after O gave him everything he ax for.
Do you think he will resign if Obama doesn't fire him?
"For those civilians only
"For those civilians only who think we're your slaves"
Not our slaves. Bush's and the neocons' slaves.
You were fooled, man.
They pranked you.
From Harpers--In an interview with former Argentine president Néstor Kirchner, Oliver Stone learned that [George W] Bush claimed that waging war was a formula for economic growth. Here’s the key exchange:
[Nestor Kirchner]: I said that a solution for the problems right now, I told Bush, is a Marshall Plan. And he got angry. He said the Marshall Plan is a crazy idea of the Democrats. He said the best way to revitalize the economy is war. And that the United States has grown stronger with war.
[Oliver Stone]: War, he said that?
Kirchner: He said that. Those were his exact words.
Stone: Is he suggesting that South America go to war?
Kirchner: Well, he was talking about the United States: “The Democrats had been wrong. All of the economic growth of the United States has been encouraged by wars.” He said it very clearly.
Elf, The whole "slaves" is a
Elf,
The whole "slaves" is a strawman not even worth addressing.
As for article 88, there's a big difference between soldiers bitching in private and General officers and their staff's openly commenting and joking in front of a reporter who is taking notes and writing an article. General McChrystal is responsible for his staff and his command's climate. It's clear from the article that disrespect for others, including elected officials, was acceptable conduct for the General's inner circle to the point that it apparrently didn't even occur to them that maybe they should throttle back in front of a reporter.
Should flag officers just be "subordinate" and say oh yes Boss that'll work?
Another strawman. Of course not. They should give their best advice - as they are required to do. Once policy is made they either salute, accept it and move along smartly or they GTFO of the way and resign. What they don't do is accept it, move along smartly and then make derisive comments to a reporter and try to influence future political decision by means other than giving direct advice to superiors. If you don't understand that basic concept of military subordination and respect for civilian authority then I don't know what to tell you.
I seem to remember a post on
I seem to remember a post on this blog http://www.cnas.org/blogs/abumuqawama/2010/06/two-thoughts-israel.html that wondered how senior IDF officers could make grossly unprofessional and counterproductive comments while a young researcher stood by with pen and pad in hand. (In that case the comments were racists, in this case the comments are internal elbow-throwing.) I guess this incident is evidence that no military is perfect in that regard. Mattis, who Tom Ricks has already volunteered for McCrystal's job, has made his own off-the-record-on-the-record PR gaff, although it pales in comparison.
I'm looking forward to tomorrow's headlines:
"McCrystal to step up drone strikes against Rolling Stone sanctuaries in New York City"
v4 i have an interesting
v4 i have an interesting hypoth for you.
More democracy in MENA--> more Islam.
so if the end goal is to make the Graveyard of Empires a functional secular government by imposing/introducing democracy, that is an impossible outcome.
Iraq is a representative Islamic state with shariah in its constitution, and religious political parties.
Turkey is moving from a Kemalist dictator/military junta to a representative Islamic republic (like Iran was after the american puppet/tyrant Shah was overthrown).
The Muslim Brotherhood grows stronger in Egypt.
The people of MENA like al-Islam.
they will vote for it everytime.
;)
Rabi'a, sorry to have missed
Rabi'a, sorry to have missed you. Perhaps I'll catch you later.
I spent today working with some smart Afghans, which Rabi'a has now balanced the equation on, as they did Stability Matrices for their district. They face a lot of challenges, but the unity of effort was there, along with their partners from USAID, OTI, State and the military. They were designing activities to bring stability to their district, and their approach was spot-on.
On second thought, Rabi'a couldn't balance these guys out... but the contrast between these smart young Afghans and the slogan-chanting and less-than-informed Rabi'a couldn't have been clearer. These men were putting it all on the line for a country that they still believe in. They believe in it rationally and passionately.
Today, I saw courage and intelligence hard at work. Then I saw an internet tauntster revelling in difficulty. Ignorance on a stick. Like the difference between gold and dog droppings. Honor and the absence of honor. A study in contrasts.
Disappointed that Rabi'a can hide behind my own flag and hurl ignorance, but still, there is value as a reminder of how valuable some of the ones over here still are. Suppose I should thank you for that. No hard feelings.
Kus mata, Rabi'a, and enjoy the US.
Assalamu alaikum wa rahmatu
Assalamu alaikum wa rahmatu Allah, Old.
Grace and honor to my Afghan brothers and sisters indeed.
But they will not have peace until the americans are gone, will they?
And you are right, ignorance is a sad excuse.
Consider perhaps the sage who said the road to hell is paved with good intentions. American occupation has been hell on earth for muslims.
Perhaps reparations are just, but if your goal is a "judeo-xian style democracy" in the Graveyard of Empires, you are full of fail.
Here is a tale of the real Rabi'a, which may prove instructive to you.
It is related that one day Rabi'a had gone up on a mountain. Wild goats and gazelles gathered around, gazing upon her. Suddenly Hasan Basri appeared. All the animals shied away. When Hasan saw that he was perplexed and said, "Rabi'a, why do they shy away from me when when they were so intimate with you?"
Rabi'a said, "what did you eat today?"
"Soup."
"You ate their lard. How would they not shy away from you?"
every muslim killed in a drone strike has a father, a mother, children, cousins, brothers, sisters, grandparents, friends...
your drone wipes a dozen trusted networks and sows a score of dragonsteeth for every strike.
Some of us will always smell the blood on you.
One thing which should
One thing which should factor in the decision is whether McChrystal's statements are sentiments that he intended to push into the public sphere or if Hastings simply captured those statements while sitting in on McChrystal's daily work.
Comparisons to MacArthur do not fit. Truman gave orders that certain actions should not be done and MacArthur did them anyway. McChrystal is not accused of any actions contrary to civilian commands. What is more comparable is Fallon and his interview for Vanity Fair. Fallon's interview was of the former offense (and implied an intent to subvert the president's policy). Hastings, in referring to what McChrystal says in private seems to imply that the current case is one of the latter offense. It still shows a problem of judgment, but there is not a previous case to provide clear precedent.
~~ Abu Muqawama: "In a
~~
Abu Muqawama:
"In a weird way, Hastings is making the argument to readers of Rolling Stone (Rolling Stone!) that counterinsurgency sucks because it doesn't allow our soldiers to kill enough people."
Wrong.
You can not say that that is his characterization of COIN. The Rolling Stone author is only paraphrasing the sentiments of the soldiers. 'this COIN thing is fucking us up because the rules -- whether distorted by command or not -- keep us from using force.'
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/119236?RS_show_page=4
Hastings' position is more like this: COIN is reminiscent of those Western Power strategies -- of somehow militarily occupying a landmass until it becomes a nation -- that had failed so many times last century. Any reasonable, read person could see how COIN would garner little confidence from American diplomats, lawmakers, the public, Western sovereigns, and the President. Look at all that circumstantial evidence; the indignation of McChristal's soldiers, even, conjures little confidence in their capacity for nation-building.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/119236?RS_show_page=5
@Andy, (I hope you know EOM
@Andy,
(I hope you know EOM means End of Message)
Soldier not slave: I don't think it's a strawman Andy. I think that's what they want and what many think they have. I've made the point before.
I haven't found a copy of the article yet (I think by Friday this will be old news in any case) ...but...AM has a Twitter link to Kaplan at top that seems to indicate this was all blown out of context (yes, sometimes it counts) ..such as "Bite me" referring to what he might tell the French if asked about Biden's CT plan.
McPope might know something about CT.
So based on what you've seen if you were on a CM for Article 88, you'd vote guilty? Don't conflate my expressed disgust about this nonsense with what McPope actually said...which appears to be very little. It's his un-named staffers that did this...Maybe. Or maybe Hastings just remembers it a certain way.
This was a RS hit piece. I think BTW the real knives are for Bammy. That and Hastings wants everyone to read it, and he maybe doesn't like war at all. Me, I dislike sobriety and gravity, and am starting protest movements against both. I want to be literally floating drunk, and will throw taxpayer funded grant money spawned tantrums until I get what I want...
We're risking a lot for loose talk and barroom male badinage.
BTW - if anyone has some RS embeds with them right now, may I suggest they take them to the nearest village Thursday evening and inform the locals he's a Jahud as they kick him out the HUMMV? Just trying to help.
Gucci belts, Gucci belt,
Gucci belts, Gucci belt, fabulous Gucci men's belt, with high ratio of performance and price Gucci belts for men.
So based on 70-656 what
So based on 70-656 what you've seen if you 70-563 were on a CM for Article 88, you'd vote guilty? Don't conflate my expressed disgust about 70-177 this nonsense with what McPope actually said...which appears to be very little. It's his un-named staffers that did this...Maybe. Or maybe Hastings just remembers it a certain way.1Y0-A23
BTW - if anyone has some RS
BTW - if anyone has some RS embeds with them right now, may I suggest they take them to the nearest village Thursday evening and inform the locals he's a Jahud as they kick him out the HUMMV? Just trying to help.
BTW - if anyone has some RS
BTW - if anyone has some RS embeds with them right now, may I suggest they take them to the nearest village Thursday evening and inform the locals he's a Jahud as they kick him out the HUMMV? Just trying to help.
Add your comment