PDA

View Full Version : The McCrystal collection (catch all)



rborum
08-03-2009, 02:01 PM
Gen. McChrystal’s "Strategic Assessment Group"

Col. Chris Kolenda - Director/coordinator, Strategic Assessment Group
Col. Daniel Pick- Assistant coordinator, <http://www.faoam.elnonio.net/bios/Pick.doc> .

• Sarah Chayes, the NPR reporter turned Kandahar-based humanitarian
• Fred Kagan - American Enterprise Institute – Former military historian at USMA
• Kimberly Kagan, President of the Institute for the Study of War http://www.understandingwar.org/people
• Anthony Cordesman - Center for Strategic and International Studies
• Stephen Biddle - Council on Foreign Relations
• Andrew Exum, a former Army Ranger, counterinsurgency expert, and blogger <http://www.cnas.org/blogs/abumuqawama> at the Center for a New American Security
• Jeremy Shapiro, a civil-military relations analyst at the Brookings Institution
• Terry Kelly, a senior researcher at the Rand Corporation
• Catherine Dale of the Congressional Research Service
• Etienne de Durand of the Institut Français des Relations Internationales in Paris
• Luis Peral of the European Union's Institute for Strategic Studies
• Whitney Kassel of the U.S. Office of the Secretary of Defense
• Lt. Col. Aaron Prupas, a U.S. Air Force officer at Centcom

Source: http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/07/31/winning_hearts_and_minds_all_of_mcchrystals_adviso rs

oblong
10-05-2009, 07:36 PM
Moderator's Note

I have merged ten threads on General McChrystal today and re-titled the thread 'The McCrystal collection (catch all)'. Also moved to this theme, although the content covers many subjects.(ends)


I don't know enough about the British media to say how reliable the Telegrpah is. But if it is accurate, I can't imagine this is good news.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/6259582/Barack-Obama-angry-at-General-Stanley-McChrystal-speech-on-Afghanistan.html

Ken White
10-05-2009, 10:21 PM
Both of them are old enough to have worked with dozens of people they didn't like and / or who said things they disliked. No big thing; mostly political foolishness and some mid level staffers trying to foment something. Journalists are gullible and need bad news to survive.

davidbfpo
10-05-2009, 11:02 PM
Oblong,

I too noticed The Daily Telegraph report on presidential anger. The author is a Washington DC based correspondent and I would suggest he has taken the bait from a local briefing. In the past year the same newspaper has accepted remarkable stories from US sources and months later are accepted as truthful, if uncomfortable (CIA & FBI active - maybe spying - in the UK).

Has the story been echoed in the US press?

davidbfpo

tequila
10-05-2009, 11:14 PM
Gates Stresses Privacy in Chain of Command (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/06/world/06gates.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=print)


Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates appeared to subtly rebuke America’s top commander in Afghanistan on Monday for publicly speaking out against calls for scaling back the war effort there.

“I believe the decisions that the president will make for the next stage of the Afghanistan campaign will be among the most important of his presidency, so it is important that we take our time to do all we can to get this right,” Mr. Gates said at a gathering here.

“And in this process,” Mr. Gates went on, “it is imperative that all of us taking part in these deliberations — civilians and military alike — provide our best advice to the president candidly but privately.”

“And speaking for the Department of Defense,” Mr. Gates said, “once the commander in chief makes his decisions, we will salute and execute those decisions faithfully and to the best of our ability.”

I think the leak of the original McChrystal report was the real target here, and not really the general's London speech. That leak was a far more egregious breach, IMO.

Ken White
10-05-2009, 11:50 PM
I think the leak of the original McChrystal report was the real target here, and not really the general's London speech. That leak was a far more egregious breach, IMO.Who -- which side of the 'debate' (if there really is one) -- leaked it? And for what purpose? :wry:

John T. Fishel
10-06-2009, 01:13 AM
that speeches like McChrystal's are supposed to be cleared by DOD for security issues AND for policy - that is, they must state policy correctly. So, if the speech was submitted for clearance and cleared - most probably - nobody has a legitimate gripe.

Cheers

JohnT

Schmedlap
10-06-2009, 02:00 AM
I would add that speeches like McChrystal's are supposed to be cleared by DOD for security issues AND for policy - that is, they must state policy correctly. So, if the speech was submitted for clearance and cleared - most probably - nobody has a legitimate gripe.

That's kind of why I asked earlier (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2009/10/white-house-eyeing-narrower-wa/#comment-4736)...


This is shaping up to be an odd debate. It seems that the ISAF Commander advocates one thing and the administration wants another. Did McChyrstal hold his press conference on his own accord, or was this something that the administration told him to do?
... seems odd that a commander would do this - hold a press conference in which he rejects a suggestion from a VP that is, apparently, still being considered by the President. What if the President accepts the plan? That will be awkward. I wonder if, when faced with a question about Biden's strategy, that he felt the duty to reject it - or if it was his plan to speak out against such a plan from the start, and thus the motivation for the conference.

RJ
10-06-2009, 02:01 AM
Here we go again?

Will this evolve into an ignorant press, pressing guess's and playing the personality assination card to support a sliverin support structure?

A president who doesn't maintain much of a contact with his top general and staffers who have no idea about militiary moves and a rudimentary understanding of politics providing the interaction direction between the Commander in Chief and the Troops.

I maybe premature, but I'm not happy with the way this is drifting.

Bob's World
10-06-2009, 09:36 AM
Well, at the end of the day, the military must shape its operations to achieve the political objectives of our civil leadership. Period.

We certainly have a duty to provide our professional opinions as to what we think will work best to achieve that guidance, and what we believe will not work as well.

Personal opinion, the Administration gave DoD a policy equivalent of a "Column Right" command several months ago, and so far has received a fairly reluctant "Column half-right" in return in terms of execution. The Boss knows what he wants, but his advisers don't know how to produce it apparently, so it is really incumbent upon those who understand the problem the best to derive and produce solutions that meet the commander's express intent. I don't think we have provided that yet to the Boss.

And in this business, "half-right" just isn't good enough.


(As to the leak, Bob Woodward presented at SOCOM the day after he released that. He named no source obviously, but took great pains to brag about how he essentially blackmailed the senior leadership ["I have this and am going to publish it, so either work with me to redact what is really dangerous, or I will publish it whole"]; and took great pains to ensure we all had his email address so that we could send him more classified material. He also spent a great deal of time justifying his actions, as how important it is for the public to have insights to such internal security communications as soon as possible in order to avoid drifting off track like we did in Vietnam, etc. He may have made some valid points, but it was a sleazy bit of business all the same).

82redleg
10-06-2009, 11:46 AM
Personal opinion, the Administration gave DoD a policy equivalent of a "Column Right" command several months ago, and so far has received a fairly reluctant "Column half-right" in return in terms of execution. The Boss knows what he wants, but his advisers don't know how to produce it apparently, so it is really incumbent upon those who understand the problem the best to derive and produce solutions that meet the commander's express intent. I don't think we have provided that yet to the Boss.


Could you expand on this? It seems to me that there has been little, if any, policy guidance on A-stan at all, and what little there has been changes (seemingly by the day). The previous administration was misguided (IMHO, A-stan is not a functional nation, never has been, never will be, much less a functional democratic nation- the best we can hope for is a functional, probalby semi-feudal, state that controls internal activity by buying off local power brokers), but the current administration doesn't seem to know what it wants. A-stan was the good war, but certain elements (may or may not include the POTUS, I can't tell) don't want any war. They CHOSE GEN McChrystal, implemented a "new strategy" (which, again IMHO, was NOT a strategy) and then immediately began to shift the playing field. No way in hell would I want GEN McChrystal's job.

Rob Thornton
10-06-2009, 12:35 PM
Any thoughts about the London speech from the perspective of it also being from the NATO perspective - e.g. trying to articulate why NATO countries should continue or increase their level of support to ISAF as opposed to wavering while the U.S. decides its role?

Combined commands have more than their share of problems operationally, however, it would also seem the business of keeping the coalition's will from flagging is a monumental task in itself.

I'm trying to imagine if I were one of the other "partners"/allies (leader, pundit or citizen) who I might prefer to hear why we should continue to support the current ends/ways/means lineup - the folks in D.C., geographically twice as distant as myself, and politically in pursuit of things that either may not be terribly important to me, or may in fact go in other directions, or the guy on the ground to who my forces and those of little Johhny get their orders from?

Best, Rob

davidbfpo
10-06-2009, 01:13 PM
Rob Thornton's query:
Any thoughts about the London speech from the perspective of it also being from the NATO perspective - e.g. trying to articulate why NATO countries should continue or increase their level of support to ISAF as opposed to wavering while the U.S. decides its role?

The venue, IISS is well known for attracting a variety of members and observers. Many embassies etc are members. I was not there, but on past attendance some NATO nations would be there - notably the Czechs and Germans. I'd expect some Central Asian states to be there too and Indian diplomats.

By using the IISS will ensure other audiences will notice, even without the press being in attendance.

davidbfpo

J Wolfsberger
10-06-2009, 03:00 PM
Well, at the end of the day, the military must shape its operations to achieve the political objectives of our civil leadership. Period.

Agreed.


We certainly have a duty to provide our professional opinions as to what we think will work best to achieve that guidance, and what we believe will not work as well.

Agreed.


Personal opinion, the Administration gave DoD a policy equivalent of a "Column Right" command several months ago, and so far has received a fairly reluctant "Column half-right" in return in terms of execution. The Boss knows what he wants, but his advisers don't know how to produce it apparently, so it is really incumbent upon those who understand the problem the best to derive and produce solutions that meet the commander's express intent. I don't think we have provided that yet to the Boss.

Here's where I disagree. Gen. McCrystal was asked to develop a strategy for Afghanistan. He did (see your second point). The problem now is that his strategy isn't politically expedient in terms of the current administration's domestic agenda. In terms of your analogy, Gen. McCrystal was asked "what's the next command?" In his professional judgment, "Column Right" marched us off a cliff.

The current administration, and many of its supporters, criticized the previous administration ‘for not listening to the generals.’ They apparently do not want to listen to McCrystal because, quite simply, he didn’t give them the message they wanted to hear.

This controversy, and the discussion surrounding it, is currently being manipulated for political goals. The General gave a speech to IISS. He was asked questions regarding his statements about strategy and tactics for dealing with his current situation. If people want to disagree with his take on what kind of war we have in Afghanistan, and how best to fight it, well and good. That’s one of the things we do at SWC.

On the other hand, attacking him because the recommendation based on his best military judgment doesn’t support the goals of the administration’s base voters is wrong.


And in this business, "half-right" just isn't good enough.

Agreed. It gets good people killed.

Valin
10-06-2009, 03:19 PM
WSJ (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703298004574454810540018326.html?m od=djemEditorialPage)
Gen. McChrystal needs more troops now precisely so Afghans can take over the war effort later.
By MARK MOYAR

'We're at a point in Afghanistan right now in our overall campaign," the U.S. general says, "where increasingly security can best be delivered by the extension of good governance, justice, economic reconstruction." Afghan security forces "fight side by side with us" more and more frequently, he adds, and American troops are working hard to develop the Afghan security forces. Coalition forces are focusing on securing the population, because "the key terrain is the human terrain."

This all sounds like Gen. Stanley McChrystal's proposed strategy for victory. But those words were spoken in May 2006 by Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry, then the top U.S. military commander in Afghanistan.

Should we be concerned that the McChrystal strategy advocates the same counterinsurgency approach that has failed to achieve success in years past? Not necessarily. The easy part of any counterinsurgency is formulating the strategy and tactics. The hard part is implementing them.


(Snip)

Mr. Moyar is a professor at the Marine Corps University in Quantico, Va., and the author of three books on counterinsurgency, including "A Question of Command: Counterinsurgency from the Civil War to Iraq," published this month by Yale University Press.

Ken White
10-06-2009, 04:30 PM
Well, at the end of the day, the military must shape its operations to achieve the political objectives of our civil leadership. Period.Not that -- I agree with that statement.
Personal opinion, the Administration gave DoD a policy equivalent of a "Column Right" command several months ago, and so far has received a fairly reluctant "Column half-right" in return in terms of execution. The Boss knows what he wants, but his advisers don't know how to produce it apparently, so it is really incumbent upon those who understand the problem the best to derive and produce solutions that meet the commander's express intent. I don't think we have provided that yet to the Boss.However, in that paragraph, you seem to lose the bubble.

There may have been a 'column right' but the comment above about cloumn right heading off a cliff applies -- more pointedly, if the command heard was 'colummmm ralghep, hoor' then the guidance might be flawed.

However, if the command was sensible and understood and the effort is only half way there, is that a deliberate failure to comply or due to the sheer complexity of trying to turn the large blind elephant that is the DoD (not Army, DoD -- specifically including thy portion...) bureaucracy onto a new azimuth?

It isn't too distressing when the ignorant media or almost as ignorant politicians do not understand the problem, that's to be expected. It is distressing that many who should know better parrot the media position or something akin to it. Equally distressing is the tendency on the part of some who apparently do not understand how this government really works to attribute to it a speed, agility and sense of continuity that it has never had and never will have -- it was specifically designed NOT to have those attributes -- and efforts by Congress and various Administrations to ignore the Constitution continually run afoul of that reality. We're ponderous, that simple.

Senators Levin and McCain visited last month and actually talked to McChrystal -- they understand the issue. (LINK) (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/05/AR2009100503792.html?hpid=topnews).

Abu Suleyman
10-06-2009, 05:53 PM
Not that -- I agree with that statement.However, in that paragraph, you seem to lose the bubble.

There may have been a 'column right' but the comment above about cloumn right heading off a cliff applies -- more pointedly, if the command heard was 'colummmm ralghep, hoor' then the guidance might be flawed.


I agree with civil control of the military. I also agree that clear communication is critical, both to the civil control, and to any mission.

I actually take this to be a promising sign. In the past, generals have just gone along and then only when they got out spoken up about what they thought was wrong. Assuming that they had legitimate complaints, and weren't just cynically seeking political advantage, I think that is the wrong way to do things. After all, if it is important, you should be brave enough to stick your neck out when you have some influence.

I agree with Sec. Gates that talking should occur within the command structure, as well. However, realistically, Generals are at least partly politicians. That means that if he can only get 25min of the CO's time in over 9 Months (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/02/politics/main5357873.shtml), then his appeal to the higher commands "open door policy" might legitimately be through a leak or a speech. At least he is having the courage to say what he thinks before a decision is made, and a portentious policy is enacted. However, GEN McCrystal must also be realistic and understand, that when you play political games, there will be political repercussions.

J Wolfsberger
10-06-2009, 07:20 PM
I don't think it's been posted elsewhere. It can be found at this link: http://www.iiss.org/EasySiteWeb/GatewayLink.aspx?alId=31537 or on this page at IISS (http://www.iiss.org/recent-key-addresses/general-stanley-mcchrystal-address/).

tequila
10-06-2009, 07:44 PM
That means that if he can only get 25min of the CO's time in over 9 Months (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/02/politics/main5357873.shtml), then his appeal to the higher commands "open door policy" might legitimately be through a leak or a speech.

Doesn't the chain of command factor in here? McChrystal is a sub-theater commander. Do GEN Petraeus and Adm. McMullen still count for something? How about SecDef Gates?

John T. Fishel
10-06-2009, 08:41 PM
POTUS - SECDEF - COMCENT (Petraeus) - McChrystal. Admiral Mullen, the CJCS, is in the chain of communication but NOT in the chain of command. In practice, however, (and discussed on another thread) when you put another 4 star as commander in a theater then you have said that that theater is as important or more important than the GCC AOR. In that case, the theater commander really often has direct communication with the SECDEF and POTUS. Korea predates the modern command structure but even there the theater commander - MacArthur and Ridgeway - communicated directly with the SECDEF and POTUS. Same in Vietnam for COMUSMACV and there was a lot of tension with PACOM. In the post G-N era we have put 4 star commanders in Iraq and now Afghanistan. If you recall, Admiral Fallon, COMCENT, tried to bring Petraeus to heel and was fired for his efforts. The point is that our current C2 system is not well designed for this situation. Neither McChrystal nor Odierno should work for Petraeus; indeed, Petreaus should be supporting them. In C2 terms, McChrystal is the supported commander while Petraeus and Stavridis and all the other unified command commanders are supporting commanders. All de facto.

Cheers

JohnT

tequila
10-06-2009, 09:01 PM
Thanks Dr. Fishel.

Sounds like a rather jumbled system we have without clear lines of control. Thanks for reminding about the whole Admiral Fallon debacle.

Old Eagle
10-07-2009, 12:57 AM
You forgot the additional problem of the relationship w/SACEUR.

ISAF is C2 hell.

Old Eagle
10-07-2009, 12:59 AM
You did mention SACEUR by name. My bad.

Bob's World
10-07-2009, 02:38 AM
"Develop and Resource Strategies to Succeed in Current Conflicts
•Afghanistan: The President’s new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan will ensure that all elements of national power are engaged and integrated in an effort to defeat al Qaeda to prevent attacks on the homeland and on our Allies and partners. We are asking our friends and allies to join us with a renewed commitment. We also will regularly assess the progress of our efforts and those of the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan through clear measurements to ensure ongoing informed accountability."

Ok, just an example: the task here is "Defeat AQ," the purpose is "to prevent attacks on our homeland."

Now, nowhere does it say to create effective government in Afghanistan or to expand the conflict to defeating the Taliban either. It seems to me we owe the boss some smart COAs as to how we could do what he asked us to do without taking on these additional, very dangerous, time/labor/cost intensive additive missions.

Also from the White house website:

"President Obama has committed himself and his Administration from the beginning of his presidency to a foreign policy that ensures the safety of the American people. But he also refuses the false division between our values and our security; the United States can be true to our values and ideals while also protecting the American people."

(The first quote from the "Defense" section, the second from "foreign policy")

This is an interesting statement that I think is so profound that DOD should should be going to the boss and making sure we understand exactly what he means, and then making the required fixes. Now, perhaps he is just talking about decisions made by his predecessor; but if he is talking about how we are pursuing current operations to secure the homeland, we need to understand and address this charge.

Ken White
10-07-2009, 03:16 AM
Do not mistake Political blather for policy.

Rule 2. Ask Politicians to clarify their policy, receive a 25 minute dissertation that says nothing, then be told to implement what you think is an approximation of what the political blather said.

Rule 3. When the game changes due to changes in the domestic political landscape as it is prone to do, be prepared to offer or be sacrificial lambs.

Believe it or not, that's no joke -- aside from Rules 2 and 3 as historically correct constructions based on this nation's military commitments since 1945, there is a pointed response to your post Bob's World. That would be Rule 1, above.

Very seriously, what is said by the WH for public consumption rarely is the real policy or goal. :(

wm
10-07-2009, 11:24 AM
Now, nowhere does it say to create effective government in Afghanistan or to expand the conflict to defeating the Taliban either. It seems to me we owe the boss some smart COAs as to how we could do what he asked us to do without taking on these additional, very dangerous, time/labor/cost intensive additive missions.

I happen to agree with Ken's comment about political blather. But supposing the WH web site posting is not blather, your statement above does not follow. Mission analysis usually discloses a bunch of embedded task or lesser/included missions that must be accomplished as well. And, depending on how you sort out America's "Allies and partners" who are also supposed to have attacks against them by Al Queda prevented (your mission analysis truncated the conjunctive purpose of the stated mission), effective government in AF and/or defeating the Taliban may be required to accomplish the mission.

You are right about the staff owing the boss some smart COAs to accomplish his mission. But I think the boss also owes the staff an unambiguous statement of mission and his intent. Good luck getting that for the reasons listed as Rule 3 in Ken's post.

Bob's World
10-07-2009, 12:57 PM
Someday I may be as cynical as Ken, but I'm not there yet (yes, I feel his arms wrapped around my legs and pulling hard :)).

Now, to get to how we in the military start down our own slippery slope.

Every operation begins with an execute order that lists specific authorities. The task is AQ, and the authorities are likewise for AQ.

This means one must:

A. Limit their engagement to AQ, or

B. Have the Intel guys apply their "7 degrees of separation to bin Laden" methodology to expand AQ status to a whole lot of individuals and organizations that were never intended objectives in the first place.

This is very dangerous, and leads to a family of engagement that, if not careful could serve the purpose of AQ far more than the purpose of the US if it is done in such a way as to validate the AQ strategic communications, and enflame Muslim populaces in a wide range of sovereign states where there are ongoing subversive and insurgent movements that are associated with the AQ unconventional warfare campaign.

We must understand that there are three distinct and separate aspects to this:

There is AQSL; or essentially their UW corporate HQ. This is what we were tasked to "defeat" in my opinion.

Then there is their UW network (called far too simply "AQN"), that is a self-healing, nodal network to facilitate finance, ideology, leadership, logistics, weapons, etc. for the many nationalist movements that are being incited and leveraged by AQSL from their UW corporate HQ. This is something that we must understand, and then, operating within the rule of law of the many sovereign nations in which these nodes lie, identify and disrupt the critical nodes so as to render this effort as ineffective as possible. HOW we approach this effort is very critical (see President's comments on our values above) so as to not actually make the movement stronger through our efforts to disrupt it.

Then there are the many distinct, disparate nationalist movements that affiliate with AQ for support. Each of these is unique and has a primary nationalist purpose and a supporting secondary larger purpose that links them to AQ. To simply brand these groups, or just as bad, acknowledge their efforts to brand themselves, as "AQ" so that our authorities apply and allow military engagement probably does more to expand the efforts to build a "Caliphate" than anything AQSL could do themselves. To me this is a "DETER" task. Here we should be working with the governments of the nations experiencing these insurgencies to not simply build their security capacity, but also to help them understand and address the failures of governance that made their populace susceptible to this movement; and also to do so in a manner that is consistent with our values (without demanding that others adopt the same), and is very conscious of avoiding and mitigating any perceptions that the US is somehow protecting this government from its own populace or is somehow the source of its legitimacy, as this is what enables AQ to direct them to target the US in the pursuit of their nationalist aims.

All of this really adds up to what could best be described as a "Counter-Unconventional Warfare Campaign." The problem being, of course, that there is no such thing as counter unconventional warfare. We have FID, COIN, CT; not enough? so we add SFA and IW. Still confusing? We have the "war is war, just defeat the militant arms of all these movements" guys as well. Perhaps the answer is there somewhere. Personally, I think the key lies in recognizing this as a regional UW campaign by a non-state actor, and then designing a counter UW campaign that understands and address appropriately the three broad categories I lay out. Afghanistan is not a war, it is just one of many places where we are working part of this problem set. To call it a "war" gives our operations there far more importance to the overall mission than they deserve, and tie us to terrain in a campagin where terrain in of itself has little strategic relevance.

I know it is easy to focus on terrorist tactics and conflate all groups that employ them.

I know it is easy to focus on ideology and religion and conflate all groups that adhere to similar beliefs

I know it is easy to label everyone who disagrees with the establishment as an "extremist" and to then convert that to a derogatory term intended to conflate and dehumanize ones opponents.

I also know that it is hard to step-back, see the big picture, and overcome 65 years of Cold War engagement and perspective, and 8 years of GWOT.

But we must.

Ken White
10-07-2009, 01:31 PM
Japan attacked us at Pearl Harbor, therefor World War II was in error as we allotted greater priority to Germany (who declared War on us but did not directly attack). That doesn't even address the Italians...

I think there's a forest and tree problem with that 'analysis' on what our job happens to be.

P.S.

No need to be as cynical as I am, I'm older than you are by a generation -- your turn will come, don't rush it. :D

That doesn't mean you shouldn't pay attention to what's going on or ignore the FACT that much that is said in DC publicly does not equal US policy... ;)

wm
10-07-2009, 01:46 PM
Every operation begins with an execute order that lists specific authorities.
I thought every American military operation began with planning which would be implemented with an execute order. And, of course, the planning is the response to the perception that something may well be a threat against which protections must be devised. (Please note that I did not try to identify whose perceptions are the source of the impetus to respond with a plan--t'ain't always the NCA that gets our planners running around with their hair on fire.)



The task is AQ, and the authorities are likewise for AQ.
This means one must:

A. Limit their engagement to AQ, or

B. Have the Intel guys apply their "7 degrees of separation to bin Laden" methodology to expand AQ status to a whole lot of individuals and organizations that were never intended objectives in the first place.
Not clear to me that these are two different categories. I'm not sure that we have adequately distinguished the target AQ, as the subsequent 3 level categorization in your post shows. Saying AQ is the target opens us up to a operational mission creep just as much as saying "I need a Future Combat System" opens us up to acqusition cost and schedule overrruns due to requirements creep. Thus I agree that the your point about the dangerousness of getting off into a family of engagements. The only way to preclude that happening is to have a "bright line" test for what is and isn't within the mission. And the likelihood of that "bright line" staying constant during the course of the operation is pretty remote. (But that is mission realignment rather than mission creep.) Who'da thunk the US military would be worried about cleaning up German death/concentration camps in 1941 when it entered into WWII?

The problem, as best as I can tell, is that we are trying to decide into which round hole--COIN, CT, FID, SASO, UW, IW, etc.-- to force the square peg problem of crime fighting and economic development while establishing what might be considered a functional Western form of governance in a militarily unsecure environment.

Maybe planners ought to go back and read their Homer and Herodotus. The nature of Afghanistan seems much more like that of the ancient Greeks than anything in more modern memory. The West seems to have a lot of Achilles sulking their tents right now. And the "city-state" tribal peoples of the region dubbed Afghanistan are once again coalescing in odd ways to repel the Persian represented in this latest invasion by the US/NATO.

zealot66
06-23-2010, 09:19 PM
Just like he did with 60 minutes he allowed access and didnt much care what was reported because he was being set up as the general who failed in afghanistan. With ridiculous orders from washington, etc. I believe he thought the article would prompt more public support for the afghan war or he would simply go out saying what he thought.

marct
06-23-2010, 10:02 PM
Speaking in the Rose Garden, Obama said the biting comments the U.S.'s top commander in Afghanistan made about the president and his aides in a Rolling Stone magazine article did not meet the standards of conduct for a commanding general.
Source: CBC.ca (http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/06/23/obama-mcchrystal-afghanistan.html)

You know, I read the article in Rolling Stone and didn't think it was very high on the "biting comments" scale.

MikeF
06-23-2010, 10:21 PM
Is this the Sean Hannidy show?

Entropy
06-23-2010, 10:37 PM
Seems like it would have been much easier just to come out of the closet and get separated via DADT. :D

slapout9
06-23-2010, 11:04 PM
Is this the Sean Hannidy show?


No but Glenn Beck was talking about all the Communist hiding in America today.:D

sabers8th
06-23-2010, 11:15 PM
He probably did do it on purpose, one article that was highlighted an opinion piece that what was said was basically common knowledge just not openly spoken off..

MikeF
06-23-2010, 11:29 PM
No but Glenn Beck was talking about all the Communist hiding in America today.:D

I had most of the day off today. After getting my super duper high-speed haircut, spending some time with the chaplain, and talking to Bill Nagle about how we could take over the world, I simultaneously listened the the radio broadcast of Sean and Glenn while watching Fox News coverage of the ISAF abrubt change of command.

Sean Hannidy decided today that he's an expert in small wars. I almost punched a hole in the wall of my apartment.

91bravojoe
06-23-2010, 11:37 PM
He did it on purpose last year. While the strategic screwup in Afghanistan was still up for grabs, he went public, and demanded that it be done his way. He believed that the military was running the show, which doesn't square with the reality we pretend to believe in.

Good riddance. Now we have a theatre commander who stated last year that AQ was not operating in Afghanistan. More comedy in the offing.

JarodParker
06-24-2010, 12:23 AM
Gary Faulkner (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gcJ3Uozu-xGKdB7z-1LOk4r3AICwD9GH75FG0)
The man has a plan as well as the resources and intestinal fortitude needed to execute it. But Obama is too much of a pinko liberal, pansy, academic type, closet muslim, foreign national who hates the military, country music, eagles and apple pies to pick such a qualified candidate. This is all part of his secret plan to win (I meant steal) the 2016 election. That's right... 2012 is already in the bag.

SWCAdmin
06-24-2010, 01:40 AM
Did it on purpose?

He is too savvy an operator to have done it by accident. As I mentioned in a rare blog entry (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2010/06/so-what-now/).

91bravojoe
06-24-2010, 01:48 AM
Yes, I really saw that. About the President who is waging vigorous war in a Muslim nation.

I apologize for my initial impression that this board did not contain Fox News guzzling jackoffs.

Entropy
06-24-2010, 01:55 AM
Did it on purpose?

He is too savvy an operator to have done it by accident. As I mentioned in a rare blog entry (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2010/06/so-what-now/).

Everyone makes mistakes and is he the kind of guy that would throw his staff under the bus like that? I'm not buying it.

Race Bannon
06-24-2010, 02:18 AM
This war is costing America more and more in terms of not just actual casualties but in disgracing good sharp operational commanders' careers for the sake of appearances. Given the ubiquity and near real time effect of media coverage, candor and frankness amongst inner circles is getting blown out of proportion. These idiotic comparisons between GEN MacArthur / President Truman and GEN McChrystal / President Obama are apples and oranges comparisons. GEN MacArthur outright defied President Truman on the strategy of the Korean war. What occurred with GEN McChrystal was an inner circle bantor of personal opinion and dialogue that is a normal part of organizational behavoir. We all talk behind close doors on who's a "clown" and who's not. If you doubt me ask Vice President Biden. And yes I screen calls and proclaim, "oh god, it's my mother; should I answer this call". Truth be told, these "embeds" are result of the first Gulf war and the media's complaints of being excluded by GEN Schwarzkopf and his staff. Ask him what he said about President George H.W. Bush and then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney. Recently (2001 or there abouts ) the DOD changed policy to try and accommodate the press and their insatiable thirst for information. GEN McChrystal in effect is a victim of that irony and its a waste because he is a true warrior and a superb operational commander. Technology is not what it was thirty or forty years ago, its in your face and any slip up or sincere insider candor is pounced upon and exploited. People could get away with a lot more back in the day of Korea and Vietnam. The media was just shut out unless you did something like outright challenge the authority of the chief executive officer of a nation. Georges Clemenceau the Prime Minister of France during WWI said, "war is too important to be left to the generals". In this day and age given the pandering and duplicity of our elected officials, war is too important to be left to the politicians.

tequila
06-24-2010, 02:38 AM
Definitely the dumbest thread I've ever read on SWJ.

MikeF
06-24-2010, 02:44 AM
Definitely the dumbest thread I've ever read on SWJ.

Let's get this thread back on track.

This action was heart over mind, ego over mission. Every charismatic and successful leader is tempted by it.

The seduction of powerful men. (http://blog.usni.org/2010/06/22/the-seduction-of-powerful-men/)

Honestly, when I read the RS article, I was reminded of the loneliness that one feels in a patrol base- the world is on your shoulders, no one back in the big FOB cares, and you're the only one that really understands the fight.

After seven years of continious fighting, I think LTG McC fell into the trap. Period.

Greyhawk
06-24-2010, 03:31 AM
1. What Gen McChrystal & staff said/did
2. How that was reported
3. How the report was reported by other reporters before it came out

What I've seen in #3 leaves no doubt that verily, we were on the threshold of a great crisis. Most of it is also a bit blown out of proportion (/use of understatement), but that makes for a good story.

What I've seen in #2 - concur with Schmedlap's "show me" request (comments on at least one of the various blog posts here), not quite as much "there" there. Guys joking about how to dismiss reporters asking about the VP? Ironic - they were discussing avoiding a repeat of last fall's press fiasco... As for the rest, comments re: civ counterparts, I guess I'm not shocked by truth, which is what much of the rest of the seemingly shocking statements were... (I acknowledge that in light of Gen McChystal's immediate apology all defense is moot. And bottom line, the CinC needs no excuse to change commanders.)

Number one I can only imagine. I do know that after spending a month with the subjects, #2 was all the reporter got.

All that leaves me truly puzzled, though I'm not offering conspiracy theory explanations or accepting that Gen McChrystal is an inexperienced, babe-in-the-woods gullible bumpkin when it comes to media/reporters. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, but smoky as the whole thing seems I'm not seeing a cigar here.

Steve the Planner
06-24-2010, 04:34 AM
Ok, I'll stick my neck in this noose and look around.

1. The Product of Frustration on McC's part: Done With It, Send Me Home If You Don't Like It, whether subliminal or not: Gary Hart--Bimbos? What Bimbos? Follow Me If You Like...

2. When I read the article, I was sort of shocked by the lack of anything shocking in the quotes, but riveted by the War-related content taht I knew would have huge resonance in the US as one of the first big Afghan "news" things that US readers have paid attention to in a while. You guessed it: Karzai Corruption, IEDs, Body Counts and Ulcers no longer make it one the first, second or third pages in the US (sad to say).

3. The US war funding bills cannot tolerate any more turbulence, so the affair had to be ended fast and completely. Ditto for Britain, Germany, France, anon. Support is very thin, and diminishing further every day. The program needs a serious jump start of genuine successes (not just ones paid for through bribes).

4. The talking heads are starting to focus (for the brief half-life this thing might have) on the real issues---Karzais, corruption, and lack of civilian effectiveness. Maybe a little sustained attention to the real issues undermining strategy will be worth McC's jumping into the volcano? (Maybe)

William F. Owen
06-24-2010, 05:24 AM
Every charismatic and successful leader is tempted by it.

The seduction of powerful men. (http://blog.usni.org/2010/06/22/the-seduction-of-powerful-men/)

IMO, McChrystal and his staff thought Rolling Stone would make them look cool. Why else? Rolling Stone is POP-culture. Nothing to do with men with guns stuff.
It was pure ego and vanity and it blew up in their faces. - Wow! Who saw that coming.

M-A Lagrange
06-24-2010, 06:34 AM
I do not know if Mc Chrystal did it on purpose or not but it was not the first time.
In France, he publicly insulted the French government and acted as a child.
When you believe you are a god of war: they you go in the wall as Wilf just said.
It looks cool to let your staff say what you think... Yes in private but not with externals. that's all.
No one can afford to have a right hand that does not listen to the brain, what ever it agree with or not.

JJackson
06-24-2010, 10:37 AM
I have to admit to a great deal of confusion over this story. The bit I find most strange is - Why Rolling Stone?
As others have commented you do not get to his rank without acquiring a great deal of experience in dealing with the press and you must know the difference between on the record/off the record, attributable/unattributable, back ground etc. In addition this was not one interview on a 'bad' day with one person it was over an extended period with quotes from various sources in his chain of command.
How can it not have been coordinated? If press protocol was this lax then it would have occurred before.
Why Rolling Stone? If the plan was to 'go out' - while showing that things were not working because his political masters would not endorse a plan more to his liking - then Rolling Stone is a very odd choice. If the thinking was 'it's only Rolling Stone' therefore I can get away with a shot across the bow that would be unacceptable in WaPo that is also worryingly naive.
All-in-all for someone who is meant to be a specialist in devising and executing plans - and foreseeing their consequences - the logic behind this one is beyond me.

William F. Owen
06-24-2010, 10:53 AM
As others have commented you do not get to his rank without acquiring a great deal of experience in dealing with the press and you must know the difference between on the record/off the record, attributable/unattributable, back ground etc.

Actually, as concerns dealing with the press, the General and his staff had clearly never dealt with, or even thought about the conditions they apparently encountered. I heard the Journalist talking on the BBC and he says that no one McChrystal's staff set any ground rules at all! - and look what happened.

MikeF
06-24-2010, 11:26 AM
IMO, McChrystal and his staff thought Rolling Stone would make them look cool. Why else? Rolling Stone is POP-culture. Nothing to do with men with guns stuff.
It was pure ego and vanity and it blew up in their faces. - Wow! Who saw that coming.

That's pretty much the thesis of that article and what I was trying to articulate.

William F. Owen
06-24-2010, 11:42 AM
Sean Hannidy decided today that he's an expert in small wars. I almost punched a hole in the wall of my apartment.
The bar for being an expert is pretty low based on the media's understanding.

That's pretty much the thesis of that article and what I was trying to articulate.
eyh... I was copying you. I just dumbed it down a little. :wry:

Bullmoose Bailey
06-24-2010, 12:24 PM
While the shameful tradition of compromising missions vis-a-vis the press is practically sacramental in The West, I'd like to examine this event in the larger context of historic struggles between IN & SF branches. Applicable or not ?

Seperately, the MSM has done a deplorable job of reporting the actualities of the case. Many important question have not been asked; Is General McChrystal retiring as a GEN or as an LTG ? Is he even retiring? What exactly did he resign from? Is not the assignment of GEN Petraeus to a lesser grade of sorts ? & more about the timing etc. etc......

I'm not surprised that this circumstance will now certainly end up tarnishing military service as a profession through broad application in the press toward implication of demagoguery & disloyalty. Expect more of this if charges are brought against the actual offenders (remember General McChrystal is merely following Nixon's example of taking responsibility), a 15-6 investigation is seated, or anyone involved gives interview and/or runs for elective office.

God Bless America.

SWCAdmin
06-24-2010, 12:50 PM
Re:


Did it on purpose?

He is too savvy an operator to have done it by accident. As I mentioned in a rare blog entry (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2010/06/so-what-now/).

If this is to be believed (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/22/rolling-stone-editor-on-s_n_621188.html), (my emphasis added) .....


The editors did a thorough fact-check as evidenced by the lack of dispute over the veracity of the quotes or exchanges. "I haven't heard a word about that and would be shocked if I did," said Bates. They did not, as reported by Politico, show the general and his team the entire article before publication.


"That all stems from Politico misunderstanding my comments on Morning Joe this morning," said Bates. "We never show a story to a source before publication."


....then I retract my Machiavellian speculation.

I'd also clarify that I never meant to infer it was a setup all along with staged conduct back in April, as some of the grander conspiracy theorists have suggested. Rather a shoot-the-moon, eyes open move from the far more recent "go ahead, publish as is" decision. Which now doesn't look like it was a decisionable event. Perhaps just some Team America hubris.

jkm_101_fso
06-24-2010, 12:59 PM
At first I was pretty angry. I'm not much of a political guy, but something didn't smell right.

Then I read the article.

If the things that are being said in there are true, then I think GEN MC must have been fostering that kind of culture in which his aides and staff felt it was OK to say that type of stuff, which in my mind is pretty unprofessional.

You can bet GEN P's staff won't be saying stuff like that to the press.

I was always leery of McChrystal anyway; he was pretty knee-deep in that Tillman cover-up.

slapout9
06-24-2010, 02:26 PM
One of the people and quotes from the article that I thought most interesting was a CIA man named Marc Segman and he said this "We have no vital interest in Afghanistan...we should not be here." :eek: May end up being the most important quote in the article a year from now.

JarodParker
06-24-2010, 02:41 PM
"Closet muslim" Yes, I really saw that. About the President who is waging vigorous war in a Muslim nation.

I apologize for my initial impression that this board did not contain Fox News guzzling jackoffs.

LOL! Just for the record, I was being sarcastic... guess I didn't make it obvious enough. I couldn't resists doing an impression when I saw the names of GlenB and Hannity.

Anyway, I just feel the whole thing was being blown way out of proportion and people were reading too much into the whole situation. I mean, all the speculations about Obama trying scapegoat McChrystal, McChrystal exiting early to avoid blame, Obama trying to keep Petraeus from running in 2012, etc.
I agree with MikeF and WFO about this just being a mistake on the part of the general and his staff. They just got too comfortable and forgot who their audience was... kind of like LTC Jenio's staff and the infamous PPT.
I also remember reading a thread on here a while ago about the relative low number of senior commanders being relieved in these wars as opposed to previous ones. But it looks like the numbers might be trending up during Gates' tenure. Although half seem to be for non-combat performance related issues.

William F. Owen
06-24-2010, 02:42 PM
"We have no vital interest in Afghanistan...we should not be here." :eek: May end up being the most important quote in the article a year from now.
With respect to Mr Segman, this is a question that has been widely asked for some years now. What's the policy? For the UK, we keep being told it's "vital to be in A'Stan" yet we only deploy 10,000 troops - thus, clearly not vital!

slapout9
06-24-2010, 03:02 PM
With respect to Mr Segman, this is a question that has been widely asked for some years now. What's the policy? For the UK, we keep being told it's "vital to be in A'Stan" yet we only deploy 10,000 troops - thus, clearly not vital!

America is being told the same thing and I agree IF it is vital than why be conservative on troops.....unless it is not vital at all:confused:

TheCurmudgeon
06-24-2010, 03:39 PM
I read the article. I will set aside GEN McChystal's ability to determine what to say and not to say for a moment and ask why his staff allowed this? The statements were not just his - they were often in the presence of and even encouraged by his staff. I find it hard to believe that none of those officers understood the ramifications of allowing a reporter unfetter access to a private drinking party at a public pub in Paris (which is probably not a good idea in the first place) or encouraging the "bit me" comment from the General in the presence of the reporter. If it was not intentional or at least the result of a very high level of frustration, it certainly reflects a level of group-think that is scary. I believe it was Patton who said "If everyone in the room is thinking like me than someone is not thinking." Certainly looks as if that might have been a philosophy GEN McChystal and his staff did not believe in.

Uboat509
06-24-2010, 08:29 PM
I read the article. I will set aside GEN McChystal's ability to determine what to say and not to say for a moment and ask why his staff allowed this? The statements were not just his - they were often in the presence of and even encouraged by his staff. I find it hard to believe that none of those officers understood the ramifications of allowing a reporter unfetter access to a private drinking party at a public pub in Paris (which is probably not a good idea in the first place) or encouraging the "bit me" comment from the General in the presence of the reporter. If it was not intentional or at least the result of a very high level of frustration, it certainly reflects a level of group-think that is scary. I believe it was Patton who said "If everyone in the room is thinking like me than someone is not thinking." Certainly looks as if that might have been a philosophy GEN McChystal and his staff did not believe in.

This sort of reminds me of guys I knew who got caught cheating by their wives/girlfriends. Invariably, it wasn't some brilliant detective work by the woman, it was just escalating levels of stupid by the man. As someone watching from the outside, I was shocked that he was being so stupid and careless about the whole thing and it was pretty obvious that he was going to get caught. When he finally did get caught, he was shocked. In many cases, the wife/girlfriend assumed that he was trying to get caught because she could not see how it was that he could be so stupid, but the truth was that he became comfortable and complacent and never realized, until it was too late, that he was being that stupid. I think that is kind of like what happened here. LTG McCrystal was something of a rock star and he felt comfortable and safe, maybe even untouchable. His staff probably fed off of that and then boom, Rolling Stone, reality and a very unpleasant meeting with the CIC just brings it all down.

AdamG
06-24-2010, 09:08 PM
Anyone see this?


Reporter Michael Hastings explains the backstory to the piece that upended a general—and maybe even a war.

How much time did you spend with McChrystal over the month?
Another strange journalistic twist. The Icelandic volcano happens, and so my two-day trip turned into this month-long journey following General McChrystal and his staff around from Paris to Berlin to Kabul to Kandahar and then back to Washington, D.C. I wasn’t with him at every moment, obviously, but fairly regularly over that period of time.

One of the most vivid scenes in the stories comes when you are out with the general, his wife, and his team for a night on the town in Paris. His team is entirely forthright with you, did that surprise you?
Well, they were getting hammered, I don’t know at that moment if they were being the most forthright. Of course it was surprising. A lot of the reporting that is getting most of the attention happened right away in the first few days in Paris. So I was surprised—because they didn’t know me.


http://www.newsweek.com/2010/06/22/rolling-stone-author-discusses-general-mcchrystal-interview.html

Fuchs
06-24-2010, 09:12 PM
America is being told the same thing and I agree IF it is vital than why be conservative on troops.....unless it is not vital at all:confused:

You seem to assume that more is better.
That assumption is not carved in stone.
More troops = more trucks = more trouble.
More troops would furthermore support a strategy that intends to beat the TB directly instead of enabling the contra-TB 'Afghans' to hold their own ground.

zealot66
06-24-2010, 09:13 PM
Sorry if you thought my post was stupid. It just struck me as a General who had enough of being this administrations administrator in afghanistan. With a combination of bad situations, roe that hinder success and pressure from all sides ( not to mention a probable lapse in judgment by being too familiar with a journalist who makes his money by writing controversial things ) he and his staff blew off steam and probably thought, Screw it, Ill say whatever I think because this ship is sinking and I might as well tell you how feel.

I could be wrong, it just seems that a guy who has a history of spats with Obama just didnt care anylonger.

walrus
06-24-2010, 10:43 PM
Isn't McChrystal the man that terminated Michael Yons embedding with 5/2 Stryker BCT in April 2010?

Does not that suggest that he and his team are extremely sensitive about their media image?

Does not the Rolling Stone article suggest that the real opinions of McChrystal and Co. about the war have some similarities to Yon's?

marct
06-25-2010, 12:08 AM
Isn't McChrystal the man that terminated Michael Yons embedding with 5/2 Stryker BCT in April 2010?

On that note, this piece (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyharnden/100044820/two-big-scalps-for-michael-yon/) is "interesting"...

slapout9
06-25-2010, 12:20 AM
You seem to assume that more is better.
That assumption is not carved in stone.
More troops = more trucks = more trouble.
More troops would furthermore support a strategy that intends to beat the TB directly instead of enabling the contra-TB 'Afghans' to hold their own ground.

Yes, that is a good point. More as in "Operation Jawbreaker" small US footprint but alot of Air Power if needed to support a lot of Afghan troops(Northern Alliance) on the ground. Point being we would give them what ever they need to succeed, not just dribble resource out based on some strange formula.

davidbfpo
06-25-2010, 07:30 AM
The actual title was 'McChrystal forgot that he was not calling all the shots – Barack Obama was':http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/7853276/McChrystal-forgot-that-he-was-not-calling-all-the-shots-Barack-Obama-was.html

Which ends with:
So Petraeus has a huge responsibility and opportunity. He needs support and he needs allies, and in the British generals, Nick Parker in Kabul and Nick Carter in Kandahar, he has two of our best. Petraeus understands the British well enough to know that we will not let him down.

zealot66
06-25-2010, 08:40 PM
The only other thing that really points to the Generals not caring what was said in the article is that he was allowed to fact check it according to several sources. Don't you think he might have thought a minute if he intended or wanted to keep his post ?

marct
06-25-2010, 08:54 PM
The only other thing that really points to the Generals not caring what was said in the article is that he was allowed to fact check it according to several sources. Don't you think he might have thought a minute if he intended or wanted to keep his post ?

From what I read, while the article was fact checked, the full version was not provided for approval.

Fuchs
06-25-2010, 09:00 PM
From what I read, RS does apparently never request approval. They simply print what they see fit.

zealot66
06-26-2010, 12:18 AM
Its hard to determine which sources are right but it looks like the ROE are going to be loosened up. Perhaps, McChrystal's departure may be a good thing. I abhor Civilian control of ROE. I know thats a can of worms but you cant run a war based on hacks in washington who dont know anything of soldiering and really have a contempt of the very machine they control. I may not sound like the brightest apple in the bunch but this is definitely a very important historical marker for the Longest War for the United States.

AdamG
06-26-2010, 01:23 AM
A member of McChrystal's team who was present for a celebration of McChrystal's 33rd wedding anniversary at a Paris bar said it was "clearly off the record." Aides "made it very clear to Michael 'This is private time. These are guys who don't get to see their wives a lot. This is us together. If you stay, you have to understand this is off-the-record,' " according to this source. In the story, the team members are portrayed as drinking heavily.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/25/AR2010062504087.html?hpid=topnews

William F. Owen
06-26-2010, 05:31 AM
A member of McChrystal's team who was present for a celebration of McChrystal's 33rd wedding anniversary at a Paris bar said it was "clearly off the record."
Just to clarify, "off the record" has NO MEANING. All it means is "please do not repeat this." It is unenforceable. It is not a promise or a contract. It is merely an agreement that exists for a split second.
I get told stuff "off the record" all the time. Some of it dynamite, - but I'm playing the long game and don't want to burn bridges, people or trust.
ANYTHING McChrystal and his staff said was "on the record."
It is almost unbelievable that they did know this.

Fuchs
06-26-2010, 11:48 AM
OK, In get it . McChrystal and some people of his staff were/are naive people.

Now isn't this a devastating assessment?

Why were they allowed to rise that high with such a defect?
Why wasn't this defect identified sooner?
Why weren't they removed?

Naivety is among the worse traits for high ranking officers, after all.

JMA
06-26-2010, 04:12 PM
OK, In get it . McChrystal and some people of his staff were/are naive people.

Now isn't this a devastating assessment?

Why were they allowed to rise that high with such a defect?
Why wasn't this defect identified sooner?
Why weren't they removed?

Naivety is among the worse traits for high ranking officers, after all.

It's amazing the kind of stuff you hear when you gain access to otherwise closed groups.

What amazed me most was that they went out on the town in Paris and behaved like brand new 2nd Lieutenants. Maybe its not naiveté that's the problem, maybe they have just grown up.

Fuchs
06-26-2010, 04:58 PM
Maybe its not naiveté that's the problem, maybe they have just grown up.

...not...?

JMA
06-26-2010, 09:00 PM
...not...?

Yes, thank you, not grown up.

Umar Al-Mokhtār
06-27-2010, 01:33 PM
So? I guess we need to have a sharper clarification of what exactly constitutes "heavily." Because "heavily" in the Marine Corps usually means few walked out under their own power. :)

Plus that "scandalous" tidbit probably surprises no one here on SWJ who has served. But it certainly makes great copy for an audience consisting of those primarily in, or fans of, the rock and roll industry, who we all know are preeminent exemplars of temperance, moderation, and sobriety. :eek:

William F. Owen
06-27-2010, 01:42 PM
Plus that "scandalous" tidbit probably surprises no one here on SWJ who has served. But it certainly makes great copy for an audience consisting of those primarily in, or fans of, the rock and roll industry, who we all know are preeminent exemplars of temperance, moderation, and sobriety. :eek:
Actually I think the drinking is pretty immaterial. It's really irrelevant. The bit that leaves me open mouthed is why "Rolling Stone" and why anyone ever thought the guy could be trusted?
It makes as much sense as getting into a sleeping bag with a rattle-snake and being surprise you got bit.

gute
06-27-2010, 06:28 PM
McChrystal was done in by a home grown insurgency. A guy like McChrystal does not get to where he was by being stupid so I believe he thought his remarks were off the record. Regardless, he made the comments and allowed a turd like Hastings to use his words against him.

Fuchs
06-27-2010, 06:35 PM
Actually I think the drinking is pretty immaterial. It's really irrelevant. The bit that leaves me open mouthed is why "Rolling Stone" and why anyone ever thought the guy could be trusted?

"trust" is only half of what you need to learn things you shouldn't know. The other (secret) ingredient is looking harmless.

It's amazing what you can learn in a talk or even phone interview if you meet the right conditions.

They did probably simply fall prey to a very good researcher, someone who's probably a great HumInt talent.


The ingredients of the current mini scandal were likely incompetence (and lack of self-discipline) on part of the McC & staff AND a competent researcher as journalist.

About "Rolling Stone"; well, maybe McC simply believed that RS was a more competent news source about small wars in the past than more traditional media? Maybe he believed that he needed to turn them around into a more pro-war mood, and that such a young reporter would be impressionable enough if exposed to dozens if not hundreds of officers?

Ken White
06-27-2010, 07:11 PM
Because "heavily" in the Marine Corps usually means few walked out under their own power. :)Few? None... :D

Lorraine
06-27-2010, 08:23 PM
Though surprising in the here and now, McChrystal and his staff aren't the first capable military officers done in by hubris and group think (think: Germans at Calais...) What I find most telling in the RS article, however, is McChrystal's inability to convince BOGs that adhering to the key tenants of COIN (i.e. restraint) are essential for success. If a snake-eater like McChrystal can't influence the troops responsible for implementing COIN, who can?

JMA
06-27-2010, 08:24 PM
So? I guess we need to have a sharper clarification of what exactly constitutes "heavily." Because "heavily" in the Marine Corps usually means few walked out under their own power. :)

Plus that "scandalous" tidbit probably surprises no one here on SWJ who has served. But it certainly makes great copy for an audience consisting of those primarily in, or fans of, the rock and roll industry, who we all know are preeminent exemplars of temperance, moderation, and sobriety. :eek:

We are not talking about 20 something year old kids here, we are talking about the behaviour of a 4 star general and his staff who were running the war in Afghanistan. Does it happen? Sure. Is it mature behaviour? No.

Fuchs
06-27-2010, 09:09 PM
(think: Germans at Calais...)

:confused:

Rex Brynen
06-27-2010, 09:33 PM
(think: Germans at Calais...)

I'm not so sure... the Allies could still land there ;)

Lorraine
06-27-2010, 11:36 PM
The Germans were so confident in their analysis that the Allies would land in Calais and had so few dissenters in their senior ranks, that they were completely caught off guard with the landing at Normandy. In a similar vein, McChrystal seems to have held a similar confidence in his own analysis of the RS journalist (in this case, that he could do no serious harm), and his staff seems likewise to have had no sufficient discordance to temper's the General's confidence.

The examples may be over-simplified, but these two events illustrate how such over-confidence has earned its place in the annals of serious human error.

Umar Al-Mokhtār
06-27-2010, 11:44 PM
We no doubt operate on quite different levels of morality codes. First off “heavily” is very open to interpretation. Second, I do not recall the piece including any references to lampshades being worn, people passed out, arrests, public urination, etc... Some no doubt off key singing and few poorly executed dance steps. But no gendarmes. :D

What we have is a group of men, soldiers, under a massive amount of pressure day in, and day out. Pressure that one cannot begin to imagine unless they have been there. So they are in Paris letting off steam and drinking. As Wilf noted “It's really irrelevant.”

But you're right, they're not “20 something year old kids here...” they have responsibilities and stresses no 20 something year old can ever even fathom.

“The general's staff is a handpicked collection of killers, spies, geniuses, patriots, political operators and outright maniacs. There's a former head of British Special Forces, two Navy Seals, an Afghan Special Forces commando, a lawyer, two fighter pilots and at least two dozen combat veterans and counterinsurgency experts.”

No doubt plenty of talent at quaffing ale in various and sundry pubs. ;)

“By midnight at Kitty O'Shea's, much of Team America is completely s***faced. Two officers do an Irish jig mixed with steps from a traditional Afghan wedding dance, while McChrystal's top advisers lock arms and sing a slurred song of their own invention. "Afghanistan!" they bellow. "Afghanistan!" They call it their Afghanistan song."

Alcohol bonding sessions are older than the Legions, just ask Ken! :rolleyes:

"McChrystal steps away from the circle, observing his team. 'All these men,' he tells me. 'I'd die for them. And they'd die for me.'”

Doesn't seem like McChrystal was “s***faced” and probably acted more in the role more akin to a big brother watching over his younger siblings to be sure the envelope wasn't pushed too far. The kind of man other men die for.

"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."


We aren’t no thin red ‘eroes, nor we aren’t no blackguards too,
But single men in barricks, most remarkable like you;
An’ if sometimes our conduck isn’t all your fancy paints,
Why, single men in barricks don’t grow into plaster saints;

For it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ “Chuck him out, the brute!”
But it’s “Saviour of ‘is country” when the guns begin to shoot;
An’ it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ anything you please;
An’ Tommy ain’t a bloomin’ fool,you bet that Tommy sees!

The error I see here was in allowing a scribbler, who never spent a day in his life in uniform serving his country in war, a glimpse into the intimate world of the combat veteran on liberty.

MikeF
06-27-2010, 11:59 PM
We no doubt operate on quite different levels of morality codes. First off “heavily” is very open to interpretation. Second, I do not recall the piece including any references to lampshades being worn, people passed out, arrests, public urination, etc... Some no doubt off key singing and few poorly executed dance steps. But no gendarmes. :D

What we have is a group of men, soldiers, under a massive amount of pressure day in, and day out. Pressure that one cannot begin to imagine unless they have been there. So they are in Paris letting off steam and drinking. As Wilf noted “It's really irrelevant.”

But you're right, they're not “20 something year old kids here...” they have responsibilities and stresses no 20 something year old can ever even fathom.

“The general's staff is a handpicked collection of killers, spies, geniuses, patriots, political operators and outright maniacs. There's a former head of British Special Forces, two Navy Seals, an Afghan Special Forces commando, a lawyer, two fighter pilots and at least two dozen combat veterans and counterinsurgency experts.”

No doubt plenty of talent at quaffing ale in various and sundry pubs. ;)

“By midnight at Kitty O'Shea's, much of Team America is completely s***faced. Two officers do an Irish jig mixed with steps from a traditional Afghan wedding dance, while McChrystal's top advisers lock arms and sing a slurred song of their own invention. "Afghanistan!" they bellow. "Afghanistan!" They call it their Afghanistan song."

Alcohol bonding sessions are older than the Legions, just ask Ken! :rolleyes:

"McChrystal steps away from the circle, observing his team. 'All these men,' he tells me. 'I'd die for them. And they'd die for me.'”

Doesn't seem like McChrystal was “s***faced” and probably acted more in the role more akin to a big brother watching over his younger siblings to be sure the envelope wasn't pushed too far. The kind of man other men die for.

"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."


We aren’t no thin red ‘eroes, nor we aren’t no blackguards too,
But single men in barricks, most remarkable like you;
An’ if sometimes our conduck isn’t all your fancy paints,
Why, single men in barricks don’t grow into plaster saints;

For it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ “Chuck him out, the brute!”
But it’s “Saviour of ‘is country” when the guns begin to shoot;
An’ it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ anything you please;
An’ Tommy ain’t a bloomin’ fool,you bet that Tommy sees!

The error I see here was in allowing a scribbler, who never spent a day in his life in uniform serving his country in war, a glimpse into the intimate world of the combat veteran on liberty. Emphasis added mine.

Concur.

Or as a wise old Armor/FAO O6 told me,

"there are simply some people that don't deserve to hear what you have to say."

Umar Al-Mokhtār
06-28-2010, 12:05 AM
"there are simply some people that don't deserve to hear what you have to say."

have rarely been spoken.

slapout9
06-28-2010, 12:05 AM
The error I see here was in allowing a scribbler, who never spent a day in his life in uniform serving his country in war, a glimpse into the intimate world of the combat veteran on liberty.

The error was they should have gotten the reporter drunk to, then they would have had plausible deniability;)

Umar Al-Mokhtār
06-28-2010, 12:07 AM
LOL to that. No doubt an outstanding tactic, and also be sure to have compromising photos of said scribbler. :D

Ken White
06-28-2010, 01:40 AM
(Truer words) have rarely been spoken.Well said, Michael.

As Brother Dave Gardner used to say, "You can't tell somebody who hasn't never..." :D

MikeF
06-28-2010, 01:58 AM
Well said, Michael.

As Brother Dave Gardner used to say, "You can't tell somebody who hasn't never..." :D

Another favorite quote from the ultimate Debbie Downer, Mohandas Ghandi,


Everything you do in life will be insignificant, but it's very important that you do it.

It must be done. Every once in a while, I get a nugget of truth in my comments :eek:.

Fuchs
06-28-2010, 11:14 AM
You guys do realise that you don't see the problem in the truth, but in the fact that it made it into the news?

The reporter did his job (an uncommon occurance, for sure) and the officers are supposed to have failed in their job by not keeping the press from learning the truth?

Sorry, I don't think that this small war is important enough to wish for a press failure. Instead, I'm glad that at least sometimes the press does not fail 100% in its job.


Do you really prefer a world in which misbehaviour persists hidden out of sight?

Lorraine
06-28-2010, 01:31 PM
You guys do realise that you don't see the problem in the truth, but in the fact that it made it into the news?

The reporter did his job (an uncommon occurance, for sure) and the officers are supposed to have failed in their job by not keeping the press from learning the truth?

Sorry, I don't think that this small war is important enough to wish for a press failure. Instead, I'm glad that at least sometimes the press does not fail 100% in its job.


Do you really prefer a world in which misbehavior persists hidden out of sight?

NORMALLY, media access to senior military leaders is vetted. The intent is not to keep info from the public, but instead to work to keep facts from being distorted or over-sensationalized. Thus, journalists allowed access have 1) have a history of reporting the facts; and 2) and have proven themselves responsible with sensitive info (from future ops to individual personality quirks).

I've met plenty of journalists who "got this" and stuck to the stuff germane in their story....and of course, would be granted access again in the future. It's a pretty stable quid pro quo.

The RS situation strayed considerable from this construct. The magazine sells itself on breaking the rules, war coverage is not a content staple, AND the story was always going to be a profile of McChrystal -- a personality piece. Letting RS have access was not the mistake -- reaching their readership has some merit -- but normally, knowing this, senior leaders like McChrystal and his staff would take extra care in what they said and did front of the RS reporter. This is NO BRAINER. I don't know a senior military leader who doesn't understand this intuitively.

Given all this, that very smart men like McChrystal and his staff did not act with caution is pretty stunning. Which sends me right back believing these guys were steeped in hubris and group think.

Ken White
06-28-2010, 01:44 PM
You guys do realise that you don't see the problem in the truth, but in the fact that it made it into the news...Do you really prefer a world in which misbehaviour persists hidden out of sight?Can't speak for the others but IMO McChrystal deserved relief not for what he said -- most military people have little or no respect for politicians -- but for astonishingly poor judgment and for tolerating a similar lack of displayed judgment on the part of some of his staff.

I have no beef with the reporter reporting what he heard and saw -- my complaint, if I had one, would be that the crew was dumb enough to open up too much in his presence. That's a lick on them, not the reporter. Thus I agree with Lorraine's last paragraph.

My comments and I think those of the others just above are aimed at the fact that Soldiers and Marines drink a lot and act silly on occasion. It's no big thing but it can seem odd to those who do not understand the phenomenon.

I agreed with the comment that "there are simply some people that don't deserve to hear what you have to say" on that basis. Thus my "you can't tell someone if they haven't never," a quote from a long dead US Comedian. That effectively meant that if they can't understand the phenomenon, that's their problem, not mine... ;)

William F. Owen
06-28-2010, 02:25 PM
Can't speak for the others but IMO McChrystal deserved relief not for what he said -- most military people have little or no respect for politicians -- but for astonishingly poor judgment and for tolerating a similar lack of displayed judgment on the part of some of his staff.
Exactly! - and why grant any access to a reporter from Rolling Stone, except to try and make yourself look cool, or hot, or whatever.

Eden
06-28-2010, 04:11 PM
This whole thing has been a fascinating episode to watch unfold. It encapsulates so many issues in one neat little package.

1. McChrystal's style of command reminded me of some of the pearls of wisdom from that greatest of military memoirs 'Defeat into Victory'. Slim warned against 'stocking' your headquarters with favorites and fellow travelers as being a disservice to the Army and to your own efficiency; he recommended balance and sufficient rest for commanders - his own daily schedule included healthy recreation and a good night's sleep; he demanded that his staff work and play well with higher and flanking headquarters, remaining firm but always showing respect. He also, parenthetically, didn't believe in the need for special forces.

2. Guys who succeed in fairly narrow technical fields (pilots, SF, PA,etc) often make lousy staff officers.

3. Like the recent generation of bankers who (re)discovered the virtues of regulation and restraint, some of our leaders seem to have forgotten that open and transparent access for the media can backfire. If the RS piece had ended up being an admiring and supportive article that made McChrystal and his staff look like Obi Wan and his Jedi Knights, I don't see how that would have helped the war effort. Don't we do cost-benefit analysis any more?

4. Our military leaders are being sucked into politics by the current fashion for Unity of Effort vice Unity of Command. You can't demand that generals participate in politics and then crucify them when they do so. Put the general or put the diplomat in charge. Stop adding special envoys and the like into the mix. Then guys like McChrystal can stop competing for influence in their own theater. Another lesson we have to relearn.

5. We'll soon have our fifth commander in Afghanistan in three years. Sort of a reflection of our war effort. Will Petraeus continue to serve as CENTCOM commander, by the way? Is his confirmation by NATO as ISAF commander a done deal? Maybe it's time to let the Dutch have a go.

Ken White
06-28-2010, 05:30 PM
Points 2 and 4 are particularly good -- and important. Point 5 is perhaps even more important and is also embarrassing . Continuity of effort is more critical than unity of command. So why do we routinely violate both principles... :mad:

RJ
06-28-2010, 08:00 PM
Memory

"The King is Dead!"

pause

Reality

"Long Live the King!"


NEXT!

Umar Al-Mokhtār
06-28-2010, 10:52 PM
Given all this, that very smart men like McChrystal and his staff did not act with caution is pretty stunning. Which sends me right back believing these guys were steeped in hubris and group think.

Perhaps they had a "Generation Kill" moment.

This may be a stretch, but Gen Kill (by Rolling Stone writer Evan Wright), in both book and DVD format, has achieved a fair level of notoriety for its gritty realism and pull no punches dialog. Perhaps “Team America” saw themselves in that same light, with an HBO mini-series in their future. That would certainly explain their candid behavior. :eek:

Of course, if my half-assed theory is even remotely close to being true, then the Team totally missed the difference. It is the right and privileged of the Marine snuffy to bitch and moan about everything, particularly the chain of command. Also, GenKill came out well after the fact and typically a lance corporal's incisive observations about the predilections and faults of his company or battalion leadership is rarely reported or acted upon.

Stay frosty gents. :D

William F. Owen
06-29-2010, 04:22 AM
This may be a stretch, but Gen Kill (by Rolling Stone writer Evan Wright), in both book and DVD format, has achieved a fair level of notoriety for its gritty realism and pull no punches dialog. Perhaps “Team America” saw themselves in that same light, with an HBO mini-series in their future. That would certainly explain their candid behavior. :eek:
Not a stretch. In fact it makes perfect sense. ...sadly.

Pete
06-29-2010, 05:02 AM
Most people commenting on this episode have said that Gen. McChrystal has been in the Army too long for him to have been naive about how the game is played. The Vietnam War certainly gave an entire generation of military men strong opinions about the news media. The thought occurs to me that most of McChrystal's time has been spent in the Special Operations community; the special access programs he spent much of his career in may have shielded him from aspects of command to which other officers are more accustomed. His handling of the Germans after the fuel tanker incident some months ago didn't show much awareness of the sensitivities involved in multinational coalition operations.

AdamG
06-29-2010, 12:31 PM
Or as a wise old Armor/FAO O6 told me,

"there are simply some people that don't deserve to hear what you have to say."

This. THIS! THIS!

Lorraine
07-01-2010, 02:30 AM
In case anyone missed it, RS journalist Hastings on the Colbert Report (http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/313676/june-28-2010/rolling-stone-article-on-mcchrystal---michael-hastings).

Interview doesn't start until 2/3 into the video.

JarodParker
07-08-2010, 10:18 PM
Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis has been chosen as the new head of the U.S. Central Command, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced Thursday.

CNN (http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/08/new-centcom-head-announced/?hpt=T2)

Jim Gav
07-09-2010, 01:00 AM
Open Letter to General Stanley McChrystal 7 July 2010
U.S. Army


Dear General McChrystal,

Sir, I wish to express my apologies for the great injustice you have just endured at the hands of our leaders, without regard for your selfless service to our nation. The Rolling Stone article “Runaway General” by Michael Hastings and its consequences are truly an injustice. It is embarrassing to me as an American that anyone would take anything in this article as credible. I am deeply troubled, as I am sure you are, at the low moral and intellectual state of our media and general public, and that our national leaders acted so rashly on such a misleading and slanted story.

The title of this article is absolute slander. And the supposed analysis under the title cannot be taken seriously. It is hogwash to say that you or any other soldier thinks the real enemy is in the Whitehouse. I found no evidence in this article that you or anyone in your command disagrees with our American system of civilian control of the military. Nothing in there even hinted at insubordination or contempt for civilian leadership. On the contrary, the article shows that you were there to implement what had been directed from the Whitehouse. I have served for 24 years in the military, and I have never once met anyone in uniform that does not support this idea and the legitimacy of the president as the commander-in-chief and the civilian status of the office of the Secretary of Defense. This concept has been indoctrinated in our military personnel, socialized in our culture, and institutionalized in our military and government organizations. I certainly do not see any evidence to the contrary in your words in this article.

There is no rigor and little integrity in the article. The quotes contradict the writer’s reporting and analysis of the context. The author appears to be fixated on foul language and superficial brutishness which he projects onto the people he is writing about. His dependence on foul language shows an absence of crisp and clear language, thought, and analysis, and he uses it to endear himself to his audience and offers foul language as “proof” he understands the troops or soldiering. Hastings seems enamored by foxhole humor and seems to think that that is all there is to our military. He seems not to understand that in the American military the chain of command is not weakened by a soldier’s independent thinking.

This compilation of snide remarks is not a profile; it is character assassination, fabrication through slanted and foul language. Likely, his intent was to drive a wedge between our senior leaders in order to undermine our national will and war effort. The author just wants to paint a picture of conflict and of failure in Afghanistan. I don’t believe this is an accurate portrayal of you or your staff or the situation in Afghanistan. And the author’s characterization of your staff as “killers, spies, geniuses, patriots, political operators, and outright maniacs” is horrible and slanderous. Moreover, I take issue with his characterization of these servicemen as having “pride” in “their disdain for authority.” The author can only be saying this to create a riff between the military and our civilian authority over it.

This is journalism at its worst. Hastings’ article is inaccurate because he invents contexts for the quotations he cites. All of the really nasty quotes come from unidentified sources. In such biased and manipulating journalism, no one can tell what is true and what is not. He doesn’t hide his contempt for the military and everything about the military. His discussion of COIN and your involvement with it is slanted, inaccurate, and self-contradictory. By reading this paragraph, one cannot tell if Hastings sees you as the initiator of the COIN strategy or as a mere implementer of it. Despite all of this negativity and inadequate journalism, what we actually see of you is an honorable and capable person.

Nothing in the article shows you as a “runaway.” All of the evidence shows you as a true-grit patriot who is less concerned about political correctness than accomplishing the mission and taking care of our troops. We should have more people like you in public service, not fewer. To your credit, you are concerned with civilian casualties, you explain the paradoxes of counterinsurgency to our young troops, and you go on patrol with them. Even with of all the dangers and sacrifices, you are intent on reducing all casualties, military and civilian. I am impressed. I find myself even more convinced that you were the right commander for our efforts in Afghanistan. Despite the fog and confusion in this article, you come across as a good leader. You were wronged by this absolutely lame pretense at journalism.

I find it very disheartening that no one has criticized the article or challenged its validity. Accepting any article unquestioningly is irresponsible. Further, I am alarmed at how quickly inaccurate reporting of the article’s content and its implications spread across our national media. It is ironic that one of our great leaders was relieved on the basis of someone else’s poor journalism. Only slowly did any accuracy about the article appear, that you did not say the critical quotes, and that possibly the damning title and subtitle were not even written by the author. Our news media is guilty of spreading false rumors and inaccurate information, purporting them to be fact or truth. Had they not read the article? Why didn’t anyone say, “this can’t be true, this is clearly and purposefully biased.” The bandwagoning of reporters and op-ed writers is appalling, each supporting the other’s misinformation. Half-truths and innuendos are dangerous in a society that does not question the media, does not seek the truth, does not look for alternate points of view, and just cares to reinforce its own prejudice.

We are in a really bad spot when our journalists are not in the business of providing information and context, but are in the business of character assassination and political subversion. Newscasters were duped, the whole country was duped. It is deeply troubling for me as an American that our leaders acted so quickly before any thorough analysis of the article was presented. I am worried that other serious matters of national security will be handled in a similar haphazard fashion. The real issue is that this fiction created a mob mentality and you bore the brunt of its momentum. The repercussions of this skewed article indicate there is something very wrong in our government and in our society.

Further, I am surprised that your chain of command did not support you in the face of this attack on your character and integrity. How dismaying that this article should be the basis for firing someone! I don’t know how anyone could look at these past two weeks without becoming a cynic or suspecting ulterior motives behind your dismissal. Such a stunning turn of events will surely be a setback and a disgrace for our country. I realize this has been a devastating blow to you personally. You have my deepest sympathy and support.

Sincerely,


James A. Gavrilis
American Citizen

SJPONeill
07-09-2010, 01:44 AM
Well said, James, and things that need to be said loudly and publicly...regardless of any of our personal opinions on the Afghan campaign, the method by which GEN McCrystal was pulled down is something that should be applied to no soldier, sailor, airperson or Marine, regardless of rank or appointment - certainly not as long as such a thing a due process exists within our militaries and nations.

I believe that 'journalists' of the ilk of Hastings and Michael Yon who also claims credit for the General's downfall need to a. have a good hard look at themselves and any perception they may have of themselves as professionals, and b. the media as a professional also needs to take a good hard look at itself and justify why it is the only profession that will not adopt a code of conduct for its members. They are all very quick to bleat when they think that they are being maligned or slighted (e.g. Yon's bleating about being disembedded) but appear incapable of considering the impact their own actions and words may have upon those they target.

In a campaign where information has become another battlespace, the fourth estate has scored a major blow for our enemies...

OfTheTroops
07-09-2010, 02:17 AM
The media is a trade not a profession as evidenced by this article and civ-mil backlash. The media does not police its own.:(

40below
07-09-2010, 02:37 AM
Well, Christ, as a member of the despised media, I have a suggestion, that is as applicable to the member of the local utilities board to the general in charge of Afghanistan: Don't say it to a reporter if you don't want to read it later. Saves a lot of back-and-fill later. Why is this so hard?

Now please continue your regularly scheduled back-and-fill.

marct
07-09-2010, 03:12 AM
Well, Christ, as a member of the despised media, I have a suggestion, that is as applicable to the member of the local utilities board to the general in charge of Afghanistan: Don't say it to a reporter if you don't want to read it later. Saves a lot of back-and-fill later. Why is this so hard?

40below (shouldn't that be 40above given our current temperatures :D), I don't disagree with you per se, but I do have a question for you on professional ethics: doesn't "off the record" mean that the reporter agrees not to publish it? How are reporters disciplined if they use off the record situations and material and place it on the record in their articles (outside of being personally blackballed)?

Pete
07-09-2010, 03:44 AM
It should be pointed out that Rolling Stone is not part of the much-maligned "Mainstream Media" with its own acronym, MSM. A reporter working a beat would probably not have tried this bait-and-switch trick on one of his usual sources because once burned that person or organization would refuse to be a source any longer. On the other hand, writers doing a single feature story on a topic often have little invested in cultivating a relationship with the source--therefore they can do a poison pen job and feel as though they have nothing to lose. However, once they gain the reputation of doing that sort of thing they won't be trusted.

OfTheTroops
07-09-2010, 04:10 AM
did it on purpose to recapture the initiative and momentum.... time to tag out...Then you have the Woohoo Petraeus comic..."WHy are we excited dont know but we are".... I blame MTV next month we can start celebrity rehab or MCc might get his own network reality tv show...genius

40below
07-09-2010, 06:30 AM
40below (shouldn't that be 40above given our current temperatures :D), I don't disagree with you per se, but I do have a question for you on professional ethics: doesn't "off the record" mean that the reporter agrees not to publish it? How are reporters disciplined if they use off the record situations and material and place it on the record in their articles (outside of being personally blackballed)?

The basic rule: It's not OTR unless I say it is, and that has to be reconfirmed in every situation because sometimes the subject says stuff that invalidates the agreement. So really, nothing is OTR. My favorite comes from when I was a young pup, I was interviewing a candidate for city council, we did the civilized thing, he wanted to go off the record at the end to shoot the #### about his opponents (he asked if we could go OTR, and I said nothing, reporters are wary about such requests but he took it as a yes) and immediately launched into a racist spiel about how the incumbent was a Jew and you know what those people are like, they rule the world, don't get him started on the HoloHoax and yaddayadda. So I was faced with the situation where I could ignore it or tell the readers the truth, that the guy was no gentleman but a pig-ignorant a-hole who read the Protocols in the bathroom every day and did you want him representing you, and my conscience would allow me to do no different. And I'm one of those reporters with ethics and stuff, but I tore this guy a new one in the next day's paper without hesitation.

I don't have a lot to say about McChrystal except as a military reporter, I do not understand why he and his staff would ever speak to RS in the first place, except in a two-hour tactical thing some Tuesday afternoon in Kabul, and don't take the guy to Paris and get drunk with him. There is simply no upside there, they're not Army Times or Danger Room.

I'm not slamming the freelancer, he had a job to do and I note none of the general's staff actually denied saying what they were quoted as saying when the quotes were submitted prior to pub, but the commanders I deal with are smart, and letting someone like that embed with your HQ staff is like throwing a forward pass in football - five things can happen and four of them are bad. Why do it?

Jesse9252
07-09-2010, 09:45 AM
Let me just preface this with saying that I thought the Hastings article was pretty poor journalism and the way he described COIN doctrine betrayed a serious lack of exposure to the military. I can deal with a hit-piece bashing COIN, but when someone writes a hit-piece bashing COIN and does not mention the likes of Gian Gentile or Andrew Bacevich I think that shows pretty shoddy research...

That said, people seem to quickly forget how positively the media covered Gen McChrystal before this unfortunate fiasco. Everyone loves to hate on the 'dreaded MSM' while forgetting that Newsweek dubbed Gen McChrystal a "Jedi commander" and hagiographies lauding him for his spartan eating habits and exercise routines appeared in the pages of the NY Times. Gen Petraeus is, for all intents and purposes, largely untouchable by the media and is usually described with adjectives like 'brilliant' and 'genius.' Even Rolling Stone--once a counterculture icon--featured a remarkably sensitive portrayal of a Marine infantry platoon that may have ruffled some feathers but was a damn good piece of journalism.

I don't buy into the 'us-versus-them' dynamic that I see articulated way too often by my peers in uniform. I see nuanced, careful, and sympathetic articles about the military in the MSM quite frequently. Read CJ Chivers regularly and tell me that the NY Times is 'biased against the troops' with a straight face. Do they sometimes get it wrong? Sure, like anybody else. Does the MSM publish articles that are unfair, or biased? Sure, I'm not disputing that. But I do not see this widespread anti-miltary sentiment that is so frequently alluded to by those that assert that the media is wronging the troops on a daily basis.

Anyway, at the end of the day, it's sort of a moot point. Interacting with the media--whether one likes it or not--is a necessity in the world we live in. I think we'll get a lot further institutionally by acknowledging their presence is neither good nor bad, it's just there, like a piece of terrain or the weather. It is up to us to interact with the media in a manner that produces positive outcomes for the mission. And I think part of that means never getting trashed in Paris with a reporter...

William F. Owen
07-09-2010, 10:36 AM
Well, Christ, as a member of the despised media, I have a suggestion, that is as applicable to the member of the local utilities board to the general in charge of Afghanistan: Don't say it to a reporter if you don't want to read it later. Saves a lot of back-and-fill later. Why is this so hard?
I largely concur with this. I have no view on McChrystal, other than saying the things he said showed very poor judgement. I cannot see how that can be argued. Again, WHY would an General be talking to "Rolling Stone?" There is simply no grounds on which that decision can be passed off as sensible.

Moreover there is simply no such thing as "Off The Record."
It is meaningless, unenforceable, and not relevant. When someone tells you something is OTR, it just means "Please do not put this in your article." Journalists are well within their rights to lie and then ignore any such request.
Anyone who has ever worked in the media or dealt with the media knows this.

Bob's World
07-09-2010, 10:47 AM
My take on all of this is that if the President did not want to take out General McChrystal prior to the article, he would not have taken him out after it.

I would not attribute too much "credit" to this one author, and this one piece, nor agonize too much over the ethics of such journalism.

SWCAdmin
07-09-2010, 11:54 AM
I'm not slamming the freelancer, he had a job to do and I note none of the general's staff actually denied saying what they were quoted as saying when the quotes were submitted prior to pub, but the commanders I deal with are smart, and letting someone like that embed with your HQ staff is like throwing a forward pass in football - five things can happen and four of them are bad. Why do it?

I've been wrapped around this axle since my post here (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2010/06/so-what-now/), having extrapolated off from now discredited Politico reporting. Please allow me jump on one factoid in your post that I'm otherwise very much aboard.

See this article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/25/AR2010062504194.html) for what facts / quotes were actually checked. The "silence is consent" reasoning doesn't warrant as much mileage as it may appear, and as I once gave it.

Jesse9252
07-09-2010, 01:14 PM
Well, the fact-checking questions may not have verified that the quotes were correct but I still have yet to read an article where anyone who was present accuses Hastings of fabricating quotes or even embellishing quotes. Sean Naylor wrote a piece about the article alleging that the most damaging quotes came from low-level individuals rather than senior staff, as the Rolling Stone article suggests, but nobody disputes that the quotes themselves were wrong: http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/07/army_rolling_stone_mchrystal_071210w/

There is much hand-wringing over Hastings being 'unfair' to include quotes that were meant to be OTR. I think, as has been made clear on this thread, these staff members were naive at best to think that anything they said would be OTR.

J Wolfsberger
07-09-2010, 04:20 PM
... I think, as has been made clear on this thread, these staff members were naive at best to think that anything they said would be OTR.

Which, I think, pretty much sums it up, except for one thing. These guys were trash talking their chain of command and their counterparts in other organizations. Doing that privately, with peers, is a soldier's inalienable right. These guys did it with an outsider. The most charitable way to describe that is lousy leadership. (And I even agree with their judgments.)

40below
07-09-2010, 05:11 PM
Which, I think, pretty much sums it up, except for one thing. These guys were trash talking their chain of command and their counterparts in other organizations. Doing that privately, with peers, is a soldier's inalienable right. These guys did it with an outsider. The most charitable way to describe that is lousy leadership. (And I even agree with their judgments.)

Yeah, that goes to the heart of it. Soldiers bitch, and there are few things of more beauty than one going off on a rip where he accuses everyone from god down to his MWO of being part of a malevolent plan to make his life hell, but the guy's in Kevlar and lugging a pack in 40 degree heat. I've never reported that; I've said worse. My editors would not be pleased if they knew what I was saying about them while kitted out in body armour and bouncing around in an RG-31 or nearly being flown into a mountain on a Herc while they were in an air-conditioned office. (But I'd still say it to their face.)

An office full of REMFs spouting off about their commanders and political superiors - repeatedly and to a reporter - is first off astonishingly dumb and secondly, tells me they don't care if it gets reported. I mean this went on for a MONTH.

All I have to say about this is that there's a thing in communications called message discipline. These officers are not naive, uneducated individuals, they are not 20-year-old privates lugging 120lbs of gear in the field, I would be astonished to see that behaviour in the smallest rural council or professional office let alone US command in Afghanistan. I honestly do not understand it. Was there no paffo around to suggest somebody ought to stop talking now or to hold an emergency briefing about how everybody needs to STFU about 10 minutes ago?

I absolutely do not blame the reporter. I've been in theatre, and the officers, from task force commanders on down knew exactly what they were saying, stayed on message and as a result, they didn't get fired. They stayed in their lanes, they were pros, and I have a feeling if a junior captain under that command had felt the urge to expound on government policy or the PM's parentage to me, he would be on the next plane home. This wasn't a gotcha sprung by the reporter on the general and his staff, if anything it was the opposite. I feel for that reporter looking at the mess in his notebook and wondering what he was gonna do with THIS.

40below
07-09-2010, 05:24 PM
Anyway, at the end of the day, it's sort of a moot point. Interacting with the media--whether one likes it or not--is a necessity in the world we live in. I think we'll get a lot further institutionally by acknowledging their presence is neither good nor bad, it's just there, like a piece of terrain or the weather. It is up to us to interact with the media in a manner that produces positive outcomes for the mission. And I think part of that means never getting trashed in Paris with a reporter...

You just reminded me of this article that I did in my day job a while ago (apologize for the lengthy C&P, all the links are dead.) Emphasis(es) mine as they are germane to our discussion.

Cheers

Media message

By IAN ELLIOT

Capt. Jim Rees squared his shoulders yesterday morning and faced off against an opponent more implacable and cunning than the terrorists threatening the G11 summit that Canadian Forces were guarding yesterday.

The media.

In a conference room at the Directorate of Land Synthetic Environments, where he and more than 50 other mid-level officers were undergoing one of the most gruelling three-month training periods of their careers, Rees faced a bank of cameras, lights and reporters ostensibly representing outlets ranging from the local Halifax newspaper to CNN.

With his colleagues left to deal with easy stuff like bomb scares, violent demonstrations and local residents angry at traffic tie-ups caused by dignitaries, he dealt with the rumours, speculation and controversies that the media could turn into that day's news.

"Are you allowed to shoot the protesters if they get out of control?" asks one reporter, the real-life Jane Hawtin role-playing as a reporter for a national newspaper.

The actual and former reporters hired by the company to design and staff the fake summit also float the deceptively deadly queries beloved by the working press, such as questions prefaced with, "How do you feel ... " or questions about whether frontline troops view the Sea King helicopters as flying coffins or something worse than that.

The directing staff running the exercise evaluate Rees or watch computer screens elsewhere in the building as stories out of the news conference are published minutes later on realistic-looking news websites, just as they would be when it comes to the real thing.

"We are trying to make this training as realistic as possible," explains Maj. Greg Poehlmann, a real-life public affairs officer for the military who offered Rees feedback on his performance at the end of the session.

The Canadian Forces likes to talk about the complicated modern battlespace, populated not just by the enemy but by civilians, aid workers, refugees, NATO allies and other federal agencies, and the media is increasingly part of that environment.

No longer are training exercises "Army-pure," pushing troops and equipment around a simulated red-versus-blue battlefield where problems are of only two kinds -- those a tank can drive over and those it can't.

The exercise is one of four done annually by the Canadian Land Force Command and Staff College at Fort Frontenac, sometimes referred to as Kingston's Prison for Captains, owing to its high stone walls and the fact its residents are sent there for months at a stretch. It is the finishing school for Canada's mid-grade officers.

They are being trained for command beyond the military trade in which they specialize, and whether that's a domestic deployment like this week's -- simulating the economic summit that will be held in Canada immediately after the 2010 Olym - pics -- or their upcoming Afghan istan exercise, handling the media is part of the job.

"It's not the way that it used to be," agreed Col. Jamie Cade, commander of the college, "but the students that we're getting in here are sophisticated about the media, they've been on deployed operations before and they're comfortable with dealing with the media.

"The media is part of the military's operating environment today."

These days even the Taliban puts out its own version of news releases to sway public opinion, and dealing with the flood of information is part of any major operation for the Canadian Forces.

"It's been interesting," said Capt. Peter Ruggiero, a logistics officer based in Germany who is on the course.

"The course forces you to go from the company and platoon level you're used to to thinking about to the levels of of battalions and brigades, so you're going from thinking at the level of a few hundred soldiers to groups of 5,000 soldiers."

The weeklong exercise, just one of several scenarios that will be run during the course, is accurate down to the number of F- 18s in the air, warships off the coast and protesters identified by security agencies such as the RCMP who have vowed to disrupt the summit.

Students are graded on all aspects of their performance and how they respond when things deviate from plan.

Their performance on the course can have a huge impact on their careers and while the directing staff don't make a point of washing classes out wholesale, it's said that not even Gen. George Patton would walk out of the course with an A.

"You have to go beyond your speciality and work with the other elements of the combat arms to think about the bigger picture," said Capt. Josee Allard, a logistics officer who is posted with American forces in Ohio.

"For instance, I've really learned how important intelligence is to a successful operation."

It would have been inconceivable to see the military staging such media sessions as part of operational training even 20 years ago, when it operated on the doctrine that silence is rarely misquoted and treated the press with the same mistrust with which the press treated it.

Even in operations such as Bosnia, there were no imbedded reporters along for the ride, and with no Internet, what was written in the local papers did not matter the way it does today, when a commander's off-the-cuff remarks can be dominating the national news cycle within hours.

"Things are a lot different these days," said Al Morrow of Calien, the private firm that runs the exercises and strives to make them as realistic as possible, bringing in not just real reporters but former police officers, civil servants and other retired professionals to play roles.

"This is the computer age, the information age, and anything you can do to increase the complexity and the realism of these exercises will benefit the students."

That was even apparent at the lunch break at the base mess, where the TVs were tuned to CBC Newsworld and the story topping the program was the replacement of Brig.-Gen. Jonathan Vance as commander of Canadian Forces in Kandahar by Brig.-Gen. Daniel Menard.

He was being interviewed by a CBC reporter beside a mud wall in Kandahar, putting into practice what he was trained on here a relatively short time ago.

"Hey look, it's Menard," called out one of the reporters.

"Remember him? He was on one of the last exercises we did here."

wmthomson
07-09-2010, 06:08 PM
I think the important question that no one seems to be asking is what benefit was this article to the readers, and thus essential why was it printed? It seems to me that journalism's current failure is not so much a lack of ethics (there are certainly ethical journalists) as it is a lack of understanding of what qualifies as quality reporting and worthwhile story telling.

McChrystal and his staff made unfortunate comments, but largely innocent in nature. Who has not maligned their bosses or coworkers after all, or used a some what of color slur in refereeing to some one or something that annoyed them. Furthermore just because McChyrstal voiced some disdain for the current administration in no way suggests he was not going to follow his orders. The biggest mistake was not the comments (as has already been pointed out) but that they were made to a reporter. Which brings me back to my previous point, many (NOT ALL) journalists seem to lack an understanding of what qualifies as quality reporting and worthwhile story telling.

What did telling this story accomplish? Did it reveal some startling truths about the conduct of the war that must be heard by the citizens of the US? Did it uncover some dark secrets (besides that McChrystal likes to drink Bud Light Lime)? No, it did not accomplish anything of value; it turned a few off color comments into the end of, by all accounts, a fantastic soldier’s career. The article accomplished nothing else; it was journalistic drivel, not worth the paper it was printed on.

Was this article really the most valuable information Michael Hastings gleaned from a month spent with McChrystal? I wish I could have spent a month shadowing McChrystal, the incites one could gain from such an opportunity are invaluable, shadowing anyone as successful, regardless of what they do for a living, should reveal far more then what basically amounts to interoffice gossip. Mr. Hastings learned nothing of more value to communicate to his readers? How many journalists would have reported the exact same story I wonder? Too many I think.

Old Eagle
07-09-2010, 07:17 PM
We don't have the right to talk smack about our superiors, gov't officials, etc., etc., etc.. We gave it up when we pulled on the uniform. Wolf has it about right in the post a coupla hours ago. Many of the civilian commentators just don't get that part.

As I recall the elements of proof for disrespect, presence of the offended person is not required and the truth of the offensive statement is irrelevant. Yes, your platoon leader is a jerk, but you still aren't allowed to verbalize it.

One of the ironies I find in these various dust-ups involving disrespect is that many of the offenders and THEIR defenders would court martial a private in a heartbeat if he called them a "dumb MF."

SJPONeill
07-12-2010, 06:04 AM
This 'justification' of why everyone should tread carefully around the media is exactly why there needs to be a recognized code of conduct for the media - indeed one might argue that once upon a time, an unwritten one not only existed but was respected by most people, on both sides of the discussion. Then, the media decided that they were the only ones who could save us from ourselves and in doing so, sacrificed any claim to professionalism that they once had.

Yes, I know that it is typically only the smaller proportion of irresponsible media that we tend to note and not the larger proportion who do just get on with their jobs - but even that larger proportion has a case to answer in not policing (or really even attempting to) police their own...lawyers, accountants, doctors and other professionals all not only have codes of conduct but bodies that hold their members accountable...so do tradespeople like plumbers, carpenters and electricians (just to head of the profession versus trade argument)...

Can you imagine a lawyer, as part of doing normal business, casually discarding lawyer-client privilege, or a doctor giving the Hippocratic Oath a miss because it wasn't convenient at the time...? This thread isn't so much about GEN McCrystal - he may or may not have brought this upon his own head - but, as per the initial post, the irresponsibility of the media in the way they have covered this story...

40below
07-12-2010, 07:38 AM
This 'justification' of why everyone should tread carefully around the media is exactly why there needs to be a recognized code of conduct for the media - indeed one might argue that once upon a time, an unwritten one not only existed but was respected by most people, on both sides of the discussion. Then, the media decided that they were the only ones who could save us from ourselves and in doing so, sacrificed any claim to professionalism that they once had.

Yes, I know that it is typically only the smaller proportion of irresponsible media that we tend to note and not the larger proportion who do just get on with their jobs - but even that larger proportion has a case to answer in not policing (or really even attempting to) police their own...lawyers, accountants, doctors and other professionals all not only have codes of conduct but bodies that hold their members accountable...so do tradespeople like plumbers, carpenters and electricians (just to head of the profession versus trade argument)...

Can you imagine a lawyer, as part of doing normal business, casually discarding lawyer-client privilege, or a doctor giving the Hippocratic Oath a miss because it wasn't convenient at the time...? This thread isn't so much about GEN McCrystal - he may or may not have brought this upon his own head - but, as per the initial post, the irresponsibility of the media in the way they have covered this story...

There is a code of conduct for the media in Afgh that comes in the form of an embed agreement, at least for those of us north of the border www.cefcom.forces.gc.ca/pa-ap/cfmep-pjifc/cfmep-jtfa-eng.pdf, but we're not lawyers or even plumbers. There are no professional standards to get into journalism, there is no governing body. Whether that's good or bad depends on how you feel about what you read. I think I know where you stand.

Kiwigrunt
07-12-2010, 10:25 AM
...so do tradespeople like plumbers, carpenters and electricians (just to head of the profession versus trade argument)...



Not in NZ…..yet…..with up to 5 % of our houses leaking and rotting:mad:.
Nothing to do with this thread but I couldn’t resist, as my button was pushed:o. (No stab at you SJPONeill, but at my trade/industry.)

Back to McChrystal…and/or the media.

Paul Smyth
07-12-2010, 11:16 AM
There seems to be consensus that Rolling Stone is not the sort of publication that COMISAF and his staff should allocate much time to. Was there a suggestion somewhere that the interview was granted on the basis that the magazine is considered 'trendy' and would reach an important audience?

However, if RS is thought to be an inappropriate vehicle for such a serious topic as war perhaps we should reflect on the use of RS on SWJ's own homepage...?

SethB
07-12-2010, 12:36 PM
I found the refernce to RS to be slightly ironic, but perhaps I missed the point.

This is a publication that printed an article entitled "Heavy Metal Mercenary."

It isn't The Atlantic, The New Yorker or Esquire. Although the last has also ended careers...

Rex Brynen
07-12-2010, 06:12 PM
...he would undoubtedly remind us that officers giving media interviews are a policy instrument, a conduct of politics (and war) by other means.

It would seem that the General forgot that.

40below
07-13-2010, 02:13 AM
I found the refernce to RS to be slightly ironic, but perhaps I missed the point.

This is a publication that printed an article entitled "Heavy Metal Mercenary."

It isn't The Atlantic, The New Yorker or Esquire. Although the last has also ended careers...

Just remember we're in the age of Generation Kill, which has far more influence than Fick's book, although the latter was much better. Us old farts don't realize how much war has changed (or maybe hasn't since young men became Hoplites or steppe warriors, but the psyops are more sophisticated.) I can't fault McChrystal for speaking to RS because it has a desirable audience - and the kids who are the soldiers of tomorrow are not reading the New Yorker or the Atlantic - but my god, stay on message. THAT he can be blamed for.

Pete
07-13-2010, 03:49 AM
On military-press relations, guys may want to track down the book Big Story on how the Tet offensive was covered by the media in 1968. The author Peter Braestup was a Marine in the Korean War who was the Washington Post Saigon bureau chief in 1968 when the offensive took place. The Post's foreign editor at the time had been an Army infantry officer and Japanese linguist who served in China during World War II. Neither of those guys was anti-military; in fact the Post was the last major paper in the U.S. to turn against the war on its editorial page. The book is out of print but it can be found in abridged and unabridged versions; the unabriged version was published in limited numbers so I'd recommend the abridged version. The book is an interesting study in how different people perceive the same events.

My late dad was a reporter for the Post from 1956 until 1986. My interest in the military and service was to a great extent inspired by his time in the Army in 1943-1946. When this subject of military-press relations comes up I have mixed feelings--generally it's best avoid discussions on the subject with those who have outspoken opinions about it. From my admittedly biased perspective journalists are not as a category sleazy people who wake up every day premeditating ways of how they can do institutions and people dirty.

I doubt that a code of conduct would have a major effect on how the media conducts its affairs--I also doubt that such a code would make the military, other institutions or individual persons any happier about how they are covered than they are now. Probably the only time the press would be "team players" would be during existential wars when national survival is at stake. By definition wars are s****y affairs so the optional ones will usually get more skeptical coverage than the World War II type of conflict when the entire nation is mobilized.

marct
07-13-2010, 04:02 AM
Hi 40below,


The basic rule: It's not OTR unless I say it is, and that has to be reconfirmed in every situation because sometimes the subject says stuff that invalidates the agreement. So really, nothing is OTR.

So de facto deception is okay (i.e. letting the person assume that they are OTR)? That, BTW, is not a "trap"; I'm just trying to figure out what ground rules you are operating under.

I appreciated both the story and the moral of the story :wry:. I also suspect that the relative difference in social function between Anthropologists and Journalists accounts for the different stance on OTR: I would assume you were OTR unless you said differently or you were saying something in a public space. BTW, we have the same dilemma with OTR material when we encounter similar information.

40below
07-13-2010, 04:55 AM
Hi 40below,



So de facto deception is okay (i.e. letting the person assume that they are OTR)? That, BTW, is not a "trap"; I'm just trying to figure out what ground rules you are operating under.

I appreciated both the story and the moral of the story :wry:. I also suspect that the relative difference in social function between Anthropologists and Journalists accounts for the different stance on OTR: I would assume you were OTR unless you said differently or you were saying something in a public space. BTW, we have the same dilemma with OTR material when we encounter similar information.

I've been in this miserable business for 22 years. People don't go OTR to share useful information; they do it to influence you, to vent, to express prejudices and opinions that they would never want their name attached to.

I have never been OTR in 20 years. I may not report stuff - and there's a lot of stuff sitting in a lot of notebooks that will die with me, believe me - but I make it clear to my subjects that you don't say it to me (or around me if you understand there's a reporter in the room) if you don't want to read it.* If I have a notebook in my hand, we are on the record. My boss has told me numerous times, "I'm not paying you to make friends."

Does it work? I've never been sued and I have never once had an issue with someone claiming that what wound up in print should not have been there, and I deal with folks with stars on their shoulders who, in my experience, are more thin-skinned about what's reported on them than high school cheerleaders.

*I don't speak for the rest of the press.

SJPONeill
07-13-2010, 08:32 PM
Not in NZ…..yet…..with up to 5 % of our houses leaking and rotting:mad:.
Nothing to do with this thread but I couldn’t resist, as my button was pushed:o. (No stab at you SJPONeill, but at my trade/industry.)

But there is in NZ and that's why if you want the job done and done right, you always fork out a little more and go to a registered master tradesman (and check that he is in fact registered)...

It should be the same with the media...once upon a time there were certain 'brands' that had the aura of responsibility and then there were the tabloids...now it's damn hard to tell the difference (possibly because they're all owned by the same few mega-corps?). Now you have to pretty much know each reporter personally before you trust them with anything but the time of day...I've had quite a bit to do with the media here and there are only a very few that I would trust to be relatively open with (and still within bounds of organisational ethos and messages).

In the end it all still comes down to responsibility and while it is so easy to pile all the crap on to GEN McCrystal, the true responsibility really does lie with Michael Hastings and Rolling Stone...what have they really achieved for the national good, for the war effort (if you accept that perhaps there is a war on) or the general advance of civilisation by pulling a good man down...Sweet FA, I'd say...

Valin
07-13-2010, 10:44 PM
well, christ, as a member of the despised media, i have a suggestion, that is as applicable to the member of the local utilities board to the general in charge of afghanistan: Don't say it to a reporter if you don't want to read it later. Saves a lot of back-and-fill later. Why is this so hard?


radical concept alert!!!!

Pete
07-14-2010, 04:32 AM
Here's what Col. Dandridge Mike Malone said about press coverage of the Tet offensive in 1968. I first heard this in about 1982 in a folksy tape recording Col. Malone made on the Vietnam War and the Army at the time. Copies of the tape made the rounds in the Army in the early '80s and groups of officers and NCOs were sometimes assembled to listen to it.


. . . and captured NVA with Time magazine articles . . . and the splendid victory of Tet, with hundreds of NVA lying scattered in heaps and wide rows outside Kontum, where the deadly gunships had caught them coming, uncharacteristically, across open rice paddies in broad daylight (" . . . they was all doped up and goin' to a party . . . musta been . . . crazy little bastards . . .") . . . and the victory strangely, puzzlingly, lost, somehow, somewhere, up in the air waves of the ten thousand miles between Kontum and home . . .

A text version of the tape with some added material is available on the following link:
http://one-six-one.fifthinfantrydivision.com/mikem.htm

will
07-16-2010, 01:21 PM
I have served in the military for 12 years now and this is one of the most public displays of discord to date. Of course, it goes without saying that the words reported in the RS article are in violation of everything that the structure of civil military relations requires. Perhaps the larger question is why did everyone that surrounded him allow this situation to occur. Why was this reporter, with his less than favorable outlook on the wars, allowed unhindered to GEN McCrystal? Who was screening these folks; who was advising GEN McCrystal on access times and forums? It seems that there were many failures along the road to this story being published and the actual words used were just the culmination of blunders.

40below
07-16-2010, 02:39 PM
I happen to be reading Atkinson's In The Company Of Soldiers, in which he embedded directly with Petraeus and the 101st (it's a good read and one I picked up due to the general's new job and his access to the mission was simply astonishing), and he has a few telling passages in which he talks about publishing things that the general did not like, or that revealed differences in command about how the war should be fought, and that the general was frosty for 24 hours and then got over it.

It's also a pretty good primer on the embed process - in one TOC, Atkinson is allowed to set up his laptop out of the dust and is cheerfully told by the officer in charge that he's welcome to be there but if he publishes one word about anything he sees or hears there, he will be going straight to jail. Another telling passage is after Sgt. Akbar's fragging of his fellow soldiers in Iraq. The assessment the next day is the media coverage is negative, but the officers note what do you expect? It's a negative situation.

That said, Petraeus conducts himself like a pro, as does his staff. I'm sure he had his own thoughts about how Bush was prosecuting the war but he kept them to himself.

Paul Smyth
07-16-2010, 08:53 PM
Is there not a danger in looking at the media as a 'type', when in fact there are a range of beasts within the species? Some will be reliable, honest and trustworthy with information they receive or detect that people in uniform around them would prefer they did not have. Others cannot be trusted as far as they can be thrown. And there are a lot in between...

My main point, which I failed to make clear, is that I feel (sorry Dave) it is a shame SWJ persists with a reference on its home page to being in Rolling Stone as some sort of badge of honour, when RS's credentials are somewhat at variance with those of SWJ. :cool:

40below
07-16-2010, 09:13 PM
Is there not a danger in looking at the media as a 'type', when in fact there are a range of beasts within the species? Some will be reliable, honest and trustworthy with information they receive or detect that people in uniform around them would prefer they did not have. Others cannot be trusted as far as they can be thrown. And there are a lot in between...


That's a valid point that will be absolutely ignored by everyone here who uses the word 'media' not as a descriptive but as an epithet.

All I'll add to that is some of the most ignorant, arrogant, worthless people I have ever met in my life have been soldiers; and some of the most intelligent, thoughtful, dialed-in people I have ever met in my life have been soldiers. That's why I have a hard time crafting posts that use the word 'soldier' as meaning all good or all bad.

Steve Blair
07-16-2010, 09:52 PM
All I'll add to that is some of the most ignorant, arrogant, worthless people I have ever met in my life have been soldiers; and some of the most intelligent, thoughtful, dialed-in people I have ever met in my life have been soldiers. That's why I have a hard time crafting posts that use the word 'soldier' as meaning all good or all bad.

I would carry this out to be people in general, which is why generalizations (good or bad) are always dangerous.

Ken White
07-16-2010, 10:00 PM
That's a valid point that will be absolutely ignored by everyone here who uses the word 'media' not as a descriptive but as an epithet.though I may have come close by suggesting that except for a very few, most media types show an amazing naivete about many things and a generally poor knowledge of anything military or combat related. In the case of many, distaste seemingly also enters the picture. I do frequently use the word in ignorant in relation to them. None of that, BTW, is epithetical -- it is a lament for the certain decline and seeming demise of an extremely important craft.

It's painful not least because my paternal grandfather was a newspaper journalist all his life. I think he'd be horrified by what passes in far too many instances today.

The Entertainment industry has much to answer for...

40below
07-17-2010, 01:17 AM
It's painful not least because my paternal grandfather was a newspaper journalist all his life. I think he'd be horrified by what passes in far too many instances today.

Yeah, I suspect your grandfather and I would get along just fine. Trust me, I look at what comes out of Afgh, and I am appalled, more than you are because I'm also a newspaper editor, and I can see stuff you can't. Least I can tell the difference between a C7 and a C-17, but being a military reporter means nothing when embeds are being handed out as attaboys for favourite columnists or 22-year-old new hires, who then go back to covering city hall or writing lifestyle columns.

I used to think paffos had the easiest job in the army until I met the kind of retards they have to deal with.

Ken White
07-17-2010, 01:33 AM
...being a military reporter means nothing when embeds are being handed out as attaboys for favourite columnists or 22-year-old new hires, who then go back to covering city hall or writing lifestyle columns.

I used to think paffos had the easiest job in the army until I met the kind of retards they have to deal with.Jornos and Soldats I mean. The Forces are often their own worst enemy in the PR arena. However, as you and Steve said, it's not restricted to any one or even a few communities. Idiocy abounds... :(

Jesse9252
07-17-2010, 03:44 AM
though I may have come close by suggesting that except for a very few, most media types show an amazing naivete about many things and a generally poor knowledge of anything military or combat related. In the case of many, distaste seemingly also enters the picture. I do frequently use the word in ignorant in relation to them. None of that, BTW, is epithetical -- it is a lament for the certain decline and seeming demise of an extremely important craft.
I agree that the media is, by and large, relatively ignorant about the military and national security. Certainly they struggle to use acronyms and jargon correctly, in a way that often causes us to cringe (I can't count how many times I've read about an officer 'enlisting'--and no, they weren't prior service). I think that is a product both of the elite civil-military gap and the complexity of defense reporting. There are some who most certainly 'get it'-- Tom Ricks, Dana Priest, CJ Chivers (a former Marine), George Packer--whether one agrees with everything they write or not.

Beyond that, however, I'm not sure if I would say most" of them are naive. For example, I would argue that frequently the best reporting and analysis about Afghanistan comes from journalists, not our intel community (insert pithy comment about quality of intel community here). In fact, the Flynn CNAS paper outright states that:
Some battalion S-2 officers say they acquire more information that is helpful by reading U.S. newspapers than through reviewing regional command intelligence summaries.
I realize there are many bigger issues at play that factor into the intel/newspaper issue. However, with respect to actual frontline reporting, some in the media consistently produce impressively sophisticated reports and analysis despite the danger, limited resources, and lack of access to classified material.

Lorraine
07-17-2010, 04:28 AM
I spent a year in Baghdad recently and worked closely with the media - mostly national level types, but sometimes with regional and local journalists.

I was surprised and impressed by the intelligence...and believe it or not...the conscientiousness of national level journalists. They well understood military organization, operations, and protocol nuances. They also closely followed political, economic and cultural issues -- both domestic and Iraqi -- and held complex views of progress and success. These journalists often knew more about the variables affecting an operation than my military colleagues because their knowledge base was deeper.

IMHO -- using "media" as epithet is unwarranted. The backstory behind news production is more Machiavellian than most debates on media acknowledge. Sure, journalists have egos and thick "lenses" that distill a story in a particular, sometimes biased way. But a bigger influencer was the voice back in New York, Atlanta, or somewhere, that pushed these guys for more drama, more conflict, more blood. I know of several "positive" stories that were filed at headquarters across the Atlantic, but never picked up for publication or airing. And why not? Because nice stuff doesn't sell. And, who's doing the buying? We are.

Let's face it. Few of us would have read Hasting's RS story if it weren't for the drama. That's the reality journalists operate in - part economics, part human imperfection, part audience bloodlust for excitement. It's not a comforting thought, but it's true. And McChrystal, et al, paid a steep price for not paying attention to that.

Ken White
07-17-2010, 04:29 AM
They deserve --and I give 'em -- Attaboys.

All of them, however, are trapped by a system that given the 24 hour news cycle is highly competitive and which TV-wise is dominated by the Entertainment industry to whom straight news is not an item of interest. Regrettably and perhaps wrongly, the TV crowd drives the Train dragging print media down with them...

That said, I do not question the need for news and media -- I just wish it did its job a little better. In fairness, I also wish the US Army did its job a little better... :wry:

Pete
07-17-2010, 09:40 PM
But a bigger influencer was the voice back in New York, Atlanta, or somewhere, that pushed these guys for more drama, more conflict, more blood. I know of several "positive" stories that were filed at headquarters across the Atlantic, but never picked up for publication or airing.
I doubt that home offices actually pressure reporters for more dramatic or "bloody" stories. The positive stories that were not used were probably feature or background stories that were not tied to any particular newsworthy event. A few years ago I heard about a Time magazine story about then-Colonel MacMaster and his command at Tel Afir that was deemed as being too "heroic" for publication. My main complaint about most of the news out of combat zones has been that it has consisted mainly of summaries of what took place that day with little background or context. Knowing how many IEDs exploded in Iraq yesterday and what the casualties were tells people little about how the war is going.

40below
07-18-2010, 05:26 PM
I doubt that home offices actually pressure reporters for more dramatic or "bloody" stories. The positive stories that were not used were probably feature or background stories that were not tied to any particular newsworthy event. A few years ago I heard about a Time magazine story about then-Colonel MacMaster and his command at Tel Afir that was deemed as being too "heroic" for publication. My main complaint about most of the news out of combat zones has been that it has consisted mainly of summaries of what took place that day with little background or context. Knowing how many IEDs exploded in Iraq yesterday and what the casualties were tells people little about how the war is going.

Most mainstream reporters are as trapped in FOBs as the troops there. They don't have permission to go off base just in case there's a ramp ceremony they need to cover. Not just in Afgh either - a CBC reporter sent to cover Haiti was not allowed to go ashore as he didn't have the proper combat training (so why send the guy? That occurred to me too)

Pete
07-20-2010, 03:07 AM
Around the time before the Petraeus "Surge" began taking effect in 2007 I vaguely recall reading that reporters for the mainstream publications in Baghdad were cooped up in their offices and hotel rooms within the city. The reporters were said to be relying heavily on local nationals to go out and get the news, hence the reporters' by-lines followed by the words "and" or "with" followed by a number of Arabic-sounding names. Therefore I don't think it was all a case of media people being confined to FOBs. I don't know where I saw the story, it may have been the Washington Post or the New York Review of Books. I can't blame reporters for not wanting to get killed, but folks please forgive me for saying that the lethality of the wars we're currently fighting doesn't even come close to being a pimple on the behind of what happened during World War II, Korea, or Vietnam.

SJPONeill
07-20-2010, 05:32 AM
Can't argue with the statement re the lethality of previous wars but, in regard to WW2 and Korea and to a certain extent Vietnam, that lethality was confined largely to the front line. Anyone walking around Paris or Seoul post-liberation wasn't as likely to get snatched, blow up or otherwise nastied as they might be in Baghdad around 2004-5...

Seabee
07-23-2010, 09:30 AM
I think the important question that no one seems to be asking is what benefit was this article to the readers, and thus essential why was it printed? .

oh Puleese.... I dont have the issue but I will bet that the article before it was Lady gaga's anorexia and the article after it was the 10 best Underground albums of 2009.... we are talking rolling stone, not "national security digest"... there is little in there that benifits any of the readers... ;-)

:-)

Seabee
07-23-2010, 09:37 AM
Open Letter to General Stanley McChrystal 7 July 2010
U.S. Army


Dear General McChrystal,

Sir, I wish to express my apologies for the great injustice you have just endured at the hands of our leaders, without regard for your selfless service to our nation. Sincerely,


James A. Gavrilis
American Citizen

James.... are you trolling?

Firing Generals who mouth off is nothing new.... Gen. George Casey and Gen. Eric Shinseki come to mind....

I hope the next step is not comparing the Govts action to Kristalnacht or something.... ;-)

Ken White
07-23-2010, 01:58 PM
Casey was not fired, he was promoted and is currently Chief of Staff of the Army. Shinseki was not fired, he retired on his normally scheduled retirement date and is now the Secretary of Veteran Affairs in the Obama cabinet.

Plenty of Generals indeed have been fired for mouthing off -- MacArthur and MG John K. Singlaub come to mind...

tequila
07-23-2010, 02:25 PM
Don't forget the most apropos recent example, Admiral William J. Fallon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._Fallon), who was also canned due to a magazine article (http://www.esquire.com/features/fox-fallon).

Pete
07-23-2010, 02:52 PM
Here's a photo (http://www.olive-drab.com/images/carbine_foldingstock_jedburgh_400.jpg) of Jack Singlaub in 1944 when he was a lieutenant on an OSS Jedburgh team. He has a folding-stock M1 Carbine.

davidbfpo
07-26-2010, 07:01 PM
A Canadian SWC member has written a four page article on this matter:http://www.jmss.org/jmss/index.php/jmss/article/view/307/329

Hat tip to a Canadian resume of think tank writing:
The relief of US General Stanley McChrystal as commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan was both a fascinating and disturbing event, claims the Centre of Military and Strategic Studies’ Terry Terriff.

Pete
07-29-2010, 01:47 AM
The way I see it the relationship between the Government and the press is a case of different principles that are in conflict with each other. The ones I can think of, and there are probably others, are as follows.

1. Freedom of the press, like the Constitutional amendment on freedom of speech.
2. The laws regarding the disclosure of classified information, and whether persons should suffer a penalty for leaking it outside of Government channels.
3. The need for all people and institutions in a country involved in a war to "pull together" and be on the same team, if necessary putting aside their personal and organizational interests.
4. Optional wars, when the famous statement by Clausewitz on the relationship between politics and war leaves many people either indifferent or actively hostile to the war.

Let me tell a war story. The Pacific Stars and Stripes used to have a tradition of having its content censored and controlled by higher headuarters. Stories that the command thought would unsettle the troops, such as anti-American protests in Korea, were kept out of the newspaper.

As an Army E-4 my late dad joined the staff of the Pacific S&S in around December 1945. He ran the composing room of the paper in the basement of the U.S. headuarters in the Dai Ichi building in Tokyo, where MacArthur had his penthouse on the top floor. (Mac's son Dougie, a kid around 8, used to visit the composing room. Dad said you could tell back then he'd turn out to be gay, which he did.) Anyway, around December '45 or January '46 there were protests in the Philippines and Japan by G.I.s against being kept in uniform after the war had ended. Pacific S&S ran brief stories on the protests. A few days later the newspaper was directed through command channels to publish an overwrought story by a civilian newspaperman who denounced the guys who wanted to be sent home and cited all the guys he had seen killed and bleeding to death on various islands in the Pacific Theater.

The response of the enlisted G.I. staff of the newspaper was to sign a petition and hold a press conference for the Associated Press and United Press correspondents in which they said that the command in Japan was interfering with the editorial content of Pacific S&S, which meant it wasn't a G.I. newspaper anymore. Dad told me that within weeks of the press conference he and all of the other G.I.s on the staff of Pacific S&S received orders to go back to the States for discharge.

Four decades later, around 1985, DoD reconsidered its policy regarding censorship of the Pacific S&S. Dad's old friend and colleague, Phil Foisie, Army officer combat veteran, former foreign editor of the Washington Post and editor of the International Herald-Tribune in Paris (also former Louisville C-J reporter in the '50s), was contracted by DoD as a "distinguished journalist" to evaluate the situation and submit his recommendations. When I last saw Mr. Foisie in around 1987 he was a bit pissed that DoD had granted editorial freedom to the Pacific S&S before his report recommending it had been submitted in final draft. (It was one of those bureaucracy things, DoD made a decision, had a study done to justify it, and announced its decision before the study had been released.)

Well, that's the end of the war story ... and it's no shi*, as far as I know, I know this message won't settle this dispute but perhaps it might give some insight into the issures that are involved.

JarodParker
07-29-2010, 03:07 AM
After all the attention this story received, it's a shame that the media didn't see it fit to spend a 10th of the time covering Gen McChrystal's retirement... he did spend 30+ years in uniform. The only outlet that covered it was CSPAN.

PS- somebody tell the Army that the ACU is a bad choice for such occasions.

Ken White
07-29-2010, 04:24 AM
is a bad choice for virtually anything...:D

82redleg
07-29-2010, 10:32 AM
PS- somebody tell the Army that the ACU is a bad choice for such occasions.

GEN McChrystal made his point- I would have done the same thing.

The ASU (the blue replacement for the greens) looks pretty crappy, too.

davidbfpo
07-29-2010, 09:17 PM
This article 'Washing the dirty linen of a dirty conflict in public could actually save lives' by Max Hastings, a journalist and military historian, gives a seasoned UK viewpoint and is quite pithy:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1297930/Wikileaks-Afghan-files-Washing-dirty-conflicts-linen-public-save-lives.html

Opens with:
To understand how the White House feels about yesterday’s massive leak of 92,201 documents about the Afghan war, think how Downing Street would have felt about the same sort of disclosures during the Northern Ireland troubles. We might have learned about Blair’s talks with the IRA, SAS ambushes in Armagh, British intelligence penetration of the Dublin government, claims of torture of suspects, fire-fights in which the wrong people got killed, paramilitary links with politicians - the dirty underclothes of a dirty conflict.

Ends with:
Yesterday’s Wikileaks ‘revelations’ made a bigger splash than they deserved. But they will serve a useful purpose if they concentrate minds at the top. If we wait for military success before starting a political negotiation, a lot more good people will die uselessly. It is time to talk, and start packing.

JarodParker
08-16-2010, 04:54 PM
Stanley McChrystal to Yale (http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20100816/pl_politico/41101)

Pete
08-18-2010, 03:32 AM
As an Army E-4 my late dad joined the staff of the Pacific S&S in around December 1945. He ran the composing room of the paper in the basement of the U.S. headuarters in the Dai Ichi building in Tokyo, where MacArthur had his penthouse on the top floor.
Just a slight clarification here -- the Japanese Arisaka Model 99 rifle, 7.7mm, which hangs over the sliding-glass door in my living room, was an Occupation Japan souvenir of my Dad. Though it would be nice to say the souvenir is a testament to the valorous genes running in my family, if the truth must actually be known Dad won it at the raffle held at the Christmas party of the staff of Stars & Stripes-Pacific in Tokyo in December 1945.

asmlie
12-04-2010, 02:41 PM
I'm a Norwegian Air Force officer writing an essay focusing on the changeover from McKiernan to McChrystal as COM ISAF.
-What caused Sec Def. Gates to make the appointment?
-What where the implications, especially from an air power perspective?
-What were the major differences between McChrystal and the preceeding commanders?


I really appreciate any help in finding some good sources which may help in answering my questions.

davidbfpo
12-04-2010, 06:04 PM
As the RFI header says use the search feature, just using McChrystal will find a number of relevant threads, including one on COIN & Air Power. There is another which may have escaped my eye on the changing doctrine, courageous restraint IIRC. Plenty to feast on and someone will be along shortly to add more.

Welcome aboard and finally I am sure SWC would be interested in seeing the end product, in a thread or the SW Journal.

CPT D.R.
01-18-2011, 11:22 PM
I am a US Army Captain currently in the Command and General Staff College and this discussion caught my eye as I was perusing the SWJ site. I’m not surprised to see that people have weighed in with their opinions (for 3 pages now) because it’s a very debatable topic. I’ve read the replies and I enjoy the back-and-forth of the Soldiers vs. the media about what’s on the record, off the record, and how Soldiers and leaders should conduct themselves around the media. And although I’ve never blogged or so much as replied to a post before, I’ll offer my comments.

The Rolling Stone article broke when I was in Iraq. After reading it my first thought was “Oh hell… this is not going to end well for GEN McChrystal or his team.” What a shame that my first thoughts were not “Well said…” or “I disagree with that part, but agree with that part…” All of my peers in the Battalion saw his relief from command coming a mile away. I think everyone in the military did on some level. We’ve seen it before, after all.

The military has had a long and habitual relationship with the media for several reasons. First off – they need each other. In times of war the public back home wants to know the story from the “front” and they rely on reporters to publish articles, interviews, and pictures to relay the information. For us in the military, we need reporters to record our stories so that the world will understand and accept us when we return home. We also need our story told so that Congress will divide the budget appropriately to which service is making the biggest impact at the time.

The problem comes when the balance in this relationship is thrown off course, as I believe it is now. So how has this relationship changed over the years, and what made it change? In my opinion, it’s been the homeland involvement in wars overseas (i.e. national pride) and the desire to watch a train wreck (i.e. our obsession with reality TV).

In WWII all of the United States had mobilized to provide for the war effort in Europe and the Pacific. In 1943, the Seventh Army Commander, GEN George Patton, slapped two Soldiers (one sick, one shell-shocked) for malingering, believing that all they needed was a swift kick in the butt to keep fighting. Reporters had accounts of the information, but at the request of GEN Eisenhower the story was delayed until he could get to the bottom of the issue. GEN Patton was reprimanded, ordered to deliver an apology, and then the story came out on a radio program. Everyone moved on.

Ask yourself how that would be different today. Would reporters hesitate to break that story? I don’t think so. I’ve had many reporters attached to my unit in both stability operations in the US (Hurricane Katrina relief) and combat operations in Iraq. I’ve treated all of them with kindness and respect, but their characters have ranged from sympathetic and friendly to greedy and mischievous. It’s the good, the bad, and the ugly. The good: I’ve had a reporter turn off his camera or stop writing when I asked him to. The bad: I’ve had a reporter push the envelope and ask questions on camera I had previously agreed not to discuss with him. The ugly: I’ve had a reporter continuously provoke me and my men to commit illegal acts (all with his camera at the ready).

Please understand this: the reporter is not 100% to blame for the shift in balance. While I think the idea of a sensational story is too good for a reporter to pass up, whether it does harm to Soldiers or not when it’s released, the fault also lies with the American public that eats up these stories as fast as they can. Where is the national pride that once united a country at war, where no civilian would pay attention to a negative story written about the military? No, those days are gone, I think. Why? Less than one percent of the United States population serves in the military now. That, coupled with the fact that everyone loves to watch a train wreck (i.e. the most deplorable reality shows that show the dregs of society), and the relationship between the military and the media is spiraling out of control. There is no more balance.

I was a Company Commander in Iraq when Operation Iraqi Freedom ended and Operation New Dawn began. This was a HUGE media ordeal. So for that event (and the months leading up to the 2nd national elections), I took part in weekly media sync meetings. These meetings were centered on which reporters were inbound to the Battalion, what their agendas were, and where to place them to best tell our story. We also discussed at great length how to prepare our Soldiers for media interviews so that they didn’t say something that would hurt our mission or our reputation in Iraq. I rehearsed with my company for days for these impending media visits, making sure they could adequately explain our mission and what their role was. Ultimately, these media visits cost us any free time we might have had in Iraq and they caused a lot of frustration within the company, but we always came out clean as a unit on the other end. It was always a very painful process, but should it have been? Should an 18-year old Private live in fear of saying the wrong thing when a camera is placed in his face in Iraq? I don’t think so, but it’s normal now for us leaders.

I’ll go so far as to bring up (and provide answers to) some of the counterpoints I can think of for those wishing to debate my points (which I encourage – please).
-“Doesn’t the media keep the military honest?” Yes, but only if the military is dishonest to begin with. Please don’t confuse a Soldier’s job with your disagreement about politics and decisions made at the highest levels.
-“The military has no right to cover up the truth.” Ahh… the truth. Such a slippery slope. On principal, I agree. And I’m not abdicating a cover-up, but the military ought to have time to react, investigate, and put measures in place to protect Soldiers before a story goes public and our enemies increase attacks in response.
-“Doesn’t the American public have the right to know what the military is doing overseas and what their tax-payer dollars are funding?” Sure, but only if the report doesn’t put Soldiers at risk.
-“The journalists are just doing their job.” Sure they are. I’m just asking for their goals to coincide with my goals as an Army officer, and for us not to get in each other’s way.
-“Are you really saying America loves to read / watch terrible stories about military failures or blunders?” Yes, I am. Please don’t feed news channels by watching it. It’s in poor taste.

My final thought: In the movie Apocalypse Now, CPT Willard (Martin Sheen) runs onto a beach and right into a journalist (the clever Francis Ford Coppola) filming him and screaming “Just keep going – pretend we’re not here – just keep fighting!” As the bullets zing by and the explosions sound off, Martin Sheen’s reaction is to stare at them in disbelief. He’s clearly not used to the media and he doesn’t see why they’re there, risking their lives to film them assault an enemy encampment. I dare say that we in the military are used to it now, but that surprised look on our collective faces is a feeling of disbelief and betrayal toward both the media looking for these sensational stories and the people we know will watch them.


The views expressed in this post are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.

Pete
01-20-2011, 12:35 AM
The main point I tried to make in this and other threads about the news media, such as this one (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?p=109863#post109863), is that journalists aren't all people with horns on their heads who wake up every day with new ideas for how to slander the reputation of the U.S. armed forces. I'll grant you that my anecdotes on the subject are dated, 1945 to 1986.

It is to the credit of the Small Wars Council that it allows persons such as myself, the son of a Washington Post reporter and editor, to be a member. (I'm certain that in future years I'll be allowed to use the same water fountains and rest rooms as everyone else here. :wry:)

Oh well, World War II is ancient history to most people now, but when I was a kid the majority of newsmen I knew were combat veterans. When the Tet Offensive in '68 happened the Post foreign editor was a former Infantry officer in China in WW II who thought Westmoreland and MACV had been guilty of blowing smoke about "the light at the end of the tunnel."

There isn't that much I haven't already said on this subject that I could add at the moment and I don't want to repeat myself.

M.L.
01-20-2011, 05:00 AM
First off, apologies if this has been covered before - I didn't have time but to scan the rest of the thread.

McChrystal (and his boys) deserved to be fired, but not for insubordination.

No, they deserved to be fired for idiocy. It takes an absolute idiot to:
1. Agree to let a ROLLING STONE reporter embed with your staff and
2. Talk with said reporter about anything, much less anything resembling "my boss (the POTUS) is an idiot."

Did these hand-selected "smart" people on McChrystal's staff ever READ Rolling Stone? How could they not know that a "reporter" (I use the term loosely) from said publication would almost certainly have a biased, liberal, anti-military outlook on life? Nothing wrong with that, mind you; it's what the Rolling Stone readership wants.

Do you really think Joe Civilian Rolling Stone subscriber is interested in serious, unbiased piece on Afghanistan between his article on Justin Bieber and his photo layout of Lady Gaga?!

This isn't "the media's" fault. Rolling Stone is part of "the media" in the same way that Fox News is - i.e. we should not be expecting "journalistic integrity" or any "self-policing." IT'S ROLLING F*CKING STONE!

Anyone who would let a debacle like this happen must be cognitively challenged in some form or fashion, and therefore deserves to be fired. If you fail this badly at the basic P.R. stuff, how can you be expected to run a war?

M.L.
01-20-2011, 05:01 AM
i am a us army captain currently in the command and general staff college and this discussion caught my eye as i was perusing the swj site.

stratcom......check!

SWJ Blog
04-05-2011, 07:11 PM
Stanley McChrystal: Listen, learn... then lead (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2011/04/stanley-mcchrystal-listen-lear/)

Entry Excerpt:

Via TED (http://www.ted.com/): Four-star general Stanley McChrystal shares what he learned about leadership over his decades in the military. How can you build a sense of shared purpose among people of many ages and skill sets? By listening and learning -- and addressing the possibility of failure.




--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2011/04/stanley-mcchrystal-listen-lear/) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

SWJ Blog
04-18-2011, 07:20 PM
McChrystal and Aides Cleared by DoD (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2011/04/mcchrystal-and-aides-cleared-b/)

Entry Excerpt:

Pentagon Inquiry Into Article Clears McChrystal and Aides (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/19/us/politics/19military.html?_r=1&hp) by Thom Shanker, New York Times. BLUF: "An inquiry by the Defense Department inspector general into a magazine profile that resulted in the abrupt, forced retirement of Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal has cleared the general, his military aides and civilian advisers of all wrongdoing."



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2011/04/mcchrystal-and-aides-cleared-b/) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

CWOT
05-06-2011, 12:39 PM
Media perspectives following Bin Laden’s death have been good, bad and ugly. Many great organizational and individual efforts have been forgotten or overlooked with regards to their contribution in getting the world’s top fugitive. I’ve decidedly avoided being overly political or military in my blogging, but today, I’ll take a brief moment to discuss an unsung hero in this week’s events.

General Stanley McChrystal brought the world’s greatest military unit, Joint Special Operations Command, to the pinnacle of its existence. Over the past ten years, U.S. Special Operations Forces have dominated every battlefield they have touched. While GEN McChrystal bore the brunt of what appears be unfounded allegations in Afghanistan, he should be recognized for developing an unprecedented military capability in world history.

Common narratives of the Iraq “Surge” paint a picture of nation building and cultural engagement leading to stability. I argue instead that the decisive point (tipping point for civilians) in the Iraq campaign was McChrystal’s annihilation of terrorist and insurgent networks. McChrystal’s JSOC dismantled al Qaida in Iraq and other insurgent groups providing the operational space for the more commonly known counterinsurgency strategy to take root.

GEN McChrystal enabled the force that executed this week’s legendary raid on Bin Laden. The techniques discovered during his tenure allowed JSOC to continually improve and achieve the most daunting mission. His leadership transcended his tenure and for this the United States should be forever thankful.

I began this post two week’s ago after watching GEN McChrystal’s TED Talk on leadership. (http://www.ted.com/talks/stanley_mcchrystal.html?awesm=on.ted.com_McChrysta l) I watched the video on the way to work. By the time I got off the train, I was prepared to quit my job and reenlist. GEN McChrystal didn’t dwell on his recent fate, throw himself into politics or take this public opportunity to vindicate himself. Instead, he did what he has always done: inspired the next generation, provided an example for others to follow and led the way….gallantly prevailing this time for a new audience.

So, today, a shout out to GEN McChrystal for being a key leader in one of our country’s greatest victories. In the military, officers often seek to emulate certain famous generals storied in TV and print media. I, however, found my greatest inspiration in the quiet professionals. While I no longer serve in uniform, I am still inspired in my current profession to emulate those that make transformational change by empowering their subordinates. I never wanted to be Eisenhower. I wanted to be a GEN Downing (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A55417-2001Nov19) or GEN McChrystal. Thank you for inspiring me and so many others.

Clint Watts

SelectedWisdom.com (http://selectedwisdom.com/)

Bill Moore
05-06-2011, 04:25 PM
Clint,

Well said and I generally agree with all you wrote, but only suggest adding that victory has many fathers and the stablization (I use that term lightly) in Iraq was due to a confluence of several actions (to include the surge, diplomatic activities, Iraqis tiring of AQI, capacity building, the fact that integrated regions were already disintegrated due to the civil war, etc.), but agree if then LTG McCrystal's organization wasn't keeping tremendous pressure on the terrorist and insurgent groups that temporary stability wouldn't have happened. It was the glue that held everything together, and they were effective due to inspirational leadership, aggressive operations, and constant innovation. This is an organization that learns from the past, but doesn't live the past, and they represent more than any other the best America has too offer in the caliber of their people and their organizational practices (some of which M4 identified in his subsequent talks and articles, which were professional and void of politics).

CWOT
05-07-2011, 12:54 AM
Well said and I generally agree with all you wrote, but only suggest adding that victory has many fathers and the stablization

You're right Bill, I probably over stated a bit. I just feel like most of the discussions on the "Surge" tend to leave out the important part JSOC played in eliminating these groups and allowing many of the other development programs to move forward.


This is an organization that learns from the past, but doesn't live the past, and they represent more than any other the best America has too offer in the caliber of their people and their organizational practices (some of which M4 identified in his subsequent talks and articles, which were professional and void of politics).

This is the key point. They adapted to change, every time obstacles or setbacks occurred they moved on and up.

BTW, I just re-read this, I don't have any issues with Eisenhower, I'm sure he was a great general. Just wanted to point out that most inspirational leaders are often not given the credit they are due.

Bill Moore
05-07-2011, 02:01 AM
Posted by CWOT, Just wanted to point out that most inspirational leaders are often not given the credit they are due.

As I'm retiring from Active duty I have been reflecting on a number of people in leadership positions I worked for, and in my opinion the best leaders suppressed their egos, and focused on developing their subordinates. They established clear objectives, gave their subordinates lattitude, and provided ample mentoring to their subordinates on how to be a better Soldier and person. I have watched good senior leaders focus on establishing infrastructure and systems that wouldn't come to into being during their watch, so they wouldn't get credit for it on their ORB, but their commitment to these future projects significantly improved the capability of the units they departed. When it was time to make hasty decisions (combat) they did so, when it wasn't they deliberated thoughtfully (even when I was impatient)or empowered their subordinates to make the call since they were in the best position to do so. Leadership is decisive, which is why developing good future leaders is the most critical investment we can make in our future. How we develop these leaders is debatable, but their impact on the military and the outcome of battle is not..

jmm99
05-07-2011, 04:35 AM
from Bill,
As I'm retiring from Active duty...

a salute as well as it can be done virtually.

Best et Bonne Chance !

Mike

SWJ Blog
02-07-2012, 07:32 PM
Listen, learn, lead: Gen. Stanley McChrystal on TED (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/listen-learn-lead-gen-stanley-mcchrystal-on-ted)

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/listen-learn-lead-gen-stanley-mcchrystal-on-ted) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

SWJ Blog
03-23-2012, 10:00 PM
Gen McChrystal Shares Insights about Campaigns (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/gen-mcchrystal-shares-insights-about-campaigns)

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/gen-mcchrystal-shares-insights-about-campaigns) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

davidbfpo
03-03-2013, 11:11 PM
The thread's title is a slight variation on General McChrystal's book title 'My Share of the Task: A Memoir'.

Earlier this week Dave D. added a post on SWJ Blog, referring to a book review by Gary Hart, a former US Senator, which had appeared in The National Interest:http://nationalinterest.org/bookreview/the-mcchrystal-way-war-8149

Dave cited the review in part:
Unlike Tolstoy's families, uninteresting books are uninteresting in their own way; interesting books all operate on several levels. Retired U.S. Army general Stanley McChrystal’s My Share of the Task operates on three levels: first, the level of military memoir; second, as a detailed, even intimate, inside perspective on the concurrent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; and third, and perhaps most important historically, as an account of the U.S. military’s transition from traditional wars between nation-states to the unconventional and irregular insurgency warfare of the early twenty-first century...

It would be a great surprise if this book does not become required reading at U.S. (and perhaps other) military academies and even more so in the network of command and staff colleges for rising officers. There is much to be learned here about strategy, tactics and doctrine, as well as the necessity for their adaptability in often rapidly changing circumstances. This is especially true as our military has been transitioning into an era marked by increased integration of services and commands and the rise of special operations...

I enjoyed Gary Hart's review and now cite McChrystal's own words on Afghanistan:
I had a nagging feeling that a whole world of Afghan power politics . . . was churning outside our view. I felt like we were high-school students who had wandered into a mafia-owned bar, dangerously unaware of the tensions that filled the room and the authorities who controlled it.

(Later). I’d watched as a focus on the enemy in Afghanistan had made little dent in the insurgency’s strength over the past eight years and, conversely, had served to antagonize Afghans. Not only was Afghans’ allegiance critical, but I did not think we would defeat the Taliban solely by depleting their ranks. We would win by making them irrelevant by limiting their ability to influence the lives of Afghans, positively or negatively. We needed to choke off their access . . . to the population.

IIRC SWC has been rather critical of him in the past, judging from the title of the threads: An Open Letter to McChrystal (started July 2010), McChrystal did it on purpose (started July 2010), vietnam mccrystal (RFI for his 1987 thesis), Obama Angry at McCrystal Speech (July 2009) and McKiernan replaced (by McChrystal in May 2009)

I have not read his book, although one Amazon reviewer compared it to the memoirs of Grant and Slim. Link:http://www.amazon.com/Share-Task-General-Stanley-McChrystal/dp/1591844754/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1362350656&sr=1-1&keywords=Stanley+McChrystal

davidbfpo
05-04-2013, 11:59 AM
A lengthy interview in FP and has some interesting passages, notably on the development of SOF in Iraq:http://www.foreignaffairs.com/discussions/interviews/generation-kill?page=show

davidbfpo
01-02-2015, 10:49 PM
Following on a CNN interview a previously unheard blogsite provides four tips to defeat ISIS, using excerpts, to read more follow link:http://www.havokjournal.com/national-security/gen-mcchrystal-on-isis-four-tips-from-someone-who-actually-knows-how-to-fight-terrorists/

The CNN interview cannot be readily id'd.

The four tips are:
1.The effectiveness of a group is not its numbers, it’s how effectively it’s connected.
2. Killing the individual (leader) almost never solves the problem.
3. You have to get after the people who get things done.
4. You go after the idea that makes people want to be a part of it.The last tip is the most important - from my armchair - so I cite a liitle more:
Only by giving them an idea they care more about, whether that is an idea that gives them a better vision for the future, or one that gives them a bleak outlook if they hold on to one they currently have, we’re not going to make positive permanent change if we neglect the ideological battle.

Bob's World
01-03-2015, 02:07 AM
I respect Gen McCrystal immensely - but he still sees these problems through the lens of his nation, his duty and his experience. Until he can step back from those things he can only offer tactical advice designed to suppress the symptoms of the problem.

At some point we must move beyond the fears of our bias and simplistic targeting of the higher order effects that scare us so...

OUTLAW 09
01-03-2015, 08:51 AM
Bob is correct as always---he is basically still locked into his JSOC days---and they have also not worked at all in AFG---killing does not solve the mid and long term issues and as one recently pointed out from Israel to a US commenter---IS is here to stay and only the Sunni's can address the issue. To think anything else is a waste of thought power.

Besides just look at the current map of Syria and just how much Assad really controls vs the islamists (all groups) that David posted yesterday on the Syrian thread.


AND again even Mac does not --and notice it does not speak of a strategy--he has never left the tactical and operational tactical level of their targeting cycle.

Bill Moore
01-03-2015, 03:07 PM
I respect GEN McCrystal, he was one of our greatest leaders during the past decade of war by a wide margin, but the following comment does give me pause.


Only by giving them an idea they care more about, whether that is an idea that gives them a better vision for the future, or one that gives them a bleak outlook if they hold on to one they currently have, we’re not going to make positive permanent change if we neglect the ideological battle.

The parallel view from our opposition would be, if Americans would just give up their culture and legal system based principally on Judeo-Christian values and believe in Islam and submit to Sharia law we could end the war. The point being that of course it would be nice if so-called extremists rejected what we label as extremist views, but figure the odds. Strategy can be based on grand views, but the grander it is the more unlikely it will be achieved. We in the West like to over simplify problems (the center of gravity disease) and think if we just focus on one area such as ideology, political systems, economics, or killing their fielded forces we can win.

Clausewitz got quite a few things right that continue to endure, such as war is an attempt by one or more opponent's to impose their will on another by force. That implies that the opposing wills are not amiable to a peaceful solution, they're irreconcilable wills, which is why the fighting began in the first place. This is not something short of war, it is a war where forces is being used between multiple opponents with irreconcilable wills to impose their will on another. In addition to violence, other types of forces are also being employed, but violence is essential (to varying degrees) if the state is going to remain viable as a state and protect its citizens and interests from those who are attacking it. Even if you believe the state is at fault, who is at fault really doesn't matter.

There is no political solution if all those groups fighting to impose their will don't accept it, and when there are multiple opponents reaching consensus is increasingly unlikely. The paradox is a political solution is the only viable means to reduce the violence, but neither side (the West being one side, although like its opponents it is a loose coalition with various views) at this point is willing reduce what they're asking for. One side wants to impose democracy, free markets, women's rights, etc., while another wants to impose Sharia law and all that goes with it.

As CvC noted, the more you seek from your opponent the more effort you'll have to apply to achieve it. Ask little, and the effort required to achieve it will be less (and more feasible). This should prompt to consider backing off our armed evangelism where we are trying to push Western values down everyone's throats, and instead pursue more realistic objectives via force. That doesn't mean we have to forfeit our ideas and values, we just pursue them by other means over time.

This gets us back to GEN McCrystal, he recognized at least part of this fight is based on two competing ideologies that are irreconcilable (by choice). Until we adjust our ends, or apply more force to achieve them (and we won't, because the level of force needed is illegal), the fighting will continue. Philosophy aside, if we're engaged in war, and we are, violence is a necessity to achieve one's ends.

CvC


Kind-hearted people might of course think there was some ingenious way to disarm or defeat an enemy without too much bloodshed, and might imagine this is the true goal of the art of war. Pleasant as it sounds, it is a fallacy that must be exposed: war is such a dangerous business that the mistakes which come from kindness are the very worst. The maximum use of force is in no way incompatible with the simultaneous use of the intellect. If one side use force without compunction, undeterred by the bloodshed it involves, while the other side refrains, the first will gain the upper hand. That side will force the other to follow suit; each will drive its opponent toward extremes, and the only limiting factors are the counterpoises inherent in war.

This is how the matter must be seen. It would be futile - even wrong - to try and shut one's eyes to what war really is from sheer distress at its brutality.

This supports my criticism of focusing on economic development over fighting. It is a cruel ruse that only drags the violence out longer than it needs it to be. Assuming that a cause is worth going to war over, then we need to go to war and wage it at the level necessary to reach a decision. We have failed to do that since WWII. Clearly there were time we didn't need to go to war, but we did anyway. I'm not debating that issue, I'm just pointing out the obvious which war has a nature that seems to be enduring, a nature that the West has increasingly rejected, and in so doing has become less effective militarily.

davidbfpo
06-15-2015, 12:55 PM
Thanks to WoTR a review of McChrstal's latest book 'Team of Teams: New Rules of Engagement for a Complex World' which starts with:
Stan McChrystal has written an interesting and important book about organizational change. His argument, told through the experience of reconfiguring the Joint Special Operations Task Force in Iraq from 2003-2009, is that organizations, to be successful, need to create cultures of sustained adaptation. Doing that requires leadership with the vision to foster an organizational ethos that is resilient in response to change, creates trust and common understanding through shared information, empowers decisions and actions at the lowest possible level, inculcates and sustains that culture throughout the organization, and prevents leaders using transparency to micromanage.
Link:http://warontherocks.com/2015/06/is-stan-mcchrystal-right-about-adapting-to-win/?singlepage=1

flagg
06-15-2015, 08:38 PM
Thanks to WoTR a review of McChrstal's latest book 'Team of Teams: New Rules of Engagement for a Complex World' which starts with:
Link:http://warontherocks.com/2015/06/is-stan-mcchrystal-right-about-adapting-to-win/?singlepage=1

I'm about halfway thru it.

I reckon it's quite a good book.

It seems to keep an effective balance between civ/.mil consumers appealing sufficiently to both sides of the fence.

Key points I found so far include:

1)differentiating complicated/complex

2)shift main doctrinal effort from efficiency to flexibility

That's what I found so far......

davidbfpo
07-02-2017, 11:09 AM
A review of a forthcoming, if not released film - on Netflix only - by Ahmed Rashid, War Machine. So a couple of passages:
Hollywood movies do not ask the difficult strategic questions. Should the US invade or interfere in countries it knows little about, how do US troops win over local support, is nation building and promotion of democracy feasible by one part of the US government while another part pursues a war strategy? Can the US ever understand tribal societies through the barrel of a gun?
Hollywood has left us devoid of any understanding of the escalating global chaos.
That is until now. A remarkable new film, War Machine starring Brad Pitt, which at first whiff sounds like a gonzo-type war movie, brilliantly portrays these themes outlined above. David Michod, the Australian writer and director, and Netflix have made a movie that is both dark and satirical, emotional and belly-laugh funny, as well as being educative about US interventions.
(Concludes) It helps us understand why counter-insurgency is failing, terrorism expanding and why wars have destroyed so many countries. It helps explain why after 16 years Washington is still debating troop numbers. Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-40418967


This is an appropriate place to add this, so I must now discover Netflix.:wry: