That's pretty much the thesis of that article and what I was trying to articulate.
Printable View
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.
Re:
If this is to be believed, (my emphasis added) .....
....then I retract my Machiavellian speculation.Quote:
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Anyone see this?
Quote:
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/r...interview.html
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.
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.
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?
On that note, this piece is "interesting"...
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.
The actual title was 'McChrystal forgot that he was not calling all the shots – Barack Obama was':http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...Obama-was.html
Which ends with:Quote:
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.
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, RS does apparently never request approval. They simply print what they see fit.
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.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnewsQuote:
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.
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.Quote:
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."
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
"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?
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?
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.
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.
LOL to that. No doubt an outstanding tactic, and also be sure to have compromising photos of said scribbler. :D
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?
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.
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... ;)
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.