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.Quote:
Originally Posted by SWCAdmin
Printable View
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by SWCAdmin
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.
Definitely the dumbest thread I've ever read on SWJ.
Let's get this thread back on track.Quote:
Originally Posted by tequila
This action was heart over mind, ego over mission. Every charismatic and successful leader is tempted by it.
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.
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.
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)
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeF
It was pure ego and vanity and it blew up in their faces. - Wow! Who saw that coming.
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by JJackson
That's pretty much the thesis of that article and what I was trying to articulate.Quote:
Originally Posted by William F. Owen
The bar for being an expert is pretty low based on the media's understanding.Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeF
eyh... I was copying you. I just dumbed it down a little. :wry:Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeF
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) .....Quote:
Originally Posted by SWCAdmin
....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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 91bravojoe
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.
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!Quote:
Originally Posted by slapout9
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by William F. Owen
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.