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:
Printable View
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:
Memory
"The King is Dead!"
pause
Reality
"Long Live the King!"
NEXT!
Perhaps they had a "Generation Kill" moment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorraine
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
Not a stretch. In fact it makes perfect sense. ...sadly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Umar Al-Mokhtār
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.
This. THIS! THIS!Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeF
In case anyone missed it, RS journalist Hastings on the Colbert Report.
Interview doesn't start until 2/3 into the video.
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
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
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...
The media is a trade not a profession as evidenced by this article and civ-mil backlash. The media does not police its own.:(
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.
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)?Quote:
Originally Posted by 40below
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.
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by marct
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?
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...
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 40below
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.
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.
I've been wrapped around this axle since my post here, 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 40below
See this article 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.