Interesting news out of Afghanistan

[strummer8526]

Is anyone else having trouble getting over the fact that this is in Rolling Stone? Last time I checked, we weren't doing so hot in this whole "war" thing. Sure, the General is good at what he does, but it's not exactly like we're waving any "Mission Accomplished" banners at this point. Yet, the man in charge of the effort found the time to talk extensively on the record with some dude from Rolling Stone? This wasn't The Washington Post. This wasn't The New York Times. This is a publication that will sandwich the article between a review of Eminem's Recovery album and a discussion of Michael Jackson's legacy "one year later." Honestly, the comments bother me far less than the fact that such high-level commanders are willing to waste their time with such nonsense as this whole story. If I were Obama, I wouldn't be as mad about the comments directed towards his administration as I would be blindly frustrated by the fact that this isn't what they're in Afghanstan to do.

[The Stig]

I think Rolling Stone is actually better positioned for this type of article than the WaPo or NYT. It's obvious that McChrystal's aides let their guard down around this reporter. They switched off their PR filters and said what they really thought. The fact that Rolling Stone isn't considered a "serious" publication probably contributed to that. If you look at some of the quotes from the aides, there's no way they'd say those things around an NYT or WaPo reporter.

[SirSaxa]

A few points

McChrystal and/or Staff "approved" the article before publication.
The question is, what exactly were they allowed to "approve"? Any journalist (and his publisher) worth his pencil would not allow the subject of a profile to approve the entire article and all its contents. Journalistic integrity. However, in a case involving military secrets and strategy, a ground rule for granting the story would likely have included an agreement to review it for classified info before it went out. Such an agreement would not have precluded the writer and magazine from publishing the rest of the story as it was.

General McChrystal's Staff
It was described as:

"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. They jokingly refer to themselves as Team America, taking the name from the South Park-esque sendup of military cluelessness, and they pride themselves on their can-do attitude and their disdain for authority."

Since the General previously ran JSOC - Joint Special Operations Command in Tampa with responsibility for global SpecOps missions, AND because the nature of his entire strategy in AFG was built around Spec Ops, it is entirely consistent that his staff would be comprised as described.

Spec Ops
The entire history, tradition and culture of Spec Ops is of a "maverick" military force. Their history dates to the OSS during WWII. Military brass never cottoned to the Spec Ops guys their methods were too un-conventional (That's the idea after all), they don't follow protocol, some even wear berets. But they are absolutely lethal. Delta Force, the Navy Seals, the Rangers and other units are the most highly trained and efficient killers in the world.

Because of that culture, it is not a shock that McChrystal's staff would hold their Nato allies, their US partners from State, and even their commander in chief in contempt.

However, what might work fine for the Spec Ops teams running small (though critical), secret operations behind enemy lines is not going to work when the head guy is trying to run the entire, high-profile campaign to both defeat the enemy and rebuild a country.

While McChrystal may have only said a few of the quotes in the story (Bad as they were), he oversees a command in which his senior staff feels completely at ease with disrespecting their military partners, the Diplomats with whom they are supposed to be working "hand in glove", and even their civilian leadership. They think the President didn't sufficiently appreciate their boss when they met during Obamas early days in office -- when the Global economy was falling off a cliff. Regardless of what they may have been thinking, the President had even bigger crises to face -- and many of them.

It will be difficult to replace the guy who drew up the strategy in the first place and who has handpicked all of the senior officers running the show there. But those officers treat him like the "invincible and indispensable" man.

In addition to that, his grand strategy has not been working. Marja -- the showcase operation to prove the new strategy -- has still not been secured. Or even close. The operation in Kandahar has been postponed for months.

I don't claim to know what the answer is to AFG, but I can't see how Obama has any choice but to replace the man who has dissed his CIC and Staff -- even though they have supported him and given him virtually all of the resources he requested.

It is time for a new leader and a new team.

Yes, it will be a very tough job for his replacement, but our officer corps is sworn to duty and responsibility and following the chain of command. They didn't sign up for the easy jobs, they signed up to jump into the breach at times of crisis.

Most of all, Obama needs to demonstrate his leadership and make it very clear what he will and won't tolerate.

[TC]

Jun 22, 2010 23:36:30 GMT -5 SirSaxa said:

The question is, what exactly were they allowed to "approve"? Any journalist (and his publisher) worth his pencil would not allow the subject of a profile to approve the entire article and all its contents.

Read the talkingpointsmemo.com link I posted a few links back - it talks about exactly how Rolling Stone does their checks.

While McChrystal may have only said a few of the quotes in the story (Bad as they were), he oversees a command in which his senior staff feels completely at ease with disrespecting their military partners, the Diplomats with whom they are supposed to be working "hand in glove", and even their civilian leadership.

I wish people would read the article because almost every quote is from McChrystal - either directly or indirectly. The exception is the Jones quote and the Clinton quote.

[Boz]

I have read the article and I have to disagree.

Virtually none of the quotes, at least those people are deeming "bad," are from McChrystal.

Other people attributing something to him is not a "quote." Sorry, you just can't do that.

And some of the things attributed to him were from anonymous sources.

What he actually said, and the attitude among his staff that he seems to promote, was bad enough, but you can't go ahead and call him out on everything in that story.


Now, you want my personal opinion? I can pretty damn well guarantee that things McChrystal has said NOT in the presence of a reporter, about ambassadors, Joe Biden and even Barack Obama are probably about 100x worse than anything you read in Rolling Stone.

[jerseyhoya34]

McChrystal would not be tendering his resignation and apologizing if he was not in the wrong to a great degree here.

[Boz]

I never said he wasn't in the wrong.

But a lot of that article is hearsay, not direct quotes, and I think it's only fair to point that out.

We've got about 9 million lawyers on this board, and I'M the one who has to point this out???

BTW, Hamed Karzai has chimed in with a vote of confidence for McChrystal and a recommendation that he not be removed from command.

Not sure if that helps him or hurts him though.

[SSHoya]

As one of the 9 million lawyers on the board, yes it is hearsay. However, since the comments are coming from his most senior and trusted aides, all commissioned officers I assume, his obligation is to squelch such talk not only in light of the UCMJ but also because of the political sensitivity of the subject.

Of course he is wrong here, but he isn't going to be court-martialed over this. And if his resignation is accepted, it will be on Friday at about 6 pm. . . .

[SSHoya]

NYT reporting that the meeting between McChrystal and CIC lasted only twenty minutes.

Mc: I apologize,sir.

Ob: I accept your apology and your resignation, now GTFO.

[TC]

You sure he didn't throw in a "YOU NEED ME UP ON THAT FENCE!"

[hoyawatcher]

Boz - I have to admit I don't get the distinction you are trying to make between the General and his staff - unless the comments attributed to the group in the article is not correct for issues of bias or journalistic "expansion". But no one has denied the comments that I know of.

Short of that, his staff was making inappropriate and according to the military code "illegal" comments in his presence that he did not immediately rebuke for public consumption in the article (or in general really). That is his job and responsibility. The buck stops with him.

Now Obama can certainly choose to keep him for the reason of not wanting a change at this time and I can respect that. Might not agree but I can respect and accept it. But I don't get the "eye of the needle" approach that says well it was just his staff and not him. Especially not in the military world.

[Boz]

The only distinction I am trying to make is to not attribute things to McChrystal that he never said. Or that we only think he might have said through hearsay.

I am not trying to say he is not wrong.

I am not trying to say he is not accountable.

I'm not even trying to say you can't hold him responsible for what his staff does or says.

All of those things are right. The first part of this post is what is wrong.

[Jack]

What I don't get is, if Russell Hammond could deny everything and kill a story in Rolling Stone, why couldn't McChrystal's mouthpiece?

[SSHoya]

Axe at 1:30 apparently. After the twenty minute meeting McC did not stick around for the Afghanistan senior policy meeting that he normally attends via VTC

[TC]

Jun 23, 2010 11:59:58 GMT -5 Jack said:

What I don't get is, if Russell Hammond could deny everything and kill a story in Rolling Stone, why couldn't McChrystal's mouthpiece?

He's not a golden god, that's why.

[SSHoya]

Petraeus.

[hoyainspirit]

Bye-bye McChrystal. Hello Petraeus.

[jerseyhoya34]

Brilliant move by Obama, reflecting the need for better, more serious leadership in Afghanistan. Will be interested to see how the Republicans oppose this move.

[Boz]

Jun 23, 2010 12:36:46 GMT -5 @jerseyhoya34 said:

Brilliant move by Obama, reflecting the need for better, more serious leadership in Afghanistan. Will be interested to see how the Republicans oppose this move.

Ummm, there were a lot more liberals than conservatives yesterday saying that he should keep McChrystal on.

Personally, I though he would keep him on, but I certainly don't disagree with the dismissal, nor the replacement choice.

Kind of a demotion for Petraeus though, isn't it? Regardless, I thought Obama might go with one of the three choices in the Post today, but Petraeus knows how to get the job done and of course he is a MUCH better politician.

Actually, come to think of it, it was Democrats mostly who opposed him in his previous command. Including one Barack Obama. Good to see the President has come around. [/snark]

[TBird41]

Jun 23, 2010 12:36:46 GMT -5 @jerseyhoya34 said:

Brilliant move by Obama, reflecting the need for better, more serious leadership in Afghanistan. Will be interested to see how the Republicans oppose this move.

Jun 23, 2010 12:36:46 GMT -5 @jerseyhoya34 said:

Brilliant move by Obama, reflecting the need for better, more serious leadership in Afghanistan. Will be interested to see how the Republicans oppose this move.

Couple of thoughts:

1) Petreaus is either taking a demotion, or he's going to be overstretched if he's still in charge of CENTCOM.

2) I think you're underselling McChrystal as a general. He's done a good to great job in Afghanistan and in Iraq. He's done a poor job in the press / political arena. The latter is part of his job as well, but I'm not sure there are many Generals that are McChrystal's equal when it comes to counter insurgency. Petreaus is definitely one, though.

3) Is Obama going to do anything about Biden and his folks undermining Obama's own strategy? What about Holbrooke and Eikenberry? They obviously aren't to blame for McChrystal's mistakes, but Obama should be taking a look at their performance as well, I think.