hackthis_archive (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
hackthis_archive) wrote2010-06-24 12:20 pm
hackthis_archive) wrote2010-06-24 12:20 pm
Entry tags:
Let's talk war.
For those of you not living in the USA or just too far gone in your World Cup haze a few days ago Rolling Stone magazine posted an article they will be publishing in their upcoming issue about Gen Stanley McChrystal. McChrystal, for those who don't know, is the man in charge of US military operations in Afghanistan.
The article, The Runaway General, was written by Michael Hastings, a reporter who embedded with McChrystal's team (Team America, no really, that's what they call themselves) for a month.
Now I know this sounds mighty familiar to Generation Kill people, or anybody who watches the nightly news, but something a little different occurred when this article was published.
Probably because this article took a rather different slant.
There is a fabulous line in the GK mini-series where Ray talks about being misunderstood by the liberal anti-war faction, or as he puts it: Dear Frederick, thank you for your nice letter, but I am actually a US marine who was born to kill. Clearly you have mistaken me for some wine sipping communist dick suck and although peace probably appeals to tree loving bisexuals like you and your parents, I happen to be a death dealing, blood crazed warrior who wakes up every day just hoping for the chance to dismember my enemies and defile their civilization. Peace sucks a hairy asshole. War is the motherfucking answer..
This is a bit extreme, but it goes to point about the potential difference in mind set between people who spend their lives protecting their country and someone who would be considered "a wine-sipping communist dick suck" who is most vocally against this war.
But let's be straight. Reporters are not required to be impartial. They are not required to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. They can say whatever they want as long as they've got the quotes to back them up. And Mr. Hastings did.
So when this article came out where McChrystal and Team America were reported to openly disagree and have derisory feelings toward his superiors, the people he runs OEF (Operation Enduring Freedom) with, to be unable to muster support in his troops and perhaps have gotten away with things other people wouldn't get away with. Well. Things got real ugly.
Andrew Exum is smart. Repeatedly.
Nate Fick and Tom Ricks discuss the situation.
The LA Times breaks it down.
And all of this lead to a meeting with the White House. You can guess how that went down.
Stars and Stripes has a round up, of like, everything.
I've been following and discussing this clusterfuck with people pretty much since the story broke. I read the RS article a few days ago and was actually going to make a rather large post about it, but then that got into COIN and the troops and I just decided to save myself from further aggravation. My issues with the article are manifold for both better and worse.
1. It's clear that Hastings thinks COIN is a crock of shit and he's entitled to that, but at no time does he offer a better alternative. The tenor of his article was so full of disdain that for me a lot of reasonable points are being ignored because all anybody's talking about is McChrystal. The man ignored a BBM message; wow, bad behavior. So, let's be honest...
2. McChrystal's great sin was insubordination. Even if you don't agree with it, you toe the fucking line. You don't go around bad mouthing the entire administration whether you do it or your people do it as proxy. Like Nate pointed out, you are responsible for your men. You are responsible for keeping people in line. Hell, based on Article 88 (Thanks M!) he's lucky he didn't get court-martialed.
It really is like Tom quoted yesterday, "Different spanks for different ranks."
3. McChrystal's aids. Hastings was embedded for a month and all his quotes are derisory. He could have used positive quotes, but that wasn't the slant he wanted to take. That's his prerogative, but at no time is anyone quoted as having anything useful say. Does nobody there have something thoughtful to say*? At one point I told M I thought perhaps Ray was working for Team America. ("Some French minister," the aide tells me. "It's fucking gay.")
*Team America consists of, and I quote, "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. Do you really expect me to believe not one person there had something thoughtful and incisive to say? Stop blowing smoke up my ass you're giving me gas.
4. I want to say I'm amazed at the access the reporter was given, but we've seen time and again (and I've read several books time again) that this is the new military. They welcome the press. They want civilians to know what's going on, to be informed. I wonder how this policy is going to change now based on what is pretty much the equivalent of an IED.
5. What really caused me to stroke out was page 5 where McChrystal goes to visit the troops and it's clear they are not buying what he's selling. These are your men. If you have to get down on your fucking knees to sell this, then you do it, because that is your job, to make them feel like what they are doing is important, that it matters. But no. He doesn't do it, and no story I've read has addressed this, because once again, the troops don't seem to matter and that shit pisses me off.
6. To me, this article could have explored some quality points about McChrystal's relationship with Karzai (dodgy); about COIN and all it's failings or successes (if those even exist); about how people are stuck on an antiquated concept of being able to "win" this war, or hell any war (not gonna happen); about what the people on the ground need to keep doing their jobs (a little fucking support would be nice), but because the whole thing is overshadowed by some seriously poor judgment (let's drink with the liberal dick suck reporter, who came to camp in a blue blazer and oxford - page 2, and talk as though he's not around) and a reporter with his own agenda (is there anybody you didn't throw under the Humvee besides Sec. Clinton) nobody will ever address these matters. And to me, that's the real loss in all this mess.
Thanks to![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
alethialia for inspiring me to actually get this down on print anyway and for providing the RS and NPR links so I didn't have to go digging through my email. Thanks to maurheti for being my sounding board in all things military related and thanks to serialkarma for being all, "Hey, your boy Nate is on my NPR."
The article, The Runaway General, was written by Michael Hastings, a reporter who embedded with McChrystal's team (Team America, no really, that's what they call themselves) for a month.
Now I know this sounds mighty familiar to Generation Kill people, or anybody who watches the nightly news, but something a little different occurred when this article was published.
Probably because this article took a rather different slant.
There is a fabulous line in the GK mini-series where Ray talks about being misunderstood by the liberal anti-war faction, or as he puts it: Dear Frederick, thank you for your nice letter, but I am actually a US marine who was born to kill. Clearly you have mistaken me for some wine sipping communist dick suck and although peace probably appeals to tree loving bisexuals like you and your parents, I happen to be a death dealing, blood crazed warrior who wakes up every day just hoping for the chance to dismember my enemies and defile their civilization. Peace sucks a hairy asshole. War is the motherfucking answer..
This is a bit extreme, but it goes to point about the potential difference in mind set between people who spend their lives protecting their country and someone who would be considered "a wine-sipping communist dick suck" who is most vocally against this war.
But let's be straight. Reporters are not required to be impartial. They are not required to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. They can say whatever they want as long as they've got the quotes to back them up. And Mr. Hastings did.
So when this article came out where McChrystal and Team America were reported to openly disagree and have derisory feelings toward his superiors, the people he runs OEF (Operation Enduring Freedom) with, to be unable to muster support in his troops and perhaps have gotten away with things other people wouldn't get away with. Well. Things got real ugly.
Andrew Exum is smart. Repeatedly.
Nate Fick and Tom Ricks discuss the situation.
The LA Times breaks it down.
And all of this lead to a meeting with the White House. You can guess how that went down.
Stars and Stripes has a round up, of like, everything.
I've been following and discussing this clusterfuck with people pretty much since the story broke. I read the RS article a few days ago and was actually going to make a rather large post about it, but then that got into COIN and the troops and I just decided to save myself from further aggravation. My issues with the article are manifold for both better and worse.
1. It's clear that Hastings thinks COIN is a crock of shit and he's entitled to that, but at no time does he offer a better alternative. The tenor of his article was so full of disdain that for me a lot of reasonable points are being ignored because all anybody's talking about is McChrystal. The man ignored a BBM message; wow, bad behavior. So, let's be honest...
2. McChrystal's great sin was insubordination. Even if you don't agree with it, you toe the fucking line. You don't go around bad mouthing the entire administration whether you do it or your people do it as proxy. Like Nate pointed out, you are responsible for your men. You are responsible for keeping people in line. Hell, based on Article 88 (Thanks M!) he's lucky he didn't get court-martialed.
It really is like Tom quoted yesterday, "Different spanks for different ranks."
3. McChrystal's aids. Hastings was embedded for a month and all his quotes are derisory. He could have used positive quotes, but that wasn't the slant he wanted to take. That's his prerogative, but at no time is anyone quoted as having anything useful say. Does nobody there have something thoughtful to say*? At one point I told M I thought perhaps Ray was working for Team America. ("Some French minister," the aide tells me. "It's fucking gay.")
*Team America consists of, and I quote, "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. Do you really expect me to believe not one person there had something thoughtful and incisive to say? Stop blowing smoke up my ass you're giving me gas.
4. I want to say I'm amazed at the access the reporter was given, but we've seen time and again (and I've read several books time again) that this is the new military. They welcome the press. They want civilians to know what's going on, to be informed. I wonder how this policy is going to change now based on what is pretty much the equivalent of an IED.
5. What really caused me to stroke out was page 5 where McChrystal goes to visit the troops and it's clear they are not buying what he's selling. These are your men. If you have to get down on your fucking knees to sell this, then you do it, because that is your job, to make them feel like what they are doing is important, that it matters. But no. He doesn't do it, and no story I've read has addressed this, because once again, the troops don't seem to matter and that shit pisses me off.
6. To me, this article could have explored some quality points about McChrystal's relationship with Karzai (dodgy); about COIN and all it's failings or successes (if those even exist); about how people are stuck on an antiquated concept of being able to "win" this war, or hell any war (not gonna happen); about what the people on the ground need to keep doing their jobs (a little fucking support would be nice), but because the whole thing is overshadowed by some seriously poor judgment (let's drink with the liberal dick suck reporter, who came to camp in a blue blazer and oxford - page 2, and talk as though he's not around) and a reporter with his own agenda (is there anybody you didn't throw under the Humvee besides Sec. Clinton) nobody will ever address these matters. And to me, that's the real loss in all this mess.
Thanks to
alethialia for inspiring me to actually get this down on print anyway and for providing the RS and NPR links so I didn't have to go digging through my email. Thanks to maurheti for being my sounding board in all things military related and thanks to serialkarma for being all, "Hey, your boy Nate is on my NPR."
no subject
This is where you lose me, so I am taking a page from your book and asking. You ding him for his performance here and yet I had the exact opposite reaction. He didn't have to go talk to these guys. He didn't have to take questions from the lowly enlisted. (And I mean duty-wise, he didn't have to; morally is a different matter.) But he did. He took time to talk to them directly and when they pushed back at him, he didn't bullshit them. It takes guts to go to your guys, look them in the eyes and tell them that you're sorry their buddy is dead, but you can't allow them to use lethal force, to kill more civilians, because that endangers the larger mission.
Because that's really what we're talking about. The guys were pissed that they can't use lethal force, drop bombs on the whole place, etc. McChrystal gets that, but also knows that if they do use more force - and kill more civilians, as always happens - then that endangers the larger mission. And he's willing to sit there and tell them that, straight up.
A lesser man would never have even gone. Why face those questions when you don't have to? He had nothing to gain from it, not really. I know it's a Marine saying, but he essentially had to sit there and tell the men that the mission came first and they came second and that's just how it had to be. That's a situation where there is literally no good choice. And yet he chose to put himself in front of those guys and face their anger.
So I'm confused by what you're saying here. This section of the article wasn't a transcript; for 45 minutes he did try to show them what they were doing was important. But he also couldn't give them what they want - the ability to use more force and thereby inadvertently kill civilians - so there was no good outcome to this meeting. What would you have had him do? What they want him to do jeopardizes the mission. Unless you're suggesting he should scrap the mission (i.e. COIN), I'm not quite sure how this could've gone any better.
no subject
I am horribly frustrated that clearly nobody's sure what they're doing anymore. There is clearly something wrong with COIN that isn't working. This does not mean I expect people to throw out the entire concept, but that it needs work, a lot of work that doesn't seem to be happening. That makes me upset. Do I want soldiers and Marines running around shooting willy nilly? No, I think we saw how badly that goes (Trombley), but I also don't think giving people medals for not shooting if that compromises the men is the right idea.
So then, what do I want. I want a plan that works. I want the soldiers and airmen and Marines and sailors to have confidence in their Command. I want a Command that fucking works. That has a system of checks and balances, with one person in charge, who can fire as needed when shit doesn't get done like Tom said (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/24/opinion/24ricks.html). I want people to stop thinking this war is ever going to be won. You don't win wars anymore. Those days are over. Of course I also want $10 million dollars, world peace, a universal cure and a Brad/Nate/Poke/Walt/Ray/Rudy of my own, but I don't see that happening either. :-/
Is that any clearer? I'm not sure.
no subject
My problem is frustration. Frustration with this article, frustration that things aren't better for the men and women on the ground and that they are losing faith and nobody seems at all concerned about this. My anger is directed as Hastings for what I see as demoralizing both the General and the men by depicting them as all blood-thirsty and him as unable to muster their support.
Now I get what you're saying. Naturally, I agree with the rest of your comment.
All of this is very...disheartening.