The Generals, the War and the Rolling Stone
Yesterday morning at 9:16 am, the body of Benjamin D. Osborn arrived home in the North Country.
The Lake George High School student was killed, according to the Glens Falls Post Star, while serving in eastern Afghanistan.
This morning, the national headlines are full of apologies from General Stanley McChrystal, commander of allied operations in Afghanistan.
He’s apologizing not for the mounting instability in that country, or the rising death toll of American soldiers, or the slow pace of progress — but for his own loose lips.
Gen. McChrystal gave an extensive interview to Rolling Stone magazine — Rolling Stone! — in which he and his staff trash senior members of the Obama administration.
One Obama official is described as “a clown” and another as “a wounded animal.” Friendly fire indeed.
This incident follows quickly on the heels of another debacle with Gen. David Petraeus, who briefly passed out at a congressional hearing a week ago.
The commander of all US forces in the Middle East slumped down and had to be escorted out of the room by his aides.
In war and in politics, there’s a thing known as “optics.” It’s not whether you’re winning or losing — it’s whether you look like you’re winning or losing.
These incidents come at a time when confidence in our Afghanistan strategy is already waning, at home and abroad.
Funerals for heroes like Benjamin Osborn are becoming all too frequent, more than a decade after we invaded Afghanistan and President George Bush declared that the mission was accomplished.
For Gen. McChrystal to vent his frustrations to a journalist — did I mention that it was a journalist from Rolling Stone? — is hardly likely to restore confidence, at home or among soldiers bringing the fight.
It’s also noteworthy that he appears to have scolded civilian leaders for simply acknowledging the fact that the Karzai regime is brazenly corrupt and dysfunctional.
Indeed, one of the key obstacles to peace is that America’s military lacks a credible partner, someone who can gradually take over responsibilities of security and governance.
Gen McChrystal — clearly frustrated by these facts on the ground — has acknowledged that his comments in Rolling Stone reflected “poor judgment.”
“Throughout my career, I have lived by the principles of personal honor and professional integrity. What is reflected in this article falls far short of that standard.”
The General has been recalled to Washington to explain himself.
Like all gaffes, this one hints at a deeper truth that the politicians and generals would prefer to keep hidden. No one is sure what to do next. There is no clear path forward. Nerves are frayed, in Washington and Kabul.
President Obama should take this clumsy opportunity to speak once again to the American people, to lay out his vision for Afghanistan in concrete terms.
What exactly does he want our military to accomplish in Afghanistan? What strategies and rules of engagement are appropriate? Why is it worth our sacrifice? And who does he think are the best military minds to get the job done?
would it have been better if he gave the same interview to npr?
what’s wrong with Rolling Stone?
Again, it’s an optics thing. If Gen. McChyrystal had given this interview to Foreign Policy magazine — a considered, thoughtful interview — it would appear very different. Instead, it’s a freewheeling and snarky series of quotes in America’s premier rock-and-roll magazine.
–Brian, NCPR
Even Generals should be allowed to say what they think. Whatever happened to freedom of speech?
Brian,
I love your work. Seriously.
But far too many in the media, especially DC media (Dowd, the whole WaPo set, Bumiller, anybody on a Sunday chat show), are concerned about “optics” to the exclusion of most anything else, and not that concerned about, you know, “reality.”
Haven’t even read the article yet, but your commentary on the article, and the dismissive tone about the source, and the relatively limited discussion of the actual content, and what it means for the actual war that is killing actual people who actually live near all of us, is a bit irksome, IMO.
You make great points here, but in your detour about optics, you take your eye off the ball. The story is not, and never has been, somebody’s “gaffe.”
The story has always been about how long, and to what ends, we should be “over there,” expending blood and treasure.
So what’s wrong with our media that it takes gossip about a magazine article to even bring up the subject of, you know, a war, even tangentially?
anon,
Read the article. It shows McChrystal’s staff as arrogant yahoos, convinced that everyone else is stupid, and only they know how to win the war. They go on the record insulting the Vice President. This is not how uniformed military is supposed to act. This has not been done since the Afghan war began, and it is newsworthy. I wouldn’t be disappointed if the General was relieved of command over this.
Pete,
The uniformed military do not have freedom of speech. They are supposed to follow orders. Period. The end. If they don’t like it, they can resign and go on to blab to whomever they want. But as long as they are in the US military, they need to respect the chain of command. That means not blabbing to Rolling Stone about how stupid Joe Biden is.
“Gen. McChrystal gave an extensive interview to Rolling Stone magazine — Rolling Stone!”
Rolling Stone Magazine has published some of the best politically oriented articles I’ve ever read over the last few years. It is not just a rock and roll magazine.
PNElba –
Yeah, okay, but come on. If you’re a general fighting a tough, unpopular war and you want to fire a salvo of this gravity — roughly translated: “I don’t think the civilian leadership back home understands us or has our back” — and you want to be taken seriously, Rolling Stone is not the venue.
–Brian, NCPR
Is it possible the General has just had enough and vented? The rules of engagement have changed, the mission isn’t clear, etc. Maybe he just felt it was time to let the world know what the “Boss” and his gang is really like. Nobody seemed too upset when this type of thing happened and the other incompetent party was in office after all.
The General is toast, he’s done. It wasn’t right for him to do as a professional. Personally he may have done what his honor demanded, I don’t know, it’s possible. But he’s done now.
I have to agree with anon, it shouldn’t be about appearances, it should be about accomplishing the mission and getting our guys home ASAP. But nothing is that simple, is it?
This is certainly evidence that there is a serious problem in Afghanistan and in Washington.
I agree with this Brian, “No one is sure what to do next. There is no clear path forward.” This is the fault of the whole chain of command. Whether to NPR or RS, these comments didn’t just slip out this is a serious problem.
When you look at this, other foreign policy issues with Iran and Israel, and an economy in shambles Throw in an environmental disaster that so far has had the federal government responded only by halting offshore drilling that (as you have reported Brian) is further harming the Gulf Coast economy and it seems to me that there is only one logical conclusion. The bottom is falling out of the tub!
PNElba,
Think of it this way. RS does great muckraking (like Matt Taibbi’s stuff). Their news is of real value to the public. But if you’re on the other side, and you need a way to redirect public opinion, you don’t go to a publication that is outside the mainstream.
Brian,
I don’t know if “taken seriously” is the way to think of it. You get your message out, but they will work like hell to find incendiary quotes to add. Everyone knows/should know this. To me, this looks like McChrystal wants to poke Obama in the eye, not just get his side of the story out.
One of the ironies about McChrystal is that he’s the one who has pushed the limited rules of engagement aggressively. He is the one who has limited soldiers’ fire options in the field. He has a clear anti-insurgency philosophy, which includes limiting civilian casualties. Which means that in this particular case it’s not Team Obama being too dovish for the generals….
–Brian, NCPR
It’s one thing to criticize the President and the VP but to then brag about in a magazine does very little to build the confidence of the men and women you’re actually leading in Afghanistan. On top of that, I’ve heard Stanley also was highly critical of General Jim Jones. If you don’t know who he is, do a quick search and you’ll get a very quick understanding of what a very bad move that was. Jones is a long time Pentagon and Capitol Hill insider and is highly respected within DOD and Congress. He’s the one guy you don’t want to piss off.
This entire escapade is indicative of just how completely screwed we are in Afghanistan. There is no victory to be had. And now given the recent revelation that Afghanistan may be the Saudi Arabia of various minerals (interesting timing of that announcement, eh?), I can’t but wonder if our military will be there to protect the American mining interests for the next several decades. After all, history has shown that our military has always been used to protect corporate interests.
The irony here is that Joe Biden, the main target of Stanley’s jabs, probably has the most sane idea on how to deal with Afghanistan. Quick reactionary strikes by Special Ops., Drones, aircraft, CIA boots on the ground, etc. instead of occupying huge swaths of terrain by nearly 250,000 military personnel (including the all too expensive private contractors).
maybe he (the Gen’rl) should have given the interview to the Village Voice, maybe he’s saving that one for after he’s canned. Brian i think your’re just irked he didn’t come to you first….but after all you were busy in the Gulf.
I haven’t read the article nor do i intend to, but i’m curious if McChrystal gave a listeners review of the new miley cyrus album?
The Rolling Stone has always tried to give political views. It’s just a shame hunter s. thompson is dead.
fear and loathing in afghanistan
“We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a saltshaker half-full of cocaine, … The only thing that really worried me was the ether. There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge, and I knew we’d get into that rotten stuff pretty soon. “
I agree with an earlier comment that the issue is NOT which media outlet served as the General’s venting point…the issue is what it has always been regarding the expansion of the war in Afghanistan: why are we there? why are we losing lives, US military personnel as well as Afghan civilians, in what has always been a futile undertaking?
Bemoaning the failure to find an effective strategy misses the point. This has been a doomed effort. Doomed for us, doomed for the Russians, doomed for the British. Many who read this blog may recall the same conversation at the time President Obama decided to escalate the effort in Afghanistan.
Time to come home.
i think afghanistan had more to do with bankrupting russia and the end of communism than anything reagan did.
remember we went to afghani first, long before iraq.
let that part of the world just rot and fall off like a withered appendage.
“time to come home”
truer words could not be spoken. bring them all home, and give them all stateside jobs securing our airports and borders.
“they” do have a strategy- win the war(s)- it just happens to be an unrealistic strategy.
Link to the Rolling Stone article
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/119236#
Ellen,
Given that you run a news outlet, aren’t you going way out on a limb by voicing such a partisan stance on a topic.
I imagine that our leadership, and our soldiers don’t share your opinion that this is a “futile undertaking”. Nor, did they feel (as they saw their friends come home in flag draped boxes) that this was or is a “doomed effort”. Anyone who thinks this certainly should not have voted for our current president who is keeping one promise he made during the campaign, that promise was to escalate the war in Afghanistan.
What’s partisan about voicing an opinion that the Afghan war is a “futile undertaking?” Recognizing the folly of this war is not necessarily a right left issue. It seems to me given it’s now closing in on the longest conflict in our history, with no end in sight, or a “victory” at hand, we’re simply stating the obvious. And history is on our side regarding warfare in Afghanistan. No Empire has ever conquered that region. Why do we think we can?
Who in NPR would have gotten those quotes? I respect NPR’s reporting immensely, but sometimes you need an edgier venue to push a story like this one. I’m grateful for the RS article because it brings into focus the issues that Brian raises in a way that seems impossible for most mainstream media.
PS. I think Terry Gross could have pulled it off. but she would have been too shocked to follow-up.
You are right “partisan” is the wrong term. I should have used something else. My point was that she is clearly “taking sides”. It is fine for you and me, but I am not sure that is a place I would go if I were her. However, she is certainly entitled to do, or say, whatever she wants.
Also, yes, it has been a long conflict. That may be because we have not used the numbers of troops we need to get the job done. For a conflict like this a quarter of a million troops (including contractors) is clearly inadequate. That may be one source of the General’s frustration. Just look at the conflicts were we have prevailed, it took millions of troops and a far more concerted effort. To prevail in Afghanistan will take a similar effort, but I will concede that there is little support for such an undertaking.
For example to date the US has deployed only 1.4 million soldiers over an almost 9 year period in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In the first Gulf war we deployed over 2.5 million soldiers over a ONE year period. If we want to win we have to do more. Is there support for a victory, from some there is, but not from others?
Like someone said above, look at our history if you want to see how we prevailed. It took millions of soldiers (for example 16 million uniformed soldiers during WWII) and a uniformity of purpose that we haven’t been able to muster in decades.
Paul,
I’m not sure a million military personnel could “win” in Afghanistan. We aren’t fighting a large organized army which we seek to destroy as in past conflicts. We’re fighting a tactic, or so they keep telling us. It’s Vietnam in Central Asia rather than East Asia. And since it’s a tactic we’re fighting, will we destroy terrorism if we occupy every inch of Afghanistan? It just doesn’t seem to make sense to me since we know killing a few bad guys over there doesn’t necessarily do anything to improve security over here. Our presence there seems only to encourage the very tactic we’re supposedly fighting. Not to mention we’re bleeding our military from within and bankrupting our treasury at the same time.
News organizations of all stripes have editorial pages on which their staff can express views, be partisan if you will. have no problem with NCPR staff expressing opinions on this blog.
Folly or no folly Generals don’t set policy they follow the orders of our elected government. If an NCO had given the same interview about General McChrystal his commander; that McChrystal gave about his commander what would happen to that NCO? ‘
Mervel, McCrystal has to GO there is no question there. Will it further harm the operation? I think it most certainly will. One more problem to add to the growing list.
Fred, I don’t have a problem with it either, I just said that if it was me I wouldn’t go there. Many people that are looking to NCPR for a fair airing of the news might be concerned that someone who harbors such a fait accompli opinion might have a bias that could get in the way of the stations reporting. I know that Ellen could be upset with these comments, but I think that this is the impression that many people might get. I am one of them. When I hear a person so set in their opinions, I find it hard to imagine that this will not effect their work. These are people not robots that give us the news.
Hubris, General, hubris. You got your way after weeks of deliberation and accusations that the President can’t make tough decisions. This looks almost like a self-destructive, passive aggressive shot across the bow, knowing that the plan that he argued is another Viet Nam. But he’ll be able to swagger to his syncophants that he told those White House wusses off reeeeal good before he got fired. What the heretofore most qualified military commander, (Gen’l McChrystal) forgot, is that the guys in the trenches have the same Commander in Chief he does. There’s good reason why military oaths demand a rigid separation between the military conduct and politics. How can military subordinates carry out orders if their superior talks out of both sides of his mouth? The Peter Principle in operation. Even ex-Gov. Palen knew she was over her head, and bailed out when she was promoted to the level of her incompetence.
This is McCrystal’s third strike. Any other general would have been dismissed after one strike. It bothers me that McCrystal lied about how Pat Tilman died. President Obama may not want to fire McCrystal, but I don’t really see how he has any other choice.
I think that Gen. McChrystal has an excuse to vent a little and I don’t trust people who are never out of line…brown-nosers, kiss-asses.
I hope he is reprimanded and sent back out to command our side because as far as I can tell he is the only person we have who has a good grasp on the situation in Afghanistan.
The focus here both on this blog and in the US in general has been on the military aspects of this war but this is not a war that will be won at the barrel of a gun. I believe the misunderstanding about the “surge” in Afghanistan is that it will push the Taliban and other sympathizers out of the country. That is NOT the purpose of the surge (I hope).
The intent of the surge is to provide space for civilian and diplomatic initiatives to work. There is some reporting about this but not enough. Obama sketched this out in his State of the Union address but nobody paid attention to the diplomatic side. Afghanistan itself does not manufacture any weapons, no bullets, no explosives, no gunpowder…all this comes from outside and that is where the end of this war will be found. At a conference table where all the outside interests who have decided they would fight their proxy battles in Afghanistan may be brought together to stop the bloodshed.
I’m afraid that Gen. McChrystal’s aides are right, the political leadership do not understand the complexity of this war.
Please tell me, anyone, if any of you have read “Taliban” or “Descent into Chaos” by Ahmed Rashid?
The Tillman thing bothers me also but it is a different issue.
McArther was a great general also but he had to go Truman did the right thing.
Precisely, knuckleheadedliberal. The intent of the surge as you described it, calls for a different kind of leadership than standard war tactics employ. Man, how can someone in his position stray so far from a lifetime of patriotic service, to trash talk civilians whose policies he took an oath to follow? That kind of bunker banter can only come from someone who is only capable of a military perspective. His father was a general, he has 3 brothers who also served, and is USMA graduate. I’m stereotyping, but his past gives me the notion he has deep seated contempt for civilians. Maybe his second career can be a soldier of fortune, heading a military junta.
Is McChrystal behaving any different from say, MacArthur, Patton, or Schwarzkopf, voicing the frustration about having a job to do and not enough resources; co-operation from the politicians?
Actually i would love to see an interview with schwarzkopf, who wanted to continue his campaign into Iraq, as to what his take is now of the muddle-east mess. I do remember before any of these current wars began he was dead against engaging in conflict. I believe he warned (in his retirement) something to the effect that before we start we need to know how to finish. starting is easy.
Bush and it seemed everyone else ignored his advice, a man with first hand experience in war. Instead “we” all listened to people who never experienced a single battle, chaney, rumsfeld and others.
Are we ready to listen to someone like the retired general now?
or is it too monday morning quarter-backing for us?
haven’t read “descent into chaos” — been too busy witnessing it.
I don’t think McChrystal is behaving any different from MacArthur or Patton, the question is will President Obama rise to the challenge of behaving like Truman and FDR and do what they had to do with those gifted yet insubordinate generals.
maybe obama will rise to the challange of letting a general do the dirty work unincumbered?
did lincoln tell sherman to lay off with all the fires?
for once wouldn’t you like to see what would happen if you truly unleashed the dog?
was patton right about continuing to russia?
it could have changed the world 50 years sooner?
we will never know.
truman called off macarthur then dropped the atomic bomb!
we “hire” these generals to do the dirtiest of mankind’s work, then incumber them with politics, essentially binding their hands so they can not do the work. that’s what complicates war.
we wish we never had to go to war -ever- but if we’re gonna fight, then go at it with no holds barred, completely to the last man standing.
…..it is war, not gin rummy….
There is no comparison here to Patton or MacArthur. The situation in Afghanistan is a proxy war that dragged on for 30 plus years and has roots further back than that.
This is not just a battlefield conflict between the USA, our allies, and Afghanistan vs the Taliban and al Qaeda. The list of players who have some interest includes Pakistan, India, Iran, China, Russia, several former Soviet republics, Saudi Arabia, Israel, numerous internal Afghan factions as well as many other non-state entities including Uighurs, Baluchis, foreign mercenaries, drug smugglers, NGO’s…the list goes on.
Has anyone noted the ethnic conflict in Kyrgystan and its’ possible relation to a fight over drug smuggling routes out of Afghanistan?
Sorry, went off track there.
About Patton and MacArthur…they were defying the president’s orders.
McChrystal is the guy who wrote Obama’s war plan in Afghanistan. This is not about insubordination.
This comments section has more intelligent discussion of this issue than anything I’ve seen in the media. Another example of the problem mentioned earlier:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37857469/ns/politics-washington_post/
This “fallout” story says almost nothing about the war, but is intensely interested in the cat fights and whether a more popular boy in the DC lunch room, Gen. Petraeus, would have done better on the “optics.” And the chatty media cool kids think Petraeus definitely would have.
The coverage is like “American Idol” discussions. I guess that’s the only thing big DC media think citizens understand, or are entitled to.
Paul,
To get the number of soldiers you’re suggesting to do the job abroad, we’d probably need a draft, no?
If it was Bush, probably all the hand-wringers would be praising him as a brilliant and unsupported Whistle-blower.
Most people have had the experience of working under someone who is percieved to be incompetent. It can reach the point where you just don’t care about protocol anymore.
And the perception of incompetence is the issue here. The General has simply said what more than half of the country knows. Too bad in military culture, this code of loyalty demands sanction for this. Probably worse than mere firing or resignation. He’s going to suffer from massive book deal and insufferable public-speaking engagements. Damn, he’ll probably be overpaid too.
Tourpro –
There has long been a pretty standard narrative in this country that Republicans were the military party and the Democrats were the doves.
But in the McChrystal situation, this idea of Obama being the inexperienced, naive newcomer just doesn’t scan.
McChrystal got essentially everything he wanted from Obama. We’re fighting in Afghanistan on this general’s plan.
The comments revealed in the Rolling Stone article reveal more juvenile and naive attitudes among McChrystal’s aides than among Obama’s cabinet.
Finally, most people don’t work as top military commanders in wartime under a Commander In Chief.
As McChrystal has acknowledged, men in his position just don’t get to behave this way — no matter how frustrated they may be.
Under George Bush, a number of generals resigned or stepped aside because they were deeply grieved by his war policy — a perfectly respectable thing to do.
But this kind of behavior raises questions about McChyrstal’s competence at a time when such doubts are unacceptable.
–Brian, NCPR
You know Knuckelhead I totally agree with your post about the complexities of this conflict. This general is only one player in our team dealing with this entire region. Given that complexity I would think his comments are in fact insubordination, he does not have freedom of speech as a General, he has it as a private citizen, which is what he should be at this moment. If President Obama does not fire him from this position that in itself is a problem, Generals develop war strategies, not policy.
But where is the team? If you look at this issue I had thought Hillary Clinton, Holbrooke and Biden were supposed to be working on the whole region? Where is our secretary of state in this most important of conflicts?
Brian, yeah, bad timing for everyone involved.
Experience doesn’t always equate to competence. And competence doesn’t equate to media-saavy. The General and his staff are not complete idiots, so I have to assume that statements made in the presence of media were not unintentional.
McChrystal is not irreplaceable, but he’s been in-theater long enought to have made some inportant personal connections. Whether having Karzai’s support is good or bad remaines to be seen. Will be really interesting to see who will replace him.
Sometimes having a Commander in Chief that’s an idiot works out. Look at Hitler. Thank God his ego made him turn east and attack Russia. Other times it doesn’t work out so good. Neither the clown in the White House or the clown that was there before him or the clown before that had any idea how to finish issues like Afghanistan, Iraq, the Balkans, Haiti, Panama, etc. We did a poor job everywhere we’ve been for the past 20 years. Our military wins the “war” and our politicians blow the peace. Maybe we should just bring them all home, seal our borders and concentrate on our own problems.
Personally, I’ve had about enough of it. I always thought the nut jobs that proposed nuking whomever did us harm and calling it good enough were idiots. Now I’m beginning to wonder if the idea doesn’t have a tiny bit of merit.
Sure, we could bail on Afghanistan. It would likely melt-down in rapid fashion with all the women who stood-up quickly subjugated. Plus, the Taliban could then resume blowing up all the Buddhas. We could save cash and lives, and no political hassle. Win-win?
The General is free to think whatever he wants, but he serves the American people and therefor serves the People’s elected leaders. A public fight between a General and President is more appropriate or Pakistan. This General, and his aides who were also part of the interview, need to go for the sake of our democracy. After he is out of the military, he can criticize anyone he wants.
Subordinants aren’t supposed to badmouth their superiors, period. I seem to recall that, under Bush, there weere many who said criticizing a President during wartime was tantamount to treason. This is giving aid and support to terrorists far more than suggesting to them how they might bring a grievance to the UN.
I think the problem is that no one has ever defined what victory in A-stan might look like. Bush didn’t do it in 7 years, and you should never start a war if you don’t know what winning it entails. This one probably can’t be won. Obama inherited this mess, McC has been given pretty much free rein.
I’m sure everyone is frustrated. I know I am.
During my 26-year career in the Air Force (I was the public affairs officer at the former Plattsburgh Air Force Base in the late 80s), I witnessed several senior officers (of the colonel and above ranks) get fired for skipping around the chain of command. The military is not a Democracy but is commanded by a civilian, the president. Having aid that, though, it is clear that our country’s wartime messes are largely a creation of the Bush/Cheney team.
Does it matter who created it anymore? Should we bring Bush back and let him fix it? Maybe we should bring Bush 1 back since he sort of started the mess. No, lets get Jimmy Carter since he really gave in and showed we could be walked on.
It doesn’t matter who started it anymore. We need to finish it ASAP and take care of our other problems.