 |  |
 
October 2012
August 2012 July 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003
     |
 Greetings! You are reading an article from The Mudville Gazette. To reach the front page, with all the latest news and views, click the logo above or "main" below. Thanks for stopping by! June 23, 2010 On the CarpetBy GreyhawkReasonable people can conclude, and many have, that the comments in the article are just not at the level where a dismissal is warranted. Everyone can read them, and no one can point to any line uttered by the general that challenges the president's strategy or undermines confidence in McChrystal's willingness to implement it.Schmedlap sounds angry: Seriously? This is a big deal? I am no McChrystal cheerleader and I consider myself to be a lot more concerned about civil-military relations than most (examples here, here, and here). But this is just a whole lot of nothingAnd he's right, too. He's also offered up this challenge at Small Wars Journal: I've been trying to find a quote - confirmed or alleged - from McChrystal that is insubordinate. If someone can identify it, please post it. Thus far, I've only seen McChrystal quoted as being disappointed with a meeting with the President because he thought the President was unprepared for it. It's as yet unanswered. Having read the article, I don't see an answer. There's irony in the fact that a discussion of how to avoid answering questions on Biden - more to the point, how to avoid a repeat of an event last year where answering a question that didn't even include the word "Biden" led to an epically wrong series of events - has now led to an even more absurd series of events. "Who?" and "bite me" were suggested responses - suggestions made in jest - to reporters, not assaults on the Vice President of the United States. Not much there there, but if you've spent a month with a group of people, need an angle that translates to sales, and your deadline looms - you gotta go with what you got. (And hope others in the business will help - which certainly happened here.) But in a world where perceptions matter, the truth doesn't. And General McChrystal apologized for the article (which he's rumored to have reviewed and approved - though that task may have actually fallen to another...) at the same speed he does for errant rocket attacks in Afghanistan. (How fast is that? Sometimes too fast... but that's another story...) Certainly that apology doesn't aid the General's defenders (or people who notice the actual truth in the matter) in their cause. What's left in the Rolling Stone story to get folks riled up? Nothing in the way of news for anyone tracking the war or the direction of the Department of Defense. One - military folks aren't happy with the performance and behavior of their civilian counterparts (not superiors) in Afghanistan. If you want to measure the accomplishments of the leadership of that group, by virtually any standard it's marginally above dysfunctional. A small detail that really surprised me was that Holbrooke phoned McChrystal (maybe he just sent him a picture of himself on a beach somewhere) - I thought the guy was thoroughly disengaged - but that, too, is another story... Two: lots of folks don't think counterinsurgency is a good idea - the same inside baseball national defense story that's been largely ignored for a year, spiced up with an angle that Rolling Stone (or People or countless other publications) can sell. (Unfortunately, that angle is the part that's not true. Though no doubt "anti-COIN" people are shocked, shocked I tell you, at the constitutional crisis precipitated by this profile.) Those two items are issues of paramount importance to our national defense today, obscured by a sideshow of alleged Biden-bashing, to the detriment of all involved. So, a prediction (really, just a hunch at this point, and the "X" factors in what happens next are Gates and Petraeus...): He's well within his rights to do so (in fact, he doesn't need any excuse whatsoever - this ain't the civil effing service we're discussing here) but unless General McChrystal demands it, the president will not fire his general. But nothing mentioned above will play into that decision. Nothing I've seen written elsewhere, either. And the stated reasons - and the media spin on those reasons - won't address it either. Sorry to throw that spoke in the wheel this late in a post, but that's another story, too - and there are other posts to follow. Some might see the above as a defense of General McChrystal - it's not. Those who understand the nature of the professional warrior should neither attack or defend them reflexively, and generals are critical (which is why we have spares) and replaceable cogs - I've made that point previously. While we await the outcome, here's a post from earlier this month, to help pass the time... Update: McChrystal out - Petraeus in (or down). There's a game-changer... (though not to be confused with a change of direction in Afghanistan). Next: The Done Deal Posted by Greyhawk / June 23, 2010 9:51 AM | Permalink 11 Comments |
November 26, 2010America@war [Greyhawk]
I think anyone who's ever pondered the "comment" option - once only available on blogs and bulletin boards, now ubiquitous on almost any web site - will appreciate this:
The so-called faculty of writing is not so much a faculty of writing as it is a faculty of thinking. When a man says, "I have an idea but I can't express it"; that man hasn't an idea but merely a vague feeling. If a man has a feeling of that kind, and will sit down for a half an hour and persistently try to put into writing what he feels, the probabilities are at least 90 percent that he will either be able to record it, or else realize that he has no idea at all. In either case, he will do himself a benefit. That's wisdom from the past, captured for posterity at the US Naval Institute, shared via the web on the institute's 137th anniversary. From their about page:
"The Naval Institute has three core activities," among them, History and Preservation: The Naval Institute also has recently introduced Americans at War, a living history of Americans at war in their own words and from their own experiences. These 90-second vignettes convey powerful stories of inspiration, pride, and patriotism. Take a look at the collection, and you'll see it's not limited to accounts from those who served on ships at sea, members of the other branches are well-represented. I'm fortunate to have met USNI's Mary Ripley, she's responsible for the institute's oral history program (and she's the daughter of the late John Ripley, whose story is told here). She also deserves much credit for their blog. ("We're not the Navy nor any government agency. Blog and comment freely.") We met at a milblog conference - Mary knew (and I would come to realize) that milbloggers are the 21st-century version of exactly what the US Naval Institute is all about. Once that light bulb came on in my head, I mentioned a vague idea for a project to her - milblogs as the 21st century oral history that they are. "Put that in writing," she said (of course - see first paragraph above!) - and here's part of the result. Shortly after the first tent was pitched by the American military in Iraq a wire was connected to a computer therein, and the internet was available to a generation of Americans at war - many of whom had grown up online. From that point on, at any given moment, somewhere in Iraq a Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine was at a keyboard sharing the events of his or her day with the folks back home. While most would simply fire off an email, others took advantage of the (then) relatively new online blogging platforms to post their thoughts and experiences for the entire world to see. The milblog was born - and from that moment to this stories detailing everything from the most mundane aspects of camp life to intense combat action (often described within hours of the event) have been available on the web... And et cetera - but since you're reading this on a milblog, you probably knew that. And you know that milblogs aren't just blogs written by troops at war, that many friends, family members, and supporters likewise documented their story of America at war online in near-real time, as those stories developed. The diversity in membership of that group is broad, the one thing we all have in common is the impulse to make sense of the seemingly senseless, and communicate the tale - for each of us that impulse was strong enough to overcome whatever barriers prevent the vast majority of people from doing the same. Everyone at some point has some vague idea they believe should be shared - we were the people who, from some combination of internal and external urging, found and spent those many half hours persistently trying to write it down. But where will all that be in another 137 years? Or five or ten, for that matter. That's something I've asked myself since at least 2004 - when I wrote this:
Membership in the ghost battalion has grown in the years since, and an ever growing majority of those abandoned-but-still-standing sites are vanishing. Have you checked out Lt Smash's site lately? How about Sgt Hook's? If you're a long-time milblog reader you know the first widely-read milblog from Operation Iraq Freedom and the first widely-read milblog from Afghanistan are both gone from the web. If you're a relative newcomer to this world you may never even have heard of them - or the dozens upon dozens of others who carried forth the standard they set down. If you have a vague notion that something should be done about that, (a notion I've heard expressed more than once...) then you and I and the good folks at the US Naval Institute are in agreement. Preserving the history documented by the milbloggers is just one of the goals of the milblog project, the once-vague idea that we're now making real. And it's a big idea, if I say so myself - too big to explain in one simple blog post, so stand by for more. Likewise, it's too big a task to be accomplished by just one person. So if you're a milblogger (and exactly what is a milblogger? is a topic for much further discussion on its own) I'm asking for your help. All I'll really need is just a little bit (maybe just one or two of those half hours...) of your time, and your willingness to tell the tale. We've already made history, it's time to save it. (More to follow...) Posted 4:02 PM | Permalink |
Comments (0) |
|
The Mudville Gazette is the on-line voice of an American warrior and his wife who stands by him. They prefer to see peaceful change render force of arms unnecessary. Until that day they stand fast with those who struggle for freedom, strike for reason, and pray for a better tomorrow.
 
 
 Furthermore, I will occasionally use satire or parody herein. The bottom line: it's my house. I like having visitors to my house. I hope you are entertained. I fight for your right to free speech, and am thrilled when you exercise said rights here. Comments and e-mails are welcome, but all such communication is to be assumed to be 1)the original work of any who initiate said communication and 2)the property of the Mudville Gazette, with free use granted thereto for publication in electronic or written form. If you do NOT wish to have your message posted, write "CONFIDENTIAL" in the subject line of your email. Original content copyright © 2003 - 2011 by Greyhawk. Fair, not-for-profit use of said material by others is encouraged, as long as acknowledgement and credit is given, to include the url of the original source post. Other arrangements can be made as needed. Contact: greyhawk at mudvillegazette dot com  Tending Distant Far from hearth and home, watching What tales we'll tell When things grim Some distant sunset, vision fading Saluting fallen friends whose names - Greyhawk, Baghdad, December 2004 |
It's baffling how anyone could read the article as anything other than starkly insubordinate. There are certainly gray areas when it comes to insubordination, but not here.
Not only did Gen. McChrystal have to go, but it's hard for me to believe that someone with his intelligence and experience didn't know exactly what he was doing when he granted Rolling Stone the access he did, and said what he said.
The real questions are what McChrystal wanted to accomplish, and what his next move will be.
"It's baffling how anyone could read the article as anything other than starkly insubordinate. There are certainly gray areas when it comes to insubordination, but not here."
Where? I mean that as Schmedlap did. Actual quotes (or actions) required.
I can accept that the President wanted to replace McChrystal. It's his prerogative. In my opinion he doesn't need to make a case for it at all ("I don't like the direction things are going" is certainly good enough - he's the CinC.) I'm not challenging that point. Civilian control of the military is paramount, etc.
But the insubordinate piece is something I've only seen in descriptions of the RS article.
If someone were going to court-martial Gen. McChrystal over all this, then the close analysis would be worthwhile. But in this situation, in the real world, I think it's clear to any reasonable observer who was behind it. McChrystal is responsible in the age-old military sense, and that's enough for me.
I suppose I could pick through the article and try to argue point by point with you, but I think it's beside the point. There are times when anyone's bullshit detector is enough, and I think this is one of those times.
This was so egregious and basic that I will always wonder why McChrystal effectively chose to bail out of Afghanistan. This isn't as if he stepped on some political trap door. No reasonable observer could believe that he was somehow surprised or sandbagged here.
"I suppose I could pick through the article and try to argue point by point with you..."
No, no one could. There's nothing there. I've seen the same question unanswered all over the web. I know the general tone of the piece, and that of the reports about the piece that came out before it did, were fairly damning - but that's an easy trick for a writer or editor to pull off. Happens all the time.
But I'm not defending a guy who's already apologized for whatever he apologized for, just noting the absurdity.
I should add I agree with this: "it's hard for me to believe that someone with his intelligence and experience didn't know exactly what he was doing when he granted Rolling Stone the access he did, and said what he said.
"The real questions are what McChrystal wanted to accomplish, and what his next move will be."
I believe his next move will be to quietly fade away for a while. Folks who expect something dramatic in the form of attacks - or even comments (not saying that's you) are in for major disappointments.
The story couldn't have been done without Gen. McChrystal's close cooperation, and it was defamatory toward the president and other senior officials. By virtue of his leadership position, and the quote about VP Biden, McChrystal is responsible. It's "accountability," a core military value.
As for his motive, maybe it's as simple as going out with a splash, so he can cash in later with a book that will purport to tell even more. It's the way people act these days, apparently even in the military's upper reaches. Sad.
The story couldn't have been done without Gen. McChrystal's close cooperation
Says who, you? Based upon what evidence, the same believe it on faith shell game you were floating on before.
This is a total lack of imagination on how reporters get dirt on people.
Evidence? Well, Gen. McChrystal was quoted in the article; he never publicly denied making statements attributed to him, and in fact apologized for his conduct; one of his aides resigned.
I can't see how any reasonable person can conclude anything other than that McChrystal cooperated closely with Rolling Stone. He didn't tell anyone, literally, "I cooperated closely with Rolling Stone," but it's obvious that he did so.
Gen. McChrystal isn't responsible for what Rolling Stone wrote. He is responsible for what he told them, and for what his subordinates told them. It's quite obvious that both McChrystal and his aides broke crystal clear rules governing subordination within the chain of command.
"McChrystal was quoted in the article..."
He was indeed - but in no way insubordinate. You've got a great advantage here, J - no one can "prove" a negative, all you've got to do is produce one of these actual quotes you keep referring to. (I've already used the Biden example in its actual context in another post, so that one's out.)
We're at an impasse, so I'm just going to have to shake my head and walk away. Amazing.
Impasse? Heck, I'm trying to help you.
I'll do even more - for you or future passers-by, here's the article.