 |  |
 
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 26, 2010 Too Rolling Stoned (two)By Greyhawk
If you're interested in what someone from the staff has to say about events of the past week, (and there's none more qualified to weigh in) there's much more at the link. I'm reminded of what it was like to be in Iraq in 2007 (something I'm increasingly reminded of these days...) living in a tent with 40 other people, working 16+ hour days (sometimes 24+ hour days) sometimes having four hours of sleep interrupted by loud explosions... and occasionally - if I had time to eat in the DFAC - catching a CNN snippet of a sound bite from a politician back home declaring the surge had failed. The things I said in between bites of food in those instances wouldn't surprise anyone - and wouldn't need interpretation. Of course, the war in Afghanistan is different from the war in Iraq. For example, one thing we knew with certainty in those uncertain times was that the big decisions wouldn't be made in the offices of Rolling Stone. Update: Quatto Zone has disappeared (not the first milblog that ever happened to... but I've got to hope that Too Rolling Stoned two doesn't now have a second meaning) so I'll add one more quote from that now-vanished post here: Sometimes you can be too close to something to write about it well, so I'll encourage you to continue reading better pieces about the resignation of General McChrystal from pros who have a good grasp of the basic situation, like David Brooks or the BBC's John Simpson.
Previously: Too Rolling Stoned Moving forward, more important: Last Man Standing Posted by Greyhawk / June 26, 2010 7:26 AM | Permalink 30 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 |
General McChrystal was President Obama's hand-picked man. Now that he's gone, we're going back to General Petraeus, the heroic architect of the Iraq "victory" (in quotes because Obama could still lose it).
I am truly sad that politics has so much influence on the lives of our soldiers. I believe that they could get the job done much more rapidly if the ROE were "win honorably" and the desk-polishers were told to button their lips...
OK. Good point about who makes the descisions.
I took a breath and I think the General is a moron for even letting Rolling Stoned employees any where near his staff. He tossed out better folks such as Michael Totten so now he gets to play in his own slop.
Obama needed to have McChrystal fire and replace those staff pukes that were the most offensive, and Obama should have put a Letter of Reprimand into the permanent file of each of those officers.
But if Obama is going to ask for the resignation of every Army officer that thinks he's a preening, whining, petulant douchebag that hates the military, who's going to be left to fight?
My advice to anyone who is not an elected official is to NEVER speak to the press for any reason whatsoever.
Nothing good can come from it.
They are not there to help you they are there for a byline and will wreck your life to get it if necessary.
It is my experience that MOST reporters are rats when it comes right down to it.
The rule of thumb is this...........If you dont tell people something, they wont know. Simple.
Having been on active duty during the Carter administration, I can recall the comments that were then being made among staff at all levels about the competence of Team Carter, including The Man. It got so bad that at one point I can recall seeing a message reminding everybody that what was being said was a violation of the UCMJ. Still, no one was angry/frustrated/stupid enough to say things to the MSM of the day.
It is my humble opinion that he was hoisted with his own petard. He may or may not have deserved it, but the General apparently thought he was one of them and surely they would treat him fairly. There is a life lesson here for everyone.
As to the staff hanging out with the journalist, well whose brilliant idea was that?
I have no military experience but know a thing or two about media and I am amazed at the naiveté of McChrystal and staff such that they would trust someone from a publication like Rolling Stone. Haven't members of the military seen Avatar? Don't they know that is how a major segment of the American left sees them? Don't they understand that getting dirt on well known people is the main way struggling reporters get notoriety etc. Don't they remember Kevin Sites the cameraman who got the footage at Fallujah of the Marine finishing off a wounded Iraqi he felt might be about to let off a grenade which ended up looped on al Jizz? Why bother to train our guys how to conduct themselves with the enemy if they can't keep the press in their place.
The General could have used a lesson in ROE from the Special Ops community. I once asked the 160th SOAR if they would approve a foreign national to be on their compound for some training. I was told emphatically that there were two groups that were considered persona non grata on their base, foreign nationals and journalists.
Jimbo and Wolf at B5 say their sources lead them to believe that political pressure from on high forced McChrystal's hand in taking on Rolling Stones freelancer.
And that's where it all starts, you may say.
If political pressure forced a four-star combat commander to take on a freelance reporter, then he was in an untenable position anyway. That theory veers into conspiracy nonsense.
I will say that in three embeds no soldier above the rank of 1st Lt. E-V-E-R said something to me against the overall policy of the government, military or the president (including Obama). And I was in a JSS for a month each time. They simply never put themselves in a position to worry what I'd write.
And - they knew that I was former military and I had a track record of by-the-facts reporting. But they still didn't flap their gums like a frustrated E-4.
The idea that staff Majors or Colonels would do this kind of trash-talking - around an RS freelancer with a track record of 'edgy' writing - is baffling at it's level of risk, poor judgment and unproffesionalism.
That theory veers into conspiracy nonsense.
All that matters is the truth. Neither nature, physics, nor wars care about what either side thinks is possible or not.
The idea that staff Majors or Colonels would do this kind of trash-talking
mcChrystal is not a conventional person in terms of choosing his staff. That can be detailed by just what kind of person he uses to take SigInt to find terrorists.
"All that matters is the truth. Neither nature, physics, nor wars care about what either side thinks is possible or not."
Right...but there's no proof that it's true, not even evidence that it might be true, so then you go with common sense, and common sense says that if you've been forced to spend time with a reporter, you will absolutely freeze them out, not give them the ammo that the reporter specifically is trying to get.
It just makes no sense. And, I don't respect anonymous "sources" when reporters use them...I'm def. not going to respect them on a blog.
Hey - evidence can prove me wrong. Can't provide the evidence, then you've provided a fevered conspiracy and not much else.
NS,
Being that you are a reporter, if I read your comment correctly. Have you not noticed in the last couple years that everything being reported from the White House is "anonymous sources" unless it is on camera. All print media seems to only live off "anonymous sources." You may not respect "anonymous sources" but that is virtually the only source the print media quotes regarding Washington politics.
This reporter my have been edgy but wasn't the orders passed down in 2009 that Military can no longer do background check on reporters previous writings. You are not suggesting that the Military should disobey an order are you?
Anonymous sources have been used in DC for a lot longer than the last two years.
The 2003 Iraq War run-up featured nothing BUT anonymous sources commenting and then validating each other's opinion. So I didn't respect them then, and I don't respect them now.
I'm not sure what you mean by "not being allowed to do background checks on reporters."
Any reporter who embeds sends clips of previous work that goes to the potential unit as part of their decision whether or not to accept an embed.
That's just due diligence - not a background check. I mean, you could do a Google search on Michael Hastings and you'll get a lot back.
NS, if you would like to Google current background check of reporters policy, you may want to start here. Hope this helps.
Published: August 31, 2009
Military terminates Rendon contract
ARLINGTON, Va. — The U.S. military is canceling its contract with a controversial private firm that was producing background profiles of journalists seeking to cover the war that graded their past work as “positive,” “negative” or “neutral,” Stars and Stripes has learned.
http://www.stripes.com/news/military-terminates-rendon-contract-1.94400
Dude,
Thanks for that link. It refreshed my memory from when I talked to Stars and Stripes about it last year.
I'll say this again - a reporter sends a packet of clips that goes to the embedding unit as part of the determination on whether the unit accepts an embedded reporter or not.
They don’t then say, “This article stinks. You hate America,” They just say, “Our tempo is too high, and we don’t have time for an embed right now.”
If MCC's staff didn't read Hastings book or magazine articles before accepting him, then they didn't do their job. If they were “forced” to accept him and couldn’t manage to freeze him out, they also didn’t do their job (A squad leader once told his guys – “do NOT talk to the reporter” and guess what, they didn’t talk to me! It’s not hard to just say “yes, sir,” “no, sir,” “because I love America, sir.” So I went out with other groups, and those were the guys who got stories about them in their hometown papers). Staff officers have a basic mission – protect the principal, and they dropped the ball.
I've talked with my own “anonymous sources” within DOD PAO about that whole Rendon situation. PAOs do things the exact same way they did things before they canceled that contract. That kerfluffle changed z-e-r-o about the embed process.
NS, so your saying that the PAO said to you regarding the Rendon contract “Our tempo is too high, and we don’t have time to discuss the imbed policies right now.” ;-) Just joking with you now, and stop using quotes from “anonymous sources” :-) Thanks for your efforts in reporting the news.
Haha...exactly! No, it was more like "Our coffee pot just broke and the donuts are stale, so I don't have time to discuss it right now..." (I was Army PAO so I can say that...haha...)
I respect that you veered off snark; I'll do the same...so this is my long view on embedding as it relates to me vs. Hastings...
First, I had it easier than someone like Hastings. My goal was to write stories about junior soldiers for their hometown newspapers - not profiles of senior leaders. So I wasn't providing 'news' so much as color.
However, the goal was still to be truthful - obviously.
In most/all cases, the average E-4 is perfectly happy to vent all day long (minus the squad I mentioned above). My job is ensure I provide CONTEXT - so if a soldier says "I hate this, this is the stupidest mission in the stupidest country, and every minute I regret enlisting," BUT they say it while on their 18th hour in full gear guarding a MRAP that got stuck in a road that the tow truck can't get down...well, what would you expect them to say?
So in that example, that quote's perfectly fine. It doesn't put the soldier in a bad light, but a human light - if anything, the reader could relate to it so much more because of COURSE he's complaining. And then we appreciate that effort even more.
But if I just quoted that in some random part of the story? Without the explanation of the MRAP? Well, obviously I'm an asshole.
In Hasting's case, what was he supposed to do? They took him out drinking with them! That WAS the context. So should he ignore it? Be one of the guys? He's NOT one of the guys. He's never going to be one of the guys.
I said before that none of the officers I talked with ever made a "mistake" of being disrespectful to higher command. Would I have done anything with it if they had? Not for newspapers probably, because of the context and space issue, but who knows what I'll write in the future. Even then, probably not - but it doesn't matter because they never put themselves in that position.
I go back and forth on finding fault with Hastings. Part of me is like, "come on, they took you out drinking, couldn't you be cool?" But then another part is like, "they took you out drinking? You gotta write that!"
So I dunno. He didn't ask to be in that position - he was put in that position.
I got a couple guys in trouble for quotes and pictures w/unauthorized stuff on their uniforms. I re-embedded with the same unit twice, and saw some of those guys again.
They could then tell me - to my face - what they thought of me and the stuff I wrote. But - they all liked it, and they told me they liked it because it was true; if they got in trouble, they didn't mind, because it was their words and they were telling their own story.
One guy almost got an Article 15 because of a photo (an 'infidel' tab on full display...) - they didn't blame me, they blamed him!
Soldiers (and I was one) appreciate the truth. The one thing I definitley fault Hastings for is not using the names of the guys he talked to...what, MCC can take the fall, but not his staff? If you say it, stand by it.
So I go back and forth. Truth and context is the most important thing to me.
Oh yeah...and one thing I haven't made totally clear...I don't think the Hastings article is even that big a deal. MCC's guys put him in a bad spot, but I don't think this article deserved the response it got.
It's well-written, covers a lot of bases...and there's parts where his staffers flap their gums like fools. But the response is out-of-sync with the contents.
Thanks for your service Sir. And thanks for bringing stories home to family and friends.
Uh, I was an NCO...NOT a "sir." Haha...
mcChrystal was in a situation similar to what Petraeus was in 2006, pre-Surge. It isn't too farfetched to think McChrystal wanted some good PR to get the support of the American people, knowing that politicians will try to sabotage the Surge... again.
The issue of judgment concerning on choosing to give access to Rolling Stones is a legitimate point. But that point diverges into two general scenarios.
Scenario 1. Political pressure from the top forced McChrystal or his staff to make decisions they otherwise would not have.
Scenario 2. Lack of background information on the freelancer mercenary produced gaps in defenses, leaving people to use their individual judgment of the mercenary, which was almost all positive and socially well connected.
No disrespect to civilian or military forces, but most of these people have no idea how to conduct espionage, counter-espionage, disinformation, or any of the other things required to spot spies, turn them, or feed them disinformation.
The military secures themselves through access and strict chains of command, OPSEC, and so forth. But once a person penetrates those outer layers of officialese, it then rests upon the individual's judgment to discern spies from real allies. McChrystal may have had it. But McChrystal wasn't handling PAO, he was handling huge issues dealing with a coming offensive in Afghanistan.
It may seem very tempting to believe that these people running our wars are immune to deception, backstabs, disinformation, or enemy psychological warfare operations, but the truth is, they are as vulnerable as the rest of us. There's no panacea here. Only eternal vigilance. But that ends up being called by the public "paranoia", which isn't very good for PR.
Hey - evidence can prove me wrong. Can't provide the evidence, then you've provided a fevered conspiracy and not much else.
That's probably what McChrystal's staff said when anyone told them not to go for RS and block the mercenary. They asked for evidence, evidence wasn't or couldn't be provided, so they went on classic assumption of innocence. That's how the West is. But that's not how the West's enemies think or operate.
Concerning evidence, take note of the disappearance and removal of the Quad website. Yon's on a power trip, obviously, but he's just the obvious figure. That's another note and indicator. These aren't what is known as "evidence". They are indicators, patterns, dots. There is really never "evidence" in espionage or counter-espionage. What you have are patterns. Patterns that you have to ask yourself, "did somebody want me to see this pattern as being true when it isn't true". And also, "did somebody want to convince me this pattern isn't true, when it is true". And then you have to ask who that "somebody" is. And whether your friend telling you that somebody is Clare really thinks it is Clare or whether he is the one that is the "somebody" covering up his own tracks. Or being ordered by somebody else to cover up the "somebody's" tracks.
This kind of thought process can be classically called "paranoia", but it is the bread and butter of those who wish to analyze patterns. Police investigators use it against suspected suspects, which is almost everybody though they narrow it down a bit.
I don't mean "you" you, cause I know it's not your theroy...
I just got here, and I can't read the article. In fact, according to Google, "quattozone.com" can't be found - not even google cache. What's going on?
Lt. Col. Sholtis's blog and twitter feed are gone. His facebook page is still up. I'm glad I read the article before it disappeared. In fact, I think I saved it. I'll have to look in Finder.
I believe this will take you to the cache, or at least a "save" that someone made earlier in the day.
http://www.scribd.com/full/33602891?access_key=key-763kxkogfti7nw1c8ur
Tokyo Rose Yon says he claiming killing another one of our Military:
Facebook
Michael Yon "Clown Down"
Can imagine a crackling radio call, "Clown Down. We have a Clown Down."
Subsequent my outing Lieutenant Colonel Tadd Sholtis, mouthpiece for General Stanley McChrystal, for running an "unofficial" website, it has been taken down.
The website was used to anonymously make official statements with plausible deniability that they were coming through official channels.
Would kindly suggest that the White House and Pentagon demand that Public Affairs in Kabul provide a copy of that entire website for their review.
"another one" ... doesn't he have to get a first one before he can get another one?
"The website was used to anonymously make official statements with plausible deniability that they were coming through official channels." - That doesn't even make sense. His site wasn't anonymous.
From Tokyo Rose Yon claimed kills
Facebook
Michael (Tokyo Rose) Yon Rear Admiral Gregory Smith
For about the last nine weeks have been saying this guy needs to go out the door with General Stanley McChrystal and Brigadier General Daniel Menard. Both generals are fired. Rear Admiral Gregory Smith is still there.