WaPo: Gen. Stanley McChrystal coming to Washington to explain anti-administration comments

[Fergasun]

Redskins Diehard,

I disagree, for the specific reasons I posted quite a bit back. I'll now go into further rationale behind why talking smack about Eikenberry and Biden is directly an affront to the President.

As I mentioned before, the President is in charge of the whole Executive Branch. To put it bluntly, everyone in their position is there because the President wants them to be in that position. When it comes to comments from the White House, I am highly skeptical of a claim that things said by Biden, even though they may be a "trial balloon" are his independent words). Even though I like the fact that Biden goes off half-**** sometimes, when he spoke about a different plan, I have no doubt that Biden's plan in part also was some trial balloon at the behest of Obama. For instance, if it was "Obama's plan" it would look foolish to have the commander-in-chief commit to something without getting military advice, or taking the military position into consideration. Hence, someone like Biden or Clinton could advocate different plans, which Obama buys into. I have to believe democrats would rather implement Biden's plan.

So, when Obama takes control of the war, he not only takes control of the military, but also the other parts of his branch, such as Holbrooke and Eikenberry. I saw some speculation that Holbrooke and Eikenberry might also be on the way out, I doubt this very much. Holbrooke and Eikenberry are more in line with what Obama wants to do. I very much doubt there will be a surge in 2011, and I doubt the overall strategy is going to change. The see the military guys express optimism and hope that the strategy will change is completely undermining what Obama is trying to do, because it looks like they don't buy into the 2011 withdrawal, even though civilian leadership is completely for it.

[twa]

That is an interesting over/under. Special Ops guys...especially of his stature...tend to keep a pretty low profile. I can only think of 2 books by internal guys..."Dalton Fury" and the Eric Haney book. And you don't see many JSOC guys showing up as "military analysts" on cable news.

I would probably take the over.

You might very well be right...he does not seem the type

Interesting (even if immaterial )charges that the comments were supposedly off the record and the pre-screening of the article was not the article written.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/25/AR2010062504087.html

, officials close to McChrystal began trying to salvage his reputation by asserting that the author, Michael Hastings, quoted the general and his staff in conversations that he was allowed to witness but not report. The officials also challenged a statement by Rolling Stone's executive editor that the magazine had thoroughly reviewed the story with McChrystal's staff ahead of publication.

Rolling Stone executive editor Eric Bates denied that Hastings violated any ground rules when he wrote about the four weeks he spent, on and off, with McChrystal and his team. "A lot of things were said off the record that we didn't use," Bates said in an interview. "We abided by all the ground rules in every instance."

A senior military official insisted that "many of the sessions were off-the-record and intended to give [Hastings] a sense" of how the team operated. The command's own review of events, said the official, who was unwilling to speak on the record, found "no evidence to suggest" that any of the "salacious political quotes" in the article were made in situations where ground rules permitted Hastings to use the material in his story.

...

Sholtis said that "arguing about the merits of the article would have seemed like we were trying to protect or excuse ourselves rather than acknowledge our mistake. That may have not been the best PR strategy, but it wasn't the approach consistent with the character of General McChrystal."

Officials also questioned Rolling Stone's fact-checking process, as described by Bates in an interview this week with Politico. "We ran everything by them in a fact-checking process as we always do," Bates said. "They had a sense of what was coming and it was all on the record and they spent a lot of time with our reporter, so I think they knew that they had said it."

In an interview Friday, managing editor Will Dana said that the reporter's notes and factual matters were exhaustively reviewed.

But 30 questions that a Rolling Stone fact-checker posed in a memo e-mailed last week to then-McChrystal media adviser Duncan Boothby contained no hint of what became of the controversial portions of the story. Boothby resigned Tuesday.

much more at the link

[jnhay]

over/under on the McChrystal book and 60 minutes appearance?

I say 6 months from today

Over, unless he's totally out now.

Is anyone else a little annoyed that this big story came from Rolling Stone? I've always disliked the idea of reading music reviews.

[Redskins Diehard]

Redskins Diehard,

I disagree, for the specific reasons I posted quite a bit back. I'll now go into further rationale behind why talking smack about Eikenberry and Biden is directly an affront to the President.

As I mentioned before, the President is in charge of the whole Executive Branch. To put it bluntly, everyone in their position is there because the President wants them to be in that position. When it comes to comments from the White House, I am highly skeptical of a claim that things said by Biden, even though they may be a "trial balloon" are his independent words). Even though I like the fact that Biden goes off half-**** sometimes, when he spoke about a different plan, I have no doubt that Biden's plan in part also was some trial balloon at the behest of Obama. For instance, if it was "Obama's plan" it would look foolish to have the commander-in-chief commit to something without getting military advice, or taking the military position into consideration. Hence, someone like Biden or Clinton could advocate different plans, which Obama buys into. I have to believe democrats would rather implement Biden's plan.

So, when Obama takes control of the war, he not only takes control of the military, but also the other parts of his branch, such as Holbrooke and Eikenberry. I saw some speculation that Holbrooke and Eikenberry might also be on the way out, I doubt this very much. Holbrooke and Eikenberry are more in line with what Obama wants to do. I very much doubt there will be a surge in 2011, and I doubt the overall strategy is going to change. The see the military guys express optimism and hope that the strategy will change is completely undermining what Obama is trying to do, because it looks like they don't buy into the 2011 withdrawal, even though civilian leadership is completely for it.

McChrystal is every bit as much of a part of the executive branch as Eikenberry and Holbrooke. Biden's position from as far back as the campaign for the nomination has been different than Obama's. They are not the same and to think that Biden's words are actually Obama's words is incorrect in my opinion. Obama's position has pretty much been the same since he first came on the candidate scene. More than one person on this board has made the claim that "Obama has promised the Afghan surge...and that is what we are getting" Obama and Biden have a difference of opinion and that is fine.

You are right...Obama holds everything. Military and "civilian". But the Ambo to a country is not the civilian leadership of the military. Civilian leadership of the military is actually pretty simple...President, Secretary of Defense. That is it. Civilian control of the military does not apply to every other member of the government that is not a part of the DoD.

[mardi gras skin]

Interesting (even if immaterial )charges that the comments were supposedly off the record and the pre-screening of the article was not the article written.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/25/AR2010062504087.html

This is the section of the Post article I find most problamatic for Rolling Stones.

"Does McChrystal's staff joking refer to themselves as Team America?" the fact-checker asked. "Not really," Boothby replied. "We joke that we are sometimes perceived that way by many of the NATO forces" under McChrystal's command.

In the article, Hastings wrote that McChrystal and his aides "jokingly refer to themselves as Team America, taking the name from the South Park-esque sendup of military cluelessness, and they pride themselves on their can-do attitude and their disdain for authority." In other passages, Hastings took what appear to be similar minor liberties with the facts as Boothby described them.

In the last question, the fact-checker asked: "Did Gen. McChrystal vote for President Obama? (The reporter tells me that this info originates from McChrystal himself.)"

Boothby replied in all capitals. "IMPORTANT -- PLEASE DO NOT INCLUDE THIS -- THIS IS PERSONAL AND PRIVATE INFORMATION AND UNRELATED TO HIS JOB. IT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE TO SHARE." He went on to describe the "strict rules" under which military personnel keep their political views to themselves.

In the article, Hastings reported that the general "had voted for Obama."

Sounds like the reporter played very lose with the facts. Rolling Stones got good press with this one but I bet they have crippled their ability to get access in the future.

[Redskins Diehard]

This is the section of the Post article I find most problamatic for Rolling Stones.

Sounds like the reporter played very lose with the facts. Rolling Stones got good press with this one but I bet they have crippled their ability to get access in the future.

I doubt it is problematic for Rolling Stone at all. I have a feeling that a lot of the people that are going to buy their magazine now, and in the future, aren't too concerned about that.

When I initially saw the headline and read the Post thread I was a little shocked and a LOT disappointed that McChrystal would say the things that were attributed to him. Not necessarily that he believed them...but that he would share those beliefs with the press. Then it became clear that most of the quotes in the article were off the cuff informal comments that the reporter heard because he was around. The "Biden, who is that?" comment is embarrassing but I would hope that the VP understands it. A simple apology would be necessary and should "fix" that. The comments about the French dinner being "gay" would require an apology to the gay community. The issues between Holbrooke and Eikenberry don't require an apology at all. They do require the President to make an assessment of whether or not his team is capable of functioning in a unified front. Militarily and diplomatically. I was impressed by Obama's speech regarding this issue because that is what it focused on.

As far as the magazine violating "ground rules" or not...I really don't think they care. They just became VERY relevant in the Afghan war. They will have access in the future just like any other accredited news organization. Hopefully our service members will be a little more guarded about what their journalists hear and don't hear.

[Special K]

Sounds like the reporter played very lose with the facts. Rolling Stones got good press with this one but I bet they have crippled their ability to get access in the future.

Yeah, this is what I'm also getting from these follow-up reports. One report I heard was that many of these comments were made at a celebration in Paris for McChrystal and his wife's 33rd wedding anniversary. Supposedly it was made extremely clear that this reporter was allowed to stay, but everything said was strictly off the record.

Also, I heard that the story given McChrystal's staff to review prior to publication was different from the story that was ultimately published.

I think I believe both of these accounts as I can't imagine:

1) Some of these comments said with expectations that it would be public and

2) McChrystal's staff would review this story as it was published and sign off on it.

[Special K]

I doubt it is problematic for Rolling Stone at all. I have a feeling that a lot of the people that are going to buy their magazine now, and in the future, aren't too concerned about that.

I actually disagree. While in the short term, I think a lot of people will buy this issue of the magazine, I think Rolling Stone have screwed not only themselves, but other reporters in general in regards to getting access to certain people, particularly military people.

I was talking to one of my coworkers at the office the other day who's husband is in Afghanistan right now and she said the military has already grown increasingly distrustful of reporters, I highly doubt this fiasco is going to help that situation at all.

[Redskins Diehard]

I actually disagree. While in the short term, I think a lot of people will buy this issue of the magazine, I think Rolling Stone have screwed not only themselves, but other reporters in general in regards to getting access to certain people, particularly military people.

I was talking to one of my coworkers at the office the other day who's husband is in Afghanistan right now and she said the military has already grown increasingly distrustful of reporters, I highly doubt this fiasco is going to help that situation at all.

In 2002 when I went to Afghanistan we were distrustful of reporters. In fact there was an article similar to this one published in Rolling Stone at the time. One of the things that surprised me so much throughout this incident is not what was said. Not at all. But the fact that they said it with this guy around. On or off the record. The military is not going to shut out journalists and embeds...they can't. They can't censor what the journalist is going to write except for security purposes. Will a journalist ever have access again? Yes. Will a journalist have full time access for 2 weeks? Probably not. Probably never should have in the first place.

[Special K]

In 2002 when I went to Afghanistan we were distrustful of reporters. In fact there was an article similar to this one published in Rolling Stone at the time. One of the things that surprised me so much throughout this incident is not what was said. Not at all. But the fact that they said it with this guy around. On or off the record. The military is not going to shut out journalists and embeds...they can't. They can't censor what the journalist is going to write except for security purposes. Will a journalist ever have access again? Yes. Will a journalist have full time access for 2 weeks? Probably not. Probably never should have in the first place.

Just curious (seriously), what article was published in Rolling Stone in 2002 that was similar to this? I don't remember. It surely was not of this magnitude, however.

I also understand the military can't kick out embedded reporters. I think this incident solidified the fact that they sure as crap aren't going to be giving them full access like McChrystal's camp did ever again.

I still don't get why they were saying that stuff around a reporter, drunk or not, off the record or not. You would think at that level they would be smart enough to know not to say crap like that around any reporter, no matter what the circumstances. Unless the reporter's Burgy. I'd trust him.

[JimboDaMan]

Just curious (seriously), what article was published in Rolling Stone in 2002 that was similar to this? I don't remember. It surely was not of this magnitude, however.

I also understand the military can't kick out embedded reporters. I think this incident solidified the fact that they sure as crap aren't going to be giving them full access like McChrystal's camp did ever again.

I still don't get why they were saying that stuff around a reporter, drunk or not, off the record or not. You would think at that level they would be smart enough to know not to say crap like that around any reporter, no matter what the circumstances. Unless the reporter's Burgy. I'd trust him.

Absolutely agree. My wife will tell you, one of the things I bore her to tears with is how idiotic it is when somebody says, "Listen, don't tell anybody but...". If you don't want people to know something THEN DON'T TELL THEM. I can't imagine saying or doing anything in front of a reporter - somebody who's job it is to tell about what they hear and see - and expect them not to use that information somehow.

[Redskins Diehard]

Just curious (seriously), what article was published in Rolling Stone in 2002 that was similar to this? I don't remember. It surely was not of this magnitude, however.

I also understand the military can't kick out embedded reporters. I think this incident solidified the fact that they sure as crap aren't going to be giving them full access like McChrystal's camp did ever again.

I still don't get why they were saying that stuff around a reporter, drunk or not, off the record or not. You would think at that level they would be smart enough to know not to say crap like that around any reporter, no matter what the circumstances. Unless the reporter's Burgy. I'd trust him.

I don't remember the title of the article. But it was by an embed with the 101st that was there at the time. Basically painted the whole operation like a real life version of the movie Platoon. Drinking, *******, disrespect for the Afghani people, etc.

I wouldn't trust any reporter....and was skeptical of civilians as a whole. It is a tough culture to understand and I think it would take a special person to "get it" after a week or 2. But the embed are also a valuable tool for the military. It gives them a chance to tell their story. To put a touch of humanity on the whole ordeal. So much of our population is insulated not only from the sacrifice but from the military as a whole. Think about the movie "Blackhawk Down" and the human side of conflict that was portrayed. Or "We were soldiers once". Embed are the way to tell those stories as they are unfolding. The danger is forgetting that while you are using them for that they are ultimately not there for that. In fact many aren't even there to report on the whole situation. They are there to write stories that will sell publications. My Battalion Commander forced every reporter that wanted to do a story on our battalion to listen to a briefing about the humanitarian efforts that we were undertaking. Almost all listened, most of them were respectful and interested, none mentioned it in their articles.

[Special K]

I wouldn't trust any reporter....and was skeptical of civilians as a whole. It is a tough culture to understand and I think it would take a special person to "get it" after a week or 2. But the embed are also a valuable tool for the military. It gives them a chance to tell their story. To put a touch of humanity on the whole ordeal. So much of our population is insulated not only from the sacrifice but from the military as a whole. Think about the movie "Blackhawk Down" and the human side of conflict that was portrayed. Or "We were soldiers once". Embed are the way to tell those stories as they are unfolding. The danger is forgetting that while you are using them for that they are ultimately not there for that. In fact many aren't even there to report on the whole situation. They are there to write stories that will sell publications. My Battalion Commander forced every reporter that wanted to do a story on our battalion to listen to a briefing about the humanitarian efforts that we were undertaking. Almost all listened, most of them were respectful and interested, none mentioned it in their articles.

That's interesting. That's almost exactly what my coworker said her husband says.

He says no one really trusts the reporters over there, but it's really sad and upsetting because the reporters have the ability to tell the Americans, and the world, the story of what's happening over there, but so much of the time they aren't giving that full story or are taking crap out of context (doesn't surprise me with today's media). So military is distrustful of them.

[Burgold]

And I'd imagine the distrust is part of why they are not worthy of trust.

Mind you, there are probably a bunch o'reporters who go over there to earn their name and try to get famous and so are more willing to be controversial or go for a gotcha. I do hate gotcha journalism, but I also hate the avoidance games too. I think each feeds on the other.

[Redskins Diehard]

And I'd imagine the distrust is part of why they are not worthy of trust.

Mind you, there are probably a bunch o'reporters who go over there to earn their name and try to get famous and so are more willing to be controversial or go for a gotcha. I do hate gotcha journalism, but I also hate the avoidance games too. I think each feeds on the other.

No, the problem is it takes one journalist to bring down the commanding general of all forces in Afghanistan. A man that worked 34 years to get to the position he was in and was completely undone by one reporter in 2 weeks. The distrust is because I can hang out and talk to 100 reporters without a problem and then come across the 101st that is there to make a name for himself. I suspect that the journalist that penned this article did not take into account the impact it would have one the thousands of service members in the midst of the fight and the overall effectiveness of the mission. The stakes are too high to just trust someone that has the power of the pen and press on their side.

[Burgold]

I think there's truth in that and probably a bunch of truth in that. I'd also say that when I've done political pieces (and I've done very few, maybe 3) it's amazing the amount of double talk and bs you receive from politicians. They really do speak nonsense at you like you are a total idiot that will buy anything. It's so bad that when you get a moment of truth (inside of an interview) it's like finding water in a desert.

Now, I also have something I consider a strength and weakness as a reporter which is that I feel a tremendous amount of responsibility to my subject. Truth comes first, but a close second is making sure I do right by the people and story I'm covering. I also because of my background in psych have a tremendous respect for confidentiality.

On the other hand, there's also a subset of reporters who want glory, fame, and vanity is a bigger thing to them then getting the story right or being fair to its participants. I think these guys are wrong, but I guess it's also part of why I chose NPR and not cable news... or even network.

So, I understand some need to be on guard or even en guard around reporters. Now, I've never covered a war zone and that's got to be a very different thing, both on the rules imposed on the reporter and the pressure to deliver. Still, if you're given a ton of pablum or bs it's hard to ignore something genuine. It's like when a President slips and says something authentic or real. Half the people will like it and the other half will worry that a President shouldn't be allowed to feel or express such things.

I will say that from what I understand when there was a better relationship with the press and government or the military these stories were rarer and we got better stories. Think of how many Presidential affairs were widely known about but never devulged in the press. The fact that the press is treated like the enemy sometimes makes them the enemy.

[JimboDaMan]

No, the problem is it takes one journalist to bring down the commanding general of all forces in Afghanistan. A man that worked 34 years to get to the position he was in and was completely undone by one reporter in 2 weeks. The distrust is because I can hang out and talk to 100 reporters without a problem and then come across the 101st that is there to make a name for himself. I suspect that the journalist that penned this article did not take into account the impact it would have one the thousands of service members in the midst of the fight and the overall effectiveness of the mission. The stakes are too high to just trust someone that has the power of the pen and press on their side.

That man was taken down by his own actions, not by the reporter.

Keep in mind, even if nobody had reported this, the culture within the general's staff seemed to be that everyone non-military was an idiot. Not just in general terms, but specific people were "clowns", etc. The counterinsurgency strategy involves a kind of "holistic" military-political-economic-social effort that requires coordination between different groups with different mindsets. Not easy to work effectively with a team when you are openly mocking the other members.

[Fergasun]

Redskins Diehard,

Things don't clear the White House unless the White House allows it to go out. Biden's comments were approved by folks in the White House, whether Obama was aware of it or simply his "policy advisers" screened it, or not the folks in the White House wanted to give the impression that they were seriously considering other options outside of the surge. This could be for purely political reasons, however in so far as Obama is in control of the White House even more than the Executive Branch.

I guess it's kind've conflating to say Obama vs. "democrats".

To put it broadly. Democrats have been elected to the White House. Democrats will rule the White House and Executive Branch in the manner they believe most beneficial to Democrats, and the way Democrats should run it. They will place Democrats in key positions and enact Democratic policy, even Democratic military policy. When the military command speaks about Democrats in such a way it raises doubts among Democrats whether the military will follow Democratic policy.

I understand Gates is a Republican hold-over, but he seems to understand the politics involved. If McCrystal really had his doubts and concerns I think the proper place to deal with them was internally with Gates and Petraeus. I don't know if McCrystal is politically deaf or simply tired of dealing with having his hands tied. I don't know if Petraeus had a hand in the article either.

Regardless, if you are in the military and complain about the party in the White House, and their policies, and show them disrespect openly to the American public, you're gone and rightly so.

What's funny is to see the Republicans attempt to spin this and say that Eikenberry and Jones need to go, and that getting rid of McCrystal only solved "half the solution". No way will that happen.

[twa]

That man was taken down by his own actions, not by the reporter.

Keep in mind, even if nobody had reported this, the culture within the general's staff seemed to be that everyone non-military was an idiot. Not just in general terms, but specific people were "clowns", etc. The counterinsurgency strategy involves a kind of "holistic" military-political-economic-social effort that requires coordination between different groups with different mindsets. Not easy to work effectively with a team when you are openly mocking the other members.

So he would have been forced out w/o this story being published?...Puleeze:pfft:

It appears he thinks just certain people are(if you read the piece) idiots.

Whoever allowed a embed access like that w/o complete control over what is printed is a fool.(and I don't think it is McChrystal)

[Burgold]

So he would have been forced out w/o this story being published?...Puleeze:pfft:

Well, if he showed a certain amount of disdain or noncooperation because of his belief in civilian idiocy... sure. Eventually.

[twa]

Well, if he showed a certain amount of disdain or noncooperation because of his belief in civilian idiocy... sure. Eventually.

Civilian idiocy or just certain idiocy from both civilians and military?

Confusing the two is a mistake and a unfair accusation imo...he did not get to where he was by being ambiguous.(and most good leaders don't)

Personally I'm kinda glad he is gone if it will result in looser ROE(as is rumored),a area I think he went too far in.(or allowed to)

[Redskins Diehard]

Redskins Diehard,

Things don't clear the White House unless the White House allows it to go out. Biden's comments were approved by folks in the White House, whether Obama was aware of it or simply his "policy advisers" screened it, or not the folks in the White House wanted to give the impression that they were seriously considering other options outside of the surge. This could be for purely political reasons, however in so far as Obama is in control of the White House even more than the Executive Branch.

I guess it's kind've conflating to say Obama vs. "democrats".

To put it broadly. Democrats have been elected to the White House. Democrats will rule the White House and Executive Branch in the manner they believe most beneficial to Democrats, and the way Democrats should run it. They will place Democrats in key positions and enact Democratic policy, even Democratic military policy. When the military command speaks about Democrats in such a way it raises doubts among Democrats whether the military will follow Democratic policy.

I understand Gates is a Republican hold-over, but he seems to understand the politics involved. If McCrystal really had his doubts and concerns I think the proper place to deal with them was internally with Gates and Petraeus. I don't know if McCrystal is politically deaf or simply tired of dealing with having his hands tied. I don't know if Petraeus had a hand in the article either.

Regardless, if you are in the military and complain about the party in the White House, and their policies, and show them disrespect openly to the American public, you're gone and rightly so.

What's funny is to see the Republicans attempt to spin this and say that Eikenberry and Jones need to go, and that getting rid of McCrystal only solved "half the solution". No way will that happen.

Are you saying that Candidate Obama had to approve of Candidate Biden's position on the Afghan war?

It might be funny what Republicans are doing...it is sad if Democrats think that Obama replaced McChrystal = problems solved. As has been pointed out, turning the tide in Iraq was not only the work of Petraeus. It was coordination between both Petraeus and the diplomatic leadership in Baghdad. While McChrystal's comments regarding Eikenberry and Holbrooke were not conducive to a cohesive team environment they should not be ignored by the White House.

Try to step out of the Republican v Democrat viewpoint every now and then...you might see something new.

[JimboDaMan]

So he would have been forced out w/o this story being published?...Puleeze:pfft:

It appears he thinks just certain people are(if you read the piece) idiots.

Whoever allowed a embed access like that w/o complete control over what is printed is a fool.(and I don't think it is McChrystal)

So he would have been forced out w/o running his big mouth? Puleeze.

You seem to be confused about that whole cause-and-effect thing.

[NavyDave]

the culture within the general's staff seemed to be that everyone non-military was an idiot. Not just in general terms, but specific people were "clowns", etc.

If by non military you mean civillian leadership, then yeah in a lot of cases I can see why they believe that. How long did it take for them to get a percentage of the manpower they requested?

A lot longer than the fast tracking a social issue into the military, catering to vocal voting demographic in the Democratic party.

What genius would tell the enemy their exit date?

Can you honestly say they have behaved Presidential and Vice Presidential or does it sound like they are campaigning for 2012 already?

[twa]

So he would have been forced out w/o running his big mouth? Puleeze.

You seem to be confused about that whole cause-and-effect thing.

No,I think you are.....his comments,nor those of his staff,would have given rise to his dismissal w/o being MADE national news...which left O no other option.

Private disagreement or mockery is tolerable