UPDATE: The Rolling Stone article that started this firestorm has been released by Rolling Stone. Tell us what you think of this after you read it.
This morning’s news has been full of reactions and some deconstructions of the upcoming Rolling Stone article that profiles the top U.S. Commander in Afghanistan, but apparently ends up dissing President Obama, VP Biden, the WH National Security Team and the State Department along the way. I haven’t been able to find the article to read (there was a pdf at Politico that I can’t find), but what I do read makes me wonder what the General was thinking wen he agreed to this. Apparently much of the worst of the commentary is attributed to the General’s aides with various adolescent jibes at Obama Admin officials. Add into this the fact that these geniuses having on about people in the Administration actually won the argument over how to prosecute the war — in spite of the herculean effort by Ambassador Eikenberry to demonstrate that this approach would not work.
The General has been summoned to the White House for tomorrow’s monthly Afghanistan meeting and the General’s PR guy (a civilian!) has already resigned. The General has apologized for the lapse in judgment.
So until there is a real article to read and judge on my own, a couple of things to keep in mind:
1. When the military is given a job — especially one in their core competency — they always push for more. More force, more troops, more resources, more mission. This is axiomatic and this is the long-term problem with deploying the military for anything. They are experts at the bureaucratic game of justifying their existence. Helped, of course, by a public that doesn’t get especially critical of military missions until they are tired of seeing it on TV. So complaints that the military wanted more of this or that aren’t especially new. Well placed in the media and Congress, though, such complaints can get you what you want.
2. The wingnuterati (and their lazy acolytes) will be working hard at spinning this as some kind of commentary on how the military views President Obama. Don’t buy it. In the main, you will be listening to alot of people who have no military service themselves (and certainly not at the senior levels where these views may have some weight). The only servicepeople who could comment on it are no longer employed by the DOD and are largely mouthpieces for political types. The media,of course, will latch on to such narratives because that is what they do — narratives.
3. More of the wingnuterati will have their panties in a twist because Obama is not listening to his commanders on the ground. Do remember that General McChrystal works for his Commander-In-Chief, not the other way around. Good bosses of all kinds work to consult with their subordinates about paths forward, but at the end of the day one person decides. And there is nothing about the structure of the Constitution that allows for McChrystal to dictate anything to a civilian.
4. This looks like a remarkable failure in self promotion from an organization that has that skill set down pat. And McChrystal often looks like he is trying for the kind of press that Petraeus and his boys get.
5. McChrystal’s strategy is looking like it is failing, yes?
Use this thread to talk about what you hear about these events. When the article is widely available, we’ll link to it.