Obama Changes Generals

[The High Heat]

Obama & McChrystal met today over their disagreements, subsequently the War in Afghanistan will have a new leader.

[Good Old Neon]

This just in from where our forces are fighting on the planet Earth, the year 2750 – the War in Afghanistan will have a new leader

[jff]

This just in from where our forces are fighting on the planet Earth, the year 2750 – the War in Afghanistan will have a new leader

 

Based on the shine on that future general, it's safe to say we'll still have easy access to oil in 2750.

[LouieB]

The moral of the story....

 

Don't hang out and get loaded with a reporter from Rolling Stone...

 

LouieB

[Moss]

Rolling Stone has seriously had some of the best journalism around in the last year. Taibbi's financial analysis, Tim Dickinson's stuff, the article in mention above.

[uncool2pillow]

Rolling Stone has seriously had some of the best journalism around in the last year. Taibbi's financial analysis, Tim Dickinson's stuff, the article in mention above.

Taibbi's piece on Palin in 2008 was brilliant.

[Sweet Papa Crimbo]

That's nice. Fire a general who's master plan we are implementing because you're mad.

 

So much for speaking truth to power.

 

America's not at war. The Marine Corps is at war. America is at the mall.

[tugmoose]

Q: What do General Patton and Pee Wee Herman have in common?

 

A: Both got in trouble for slapping their privates.

[MattZ]

So much for speaking truth to power.

 

Since when is making catty and childish comments to a magazine reporter half way around the world speaking truth to power? Do you think the General and his team had the cahones to say any of these things to Obama himself? They were just moronic tough guys trying to impress a reporter. Pretending that this "speaking truth to power" is laughable. This is/was cowardice.

[caliber66]

That's nice. Fire a general who's master plan we are implementing because you're mad.

 

So much for speaking truth to power.

 

America's not at war. The Marine Corps is at war. America is at the mall.

What would have been the acceptable way to discipline a general who publicly insults the President and Vice President - never mind participating in insubordination with his staff in the presence of a reporter?

[Good Old Neon]

 

 

America's not at war. The Marine Corps is at war. America is at the mall.

 

I haven’t been to the mall in years and years, for many reasons, most of them having to do with not liking people all that much (and the fact that most no longer play host to an arcade), especially in such large concentrations. When I shop, I do it online (where there are lots of games).

[Guest Speed Racer]

That's nice. Fire a general who's master plan we are implementing because you're mad.

 

Are you saying you wouldn't be mad if one of your subordinates was behaving that way? Emotions are so far beyond the point at this juncture that it's ridiculous to bring them up. If you behaved that way you'd be fired in a second, no?

 

His behavior was classless, unprofessional and completely lacking in judgment. And you really want him managing anything more than his daily meals? That's an exaggeration, to be sure, but now's a good time to employ him in a capacity that doesn't involve wars, cameras or tact.

 

America's not at war. The Marine Corps is at war. America is at the mall.

 

[isadorah]

the president is the commander in chief and when it comes to the military there is a big pecking order, code of conduct, and protocol one has to follow. if a sergeant did the same thing re: a general, he would have had some serious answering to do.

 

i don't know if i agree with the firing, but i don't really know enough about the whole story to be too terribly opinionated about it.

[Guest Speed Racer]

Like so many decisions, this one was no-win for Obama to an extent. He either keeps him and looks like a weak commander in chief to some, or fires him and looks like an emotional commander in chief to others.

[caliber66]

Like so many decisions, this one was no-win for Obama to an extent. He either keeps him and looks like a weak commander in chief to some, or fires him and looks like an emotional commander in chief to others.

Actually, in this case, I think both sides are made up of a lot of the same people.

[Guest Speed Racer]

True enough. Very no-win.

[Beltmann]

Actually, in this case, I think both sides are made up of a lot of the same people.

My grandmother, for one.

[LouieB]

Actually he should be court marshalled....

 

LouieB

[Sir Stewart]

i don't know if i agree with the firing, but i don't really know enough about the whole story to be too terribly opinionated about it.

How dare you not be an automatic expert on everything. And on the internet, too. Tsk-tsk.

[bjorn_skurj]

Good perspective on this:

 

 

The Culture of Exposure

 

By DAVID BROOKS

The most interesting part of my job is that I get to observe powerful people at close quarters. Most people in government, I find, are there because they sincerely want to do good. But they’re also exhausted and frustrated much of the time. And at these moments they can’t help letting you know that things would be much better if only there weren’t so many morons all around.

 

So every few weeks I find myself on the receiving end of little burst of off-the-record trash talk. Senators privately moan about other senators. Administration officials gripe about other administration officials. People in the White House complain about the idiots in Congress, and the idiots in Congress complain about the idiots in the White House — especially if they’re in the same party. Washington floats on a river of aspersion.

 

The system is basically set up to maximize kvetching. Government is filled with superconfident, highly competitive people who are grouped into small bands. These bands usually have one queen bee at the center — a president, senator, cabinet secretary or general — and a squad of advisers all around. These bands are perpetually jostling, elbowing and shoving each other to get control over policy.

 

Amid all this friction, the members of each band develop their own private language. These people often spend 16 hours a day together, and they bond by moaning and about the idiots on the outside.

 

It feels good to vent in this way. You demonstrate your own importance by showing your buddies that you are un-awed by the majority leader, the vice president or some other big name. You get to take a break from the formal pressures of the job by playing the blasphemous bad-boy rebel over a beer at night.

 

Military people are especially prone to these sorts of outbursts. In public, they pay lavish deference to civilian masters who issue orders from the comfort of home. Among themselves, they blow off steam, sometimes in the crudest possible terms.

 

Those of us in the press corps have to figure out how to treat this torrent of private kvetching. During World War II and the years just after, a culture of reticence prevailed. The basic view was that human beings are sinful, flawed and fallen. What mattered most was whether people could overcome their flaws and do their duty as soldiers, politicians and public servants. Reporters suppressed private information and reported mostly — and maybe too gently — on public duties.

 

Then, in 1961, Theodore H. White began his “The Making of the President” book series. This series treated the people who worked inside the boiler rooms of government as the star players. It put the inner dramas at center stage.

 

Then, after Vietnam, an ethos of exposure swept the culture. The assumption among many journalists was that the establishment may seem upstanding, but there is a secret corruption deep down. It became the task of journalism to expose the underbelly of public life, to hunt for impurity, assuming that the dark hidden lives of public officials were more important than the official performances.

 

Then came cable, the Internet, and the profusion of media sources. Now you have outlets, shows and Web sites whose only real interest is the kvetching and inside baseball.

 

In other words, over the course of 50 years, what had once been considered the least important part of government became the most important. These days, the inner soap opera is the most discussed and the most fraught arena of political life.

 

And into this world walks Gen. Stanley McChrystal.

 

General McChrystal was excellent at his job. He had outstanding relations with the White House and entirely proper relationships with his various civilian partners in the State Department and beyond. He set up a superb decision-making apparatus that deftly used military and civilian expertise.

 

But McChrystal, like everyone else, kvetched. And having apparently missed the last 50 years of cultural history, he did so on the record, in front of a reporter. And this reporter, being a product of the culture of exposure, made the kvetching the center of his magazine profile.

 

By putting the kvetching in the magazine, the reporter essentially took run-of-the-mill complaining and turned it into a direct challenge to presidential authority. He took a successful general and made it impossible for President Obama to retain him.

 

The reticent ethos had its flaws. But the exposure ethos, with its relentless emphasis on destroying privacy and exposing impurities, has chased good people from public life, undermined public faith in institutions and elevated the trivial over the important.

 

Another scalp is on the wall. Government officials will erect even higher walls between themselves and the outside world. The honest and freewheeling will continue to flee public life, and the cautious and calculating will remain.

 

The culture of exposure has triumphed, with results for all to see.

 

 

[Good Old Neon]

Good perspective on this:

 

 

The Culture of Exposure

 

By DAVID BROOKS

The most interesting part of my job is that I get to observe powerful people at close quarters. Most people in government, I find, are there because they sincerely want to do good. But they’re also exhausted and frustrated much of the time. And at these moments they can’t help letting you know that things would be much better if only there weren’t so many morons all around.

 

So every few weeks I find myself on the receiving end of little burst of off-the-record trash talk. Senators privately moan about other senators. Administration officials gripe about other administration officials. People in the White House complain about the idiots in Congress, and the idiots in Congress complain about the idiots in the White House — especially if they’re in the same party. Washington floats on a river of aspersion.

 

The system is basically set up to maximize kvetching. Government is filled with superconfident, highly competitive people who are grouped into small bands. These bands usually have one queen bee at the center — a president, senator, cabinet secretary or general — and a squad of advisers all around. These bands are perpetually jostling, elbowing and shoving each other to get control over policy.

 

Amid all this friction, the members of each band develop their own private language. These people often spend 16 hours a day together, and they bond by moaning and about the idiots on the outside.

 

It feels good to vent in this way. You demonstrate your own importance by showing your buddies that you are un-awed by the majority leader, the vice president or some other big name. You get to take a break from the formal pressures of the job by playing the blasphemous bad-boy rebel over a beer at night.

 

Military people are especially prone to these sorts of outbursts. In public, they pay lavish deference to civilian masters who issue orders from the comfort of home. Among themselves, they blow off steam, sometimes in the crudest possible terms.

 

Those of us in the press corps have to figure out how to treat this torrent of private kvetching. During World War II and the years just after, a culture of reticence prevailed. The basic view was that human beings are sinful, flawed and fallen. What mattered most was whether people could overcome their flaws and do their duty as soldiers, politicians and public servants. Reporters suppressed private information and reported mostly — and maybe too gently — on public duties.

 

Then, in 1961, Theodore H. White began his “The Making of the President” book series. This series treated the people who worked inside the boiler rooms of government as the star players. It put the inner dramas at center stage.

 

Then, after Vietnam, an ethos of exposure swept the culture. The assumption among many journalists was that the establishment may seem upstanding, but there is a secret corruption deep down. It became the task of journalism to expose the underbelly of public life, to hunt for impurity, assuming that the dark hidden lives of public officials were more important than the official performances.

 

Then came cable, the Internet, and the profusion of media sources. Now you have outlets, shows and Web sites whose only real interest is the kvetching and inside baseball.

 

In other words, over the course of 50 years, what had once been considered the least important part of government became the most important. These days, the inner soap opera is the most discussed and the most fraught arena of political life.

 

And into this world walks Gen. Stanley McChrystal.

 

General McChrystal was excellent at his job. He had outstanding relations with the White House and entirely proper relationships with his various civilian partners in the State Department and beyond. He set up a superb decision-making apparatus that deftly used military and civilian expertise.

 

But McChrystal, like everyone else, kvetched. And having apparently missed the last 50 years of cultural history, he did so on the record, in front of a reporter. And this reporter, being a product of the culture of exposure, made the kvetching the center of his magazine profile.

 

By putting the kvetching in the magazine, the reporter essentially took run-of-the-mill complaining and turned it into a direct challenge to presidential authority. He took a successful general and made it impossible for President Obama to retain him.

 

The reticent ethos had its flaws. But the exposure ethos, with its relentless emphasis on destroying privacy and exposing impurities, has chased good people from public life, undermined public faith in institutions and elevated the trivial over the important.

 

Another scalp is on the wall. Government officials will erect even higher walls between themselves and the outside world. The honest and freewheeling will continue to flee public life, and the cautious and calculating will remain.

 

The culture of exposure has triumphed, with results for all to see.

 

I don't know, I tend to agree with Taibbi's take on the McChrystal affair - the one in which he trashes Brooks (through association) and CBS's Lara Logan, who, Lara did, reminded us that the press's job is to essentially remain subservient and obedient:

 

From Rolling Stone:

 

Lara Logan, You Suck

 

Lara Logan, come on down! You're the next guest on Hysterical Backstabbing Jealous Hackfest 2010!

 

I thought I'd seen everything when I read David Brooks saying out loud in a New York Times column that reporters should sit on damaging comments to save their sources from their own idiocy. But now we get CBS News Chief Foreign Correspondent Lara Logan slamming our own Michael Hastings on CNN's "Reliable Sources" program, agreeing that the Rolling Stone reporter violated an "unspoken agreement" that journalists are not supposed to "embarrass [the troops] by reporting insults and banter."

 

Anyone who wants to know why network television news hasn't mattered since the seventies just needs to check out this appearance by Logan. Here's CBS's chief foreign correspondent saying out loud on TV that when the man running a war that's killing thousands of young men and women every year steps on his own dick in front of a journalist, that journalist is supposed to eat the story so as not to embarrass the flag. And the part that really gets me is Logan bitching about how Hastings was dishonest to use human warmth and charm to build up enough of a rapport with his sources that they felt comfortable running their mouths off in front of him. According to Logan, that's sneaky — and journalists aren't supposed to be sneaky:

 

"What I find is the most telling thing about what Michael Hastings said in your interview is that he talked about his manner as pretending to build an illusion of trust and, you know, he's laid out there what his game is… That is exactly the kind of damaging type of attitude that makes it difficult for reporters who are genuine about what they do, who don't — I don't go around in my personal life pretending to be one thing and then being something else. I mean, I find it egregious that anyone would do that in their professional life."

 

When I first heard her say that, I thought to myself, "That has to be a joke. It's sarcasm, right?" But then I went back and replayed the clip – no sarcasm! She meant it! If I'm hearing Logan correctly, what Hastings is supposed to have done in that situation is interrupt these drunken assholes and say, "Excuse me, fellas, I know we're all having fun and all, but you're saying things that may not be in your best interest! As a reporter, it is my duty to inform you that you may end up looking like insubordinate douche bags in front of two million Rolling Stone readers if you don't shut your mouths this very instant!" I mean, where did Logan go to journalism school – the Burson-Marsteller agency?

 

But Logan goes even further that that. See, according to Logan, not only are reporters not supposed to disclose their agendas to sources at all times, but in the case of covering the military, one isn't even supposed to have an agenda that might upset the brass! Why? Because there is an "element of trust" that you're supposed to have when you hang around the likes of a McChrystal. You cover a war commander, he's got to be able to trust that you're not going to embarrass him. Otherwise, how can he possibly feel confident that the right message will get out?

 

True, the Pentagon does have perhaps the single largest public relations apparatus on earth – spending $4.7 billion on P.R. in 2009 alone and employing 27,000 people, a staff nearly as large as the 30,000-person State Department – but is that really enough to ensure positive coverage in a society with armed with a constitutionally-guaranteed free press?

 

And true, most of the major TV outlets are completely in the bag for the Pentagon, with two of them (NBC/GE and Logan's own CBS, until recently owned by Westinghouse, one of the world's largest nuclear weapons manufacturers) having operated for years as leaders in both the broadcast media and weapons-making businesses.

 

But is that enough to guarantee a level playing field? Can a general really feel safe that Americans will get the right message when the only tools he has at his disposal are a $5 billion P.R. budget and the near-total acquiescence of all the major media companies, some of whom happen to be the Pentagon's biggest contractors?

 

Does the fact that the country is basically barred from seeing dead bodies on TV, or the fact that an embedded reporter in a war zone literally cannot take a shit without a military attaché at his side (I'm not joking: while embedded at Camp Liberty in Iraq, I had to be escorted from my bunk to the latrine) really provide the working general with the security and peace of mind he needs to do his job effectively?

 

Apparently not, according to Lara Logan. Apparently in addition to all of this, reporters must also help out these poor public relations underdogs in the Pentagon by adhering to an "unspoken agreement" not to embarrass the brass, should they tilt back a few and jam their feet into their own mouths in front of a reporter holding a microphone in front of their faces.

 

Then there's the part that made me really furious: Logan hinting that Hastings lied about the damaging material being on the record:

"Michael Hastings, if you believe him, says that there were no ground rules laid out. And, I mean, that just doesn't really make a lot of sense to me… I mean, I know these people. They never let their guard down like that. To me, something doesn't add up here. I just — I don't believe it."

 

I think the real meaning of that above quote is made clear in conjunction with this one: "There are very good beat reporters who have been covering these wars for years, year after year. Michael Hastings appeared in Baghdad fairly late on the scene, and he was there for a significant period of time. He has his credentials, but he's not the only one. There are a lot of very good reporters out there. And to be fair to the military, if they believe that a piece is balanced, they will let you back."

 

Let me just say one thing quickly: I don't know Michael Hastings. I've never met him and he's not a friend of mine. If he cut me off in a line in an airport, I'd probably claw his eyes out like I would with anyone else. And if you think I'm being loyal to him because he works for Rolling Stone, well – let's just say my co-workers at the Stone would laugh pretty hard at that idea.

 

But when I read this diatribe from Logan, I felt like I'd known Hastings my whole life. Because brother, I have been there, when some would-be "reputable" journalist who's just been severely ass-whipped by a relative no-name freelancer on an enormous story fights back by going on television and, without any evidence at all, accusing the guy who beat him of cheating. That's happened to me so often, I've come to expect it. If there's a lower form of life on the planet earth than a "reputable" journalist protecting his territory, I haven't seen it.

 

As to this whole "unspoken agreement" business: the reason Lara Logan thinks this is because she's like pretty much every other "reputable" journalist in this country, in that she suffers from a profound confusion about who she's supposed to be working for. I know this from my years covering presidential campaigns, where the same dynamic applies. Hey, assholes: you do not work for the people you're covering! Jesus, is this concept that fucking hard? On the campaign trail, I watch reporters nod solemnly as they hear about the hundreds of millions of dollars candidates X and Y and Z collect from the likes of Citigroup and Raytheon and Archer Daniels Midland, and it blows my mind that they never seem to connect the dots and grasp where all that money is going. The answer, you idiots, is that it's buying advertising! People like George Bush, John McCain, Barack Obama, and General McChrystal for that matter, they can afford to buy their own P.R. — and they do, in ways both honest and dishonest, visible and invisible.

 

They don't need your help, and you're giving it to them anyway, because you just want to be part of the club so so badly. Disgustingly, that's really what it comes down to. Most of these reporters just want to be inside the ropeline so badly, they want to be able to say they had that beer with Hillary Clinton in a bowling alley in Scranton or whatever, that it colors their whole worldview. God forbid some important person think you're not playing for the right team!

 

Meanwhile, the people who don't have the resources to find out the truth and get it out in front of the public's eyes, your readers/viewers, you're supposed to be working for them — and they're not getting your help. What the hell are we doing in Afghanistan? Is it worth all the bloodshed and the hatred? Who are the people running this thing, what is their agenda, and is that agenda the same thing we voted for? By the severely unlikely virtue of a drunken accident we get a tiny glimpse of an answer to some of these vital questions, but instead of cheering this as a great break for our profession, a waytago moment, one so-called reputable journalist after another lines up to protest the leak and attack the reporter for doing his job. God, do you all suck!

[Moss]

Man, those last 3 paragraphs really say it all for me.

[Sir Stewart]

^That's gotta be Matt Taibbi, right?

[Sweet Papa Crimbo]

I find it interesting that Obama turned to General Petraeus to do his voodoo in Afghanistan when a bare three years ago Petrasue was the devil incarnate to the Moveon.org crowd and the Democrats in general. (Remember the surge and the universal indignation, horror and disgust with the proposal and enactment from certain politicos who will not be named here?...Petraeus' idea.)

 

Apparently it's a lot easier for politicians (and internet posters) to have all the answers when sniping from the outside.

 

America is not at war. The Marine Corps is at war. America is watching Big Brother.

[Guest Speed Racer]

America is not at war. The Marine Corps is at war. America is watching Big Brother.

 

Well, seeing has how McChrystal was an Army man, that sure explains why they let him go. Oh! Jeeesus! Petraeus is Army too! Someone better tell Obama.

 

Apparently it's a lot easier for politicians (and internet posters) to have all the answers when sniping from the outside.

 

You certainly make it look easy.