Do you know how you can tell that Stanley McChrystal is an honorable man? Because within hours of learning about the Rolling Stone piece that ultimately sealed his fate as commander in Afghanistan, he took responsibility for what he and his aides were quoted as saying and apologized. He didn’t equivocate. He didn’t blame reporter Michael Hastings. He didn’t throw his staff under the bus. And he didn’t downplay what he had done. His first instinct was the instinct of an honorable man. That’s how you can tell, when everything is stripped away, who McChrystal is at his core.
The people around him, who jokingly refer to themselves as “Team America,” need to follow their commander’s intent. Because here they go, days after the final reckoning, to Washington Post reporters to anonymously slime Hastings as unscrupulous. It’s pathetic how flimsy their case is: I was a factchecker for two publications, and no factchecker is obliged to inform a source about the slant of a piece. At the absolute most, Hastings is guilty of taking what reporters Rajiv Chandrasekaran and Karen DeYoung charitably term “minor liberties” with his source material. Worse, it’s disgraceful that Team America would even mount a case against Hastings after their boss owned up to the article. Tellingly, not a single one of them would even lend his name to these accusations. I have a ton of respect for Chandrasekaran and DeYoung, and I’m genuinely surprised they would print this cowardly and transparent score-settling.
The circumstances that brought McChrystal down are tragic. McChrystal is an American hero — Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and who knows how many other murderers, will kill no more innocent people because of Stanley McChrystal — who gave his all to turn around a faltering war and orient it in a more humane direction. It compounds the tragedy that McChrystal has to leave Afghanistan before his strategy can be fully assessed. If it turns out to go well, the credit will go to Gen. Petraeus; if it continues to deteriorate, then McChrystal will reap the blame and the inevitable narrative will include the line that Not Even Petraeus was able to mitigate McChrystal’s alleged errors. (On Camp Nama: there is reasonable basis for a further inquiry as to what McChrystal knew and when he knew it. There is not a reasonable basis to conclude ahead of such inquiry that the man sanctioned torture. And he apologized for Pat Tillman.) It’s a goddamn shame that this is the episode that ends his military career. But McChrystal took it like a man — no excuses, no obfuscations, nothing but honor.
I understand that McChrystal’s staff love him and want to protect his reputation. But their actions and their judgment right now vindicate what Hastings observed in Paris. For the sake of an honorable man, they should follow their boss’s example.



8 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About ATTACKERMAN
RSS/XML Feed
I have to disagree with you a bit here. From everything I’ve read and everyone I’ve met that knew the man and his staff ‘Team America’ comprised some of the smartest people we have over there. I find it hard to believe they would have knowingly said what they said without either A. having a reasonable and informed belief that their cavalier remarks were off the record or B. they were very, very drunk in a Parisian Pub. Having read some of the stuff Exum has posted and linked too on his twitter I can’t help but agree with the argument that this was simply off duty soldiers bitching when they believed they were off duty and off the clock.
Last time I checked we don’t have a GRU type unit designed to police even the slightest of dissenting opinions or feelings that might be felt by soldiers serving abroad. Nor does this article show even the slightest evidence that any of these men were insubordinate or failed to follow orders. They expressed presumably in private dissenting opinions about people who in their opinion had blatantly undermined the war effort, opinions that are on all accounts very justified.
It would seem then that M4′s only sin was that he failed to maintain the razor sharp balance between promoting frank and honest opinionated debate amongst his staff debate that’s managed to be focused and productive, and being an autocratic ignorant leader unwise to the opinions and thoughts of his staff. As anyone who knows the military knows that soldiers bitch, it looks pretty clear that what happened her was a reporter with an agenda took advantage of those statements to frame them in a deliberately damaging way, despite having presumably given some sort of belief to these men that their personal opinions were given in confidence. It was plain and simple a hatchet job perpetrated not on McChrystal so much as his staff and the only real reason why McChrystal wound up taking the heat is A. because Hasting’s wrote the article in such a away as to give the reader the impression that McChrystal was in the room when each scandalous quote was uttered, which may not have been the case at all, and B. McChrystal through himself ontop of the proverbial grenade well before it had even gone off and steered the brunt of the backlash directly towards himself. Which as you said is the most honorable way a leader could handle this sort of situation. Just because McChrystal did take the honorable way out (I particularly like the way you described it as immolation) doesn’t mean Hasting’s less than honorable methods should skate by beyond reproach.
I must respectfully disagree. War is never humane, and that includes high tech murder. The reason for this war is Empire building, not protecting the people there. This war is not to protect the American people. It is protecting the billionaires and the privatized armies they have created. No one believes in this war that was based on false pretenses. By the way Hastings has also responded.
Hastings reports troops think Gen. McChrystal should have been sacked. Also the “war” such as it is, is not winning the minds and hears of anyone.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/25/michael-hastings-rolling_n_625261.html
You should talk to Pat Tillman’s family first before you say McChystal is an American “Hero”.
In the realms of military fantasy:
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Editorials/Article.aspx?id=179546
The plan is for Israel and the US to sweep through Syria and Lebanon, or something, teaching the turks a lesson while simultaneously bombing Iran into submission.
That will be fun to watch go to hell, given our current performancelevels….
PS: On subject, you could state that McChrystal got railroaded by his own closest staff. Who ought to comit harakiri or something, whatever the SF (as opposed to SOF) folks do.
Actually, you can tell a lot more about someone from their first inclination, rather than their inclination upon reflection.
McChrystal’s first inclination concerning the Tillman incident was to lie. His first inclination concerning civilian authority and control over the military was to disdain and demean it in violation of military regulations.
It says a lot about how totally screwed up this country is that McChrystal could be lauded for the simple act of apologizing for errors egregious in anybody’s book.
And to the families of those who died at the hands of troops under his command in the dark camps in Iraq, off-limits to even the Red Cross.
The WaPo article refers to the aides as “incredibly brave men” who cried when they heard that their boss fell due to their behavior. A shame those brave men can’t speak on the record.