Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Rolling Stone writer Michael Hastings turned the American war in Afghanistan upside-down today with his profile of General Stanley McChrystal. After he and his staff were quoted attacking President Obama and members of the administration in "The Runaway General," McChrystal has reportedly offered his resignation.
We reached Hastings in Afghanistan, and the connection made some of his remarks hard to decipher. What follows, after the jump, is a very rough transcription of the interview.
MADDOW: Michael Hastings, thank you so much for your time. Mike tell me what kind of access you were allowed to General McChrystal and his inner-circle for this article?
HASTINGS: I basically ended up with unprecedented access to General McChrystal on my trip to Paris and then to Afghan…it was actually unprecedented access (inaudible:I was sitting inside?) the room with General McChrystal and spent time with him in his downtime.
MADDOW: And in terms of his inner-circle and the degree to which they spoke freely in quite impolitic terms about other people involved in the war effort and in American leadership, did they know it was on the record? Were they comfortable voicing those things knowing you were a reporter?
HASTINGS: There were no permissions set before I began the profile and it was my understanding that it was all on the record. And that's why I continued to report on them for the following number of weeks.
MADDOW: Michael, I know that in the piece, I mean General McChrystal comes across as incredibly impolitic but not in an unflattering light. You definitely portray him as a true believer in counter-insurgency. But counterinsurgency means military force combined with a lot of non-military force and he and his inner-circle talk complete smack about everybody on the nonmilitary side, so how does that make sense? How do they reconcile that?
HASTINGS: Well I think one of the things about General McChrystal and whether or not he's impolitic: just look at his public statements. What he said recently about Marja which was an operation in southern Afghanistan, was that it was a 'bleeding ulcer'. he's saying in public about the war effort or he thinks he's saying in private. I think that that's a big issue in terms of counterinsurgency, the relationship between the civilian military side. I think that's always very tricky in terms of the operation, and i think part of the problem is that there's a military says they actually buy into these political solutions, they're the most preferred solution, the one to use is to use force, which is sort of what they're inherently good at.
MADDOW: It's sort of a hollowed out insurgency idea that you talk a lot about military force but maybe it's not as important a part of it when it comes down to it. You describe Michael that the hardcore proponents of counter insurgency of COIN as having a sort of cultish zeal. The COINdenistas, which is something we've talked about in the past. Is there something about the idea of counterinsurgency that essentially requires people to be disdainful of outside views, about the wider impact of it of it, about the difficulty of selling it politically?
HASTINGS: I was just rereading David Halberstan's "The Best and the Brightest," and one of the things described is Kennedy in his 1961 being very excited about these new theories of counterinsurgency. I think what anyone has to look at it is where the counterinsurgents here draw their inspiration from and most of the examples they draw from are not very promising. the French in Algeria in 1962 and then the us in Vietnam in 1965 --both ended in defeat. Now they claim that they were military victories but if they were just victories outright they all would have worked but in fact there's not really too many promising examples that they can really point to.
MADDOW: Michael so far a civilian press aid to General McChrystal has resigned in the light of your article, um, right now I know you're in Kandahar you're in Afghanistan with plans to be there for some time do you have any expectation of what the other fallout from this might be?
HASTINGS: I've been surprised quite honestly about the fallout that's happened. I mean the story just actually got published a few hours ago, I think, online. I've been quite surprised by it. I'm not sure what the actual fallout's going to be um. I think the way it's been playing out, I mean, has yielded some interesting interesting questions.
MADDOW: Of course the way that General McChrystal got this job is because General McKiernan was rather summarily relieved of his responsibility um in Afghanistan the previous top commander in country. Does the counterinsurgency doctrine and strategy survive another change at the top if it has to happen? Are there enough true believers just among the ranks of soldiers and officers who you've been dealing with there while you've been reporting?
HASTINGS: "I think counterinsurgency is the only solution that they've come up with that they really want to do. It seems like there's not much stomach for actually changing our strategy, drawing down to say 50,000 and doing more counter-terrorism mission. I think you change the top, but the problem remains. I mean, I think the counterinsurgency was set in motion and I believe even if you change the top, it's not going to make too much of a difference because I think the problems of these things --one of these things I'm talking about -- in terms of long protracted conflicts that democratic societies wage usually in, you know, developing nations, is that they take on a momentum of their own. We went into Afghanistan after September 11 with the explicit goal not to get stuck in a quagmire. Anyone who even used the word "quagmire" was mocked mercilessly. Some years later, we're exactly where we set out not to be -- in a quagmire, and it's a quagmire we knowingly walked into.
Leave a Comment:
Hastings has turned nothing 'upside down' whatsoever. What a crock! His opinion was pecked out on a plastic keyboard to cash in some cheap bucks. McChrystal will remain an American hero. Those who are maintaining their weapons in 135 degree temperatures are making history in Afghanistan and Iraq...
Its easy to see what a useless gnat Hastings is. What was Hastings doing pursuing a War General who was protecting our troops? Shouldn't the White House see if our Commander in Chief can pass muster in a Hastings interview? Let Hastings build yet another cache of meaningless snippets for the Stones to wallow in next printing...
Hastings fiancee was killed in Iraq 3 years ago. I guess it's easy for you to dehumanize one human being and create an untouchable God out of another with that plastic keyboard you've got there.
I don't see how McCrystal can be described as protecting the troops when he orders them to not defend themselves because killing one civilian makes 10 more Taliban. I mean it makes sense, I guess...but if that's our best strategy, perhaps it's time to leave.
Have you ever considered that ending the war and bringing the troops home is the only thing that will save them? There is nothing for us to win in Afghanistan. Letting troops die to protect our pride is not my idea of patriotism.
Did you read the article?
I think until we know what happens with McChrystal we can't begin to talk about the effect any of this will have on the war effort. It's possible McChrystal will just be spanked and sent back to work.
Leslie Gelb has an interesting post where he says McChrystal should not be fired. It is a reasoned and non-hysterical article, so I think it (and others like it) should be considered.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-06-22/mcchrystal-screw-up/
You know, I may be whack, but the piece I take away from this story has nothing to do with the sturm und drang over McChrystal.
What catches my attention is the line of questioning Rachel pursued about counter-insurgency, which Hastings sort of tries to back-pedal on, saying McChrystal is a strong proponent of both the military and civilian aspects of COIN. But then PRIVATELY (which wasn't private, cuz it was quoted in the Rolling Stone, right? ... I gotta say, I wouldn't be surprised if we discover Hastings fudged some journalism ethics to get those drunk Generals and staff grounded by the volcano to let down their guard around a reporter...) PRIVATELY they have NO USE for the civilian side of the COIN.
As in, HUH? So because they don't say it in public, that doesn't mean they aren't running a fraud for some PR effect, lip service on the military side, because winning hearts and minds should only be done at the bad end of a gun, in the military's POV?
Fraud is fraud. Sounds to me like the Psyops side of COIN is running a Coinintelpro sort of like Fight Club, where they pretend (psyops) that there's a civilian hearts-and-minds component of COIN, when its existence and any resources put into it are a false front, just like the CIA uses NGOs and press passes to insert agents into contested theaters. But like Fight Club, the civilian-side COIN fraud is not something we're supposed to talk about in PUBLIC, right?
Am I misreading something from the exchange above?
Hi I enjoyed your thought provoking post, however I disagree on Rachel Maddow's and your analysis of the role of civilians in McChrystal's COIN operations. If you read bio pieces on McChrystal, you'll find that he was most praised for devising an intelligence network that would be able to quickly develop leads for JSOC teams. He did this by bringing in technical help from the intelligence community, civilian contractors and academia.
The Hastings article mentions McChrystal being known for "cherry picking" young computer whizes from MIT to help his JSOC teams in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I think he was criticizing the political appointees, the Vice President and Ambassador Holbrooke the most.
From what I read in the article McChrystal has had a problem with authority since he was at West Point. One of the books he wrote relates to the assasination of the President. Am I wrong or does this raise red flags? It seems that the only one who believes we should continue this war is McChrystal. No army has conquered Afghanistan since Khengis Khan and the Mongols. I read somewhere that Generals are nothing if they have no war. McArthur, and Patton were examples. Great Generals but nothing else. Maybe the president should be asking advice of peaceful people and not military egos.
I think McChrystal should have known better and stuck a sock in it. The UCMJ is quite clear about this situation.
I agree with this understated comment. Having daily contact with several of the troops, the word from them is, "He f'd up. Things were said that never should have been said. " They all seem very relieved that Gen Petreus is back.
Relieved in comparison to the alternative. The anti-war anti-military media (I won't say liberal media because not all liberals are anti-war or anti-military) will have a much harder time pulling apart Petraeus than a lesser known selection like Admiral McRaven.
Most of the special operations people I've had contact with have said McChrystal has more experience than Petraeus, but that Petraeus has more political savvy than McChrystal. He won't get caught by a journalist or an interviewer the same way McChrystal was.
BTW, What General McChrystal said was not neccessarily in violation of the UCMJ.
"Yeah, Congratulations on the scoop Michael"!...
Assuming you get out of Afghanistan intact, I really dont see great opportunities on the horizon; considering you'll never be allowed into a war zone again by our military leaders.
So I guess you'll just sit at home and watch a war rage-on killing hundreds of thousands of more Afghan civillians, without the rare restraint our former General used. Especially now that General Petreus (Iraq) is in charge - all thanks to your' juvenile Rolling Stone expose'. Nothing like taking a little 'scuttle butt' and turning it into a big story huh?.
Oh and dont think for a second those soldiers you interviewed are on your side, if anything you've just placed them all in peril as Command reshuffles; as this War has not stopped for a second.
Tragic bit of irony there for an obvious anti-war piece, to in fact create more war, chaos, death, and destruction.
Way to go Michael, you should be proud of yourself.
Brad the Rolling Stones Magazine is not the same mag you may have known when you were younger. It has great writers who contribute to the political discourse. I've often read PJ O'Rourke's articles.
I think they will let him in the war zone again but will be careful what they say.
Why would he choose to expose these things now with the country dealing with so many other bad things. Way to go Mike. Get your 15 minutes of fame, and good luck with your next war assignment. Watch your back.
Maybe he has done our country a great service. Who knows?
Marcilynnj, are you suggesting that one of our own would be so evil as to murder a journalist over an article?
I believe our men and women in uniform defend freedom of the press and are not murderers. If you could clarify, what "Watch your back" means, that'd be great.
He won't need to watch his back for a murderer. But there will be people trying to ruin his career. I think Rolling Stone have more to answer for than Hastings, they were the ones who decided to publish the story.
This is not about Hastings people - this is about a 4-star General who was clueless enough to not only invite but to openly trash his boss and numerous members of his chain of command to a magazine journalist. If this is the type of judgement the man has - he doesn't belong in his position in the first place. Being an angry war-monger isn't enough. Do we have any expectations for appropriate conduct for our leaders? geez. If I called the local paper and did an expose about what an a-hold my boss and the entire management team is - I could pretty much be sure that I would be fired for it. The general is not above me or anyone else in the country in terms of an expectation of professional behavior.
This 4-star General is very much is above you and me, as he's been fighting hand to hand with our enemys for 6 straight years, without break or ability to come home and see his wife and family. That's not daily stress you or I expeirience or most soldiers do for that matter. He's in charge of our men in arms. When one of them dies or twenty or 1,000; he feels it much more than anyone back here reading it in the paper or commenting on these numbers I assure you.
He's not just any old citizen, you are mistaken. He's one of the best military leaders of our time and not to be confused with someone who has never joined our military services and defended our country side-by-side with his' soldiers in combat. He is not someone sitting back here doing nothing or writing articles for music magazines. He is (or was) instead, sitting down weekly with our allies, warlords, and Taliban enemies, without even wearing a helmet or protective body-armor; (do some video research). Get to know the man your calling 'clueless' and questioning his' leadership from your comfy home back here in the states; and absurdly comparing his' job and responsibilities to yours.
General McCrystal was the best man-in-command we had over there for this sensitive mission and because Michael Hasting decided to play Hunter S. Thompson (his hero) and "didn't give a blank", as he's often qouted a saying so himself in regards to his reporting; he went off misqouted drunken aides and advisors (not the General himself mind you) and thought only of himself and his grandiose image of himself as a rebel war correspondant.
Hastings is a self confessed HACK and rightly so. His inability to 'give a blank' and still do his job to report on the war, without slanting it his' anti-war way; has now cost us dearly with the Afghan people and has further endangered our soldiers by being so irresponsible.
Their blood will be on his hands.
Rather ironic that the protagonist of counterinsurgency should denigrate the role of his civilian partners. McCrystal theory weighs heavily on numerical strength and lots of money: not to mention time. It is simply unsustainable in this economic downturn. Now is the time to assess America's real capabilities and not fund wars that we cannot afford. If we don't, just take a look at extinct civilisations and the story of their demise.
Never too late to right the ship.
Yesss Micheal!!!! GREAT WORK!!! Your job is to report the FACTS, and we all know that facts/truth/reality are krytonite to the republicans. The fact is: mcchrystal, just like all republicans has let their prejudice feelings, out weight whats good for the country. One less traitor in the ranks. I hope the President gets rid of the rest of the traitors in his camp. All blue/yellow dogs dems. and traitor joe LIEbermen....
You have at least, I hope, checked to see that "General McCrystal voted for Obama" haven't you..(thats a fact)? I mean that's a pretty important item you've missed when you post something such as this...?!
....Almost makes me think you too "have just read the cliff-notes'version" of what went on today; yet feel okay to come on here and tell Michael what a great job he's done - interupting the biggest war we've ever been in with his' juvenile F-bombs and faux qoutes (he makes himself) 'in italics' throughout the article, (but hey, since you obviously haven't read the RS piece) then you have no idea what I'm talking about...?
(....and we'll assume your either drunk or ten; one of the two?)
Here's the funny thing folks, I'm in total agreement that FOX News is the Republican voice-box (which is why I dont watch it), but in the same breath Rolling Stone is ofcourse 'anti-war all the way (cover-to-cover)'; so let's be frank, its no more 'fair or balanced' than FOX.
If General McCrystal made any mistakes at all it was letting Michael on the bus in the first place (and it was a civilian press-agent who did so to begin with); so now we have not "a quagmire" as Michael said this evening on the news; instead thanks to him "reporting" what war correspondents for 50 years have known' (and heard) "that sometimes military dont appreciate civillians telling them what to-do; who've never fired a gun in their lives while staring-death in the face; ......are not the best folks to be running a war..?'
I like Obama and you wont find anything online with me saying differently. I liked General McCrystal's style too (and if you did some research you'd find he's likely the rarest of Special Ops liberal Generals there ever were); so its odd to see so many comments against the man; considering 'if anyone was gonna actually get us out of Afghanistan in a timely fashion'; it was him'?!
Now though, thanks to what should have been a small article in any magazine/newspaper, it was turned into "a sensational piece" by Michael Hastings, because of his' juvenile writing-style (read it) .....and now folks we're back to square-one.....
"Hero?" "..Patriot..?" I think these are words best left for only men and women who have fought and seen friends die in War. Anyone saying them while sitting at home and never staring the enemy in the face; is someone who just likes adjectives and commenting online.
I have called Michael a HACK myself, as he worte a book titled as such. For those not willing to research your ' hero' first, before posting, I'll give you a few chioce quotes (Michael seems to enjoy publishing them 'out of context' on others, let's see how he likes it in return)...
- From “Hack: Confessions of a Presidential Campaign Reporter” by Michael Hastings - in GQ, Oct. ‘08:
“The dance with staffers is a perilous one. You’re probably not going to get much, if any, one-on-one time with the candidate, which means your sources of information are the people who work for him. So you pretend to be friendly and nonthreatening, and over time you “build trust,” which everybody involved knows is an illusion. If the time comes, if your editor calls for it, you’re supposed to f-ck them over…”
.....
Still think General McCrystal, whose likely been fighting for our country since you were in daipars is a: "traitor"?
This one was better and more to the point. http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-06-23/mcchrystal-affair-lessons-for-the-military/full/?obref=obinsite
I've very disappointed in Gen McChrystal. He let us and those who are fighting down. He should've know better!
Dont think for a second General Petreaus holds any different views of our administration, nor 'civilians telling military what to do'; only difference is he's not as much a soldier as McCrystal was ...and 'so much more the politician instead' and wisely will bite his tongue. - And he is a diehard Republican, unlike McCrystal who was a true Democrat.
Are you aware of the 7 minute lecture Obama gave the General Petreaus on Iraq, long before he was elected our CAC (without allowing the man to respond)?
Think how Petreaus must feel now to be hired to replace General McCrystal, who was running the Afghan war (a region Petreaus knows nothing about); and having to now answer to the young governor who chewed his ass out two years ago, all the while having never served a day of his life in combat...?
......
The fallout and end result from this article will change the history of this War..and not for the better.
There are only two outcomes at this point; following this debacle brought out by a kid journalist looking for fame...
1) And the most likely - We all can erase that July, 2011 deadline now from our calendars; as were gonna be there forever thanks to this stupid RS expose'.
or
2) We withdraw within the next two years and the Taliban return to harboring Alqeda, they publicly execute everyone they imagine helped the coalition, and Osama Bin Laden returns to his favorite cave to plan more 9/11's.
....and all of our brave men and women in uniform having died for nothing.
.....
Please, no more links to more liberal blogs with lower ranked retired Colonels who spent the last ten years on TV/NBC discussing Generals mistakes, and "Dont ask dont tell" coorespondents since kicked out of the military - bitterly chastizing higher-ups; ....that's just sad.
Rachels' blog is about as much as I can take and still remain neutral. Dont ask me to leave, else this website becomes nothing but another FOX in the end.