Afghanistan Journal: Why I Wouldn't Have Written the McChrystal Story

If nothing else, Michael Hastings showed us that Obama's so concerned about image and so little concerned about foreign policy that he's letting Rolling Stone magazine make strategic decisions for him in a foreign war. When were you planning on breaking that story, Mr. Wood?

Oh wait, I suppose that would be "burning bridges."

It certainly has to be one of the hottest topics in journalism classes these days. If not, then heaven help all of us who live and breathe in the free press world. Where do you draw the line in reporting and publishing, and would you report a story that you know is going to tear a huge chunk out of our front line of our country's security? --And, gratuitously destroy a fine general's reputation, put the president in a terribly awkward spot, not to mention the disruption of lives, families, on and on and on. There is somthing awfully wrong here, and it will obviously take a while for anyone to sort it out. One thing we know, however---the story already smelled to high heaven before it cooled.

In other words David Wood, Chief Military Correspondent, you pass along the propaganda and ignore the news. I can't see where that's anything to be proud of. Thousands of our soldiers & perhaps a million civilians, have died in Iraq and Afghanistan because so-called journalists were happy to pass along the lies and propaganda of the Cheney/bush administration. More than a few people know that they will get a better & more truthful story from Rolling Stone and the Daily show.

Some people consider consequences and strive to avoid the worst and promote the best. Some only consider consequences beneficial only to themselves, but ignore consequences detrimental to others. Then there those intellectually incapable of thinking past the end of their own noses.

The difference with the McChrystal quotes? A story on flaws in the command structure mattered; lives would depend on how smoothly the commanders worked. Off-hand comments, made in private, about Joe Biden? Not important enough to break a confidence. Surely, Hastings overheard more significant and compelling stuff from his month with the general. If McChrystal and his staff had deep and bitter disagreements with the White House, Hastings should have written that story. But he chose to go with the trash-talk as the more sensational story.
------------------

You should read some of the personal blogs put out by military wives and retired military - they absolutely hate having a black man as CIC! One military wife's blog in particular, coming comes out of a US Army unit posted to South Korea, attacks the President and his qualifications to be President and CIC everyday. And worse, her evangelical NCO husband joins in.

THAT sort of rhetoric, coupled with what was overheard in McChrystal's command, is what leads to the eventual breakdown of lines of command.

For all the recent attacks on our Constitution and Bill of Rights, not to mention attacks on the Geneva protocols and basic Human Rights, I don't think decent Americans are ready for a military that does not answer to the civilian leadership.

Good job, David.

C'mon -- this is simple. Were McChrystal's comments on or off the record? He says they were; Hastings says no. The question is -- who's lying?

I agree with you. It distresses me that Rolling Stone's editorial staff seem to have more influence on the direction of our defensive strategy than does the Commander in Chief.