“We know the president was talking to several audiences at the same time when he made his comments on July 2011,” Gen. James Conway told reporters on Tuesday. “In some ways, we think right now it’s probably giving our enemy sustenance… In fact, we’ve intercepted communications that say, ‘Hey, you know, we only have to hold out for so long.’”There is a lot more along with historical context at the full post.
Head on over to BigPeace and give it a read.
39 comments:
Vietnam, 1965-1975
AFG 2001-2011
I can guess there is a new conventional wisdom forming, along the old ones like do not invade Russia in winter etc.
You can win against the US if you can continue to fight 10 years.
And tell me how allied governments, already hard pressed to sell the war to the voters are going to do that once leading ally's leader is behaving that way?
We have General Officers to provide leadership and strategic direction to our organization in the accomplishment of the mission. It's not their job to have chats with reporters about the merits of the orders the CINC or SECDEF has given them. Want to engage in public criticism of decisions made by the military's civilian leadership? Fine, resign or retire first. While you wear the uniform, give the best advice you can to your superiors and then when the decision is made either support it or vote with your feet. To do otherwise undercuts civilian leadership of the armed forces. And while we're on that subject, keep in mind that the founding fathers consciously chose to place civilian elected officials in control of the armed forces. I like to think this reflected their judgment that the soundest military policy is not always the soundest public policy, and thus the people setting military policy should be those the public can hold accountable.
Completely disagree that giving the public the plain spoken truth is the duty of active duty flag or general officers. Giving the national command authorities their best assessment and plain spoken truth in private, yes. For the public their duty is to fulfill their part of the strategic communications campaign, whatever that may be. Anything these officers say is political speech; they have no right to publicly deviate from their assigned story and no right to publicly disagree with their political bosses, period.
Their duty is simply to resign if they can't execute their assigned duties. Of course this is why we should never listen to senior military leaders' public pronouncements; they're worth nothing. What they should be saying is what they've been told to say. Truth is for their political leaders only.
Although distatsteful, I believe this is the truth, which is why everything these men say can be safely ignored as probably their assigned portion of the strategic communications campaign. Duty consists of say what you're told or resign and say what you believe.
Then again, just posting a comment that says they are getting radio intercepts of bad guys saying they only have to wait until the President's extraction date is not really voicing an opinion, is it?
Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong, Guest. The JCS are called routinely to testify before Congress and provide their assessments. Read, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. The Commandant here was not leaking his advice to POTUS, he was providing his assessment. That is his constitutional duty. If you don't like it, tough. This was not a McChrystal moment.
"strategic communications campaign"
You owe me a new keyboard, lost control of my coffee laughing.
I seem to remember during the Clinton years, the Chiefs told Congress what they were told to say. They were forbidden to ask for more money. When the cigar smoker decided he would help Big Al get the military vote, they allowed the Chiefs to ask for more money. I remember the Senate grilling Chiefs as to why no less than 6 months previous the state of the services was fine and then all of sudden the military was broke. I believe they were allowed to tell the truth.
Remember the Chiefs drink the Kool-Aid or they would be where they are.
GIMP, you are in need of constitutional refresher course. The truth is not limited to POTUS. We, the People, own the truth. It is why we have Congressional hearings. It is not just for Congress's benefit, it is for the People. We send senators and congressmen to washington to ask questions on our behalf. The answers given are answers to the people. It is right and proper for a member of the JCS to speak his assessments directly to the people. There is no "going off message." Repeating advice he gave to the President is improper. Dictating policy is improper. Assessments are not.
Did you ever read H.R. McMaster's book? If so, I'm surprised by your definition of duty.
There are very few Vinegar Joe Stilwells anymore whose personal motto was: "The worse the news the sooner one needs to hear it," and who, when asked why he led the Army out of Burma the first time when he had been sent over to hold it against the Japanese invasion, replied: "Because they kicked the shit out of us."
Salty,
Wrong (I'll only use one). There is a big difference between Congressional testimony and blabbing to the media.
If the top brass have exhausted all other avenues, then fine-- a last resort. They have not reached that point yet.
BTW Gen Conway is set to retire; that makes it easier to go against the rules.
Hah, things can get so out of context in print. I think the system is rotten and it's wrong, but I think it's the way it is. I don't advocate it or think it's the way it was meant to be! I think people of integrity should do their duty, and their duty is to tell the truth.
I believe the words of many people in the most senior positions are political tools; part of a strategic communications compaign and can be discounted as such. If you want the truth you have to get it from someone outside the organization. Like it or not, I bet you get more truth from wikileaks and the NYT than flag or general officers. General McChrystal helped cover up Pat Tillman's death by friendly fire, the whole chain of command above him knew it, and he got promoted! You think these guys are going to tell you the truth?
It took Dana Priest, an investigative journalist to break the Walter Reed Hospital story. Generals didn't do a damn thing about it and never would have. In the Pat Tillman case, they actively destroyed evidence and lied about it. The Jessica Lynch story was manufactured bullsh*t.
I guess my point, better explained, is that flag/general officers are part of the political class and their duty, as defined for them by their civilian bosses, is to tell the public what they are told to. Because of that, you cannot trust what they say. To believe in them doing their duty as defined by the public and telling the truth would leave us more vulnerable to their manipulations.
Good points well raised-but why do you associate yourself with a heel like Breitbart? Oh the shame! The shame! To see the once proud Salamander name sullied through association with a proven liar. I mean I expect that out of Uncle Dumbo and the boys at B5, but you said you are supposed to support a higher standard.
There are plenty of reputable places you could publish the same thing. Regretably-Breitbart is not one.
Does this mean payola is involved?
Dude ... I'm not getting a red cent. Not everything in life involves money.
Take some time to read a bit over there - it ain't as bad as you say. Anyway, I don't demand perfection in my acquaintances and friends - that is why I like you. I expect everyone to be as imperfect as I am. In that light, I am more than happy to associate myself with the gaggle over at BP and am thankful for the opportunity to contribute to the discussion. I read the NYT, WaPo and The Nation when I am on the road - that doesn't mean that I think they are perfect either. I also read National Review every issue cover to cover ... that is close to perfect. Even more, I read every issues of Garden & Gun like it is the Spoken Word - that is Heaven. .... but I digress.
As for the Breitbart Empire's truthfulness - please tell me chapter and verse where he has intentionally told lies.
Skippy, even if Phib WAS getting paid, would you imply that the money would cause him to not speak the truth?
Beat me to it, Phib.
Hey Skippy, tell us where Breitbart has been proven to be untruthful. This does NOT include an opinion you disagree with. Otherwise, refrain from using terms like "liar".
GIMP,
You make some valid points is that there are some in the leadership vein that tell what the people above them want to hear. However, I believe that is cause there has been a few generations of fanbois that have grown up believing that to advance is by being the "Yes,sir" amongst their leadership. There are very few people who are willing to go against the grain are usually branded outsiders and then demonized when they fail, if they succeed well then leadership above them succeeds and not the outside the box thinker. However, the O-7 and above are also human, and are prone to make human mistakes.
You mention two recent scandals that seem to be rocking the US Army, as ways that senior leadership lies.
You cite the Pat Tillman situation. I think a more objective look at that story should be more interesting in the long run. Remember that Pat Tillman was already being promoted as a hero for giving up a multi-million dollar sports contract to become an enlisted solider, even though he had a college degree. At the time of his death, the US Army and the US Marines were doing their initial push against Fallujah in Iraq with the embedded MSM, various human rights groups were protesting NATO's operations in Afghanistan saying that there were just as many abuses if not worst then the Taliban and Al Qaeda. So the need for something heroic or even successful to offset all the bad media. What is makes this harder is there are members of the tin hat brigade who believe in all sorts of conspiracies with regards to who knew what when and they only seem to make it more complex to figure out the truth.
GIMP,
With regards to the WRH incident, the failings there are more then the officer leadership. I have spent almost a year in Norfolk Naval Hospital, when i was younger due to a chronic illness. One of the things there that happened was that the CMC of that hospital along with the rest of his CPO's and LPO would walk around on a Friday afternoon talking to patients asking about issues. He would then try and fix the issue on the spot or put the CPO/LPO in the limelight for the reason something wasn't happening (such as why the lime jello looked funky or that the shower didn't work right in a room). So the WRH situation was a failing of both the senior officers and the senior enlisted. The other portion of that fail comes from the civilian bureaucracy that had built up in the DoD and the VA department. If you look at some of the hassels that people going through with regards to getting treatment via the VA and how the VA would constantly downgrade people who were given 100% disability coming out of the DoD medical establishment. This has been an issue for the last 20+yrs, however with the onset of OIF and OEF and the numbers of disabled coming through the system had caused it numerous issues. Just cause the WaPo was the big national paper to break the story of WRH doesn't mean that a few others were reporting on the issues earlier, they just weren't big enough to get out of the regional media interests.
Thank goodness you allow imperfections... or I would have to leave this porch!
Not YOU, T! YOu and DB would be the only ones left!
Hey! what about me? I bring both YOUTH and PERFECTION...and such things are rare to go hand-in-hand...
In your opinion.....
Sure it's my opinion- buy my opinions are far more correct than Breitbart's.
Let me ask you a question, if someone wrote a well written piece that said, contrary to Phib's assertion, that getting out of AF was in the best interests of the US would Breitbart publish it? Not a chance in he'll. But a site like Foreign Policy would or the Atlantic would. Phib would make a great addition to their line up. He's certainly smarter than Megan McArdle. And he would not only get paid-he could still respect himself in the morning. So let's get Phib a by-line at the Atlantic or FP. Real publications with real writing.
So
"<span>Sure it's my opinion- buy my opinions are far more correct than Breitbart's."</span>
<span></span>
<span>Well, that was an arrogant statement.... Must be nice to be as intelligent as you.</span>
"...<span>well documented history...</span>", well, then please provide the links so we can review the evidence.
As for getting me a paying gig - if you know someone over there that wants me to write for them, please have them drop me a line.
I expect whatever compensation Phib might receive will not nearly be enough to get him to consider allowing his moral compass to drift. Nope, not in a million years.
Sure, it's your opinion.
Skippy, let me illustrate a news source that knowingly lies:
When the Valerie Plame incident happened, the headline in WAPO was that Karl Rove had deliberately called Bob Novak in a late-night fit of temper and told Novak whom Plame was, outing her as a "secret" operative. Except WAPO knew that story wasn't true when they printed it, and admitted so.
Yet, we know that Richard Armitage had mentioned her name to Novak in an offhand conversation, and that Plame was not working undercover at the time, something the WAPO also knew.
But there has been no retraction.
THAT, ladies and gentlemen, constitutes a lie.
Sal...you mean...you don't respect yourself in the morning? Say it isn't so!!!
I've made many a walk of shame in my young life, but ne'er from this blog. I could have gone sans Skippy's comment about Breitbart (pun intended). Liberals always try to push conservatives into being whom they want them to be: old, tired, quiet, humble, "maverick," and irrelevant. When someone like Breitbart comes along and shakes things up, the Liberals get all worked up and do their best to isolate them. they tell us that we aren't "contributing to a unifying dialogue" if we listen to them. Well, screw you! If you libs aren't race baiting, you are gender baiting, class baiting, or just hating. the truth never divides.......it sets you free.
It is nice being me.
That conclusion is based on Iskoff's book, and not collaborated fro other sources. Plus you are ignoring the the fact that Karl Rove confirmed Plame's name to the Washington Post-on July 9 2003. And Novak made it clear in an article three years later about the distinction between Armitage and Rove's discussion. Near as I can tell having looked it over-the WAPO had no need to issue a retraction.
That is correct-and that is why I had to make the point about Breitbart. He is bad guy who does conservatives no favors. Breitbart is in it to make money for himself.
C'mon Skippy.
What WAPO printed was inaccurate, and they knew it. My accounting of events is not based on Isikoff's book, but on statements from Armitage himself.
Rove did not "out" Plame (who was not under cover at the time, anyway) in a fit of anger. Period. He did not have the conversation with Novak that ther paper insisted took place. WAPO said he did, knowing it wasn't true. No matter how you care to slant it, what WAPO printed was a fib, and they were aware it was a fib.
Media matters?
Dude. Might as well send a link to the dailykos.
BOLTER BOLTER BOLTER. Get back in the pattern and try another approach.
Fine-there are other places to find the same info-which is that Breitbart is a bad guy.
"<span><span>Legitimate bloggers should<span> </span>avoid linking<span> </span>to his websites. Bloggers and other new media content creators who work for Brietbart, or who post to his sites, should be considered<span> </span>fruit of a poisonous tree."</span></span>
Skippy,
Sorry, but none of your sites have any "there there." Both the ACORN and Sherrod stories are well covered and nothing in either - unless in the Sherrod story you believe in time travel - can be rolled up in anything bad on AB's part. People are just mad because he gets scoops. I get accused of the same thing as a byproduct of some of the stories I broke about USNA and Navy Diversity. No one argues the substance or core fact of what I put out - only that I did not use the graph from page 42 of Annex A that they think in a better representation than the graph on page 22 of Chapter 15 that I used. An any event - whey you google your quote you get a site with the following endorsement, "An excellent site, full of provocative and fascinating material. I have added it to my bookmarks. - George Monbiot, Guardian columnist and best selling author."
Dude, that is THE Monbiot - the source of the now-famous "Moonbat" description. Really Skippy. Really.
and seriously skippy, if that bastard could have burned Rove for you lot he would have. He just had NO evidence that Rove had done the deed. What a hateful dissapointment for you.
some of us know how to spell. get to walk the plank anyway. best to always limit spelling to those words approved by the 1st Ammendment. some of us read Twain when we were tots.
You know, I invited/asked Cynic to give me the hasty heave over the side. I was a bit of a bastard on his site and he refused point blank. Back then I couldn't help myself.
As I see it we're about an inch from using the "m" word. Radical new reinterpretation of the 1st Amendment.
Keep it classy.
Grosse Pointe Blank; great movie. Lived there once, just as I did in Huntsville.
The "M" word?
Post a Comment