Comments on: The McChrystal Review: Yawn.

By: FPWellman

FPWellman — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 12:15:21 +0000

Joshua,
Speaking from the perspective of a PAO I have a couple of comments. First, don’t assume that McChrystal’s staff were the one’s leaking any of this. “I’ve-got-a-secret” is a favorite Pentagon game. Nothing thrills a mid-level Pentagon staffer more than being able to show how important they are because they have been read in on some piece of “important” info. That and the level of access your badge provides are the measures of coolness in certain circles in the building.

Second, word in the hallways is the decision to redact and declassify happened because somebody decided that they would give the report to Bob Woodward because his book on Obama wouldn’t come out for a year and by then the whole issue would be moot. They didn’t realize that Woodward is still on a contract to the WaPo and immediately decided to publish it. When the WaPo editors called the Pentagon saying they had it a mad dash ensued to negotiate taking out as much classified info as possible before the publication on Monday of the whole document. I guess in one sense it could have been worse as they were ready to publish it as is.

There are so many lessons to be learned on media relations here it is ridiculous. Lesson #1 is that classification should have been properly done at the start. When ISAF decided to issue it as Confidential they were asking for it to be leaked. Everybody and his mother had access to it. Lesson #2 almost every author writing a book needs money to pay the bills in the mean time and will publish the juiciest stuff right away to get some cash and build buzz for their book. Woodward is the master of that tactic. Lesson #3 as the famous skit on the old Chris Rock Show explains when dealing with the police…SHUT THE F@#$ UP! Its good to work with the media and authors but sometimes you just need to shut up and not give out secrets or talk out of your lane. If a document says “Confidential” on it…you know…don’t talk about it.

Of course…that’s just my two cents.

By: hire

hire — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 04:40:02 +0000

Good post but i don’t think about war…. its a so harmful for citizens…

By: Madhu

Madhu — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 03:01:06 +0000

These things may not be new to you, but they are to a lay person who is casually reading the press, and might get the idea that all this stuff keeps changing, and the situation is changing, and now the President has to do something.

Hey, I’m just such a clueless layperson, and I assure you, it’s not all that obvious to me. Public opinion puts pressure on decision-makers, so I’m not sure the point of your post? What am I missing? People in the know aren’t listening to you?

You keep mentioning civilians, but even if you get a director of USAID, and fund things adequately, and free up the right State department programs, where are you going to get people who are willing to step into this? There are a limited number of people with the expertise who are going to step into a situation with poor security. Where are they going to come from?

By: lucie lanes

lucie lanes — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 01:52:12 +0000

I don’t know, can he say no to General McChrystal? If he needs to say no, I hope he does, but if he says yes, I hope he does what he needs to for the continued protection of our country and the USA.

By: Joshua Foust

Joshua Foust — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 18:07:17 +0000

And seriously? I'm not the only one to say the review said little that wasn't already public and much hashed-over.

By: Steve Hynd

Steve Hynd — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 17:43:05 +0000

Oh, and another member posted the WaPo’s mailer in full. But that’s just a mass PR email to “undisclosed recipients”.

Regards, Steve

By: Steve Hynd

Steve Hynd — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 17:40:48 +0000

Josh, unless there’s another Drawdown listserv I’m unaware of, no employee sent it linky-links. I posted the WaPo stuff to that list myself when the WaPo sent out its usual midnight “headlines” mailer.

Regards, Steve

By: Joshua Foust

Joshua Foust — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 17:30:30 +0000

Oh, hush up Andrew, and reread that post.

“Indeed, what I find most striking about this is just how thorough McChrystal’s staff has been in leaking the report’s most interesting portions beforehand.”

My point is that most of the report, at least its big conclusions, were leaked weeks to months ahead of its actual release.

And considering the political and professional bents of the review team members, it’s kind of misleading to refer to them as “independent.” Just saying.

By: Abu Muqawama

Abu Muqawama — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 15:26:28 +0000

This is unfair, Josh, and you’re letting your understandable pessimism about the war drift into cynicism. The purpose of the review was to provide a sober assessment of the situation on the ground in Afghanistan and an evaluation of ISAF operations. Funnily enough, nowhere in our duties were “say something new and sexy” included. So the first standard by which you should judge this report is whether or not it does, in fact, describe Afghanistan and ISAF operations there in a manner that matches up with reality as you yourself have seen it both on the ground and from afar. Often, these reports and the external experts who write them serve not to tell the staff and the commander something they do not know but rather to confirm something they already suspect. And though you might not appreciate that as an analyst, this kind of external, independent validation is something commanders often find useful. I agree that a lot of what we know about Afghanistan and what we should do there we knew when Gen. McKiernan was the commander. I could also go into more depth as to why I believe Gen. McChrystal stands a better chance of actually operationalizing a COIN strategy than McKiernan. But that’s another post. In the meantime, judge the report on what it is and what it was meant to be and not on what you, Josh Foust, wishes it had been.

By: Brian

Brian — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 13:02:44 +0000

At the risk of sounding like a younger Dr. Phil (with more hair!), the problem I fear is that few, if anyone, really wants to help Afghans.

Rather they want to feel vindicated, they want to feel they were *right* or they want someone to give them a pat on the back. We see this probably again and again in conflicts launched by the US and many other Western governments(all?).

We also see this problem again and again in international aid efforts launched by the US and many other Western governments(all?).

I’m afraid its become much worse since the 90s and will continue to get worse with the increasing dominance of news media and social media, providing the propagandists on all sides more and more access to our lives, and providing the nuanced theorists more and more benchspace on the sidelines.

The question must stop being “how do we help the poor _____?” It needs to become, “How did this happen? How do we create a fairer, juster world?”

Whether we are talking about the utter collapse of aid efforts in Darfur due to the desperate and crazy propagandizing of Save Darfur and other groups, or the desperate grasping at straws by the military and COIN crowd in Afghanistan, telling us they need just a little more time to “get it right,” isn’t it time we started looking deep in side and asking if we aren’t our own worst enemy?

OK enough Dr. Phil from me. I just wish people would shut up about what “the solution” is, and DO SOMETHING. As much as I hate quoting Toby Keith, “A little less talk and a lot more action, if you please.”