Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Media Missing the McChrystal Point

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-10 12:04 PM
Original message
Media Missing the McChrystal Point
Published on Friday, June 25, 2010 by FAIR

Media Missing the McChrystal Point

by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting


NEW YORK - The media firestorm over the Rolling Stone profile (6/22/10) of General Stanley McChrystal mostly missed the real point of the article, which was a damning portrait of the U.S. war in Afghanistan.

Much of the media coverage stressed the criticism and insults hurled by McChrystal and his staff at various administration figures. Some of these remarks were more substantive than others. A joke about Joe Biden ("Bite Me") has been overblown; McChrystal and his staff seemed to be suggesting a list of possible gaffes the general might make following a speech.

The real significance of the piece is in the criticism--voiced by soldiers in Afghanistan and military experts--of the war itself. "Even those who support McChrystal and his strategy of counterinsurgency know that whatever the general manages to accomplish in Afghanistan, it's going to look more like Vietnam than Desert Storm," wrote Rolling Stone's Michael Hastings.

A senior adviser to McChrystal stated, "If Americans pulled back and started paying attention to this war, it would become even less popular." Hastings added that some officials see the war requiring a much larger troop presence: "Instead of beginning to withdraw troops next year, as Obama promised, the military hopes to ramp up its counterinsurgency campaign even further."

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/06/25-7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Honeycombe8 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-10 06:04 PM
Response to Original message
1. I disagree. McChrystal and his staff did not criticize the strategy. It was personal....
locker room humor. It wasn't military-like, it was insubordination (calling your superiors derogatory names), and the whole thing showed judgment that would be lacking in any general running a war and showed he wasn't capable of doing that. He had lost the confidence of his superiors in following orders.

That's what it was about. McChrystal was already on record as being in agreement with the W.H. strategy in Afghanistan, I believe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue May 07th 2024, 09:58 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC