-
Next: The Benghazi Select Committee
May 13, 2013 | 94 comments
-
Nobody Died in Watergate
May 9, 2013 | 145 comments
-
Benghazi Bullchips
May 6, 2013 | 184 comments
-
Obama’s Thin Red Line
April 29, 2013 | 207 comments
-
Why Has No One Taken Credit?
April 22, 2013 | 189 comments
Loose Canons
COIN-ing the SGO
Kagan gets going — and so does a return of press hostility toward the military.
You don’t need a mcchrystal ball to divine that there is too much SGO in Washington this week. And it’s not necessary to violate Vice President Biden’s admonition to a Milwaukee custard store manager to demonstrate that everything important is — directly or not — about the only part of the federal government that is functioning as the Founders intended: our armed forces.
(For those just joining us, SGO is the acronym invented by my pal, former SEAL Al Clark, which stands for the comprehensively useful phrase “s**t goin’ on.”)
Today Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan will confess the epiphany that she’s had, realizing she was wrong fifteen years ago when she condemned the “vapid and hollow charade” that hearings on nominations to the high court had become. She wrote that nominees “…usually can comment on judicial methodology, on prior case law, on hypothetical cases, on general issues like affirmative action or abortion.”
Kagan has promised to be more forthcoming than other recent nominees but she will bob and weave like the rest of them, protected by the ever-watchful Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy (D-VT). Her hostility to the military — having banned recruiters from Harvard Law School while dean in apparent violation of law, her statement that the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law banning open homosexuals from serving is “a profound wrong” and a “moral injustice of the first order” — is a matter of record which Republicans will, probably all too gently, explore.
It may require the intellectual agility of CNN’s newest commentator — former New York Governor and Emperors’ Club member Eliot Spitzer — to sort out how the Solicitor General can be open-minded toward our military and the laws that govern it.
Spitzer — tanned, rested and ready — is likely to prove effective as an opinion maker. Yesterday, he delivered himself of the wisdom that President Obama hasn’t read the anger of Americans correctly. Yes, Eliot, he hasn’t. And neither has the media. In a poll released last week, Rasmussen Reports found that “Sixty-six percent (66%) of U.S. voters describe themselves as at least somewhat angry at the media, including 33% who are Very Angry.” That anger is connected directly to the anger at Obama: the media’s dishonesty and Stakhanovite efforts backing Obama haven’t produced what the voters wanted in 2008.
Spitzer’s presence on CNN will either drive that 66% up to the 90s or, in voter exhaustion, convert anger into pity. Either way, we should expect Spitzer to be a force at CNN. It’s only a matter of time before he’s proclaimed a hero by Keith Olbermann.
But Olbermann — and those who still inhabit the MoveOn.org fever swamp — may be so immersed in defending Kagan that they will ignore the bigger show this week, the Tuesday confirmation hearing on Gen. David Petraeus’s nomination to take overall command in Afghanistan.
Gen. Petraeus has been, since he took command in Iraq, our chief nation-builder. He is the author of the U.S. manual on counterinsurgency warfare (which, in the inevitable military acronym, is “COIN”). And he has said that he supports President Obama’s policy.
But Obama’s policy is compounding George Bush’s mistakes. In his December speech to West Point cadets announcing the Afghanistan troop surge, he said our “overarching goal” there was “to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future.” But how long “the future” may be is a variable on which depends the possibility of success.
The success of the counterinsurgency in Iraq is as impermanent as French loyalty. Petraeus’s generalship did create a situation there in which the Iraqis had the chance to resolve their differences and become a democratic state. That chance has been thrown away in political argument without end. Our combat troops will have left Iraq by summer’s end, and it will likely take less time than Petraeus has in Afghanistan for the product of his Iraq counterinsurgency to be tossed into the ash heap of history.
How long is “the future” in Obama’s policy goal? If it is no longer than the time between now and the 2012 election, why should we be spending American lives to do in Afghanistan no more than we did in Iraq?
And, more importantly, for how long can Petraeus — whom I know to be brilliant and a man of character — go along with this sham?
The media are building a narrative that demands withdrawal from Afghanistan, and a plan to accomplish it by a specific date. Petraeus must know that he — not Obama — will bear the brunt of this political assault.
The ghosts of Vietnam that still haunt the Pentagon’s halls are whispering again that the media are the enemy. Some Pentagon grumblers agree. They think Gen. Stanley McChrystal and his staff got a raw deal in the Rolling Stone article and from that derive the conclusion that the military should revert to the bad old days of the Vietnam era, when the press was as much an enemy as the Viet Cong.
About the Author
Jed Babbin served as a Deputy Undersecretary of Defense under George H.W. Bush. He is the author of several bestselling books including Inside the Asylum and In the Words of Our Enemies. You can follow him on Twitter @jedbabbin.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (27) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Jed Babbin
More Articles From Loose Canons
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/06/28/coin-ing-the-sgo
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- A Nation on the Edge
- The Demise of Money and Credit
- Downton’s Class System — and Ours
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Louis Jenkins| 6.28.10 @ 8:17AM
The Rolling Stone couldn't ignore the juicy, ripe apple that McCrystal and his staff dangled in front of them. Anything less from Rolling Stone would have been cutney. Obviously McCrystal and staff hadn't read Rolling Stone, at least lately. Those guys do not have the military's best interest in mind and never will.
Christopher Holland| 6.28.10 @ 8:05PM
General Sherman knew how to handle the media - he despised journalists, he thought they were croaking liars and traitors out to undermine the war effort, they passed information to the enemy and were more a hindrance than a help. During the siege of Vicksburg a steamboat carrying reporters hit a mine and sank, with heavy loss of life. Sherman was annoyed that there were survivors - he thought it couldn't happen to a more deserving bunch.
Toolbag| 6.28.10 @ 9:10PM
A scorpion and a frog meet on the bank of a stream and the scorpion asks the frog to carry him across on its back. The frog asks, "How do I know you won't sting me?" The scorpion says, "Because if I do, I will die too."
The frog is satisfied, and they set out, but in midstream, the scorpion stings the frog. The frog feels the onset of paralysis and starts to sink, knowing they both will drown, but has just enough time to gasp "Why?" Replies the scorpion: "Its my nature..."
The Frog knew better but still went along with it.
Melvin| 6.28.10 @ 8:21AM
The first thing that people need to do is, to dispel the urban legend that the media reports the news. In the age of 24 hours cycles, stories need to be jazzed up with sex, and opinion.
One example is FoxNews. I'm starting to wonder if a prerequisite for being in-front of the camera
is having to be female, blond, and having legs up to their armpits.
How many times have we seen Heraldo's bluthering mug spilling crocodile tears or Shepard's Smith's deer in the headlight thousand yard stare that he has perfected to a tee.
Then there is her royal perkiness Katie Couric with her stearn and matronly stare that can bore into the hardened of men to seek the, "Truth."
I'm sorry, news isn't reported anymore it is created for shock and ratings value. Even Keith's tingling leg doesn't help either.
Thomas| 6.28.10 @ 10:02AM
Vietnam taught the military a lesson that they forgot in the post 9/11 era; that was that the media has its own agenda and they only report accurately when it serves their purposes. The media of the Tet Offensive was a classic example of the media's willingness to never allow the facts to get in the way of their story.
The Tet Offensive was the Vietnam War's Battle of the Bulge. When the battles were all over, horrendous casualties had been inflicted on both the Viet Cong [their strength was reduced by nearly 3/4] and the NVA lost an amount of men and, especially, materiel that could not be readily replaced. It was so bad, that General Giap was making plans to apply for a permanent armistice. Any significant push by Allied troops, at that time, probably would have ended the shooting war and established a Korea style "peace". But, that didn't happen.
The media, with Walter Cronkite leading the charge, portrayed the Tet Offensive as a victory for the North. They kept beating the drum that all was lost and that it was only matter of time before the NVA swept down upon the South and drove the Americans into the sea. Even though all evidence pointed to the fact that the North had expended a tremendous amount of resources for absolutely no military gain. In other words, the media actively engaged in, not reporting the news, but re-writing recent historical fact.
The recent Gen. McChrystal incident points up the fact that nothing has changed, significantly, in journalistic circles. The media still refuses to allow facts to cloud the bigger "story". While I do not doubt that the General probably uttered the words attributed to him by his aides, the national media never reported the fact that these quotes did not come from the General, but rather others. From a news media that seems to be obsessed with the term "alleged" [even when there is video tape of a man beating another man to death with a Louisville Slugger, he is always referred to as the alleged perpetrator], not one report referred to these "quotes" as alleged remarks. They reported as though actual recordings of Gen. McChrystal saying them existed.
Where the media is concerned, today's military has forgotten the quote long attributed to Winston Churchill: ""Those that fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it."
JimP| 6.28.10 @ 6:11PM
Thanks for recounting this infamous bit of history for those too young know or unaware of it. The Tet reporting was the quintessential example of the media reporting bias against our involvement in Vietnam. Hopefully, Walter Cronkite is in a very warm place these days.
Thom| 6.28.10 @ 6:41PM
Thomas said, " Any significant push by Allied troops, at that time, probably would have ended the shooting war and established a Korea style "peace". But, that didn't happen." While true do you know why this didn't happen? There is more to it than just the media/political end of the story. That missing part is the same part the caused out defeat in Korea also. We don't have it in Afghanstan today also.
PointyHead| 6.28.10 @ 10:48AM
as a licensed pedant allow me to point outthat the quote on history was from Santayana. The Fox commentators are the daughters of Miss Reingolds'.The first was "Jinx"Faulkenburg and like the Foxes she was very competent!
Thomas| 6.28.10 @ 11:33AM
Actually, George Santayana wrote “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
— Life of Reason, Reason in Common Sense, Scribner's, 1905, p. 284.
Churchill may have paraphrased Santayana during a pre-WWII speech where he uttered the above quote, Interestingly enough, the Santayana quote bears a startling similarity to an Edmund Burke (1729-1797) statement, "Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it."
This particular theme probably goes back to Aristotle and Plato, at least. So, let us not quibble over who's on first.
Nick| 6.28.10 @ 12:26PM
The four stinking liberals on the U.S. Supreme Court voted against the U.S. Constitution today, in the ruling against the Chicago gun ban.
Liberals don't care what the Constitution says, or any law for that matter. They only care about getting their way, no matter what it takes. They will lie, cheat, and steal to get what they want.
The KAGAN will be no different. Remember the RINOs who vote for her, when they come up for re-election, and vote for their primary challengers.
Margie| 6.28.10 @ 12:45PM
"And they will. The McChrystal admirers who are tempted to declare the media an enemy aren't all wrong. But however few in the media are willing to give the military a fair shake -- and those souls that may be converted -- are worth the time it takes to convey the facts on the ground."
Wow. THAT is wonderful. I truly appreciate what Mr. Babbin has to say here, and he has also gained one huge admirer.
Something inside of me knew it wasn't right to speak ill of McChrystal, and in reading the posts here between John II and Dixie Pixie, and Ken, there were the 2 theories. One, that he admirably fell on his sword, the other, that he was set up.
This last paragraph I believe says it all. And I say again, God bless General McChrystal, and God bless our United States Armed Forces.
Dixie Pixie| 6.28.10 @ 8:00PM
Greetings Margie Oh Graceful Slayer of Trolls
There is a third explanation for the McChrystal Affair.
That is what I call a Collision of Converging Interests.
It is just possible all the parties involved had converging although different reasons for consenting to the interview.
It is all speculation until the author wants to tell all about the McChrystal Affair.
As for myself I am in the “He was setup” camp.
Margie| 6.28.10 @ 8:43PM
Greetings Ol' Dixie Pixie,
Well I don't know about graceful and I don't know about slaying them and I sure feel all alone in my quest.
Why is it that no one wants to slay the trolls along with me? Is it that most here are of the same mindset? Libertarian non-interventionists themselves? Are you that, Mr. Pixie? You can't be! You are too kind.
Any old how, after reading Mr. Babbins' article I have come to the conclusion that the General did it knowingly and purposefully and that he did fall valiantly on his sword, and to "alert the Liberal Media" world while doing so, and thus that last paragraph by Mr. Babbin. This is what my original thought was.
I must say I am overwhelmed. But I too await his book, to know for sure, if he chooses to write one. I hope he hires John II to write it.
Dixie Pixie| 6.28.10 @ 9:42PM
Greetings Margie Oh Graceful Slayer of Trolls
If you are asking about my position on the political chart. I would have to say I am a Paleozoic-Taft-Conservative who thinks the John Birch Society not only got it backwards but is a hot bed of liberal twittery. This comes naturally being 6 inches tall and living in a 300+ year old acorn oak tree.
As for why I don't slay Trolls, is simply I am trying “Transmogrification To Conservationism By Reason Spells”. My thinking is it not only better to save Liberals Souls, it is a lot more fun to do so.
Besides a really cutting wit which I do my best to keep in check, I do my I have a combination 20 pound wood maul and Thesaurus that makes a excellent troll brasher.
Just in from O'Reilly Factor on Fox.
Bernie Goldberg is convinced General McChrystal was burned on orders from the “Rolling Stones” editor. He used the authors own words to back up his position.
O'Reilly's position that the “Rolling Stones” reporter was a Human weasel who burned on reflex alone.
Ken (Old Texican)| 6.28.10 @ 1:01PM
Dear Father in heaven, please hold every single one of our honorable military in harm's way.....in the palm of Your hand.
Please forgive them their sins...and place their stripes on my back.
In Jesus' name.
Amen
Margie| 6.28.10 @ 1:31PM
Amen!
Northern Rebel| 6.28.10 @ 3:00PM
One can only hope that Pat Leahy will soon follow the leadership of his highly esteemed colleague, Senator Robert Byrd, shortly.
Pocono Joe| 6.28.10 @ 6:30PM
"Northern Rebel, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship"
/props to Bogie/
mrj| 6.28.10 @ 4:31PM
I understand the impulse to not give up entirely on the media. There is the fact that they are a necessary evil to convey facts to the public about what the military is doing. But the media is changing, the legacy media shrinking, and the surviving legacy contingent is growing more and more ideological. (Left-leaning.) In this situation, like a wounded, cornered animal, they can become even more dangerous.
Now, there's a whole alternative media universe out there that has proven quite capable of "getting the word out." Issues that crop up on military blogs (mostly conservative, but not all) have been picked up by MSM. You don't have to risk a hostile liberal mainstream reporter framing the story for presentation to the public. You can get the story straight from direct participants or their relatives, covered by military or former military reporters, so that an accurate narrative (hate that word) is established before ABC or the WaPo decide to take it up.
Nearly every obstacle or problem in this war has it's roots in something related to the media, whether a reporter conjuring up a false story, or the media selectively skewing their overall reporting strategy.
You can see the media as a problematic but as a necessary element in modern warfare, especially in something as perceptions-dependent as COIN. They should still be handled with mistrust (more than the military has shown to date). Yes, that might mean less favorable coverage, too, but in the end, the tradeoff might be worthwhile.
I'll have to vote with those who believe McChrystal tried to use the RS article to illustrate the effect Obama's restrictive ROE was having on the troops. Unfortunately, the salacious gossip of the aids muddled that message. I wasn't so sure until I remembered one of Special Forces' main mission areas: PSYOP. : )
Rich Rostrom| 6.28.10 @ 6:14PM
"To the media all the ills the country suffered in the Vietnam War were the fault of the professional military, not the idiots in the White House..."
Excuse me. To the media, LBJ and Nixon were monsters. The military were the vile stooges of the vile leaders - guilty of carrying out the evil orders the Presidents were guilty of issuing.
Northern Rebel| 6.28.10 @ 7:13PM
Pocono Joe:
Thanks, pal!
I'm on the northern edge of the souther tier, 35 miles southeast of Syracuse, so we're damn near neighbors too!
Yosemeti Sam| 6.29.10 @ 2:32AM
LBSM PEN1 - Leftoid backstream media; Public Enemy No. 1!
That is all one has to - REMEMBER!