Veni, Vidi, Vici
Gen. Stanley McChrystal, four-star general, in service since 1976. A four-star general is the highest rank any army personnel can attain in the US Army. He's held a lot of positions within the army and is not someone new to this job and he definitely knows the politics that revolves around this job, especially that of not upsetting the chain of command. The question why did the general give such an interview ? Why now?
Let's take a trip down memory lane. During the Bush era, he was the Pentagon spokesperson at the time of the Iraq invasion, in 2003. On multiple occasions he supported the White House, even when they were clearly in the wrong. McChrystal backed the then Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's infamous "Stuff happens" remark, even tried to cover up the accidental death of a US soldier by his own troops.
Clearly, he knew how to handle the chain of command, and play along and please them. He knew very well what was expected of him and most importantly how to execute it.
One of Obama's key electoral manifestos was to reduce and bring back US troops from Afghanistan and Iraq. Hence any policy contrary to the promises he made would draw strong criticism. Thus he required some kind of miracle to sail past this hurdle.
And help sure did arrive, in the form of McChrystal's assessment report on Afghanistan in which the General states- "We are going to win" and the need for an additional 30,000-40,000 troops. It was too much of a coincidence that the report went public as well as the sanctioning of 30,000 troops to Afghanistan, just what the General requested. This way everyone was happy- The White House, The General and… the people of America- If we can win, then send in more troops. The media had been managed well, just as the time when Bush alleged Iraq to possess WMDs.
The question now is why an article like this. One that mocks the government and everyone incharge. And why would a person who does not like too much public attention go ahead and give an interview with Rolling Stone (The Runaway General)? And furthermore give permission to publish it? Why?
The answer might be one of the two. One might be McChrystal knowing that the mission in Afghanistan is in on a slippery slope, victory a mirage. A recently released independent report by the Special Inspector-General for Afghanistan Reconstruction found big failings in the methods US and multinational forces have used since 2005 to assess the readiness of Afghan army and police who will be left behind. This completely contradicts the recent upbeat assessment of foreign commanders in the region.
Or it could be Washington's disapproval of McChrystal's strategies. An army with a policy of shoot first talk next might find it hard to fight with tactics that involves ensuring safety of civilians as a priority even if it means putting at risk the life of soldiers. And mind you, America does not like to apologize either (Stuff happens). They needed someone who would execute their style especially at a time when they are drawing heavy criticism from within their nation over the war and the demand to bring back their soldiers.
Despite the tragedies and miscues, McChrystal has issued some of the strictest directives to avoid civilian casualties that the U.S. military has ever encountered in a war zone. It's "insurgent math," as he calls it – for every innocent person you kill, you create 10 new enemies. He has ordered convoys to curtail their reckless driving, put restrictions on the use of air power and severely limited night raids. He regularly apologizes to Hamid Karzai when civilians are killed, and berates commanders responsible for civilian deaths. "For a while," says one U.S. official, "the most dangerous place to be in Afghanistan was in front of McChrystal after a 'civ cas' incident." The ISAF command has even discussed ways to make not killing into something you can win an award for: There's talk of creating a new medal for "courageous restraint," a buzzword that's unlikely to gain much traction in the gung-ho culture of the U.S. military.
But however strategic they may be, McChrystal's new marching orders have caused an intense backlash among his own troops. Being told to hold their fire, soldiers complain, puts them in greater danger. "Bottom line?" says a former Special Forces operator who has spent years in Iraq and Afghanistan. "I would love to kick McChrystal in the nuts. His rules of engagement put soldiers' lives in even greater danger. Every real soldier will tell you the same thing."
- excerpts from The Runaway General
If he were to resign his command in the region, it would send in wrong signals across both nationally and internationally. Therefore a more shrewd approach was required. And that's where the public-relations (PR) skills of the US government kicks in.
If an occupation can be converted to a settlement or a neighborhood or a disputed region, and if you can convince the masses that Iraq possesses WMDs then it would require no rocket science to divert the attention of the public from the real issue, case in point.
Micheal Hastings brings to light a lot of difficulties faced by the General and the state of affairs in the region. It questions the real motive of the US army in the region and their long term goals. But the media decided to discuss the more sensational aspects of the article, like his remarks on Biden, and left out the sections that ought to have been discussed and debated in public.
The timing couldn't have been more perfect either. With BP pouring out millions into PR campaigns (50 million to be precise)- to improve it brand image against plummeting share prices and directing the blame at the president, the Obama administration needed space, to prove that he is still the leader of the pack. And what better way to deflect attention towards something else that would see him emerges out as the Alpha-male. By firing McChrystal the president clearly showed who's in charge.
Just as Julius César commented on his short war with Pharnaces II of Pontus- veni, vidi, vici (I came, I saw, I conquered), the government called the shots, the media spoke and the people followed. Rather than discuss the political aspect and the far reaching consequences of the piece, journalists and media organisations were attacking the author (Micheal Hastings), calling him unprofessional and unethical, one journalist even went so far to call him unpatriotic. Eventually the gist of the story was skipped by the media(s) all together, just another successful media campaign by the US government.
In a time when sensationalism and embedded journalism is the order of the day, media organizations will not complain or dare to, rather be partners in crime. And people say crime does not pay.
All in all, it was just another day in US politics.
