asimplechord | (no subject)

+ Hastings earned a contract for a book about his adventures in Afghanistan? The cynic in me wonders if this was the reason for the controversial article, to generate noise and interest. (I haven't read his memoir of Iraq. Anyone have an opinion on it?)

+ The Snowflake turned over 100k miles on my commute to work yesterday. \o/?

+ I have no idea what was in the pocket of these pants when I washed them, but I put my phone in one, and when I took it out, there was something sticky on its screen. And when I put my hands into any of the pockets - front or back - they come out sticky, with something that feels like drying glue on them. D:

+ I'm not sure if it's an editing error or a type-setting error, but there have been several instances of letter inversion in my copy of The Gamble: General David Petraeus and the American Military Adventure in Iraq, 2006-2008 (do NOT get me started on the use of the word "adventure" to describe the invasion and its aftermath, just don't), with the most recently observed being:

Cook[...] had several extensive conservations with Sarhan, beginning on the first day of 2008.

Um, really? Do you mean conversations?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

McChrystal made some really stupid remarks to Hastings, and I definitely don't agree with a lot of his policies, but by god, we do need fewer politicians in positions of power determining the fate of wars they've never stepped foot on. I kind of feel bad for McChrystal, especially if Hastings' timing was just to generate interest in his book.

I have very mixed feelings about McChrystal, even without taking the most recent kerfluffle into account, and he said some REALLY dumb things. The thing that bothers me, though, is the idea that a) his most provocative (or his aides' most provocative, since many of the quotes used in the article weren't even *his*, they were his staffers' - which then begs the question: what kind of command atmosphere did he establish?) comments were used to generate the most controversy, or that b) as this Army Times (http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/07/army_rolling_stone_mchrystal_071210w/) article suggests, what they had verbally agreed would be off-the-record Hastings used on the record. Of course, the source is the Army Times, which obvs would want to spin this in a way that's positive for the Army/McC and cast blame elsewhere.

Edited 2010-07-07 19:56 (UTC)

I'm annoyed about this book deal.

Uh...that's it.

The more I think about it, the more it irks me. Especially in light of the Army Times article.

Can you send me a link for that?

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/07/army_rolling_stone_mchrystal_071210w/

Thanks!

Oh no. Not good.

This bothers me on so many levels I can't even verbalize them all coherently.

First, I don't consider Rolling Stone to be *that* liberal. Just left of center, really. With a fairly wide audience. So for them, as a magazine, to endorse this sort of behavior? Really just reinforces a mistrust between the civilian media and the military. If I were in the military, I'd probably assume that anyone who read and automatically believed what was printed in this article was beneath me. Does not engender trust or understanding between the civilian and military cohorts.

I've read some journalists (not main-stream ones, generally) who think that what Hastings did really shows how many journalists in DC, in positions of power, kowtow to their subject to keep their "in", or because it's comfortable. I recognize that there may be some validity to this argument, but there has to be a line, an on-the-record vs. background/off-the-record, and if the Army Times piece is true, then that was crossed.

And then. For the average American, since 2007, when Petraeus testified about Iraq before Congress and mainstream-media news coverage of the war there and in Afghanistan decreased, an article like this, which makes headlines, is really the only blip on their consciousness that we still have soldiers deployed. And it was negative. That CANNOT be good for the civilian/military relationship, which is already obviously strained at the upper levels by the fact that there are now so very few civilian leaders with military experience.

GAH. I am incoherent in my frustration.

Edited 2010-07-08 02:12 (UTC)

Totally coherent. I always love reading your opinions on things.

I completely agree. I was talking to my mom about this last night and really, for RS to back this guy after these accusations? Not cool. I know how easy it is to take a quote and use it to suit a story. SO EASY. You want to sell your story. You want people to feel something. I think everyone who writes twists things to a degree, but there's a line and Hastings crossed it. I guess journalistic integrity doesn't exist in his mind.

I wish there was more of a balance in the reports on this war.