Was McChrystal Ambushed by a Leftie "Hack"?

 

"All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near. Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and crush him."   - Sun Tzu, the Art of War

"Rat in an Eagles' Nest." This is how Geraldo Rivera just described the "journalist" who wrote the Rolling Stone piece on General McChrystal.   I don't usually agree with Rivera, but his words, "a rat in an eagles' nest," seem to me potentially quite apt.  I've heard not a single person question the brilliance or integrity of McChrystal; everything I've heard about this extraordinary warrior is consistent with the "eagle" description, however lacking he may have been in media savvy.  So, the question is then, what about the writer?  Is he a rat?

I think the Rolling Stone writer is the same Michael Hastings that followed Giuliani during the presidential primaries (in both instances he is described as the author of a book called I Left My Love in Baghdad).  Check this out from Mr. Hastings, published in GQ, October 2008. 

It's called "Hack: Confessions of a Presidential Campaign Reporter."

.... The reality is: I quickly realized Rudy was a maniac. I had a recurring fantasy in which I took him out during a press conference (it was nonlethal, just something that put him out of commission for a year or so), saving America from the horror of a President Giuliani. If that sounds like I had some trouble being “objective,” I did. Objectivity is a fallacy....

... I ate meals with staffers and campaign managers. I tried to say things that would make me appear sympathetic to Rudy while not technically lying. (“Wow, he sure seems popular.” “I was in New York on 9/11, and I have to be honest with you, I was glad Rudy was in charge.”) I tried to stay out of any discussion about issues and to just repeat the mantra to myself: I am here to observe and record, observe and record.

The dance with staffers is a perilous one. You’re probably not going to get much, if any, one-on-one time with the candidate, which means your sources of information are the people who work for him. So you pretend to be friendly and nonthreatening, and over time you “build trust,” which everybody involved knows is an illusion. If the time comes, if your editor calls for it, you’re supposed to f-ck them over...

If the radical Left, or even the not-so-radical Left - with its virulent and constant degradation of anything or anyone who is good and true or who loves this country -  has sabotaged America by ambushing one of our greatest "eagles" and knowingly destroying his career, well.... what is there left to say?

Gd save us.  This stinks to high heaven.

Oh, and one more thing.  A military man and friend and colleague of McChrystal was interviewed, I forget his name, and he said that the General should have watched his flank.  It's good advice for all of us. That, and know your enemy.

If you know the enemy and know yourself,

you need not fear the result of a hundred battles.

 

If you know yourself but not the enemy,
    for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat.

    If you know neither the enemy nor yourself,

you will succumb in every battle.

Comments

[Michael Krauss]

Very good find, Anne! However, McChrystal should not have fallen for this scam. He should have known better. Unlike mere politicians, generals are trained to be on guard against feints of all kinds. His departure is a loss for our nation. As one whose son will likely be in Afghanistan before year's end, though, I'm glad that the incompetence of the nation's leaders has been put on display in the RS piece. Maybe they will wake up. Or maybe the nation will.

[Anne Lieberman]

Michael, I agree that McChrystal shouldn't have fallen for it. Living not in America but in Afghanistan these last years, he didn't recognize the deception, didn't realize that an American journalistic hack could be a dangerous enemy. Either that, or he figured this was the only way to get his opinions out where The People could see them. If in fact it wasn't an intentional "leak," then I think we have to admit in his defense, that no one could ever have imagined that Rolling Stone Magazine could influence the military decisions of the Commander-in-Chief. Who reads that rag, anyway? Well, apparently Robert Gibbs does -- and the rest is history. I will tell you this -- It doesn't make me feel very secure to see that an admitted hack like Hastings wields the kind of power needed to undo the leadership of a major American war effort. In fact, it scares me to death.