Michael Hastings was the Rolling Stone reporter whose article on “The Runaway General” ended the illustrious military career of General Stanley McCrystal.
In 2012, Hastings greatly expanded on his article with a vividly-written book: The Operators: The Wild and Terrifying Inside Story of America’s War in Afghanistan.
According to its hardcover dust jacket: “General Stanley McCrystal, the innovative, forward-thinking, commanding general of international and U.S. forces in Afghanistan, was living large. He was better known to some as Big Stan, M4, Stan, and his loyal staff liked to call him a ‘rock star.’
General Stanley A. McCrystal
“During a spring 2010 trip across Europe to garner additional allied help for the war effort, McCrystal was accompanied by journalist Michael Hastings of Rolling Stone.
“For days, Hastings looked on as McCrystal and his staff let off steam, partying and openly bashing the Obama administration for what they saw as a lack of leadership.
“When Hastings’ piece appeared a few months later, it set off a poltical firestorm: McCrystal was ordred to Washington where he was fired uncereminously.”
But there is an even deeper element to be found within Hastings’ book–that is, for anyone with even a general knowledge of the war in Vietnam.
Hastings does not make any direct parallels between the almost 14-year conflict in Afghanistan and the conflict that raged in Vietnam from 1961 to 1975. But those parallels are definitely there for anyone to see.
Consider:
- Ngo Dinh Diem, the “president” of South Vietnam (1955-1963) was a Catholic mandarin who was alienated from an overwhelmingly poor, 95% Buddhist country.
- Hamid Karzai, the “president” of Afghanistan (2001-2014t) is from a wealthy Pashtun family and is alienated from members of other Afghan tribes.
- Diem’s authority didn’t extend far beyond Saigon.
- Karzai’s authority didn’t extend beyond Kabul.
- Diem didn’t believe in democracy–despite American claims to support his efforts to bring it to Vietnam.
- Ditto for Karzai–despite American claims to support his efforts to bring democracy to Afghanistan.
- Diem was widely regarded in Vietnam as an illegitimate leader, imposed by the Americans.
- Ditto for Karzai.
Ngo Dinh Diem
Hamid Karzai
- American soldiers were sent to Vietnam because America feared Communism.
- American soldiers were sent to Afghanistan because America feared terrorism.
- Americans were ordered to train the South Vietnamese to defend themselves against Communism.
- American troopss were ordered to train the Afghan army to defend themselves against terrorism.
- Americans quickly determined that the South Vietnamese army was worthless–and decided to fight the Vietcong in its place.
- Americans quickly determined that the Afghan army was worthless–and decided to fight the Taliban in its place.
American soldiers in Vietnam
- There was massive distrust between American and South Vietnamese soldiers.
- Ditto for relations between American and Afghan soldiers.
- American soldiers in Vietnam felt surrounded by enemies and hamstrung by unrealistic orders to win “hearts and minds” at the risk of their own lives.
- Ditto for American soldiers stationed in Afghanistan.
- President John F. Kennedy doubted that Americans could win a war in Vietnam and tried to contain the conflict.
- President Barack Obama came into office determined to contain the Afghan conflict and withdraw American troops as soon as possible.
- In the early 1960s, the Pentagon saw Vietnam as “the only war we’ve got” and pressed to insert greater numbers of men.
- In 2001, the Pentagon saw Afghanistan as “the only war we’ve got” and pressed to insert greater numbers of men.
American soldiers in Afghanistan
- The Vietcong and North Vietnamese Army (NVA) posed no threat to the security of the United States.
- The Taliban poses no threat to the security of the United States.
- The far Right embraced the Vietnam war as a way to assert American power in Asia.
- The far Right embraced the Afghan war–and later the war on Iraq–as a way to assert American power in the Middle East.
- Counterinsurgency was preached as the key to defeating the Vietcong in Vietnam–where it didn’t work.
- Counterinsurgency is now being preached as the key to defeating the Taliban in Afghanistan–where it hasn’t worked.
- Americans entered Vietnam without an exit strategy.
- Americans entered Afghanistan without an exit strategy.
From this, the United States should draw several conclusions:
- Commit forces only when American security is truly threatened.
- Go in with overwhelming force, destroy as much of the enemy as quickly as possible, then get out.
- Occupations are costly in lives and treasure–as Napoleon and Hitler discovered–and should be avoided.
- Don’t try to remake the cultures of other nations–especially those of a primitive, alien nature such as Afghanistan.
Hastings’ book does not cover the Afghan war to its end. It can’t, since there is no telling when that war will end.
But by the end of its 379 pages, it’s clear what that outcome will be: Another futile exercise in “nation-building” at an exorbitant cost in American lives and treasure.
ABC NEWS, AL CAPONE, CBS NEWS, CENSORSHIP, CNN, ELIOT NESS, ELLIS ACT, EVICTIONS, FACEBOOK, HARRISON E. SALISBURY, LANDLORDS, NBC NEWS, SAN FRANCISCO, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE UNTOUCHABLES, THE WASHINGTON POST, THE WINDERMERE CAY APARTMENTS, TWITTER, USA TODAY, YELP!
LANDLORDS: AMERICA’S AYATOLLAHS: PART TWO (END)
In Business, History, Politics, Social commentary on March 12, 2015 at 1:11 amBecome a tenant at the Windermere Cay complex in Winter Garden, Florida, and you can check your First Amendment rights at the door.
Its management wants to force new tenants to sign a “social media addendum” as part of their lease. And if they dare to post a negative online review of the building, they’ll face a fine of $10,000.
But reaction to this attempted muzzling of freedom of speech has been one the landlord probably didn’t expect.
Yelp! has been flooded with negative reviews of the complex.
Among these:
If you are that worried about negative reviews, that just makes me ask one question: What are you hiding?
* * * * *
This complex made national news by threatening a $10k fine to residents if they share a bad review or photo. This legal bullying demonstrates either an oppressive management or a complete ignorance of social media or personal freedom.
In both cases you should exercise caution if considering them and read your contracts carefully.
* * * * *
I’ve got a great business idea. When our customers complain, instead of us fixing the problem we will threaten them with blackmail by asking them for ten grand.
* * * * *
Sieg Heil Windermere!! Gestapo much???
What century do you people exist in?? I wouldn’t live here if you paid me to. You couldn’t give these units away considering your BS threats to FINE RESIDENTS TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS!!!
WTF is wrong with you people!! Anyone who gets a paycheck from this corporate monstrosity should be fired (or quit if they have half a brain…). Whoever came up with this super clever idea of A 10K FINE should be kneecapped.
* * * * *
Well apparently anyone who lives here will get fined $10,000 for any bad reviews, and any photos posted on reviews are copyrighted to the company by terms of the lease???
This complex is about as dishonest as it gets guys. If an apartment needs a policy like this then what else do you need to know about the quality of the management here.
* * * * *
The owners of the Apartment Complex are literally anti-free speech Nazis. Don’t move here unless you have $10k in your bank account and don’t believe in the First Amendment.
* * * * *
This apartment complex deserves 0 stars, shame on the management company for deceiving people into signing their addendum.
* * * * *
Be cautious of anywhere that fears the residents’ honest feedback so much that they forbid them from speaking out on social media. The energy spent on creating this stupid 10K clause could have been spent on actually creating an enjoyable living experience.
Click here: Windermere Cay – Apartments – Yelp
The sudden onslaught of bad publicity obviously caught the complex by surprise.
When contacted by Ars Technica, the online magazine that had exposed this outrage, a manager disclaimed the contract:
“This addendum was put in place by a previous general partner for the community following a series of false reviews. The current general partner and property management do not support the continued use of this addendum and have voided it for all residents.”
This despite the fact that the addendum had been given to a tenant to sign just a few days before.
Not only have these strong-arm tactics yielded a tidal wave of bad publicity, such an addendum would be legally unenforceable.
For starters, it’s a blatant violation of the First Amendment, guaranteeing freedom of speech and the press.
States have taken struck down efforts by businesses to censor the written opinions of their customers.
In his 2003 decision in New York vs. Network Associates, a judge ruled that telling customers they couldn’t publish reviews of software “without prior consent” violated New York’s unfair competition law.
Americans all-too-often take their Constitutionally-protected freedoms for granted–until they travel abroad to nations ruled by dictators. Or until they encounter would-be dictators at home.
Harrison E. Salisbury, the Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter, faced the difficulties of censorship during his years as Moscow bureau chief for The New York Times (1949-1954).
Harrison E. Salisbury, with the Kremlin in back
Salisbury found he couldn’t rely on the Soviet government for reliable information on almost everything. Crime statistics weren’t published–because, officially, there was no crime in the “Workers’ Paradise.”
Unable to obtain reliable economic statistics, he plotted the rise and fall of the economy by shortages and surpluses in local stores.
Above all, Salisbury faced the danger of reporting accurately on the increasing paranoia and purges of Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin.
“The truth, I was ultimately to learn,” wrote Salisbury in his bestselling 1983 memoir, A Journey for Our Times, “is the most dangerous thing. There are no ends to which men of power will not go to put out its eyes.”
Censorship victimizes both those who are censored and those who could profit from the truths they have to share.
Americans may be unable to bring freedom of expression to nations ruled by dictators. But they can–and should–fight to ensure that freedom of expression remains a hallmark of their own society.
Share this: