Category: Afghanistan

Weigel vs. WikiLeaks

On his Twitter feed Monday, Dave Weigel, journalist, posted the following (emphasis mine):

The WikiLeaks Afghan dump is depressing. Very tired of our effort there being subjected to this kind of crap.

When Glenn Greenwald pressed Weigel to clarify what “kind of crap” he meant, Weigel answered:

I mean the disclosing in a way that hurts us. It’s not like we’ve been prevented from knowing things are going poorly.

This caused a minor stir among Weigel’s Twitter followers, with one responding:

You prefer being lied to? You really *have* crossed over to the dark side…

To which Weigel replied:

I support the war and agree to disagree with a lot of people on this.

Greenwald continued to prod Weigel for clarification, but Weigel ignored the questions, huffing, “I don’t ‘debate’ on Twitter. If it’s important I take it to email. This is a wretched medium for debate.” Meanwhile, some members of #teamweigel began tweeting their disapproval, distaste, and even shock.

I can’t imagine why.

Dave Weigel supported the invasion of Iraq, and he continued to ridicule and slander war opponents until the precise moment that it was no longer professionally advantageous for him to do so. He is a shape-shifting seeker of the Inner Ring who has already been called a liar twice by his former bosses. Here’s Matt Welch of Reason on Weigel’s suggestion that he was let go from that magazine for being too mavericky (a recurrent form of self-gratification for Weigel):

To the extent that this gives the impression that Dave’s job was in any way tied to him voting for Obama, I need to shout from the rooftops that this is emphatically not the case. If it were, Ronald Bailey would no longer be our Science Correspondent and Tim Cavanaugh would not be our back-of-the-book columnist. …

There were multiple factors at play in the Weigel/Reason separation, none of them having to do with voting records, and many (though not all) pointing to what Dave alludes to in his post: What he wanted to write about, and what we needed him to write about, were two different things. …

Another clarification, especially for people unfamiliar with Reason: There is, to put it mildly, zero professional sanction at this magazine for being “a little less favorable to Republicans,” or being “pro-gay marriage and pro-open borders.”

And here’s Nick Gillespie:

In his public mea culpa (which like all examples of the genre is long on mea and short on culpa), former Washington Post blogger Dave Weigel suggested his long journey upwards began with his being fired from Reason magazine.

Full disclosure: I was editor in chief of Reason from 2000 to 2008 and hired Dave, who was eventually let go by my successor, Matt Welch. Dave suggests that the separation came about because he had strayed too far off what we sometime call the “libtard” reservation. …

As Matt Welch has written, Dave certainly didn’t earn any supervisory ire by voting for Obama-Biden or even for being from Delaware (though this latter condition has never been a clear plus for anyone except maybe George Thorogood and Cesar Romney). Similarly, the implication that Reason would be bothered by a staffer’s attacks on Republicans or support for gay marriage and open borders makes about as much sense and holds as much value as fiat currency.

Actually, while Maverick Dave was with Reason, he made some pathetically strenuous efforts to ingratiate himself with the herd (another recurrent theme in Weigel’s career). In Reason‘s 2008 presidential election survey, Weigel gave the following answer to the final question:

5. Leaving George W. Bush out of consideration, what former U.S. president would you most like to have waterboarded? Lyndon Baines Johnson. While his children watch.

Leaving aside the warped question and the demented reply – Weigel and his pal Spencer Ackerman seem to have studied rhetoric at the Mel Gibson Finishing School – do you think for a minute that Weigel would say such a thing (or anything negative at all) about the father of Medicare and Medicaid in his new gig as an MSNBC commentator? More recently, in an odd act of self-defense, Weigel actually admitted that he wrote things he didn’t believe on Journolist in order to “suck up to the liberals.” And that was for a tiny, exclusive audience that was supposedly organized to allow “extremely smart people” to say what they really thought! What ulterior considerations inform Weigel’s reporting and analysis for us dumb yokels drooling over our Hungry-Man dinners in front of the tube?

Anyway, now Weigel’s “supporting” “our” war in Afghanistan, the It War of the militant center that employs him, and people are surprised? Please.

P.S. I’ll go ahead and write the rebuttal for Dave and his clique. Yes, I’m a loser nobody who blogs for the objectively pro-fascist Antiwar.com. I only wrote this because I envy Dave’s sweet job at the Washington Post (oops!), his large circle of friends, and the cool, emotionally mature professionalism he demonstrated in Boogiegate. Did I leave out anything? Oh, right. Yada yada yada anti-Semite. (Hey, you said it, Adolf!) When you get through with me, maybe you can respond to Welch and Gillespie.

P.P.S. For more on the Weigel-Journolist fiasco, if you’re not sick to death of it already, I strongly recommend two posts by Arthur Silber: 1, 2.



Coulter unsheathes her blades on neocons. we yawn.

Ann Coulter went  Jungle Red* on neoconservatives Bill Kristol and Liz Cheney this week over their demands that GOP Chair Michael Steele resign. The fun stuff comes at the back end of her WorldNetDaily column on Wednesday. First she seems shocked that her fellow Republicans would even suggest one’s support for war is tied to his support for the troops. Then she goes right for the throat, Bill Kristol’s throat:

But now I hear it is the official policy of the Republican Party to be for all wars, irrespective of our national interest. What if Obama decides to invade England because he’s still ticked off about that Churchill bust? Can Michael Steele and I object to that? Or would that demoralize the troops? Our troops are the most magnificent in the world, but they’re not the ones setting military policy. The president is – and he’s basing his war strategy on the chants of Moveon.org cretins. Nonetheless, Bill Kristol and Liz Cheney have demanded that Steele resign as head of the RNC for saying Afghanistan is now Obama’s war – and a badly thought-out one at that. (Didn’t liberals warn us that neoconservatives want permanent war?) I thought the irreducible requirements of Republicanism were being for life, small government and a strong national defense, but I guess permanent war is on the platter now, too. Of course, if Kristol is writing the rules for being a Republican, we’re all going to have to get on board for amnesty and a “National Greatness Project,” too – other Kristol ideas for the Republican Party. Also, John McCain. Kristol was an early backer of McCain for president – and look how great that turned out! Inasmuch as demanding resignations is another new Republican position, here’s mine: Bill Kristol and Liz Cheney must resign immediately.

Matt Cockerill over at The American Conservative blog calls this an “antiwar column.” Maybe. That would be hopeful. Certainly James Antle thinks the Tea Party movement is ripe for it. And it is refreshing to hear a Republican hatchet decry unconditional support for war after nearly ten years of unconditionally supporting war. But it’s her terrifying interpretation of history that splashes ice cold water on the whole fantasy:

Yes, Bush invaded Afghanistan soon after Sept. 11. Within the first few months we had toppled the Taliban, killed or captured hundreds of al-Qaida fighters and arranged for democratic elections, resulting in an American-friendly government.

Then Bush declared success and turned his attention to Iraq, leaving minimal troops behind in Afghanistan to prevent Osama bin Laden from regrouping, swat down al-Qaida fighters and gather intelligence.

Having some vague concept of America’s national interest – unlike liberals – the Bush administration could see that a country of illiterate peasants living in caves ruled by “warlords” was not a primo target for “nation-building.”

By contrast, Iraq had a young, educated, pro-Western populace that was ideal for regime change.

Cockerill asks if Coulter’s outcry “is progress or mere partisanship? Time will tell.” My gut is this is Ann lashing out at the enemy in her own Long War against the conservative elite at the Weekly Standard and National Review. It is Ann making sure that Obama completely owns the disaster in Afghanistan by rewriting current and past history on a fourth grade reading level. It is Ann making sure we don’t forget she is still around and is one tough broad.

But it is not a step forward, but a shuffle in place, her stilettos still kicking out at the usual “cretins” in her universe, a place where Bush is Popeye and Obama is Olive Oyl, and where Coulter spits, “no grass grows, ever.”**

* From The Women (1939): “I’ve had two years to grow claws mother. Jungle red!”

** Also from The Women: “You’re passing up a swell chance, honey. Where I spit no grass grows ever!”

Eric Garris on Bill Meyer Show

Antiwar.com founder and webmaster Eric Garris will be interviewed on the Bill Meyer Show Wednesday, July 7th at 7:05am Pacific/10:05am Eastern. The topic will be the recent comments by Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele on Afghanistan.

Listeners can enjoy the audio stream as well as a video feed from the host here.

Update: Mr. Garris also discussed the case of Michael Steele on The Karel Show on Green960 AM earlier today (July 6th.) Alternate format here.

Michael Hastings Interview Transcript

Scott Horton interviews Michael Hastings June 23, 2010

Scott Horton: All right, everybody, we’re joined on the phone by Michael Hastings, freelance reporter, friend of the show, and he is the author of the article that’s turned Washington D.C. upside down this week, “The Runaway General” in Rolling Stone magazine. Welcome back to the show, Michael, how are you doing?

Michael Hastings: I’m good man. How are things on your end?

Horton: Everything’s great, I really appreciate you joining us here on the phone from, where, Kandahar this morning?

Hastings: Yeah, I’m in Kandahar right now.

Horton: And how’s things there?

Hastings: Well, we, just a few, it was a half hour, 40 minutes ago, we were hit by a number of rockets, which is a pretty regular occurrence here, and there’s pretty regular fighting all around this area right now. We spent a couple moments on the floor and in a bunker.

Horton: Jeez. Well. And I hope you’re bugging out of there this morning and going back to Kabul or somewhere safer?

Hastings: Yeah, I’m heading out of here.

Horton: Okay, right on. Well in the few minutes before you get in your armored vehicle or whatever it is and get out of there, man, let’s talk about – well, first of all, I guess, the reaction to your piece. You have Gen. McChrystal and his team, “Team America,” his closest buddies surrounding him, really opening up about how much they cannot stand the administration, and that seems to have been the thing that got Washington all upset.

Hastings: Yeah, apparently to criticize and make fun of the vice president in front of reporters, that’s generally probably not a good career move. But I think, I think what the comments point to from Gen. McChrystal’s view is a real frustration that his team has with the White House as well as a frustration he has with other civilian policy makers who are involved in the Afghanistan strategy.

Horton: Yeah, I mean, that’s really what comes across in the article is that it’s not a personal account really of McChrystal, it’s about his inability to succeed in Afghanistan, and then it seems like all the frustration, all the finger pointing goes up from there, instead of them taking responsibility, him and his “Team America.”

Hastings: Yeah, and I think certainly if we look at, you know, President Obama’s role in selecting Gen. McChrystal, why he selected Gen. McChrystal, and what President Obama’s strategy for Afghanistan originally was – remember, in March 2009, you know, President Obama said he wanted to narrow the goals in Afghanistan, narrow them to just fighting al Qaeda. Then he selected a Gen. who proceeded to do just the opposite and expand the goals almost exponentially. We went from 50,000 troops to 150,000 troops. We went from fighting al Qaeda to building a nation on an almost unprecedented scale. So, really, I think, you know part of this hostility is the relationship between the president and the general and the fact that the president has just sort of lost control of the policy.

Horton: Yeah, well, and it doesn’t sound like the troops in Afghanistan seem to be so gung ho about this anymore either.

Hastings: No, I think, I mean I’m sure you’ve discussed counterinsurgency many times on your program, and we’ve discussed this before as well. You know, the US military is made to fight. That’s what they’re really good at, and they’re really efficient at it. And it’s very difficult to put them in situations and then tell them, you know, don’t fight. And that rubs a lot of them the wrong way and a lot of them feel that they may have to make sacrifices and they might be putting their own lives more at risk rather than, say, killing who they view are insurgents.

Horton: Yeah, well, and that’s an interesting thing too, the whole, you know, sent out there to fight with one hand tied behind their back. They’re up against people who have rifles and are willing to shoot back at them and yet then because they’re supposed to be trying to avoid civilian casualties, even though all their enemies are civilians, they’re put in a position where they have to get shot rather than shoot.

Hastings: Really, and I think, I mean I think you know this is a sort of fundamental flaw with counterinsurgency is that, you know, we spend $600 billion a year on our military but then we get involved in these wars where we can’t even use our technological edge. I mean, in a way it doesn’t make much sense. So, yeah, I mean, you know, once you take away the US and the ground troops’ air support, you’re putting a US solider on, you know, a somewhat level playing field with a Taliban fighter. And so these guys who signed up to fight are like, “What the hell, you know, like, why are we here?”

Horton: Yeah, they imagined they were going to be a set piece battle against a different state’s military instead of patrolling around like a, you know, a SWAT cop or something. Well, now, you talk about how they changed the mission from fighting al Qaeda to building a nation and how McChrystal’s gotten his stamp on it, and I guess they had to change the mission because, he says in here, there are no al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

Hastings: Exactly. I mean, the sort of connection between nation building and fighting terrorism and fighting al Qaeda is I think, you know, a very tenuous connection at best, and so you get stuck with this momentum of the campaign you’re fighting, and it’s worse than a quagmire. They’re saying that really it’s worse than a quagmire because it’s a quagmire we knowingly walked into. Because if say al Qaeda’s in Pakistan, then what are we doing in Afghanistan?

Horton: Yeah. Well now, the centerpiece of the COIN strategy supposedly was this, or the showpiece for it I guess, was the invasion of Marjah. They were going to give the people of Marjah a “government in a box.” Did you have a chance to talk with Gen. McChrystal much about that operation?

Hastings: Well, I did talk to him about that, and he, you know, was sort of optimistically cautious as that’s the position they take. But then, you know, much later he said that Marjah was a “bleeding ulcer.” So what does that say? And I think one of the funny things about this story is that people have been saying, “Wow, how could he have said these things in private to you?” Well look at what he says in public. He’s calling one of his operations a bleeding ulcer. So what do we expect him to say in private?

Horton: Right, yeah, his centerpiece operation. At least he’s bluntly honest, this guy. Well, and look, this is not nothing here: It seems like there is, you know, a challenge to the civilian supremacy in a sense here, you have a very powerful general mocking and ridiculing the president, the vice president, the special envoy, the ambassador, everybody but the secretary of state, apparently, he thinks he’s better than them, and that’s really not how it’s supposed to be in America. Did you take that as a real challenge to civilian supremacy or as just some drunk old general is letting off some steam here?

Hastings: I think there’s a larger kind of structural issue here about – you just compare the DOD budget to the State Department budget, $600 billion to $50 billion. You know, you look at every foreign service officer – you know, there’s more people in the Army band than there are foreign service officers. You know, you could fit every foreign service officer on an aircraft carrier. You know, so you look like at just the sort of decay of the State Department and basically our foreign policy has become our defense policy. You know, the two are one. And I think that translates into the fact that a lot of the time just the leaders get the blame for all the wars, and they should take their fair share of blame, but I think we also have to start looking at the military leaders in a much more critical way than they’re accustomed to be looked at. We’re packing up here and so I’ve got to take off, but I appreciate your time and we’ll talk again soon.

Horton: Likewise. Be safe, and we’ll follow up hopefully either tomorrow or Friday or next week.

Hastings: Cool.

Horton: Take care, Michael. All right, everybody, that’s Michael Hastings with the story of the week, so far, in Rolling Stone magazine, “The Runaway General.”

viewpoint highlights
breaking news
© 2024 Antiwar.com. All rights reserved.
Antiwar.com Blog Stock Photos provided by our partner Depositphotos