Rolling Stone May Have Just Won The War in Afghanistan

This week past, President Obama relieved four-star general Stanley McChrystal of his duties in Afghanistan after Rolling Stone published an unflattering magazine article about him and his staff’s feelings toward the administration’s national security team. Although the vast majority of the discouraging quotes came from his staff, Gen. McChrystal is ultimately responsible, and the president did what any commander in chief would have done under the circumstances. Neocons! He promptly replaced him with well-respected Gen. David Petraeus, who engineered the successful “surge” campaign in Iraq. Gen. McChrystal and his staff should have realized that there is no such thing as “off the record.” If a journalist hears a juicy quote that supports his or her story, you can count on reading it. The reporter scores points with his publisher and readers, and he documents you saying something stupid forever. Why would someone believe a Rolling Stone reporter when he tells you that what you are saying is off the record, any more than a reporter for 60 Minutes, the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times or the Washington Post? Rolling Stone quotes the general and his staff, and suddenly there is a change of leadership in America’s grinding war in Afghanistan! What power and influence! The president fires the general, and undoubtedly someone will nominate Michael Hastings, the Rolling Stone reporter, for the Pulitzer Prize. But Gen. McChrystal’s premature departure may not be such a bad thing after all. Michael Hastings may have unwittingly done more to win the war in Afghanistan than Gen. McChrystal could have done. Gen. McChrystal forbad soldiers from visiting American fast-food joints in Kabul, denied them access to the Fox News Channel and voted for Barack Obama. If that wasn’t bad enough for soldier morale, his self-imposed rules of engagement made many of the rank-and-file soldiers further question his judgment. Many soldiers bitterly complained that fighting the Taliban was like having one arm tired behind their backs. The general was so sensitive to collateral civilian casualties, his rules of engagement made it almost impossible to defeat the enemy. Soldiers witnessed Taliban fighters firing at them and then throw down their weapons because they knew the rules did not allow the soldiers to fire on unarmed combatants, even if he had just sent a rocket propelled grenade in their direction. Launching flares above the enemy at night was discouraged because they might fall on a civilian. According to the New York Times: “One Marine infantry lieutenant, during fighting in Marja this year, said he had all but stopped seeking air support while engaged in firefights. He spent too much time on the radio trying to justify its need, he said, and the aircraft never arrived or they arrived too late or the pilots were reluctant to drop their ordnance.” Gen. McChrystal felt that “winning the minds and hearts” of the Afghan people was more important than killing the enemy. Hopefully this will all change when Gen. David Petraeus takes over. If he allows his men to act like warriors instead of policemen, use battlefield rules of engagement instead of domestic police tactics, the entire war effort will change quickly in our favor. If this happens, you have Michael Hastings to thank. It only made sense for the president to replace Gen. McChrystal with Gen. Petraeus. He obviously knows what he’s doing. Already, leaks to the press suggest that he will take a hard look at the current rules of engagement in Afghanistan and will probably change them to be more soldier-friendly. Despite top Democrats calling him a liar during his testimony on the Iraq surge – including Hillary Clinton, Harry “This War Is Lost” Reid and the president himself when he was a senator – Gen. Petraeus prevailed in Iraq. Now he is suddenly the go-to guy to finally make things happen in Afghanistan. How ironic. Thank you, Michael Hastings.