| Subject: Re: Hastings, McChrystal |
| From: "Hogan, Michael" <michael_hogan@condenast.com> |
| Date: 6/23/10, 10:18 |
| To: Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com> |
One last change - in the sentence that begins "Hastings may have chosen the word "doomed," there's an extra "which" in there next to "occupation" that needs to be taken out. I think that's the only typo.Michael-
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 9:39 PM, Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:
One last change I would make just to be on the safe side is to alter assertion that a flipped coin would do better than Max Boot; having looked back over his works again this evening, both would do about the same.
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 6:21 PM, Hogan, Michael <michael_hogan@condenast.com> wrote:
Great, thanks. We’ll pick this back up in the AM.
On 6/22/10 6:20 PM, "Barrett Brown" <barriticus@gmail.com <http://barriticus@gmail.com> > wrote:
Okay, here's a quick rewrite that changes up the more generalized assertions, reducing them to simply noting that many of these people have been proven to be pretty wrong about Afghanistan in particular. I'll be available to make any further revisions.
On the occasion of what may prove to be the most significant story of the year in terms of the revelations it brings forth and the aftereffects of those revelations, National Review editor Rich Lowry began his commentary <http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDYxZGQzNDdkNmQxOTc3MWY2MWY0YzliY2MxMDVjOTE=> with the following “point,” as he describes it:
1) Rolling Stone? Rolling Stone???
Yes, Rich; the most impact-laden story of the year appeared in Rolling Stone, not National Review. And it was written by a perfect specimen of the new breed of journalist-commentator that will hopefully come to replace the old breed sooner rather than later, and which has already collectively surpassed the old guard by every measure that counts.
I should note - not only in the interest of full disclosure, but also necessary context - that I am a friend and admirer of Michael Hastings, the author of the Rolling Stone piece in question. He was kind enough to blurb my upcoming book on the failures of the American punditry (and is planning on writing a novel on the same topic, incidentally); he shares my opinions on the state of journalism and opinion in this country; and he has joined up with Project PM, my perhaps quixotic attempt to do a small part in improving that media which has recently had a hand in leaving hundreds of thousands dead and injured and damaging our republic’s ability to rationally operate both at home and abroad. I first spoke in support of Hastings before I’d ever made contact with him, which is to say that my opinion of him is not based on our association; my association with him is based on my opinion of him, not the other way around. That opinion is derived from the unassailable and unfortunately noteworthy competence and conduct he has displayed throughout his relatively short career.
Those who have seen fit to question Hastings’ motivations in writing this article ought to know a little about him before making the pronouncements they will continue to make on his character, inconvenient as that knowledge may be to those who are in the business of casting aspersions on those of whom they know nothing about. Hastings was for a time Newsweek’s Baghdad correspondent. In 2008, that mediocre publication assigned him to cover our republic’s most recent and ridiculous electoral contest, and as a consequence, the fellow got an insider’s view of how terribly destructive is the manner in which this country covers its most important decisions. Of course, this sentiment is widespread among the more observant media professionals, who generally do not act on it out of concern for their own careers. In contrast, Hastings quit Newsweek and wrote a damning expose about what he had seen and experienced during his stint. During a time in which many journalists thought of little more than how they would attain security for themselves, Hastings ensured that he would never be trusted by the Establishment media ever again.
At this time, Hastings is in Kandahar performing further crimes against the status quo and is thus unable to defend himself against those who are largely responsible for the problems he has helped to bring to light, and so I will take this opportunity to do it for him. This brings us back to Rich Lowry, whom we last saw declaiming Rolling Stone for not being as respectable as National Review and who later that day found time to voice more substantive objections <http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTNiMGVhZTVjYTA2OTg1OGEyOWE5OWNkNzRjMTA2NGI=> :
The Rolling Stone piece by Michael Hastings has some excellent color about McChrystal's interactions with the troops and the rocket-fuel of those controversial quotes. Otherwise, it's pretty lackluster and very anti-war. This is hilarious over-writing about McChrystal: "His slate-blue eyes have the unsettling ability to drill down when they lock on you. If you've f—-ed up or disappointed him, they can destroy your soul without the need for him to raise his voice." Destroy your soul?
It takes a special brand of shamelessness to accuse someone of “over-writing” after having just seconds before described a series of significant quotes as “rocket-fuel.” This is doubly true when the shameless writer in question is perhaps best known for the following passage, which may qualify as the most worthless bit of commentary from the very 2008 election news cycle that so disgusted Hastings:
Palin too projects through the screen like crazy. I'm sure I'm not the only male in America who, when Palin dropped her first wink, sat up a little straighter on the couch and said, "Hey, I think she just winked at me." And her smile. By the end, when she clearly knew she was doing well, it was so sparkling it was almost mesmerizing. It sent little starbursts through the screen and ricocheting around the living rooms of America. This is a quality that can't be learned; it's either something you have or you don't, and man, she's got it."
Incidentally, this telling bit of zeta-male-ish output was interspersed with several years of objections from Lowry and his associates to the effect that Obama’s fans were merely “starstruck” by a telegenic empty suit. More telling, of course, is Lowry’s dismissal of an extraordinarily important article as “anti-war.” I look forward to the point at which National Review, which remains an exceedingly Catholic entity, realizes that their very Pope is also “anti-war” in this and most other contexts and thereby concludes that it would be shameful to continue to cast aspersions on others for holding views they tolerate in their beloved representative of God on earth. I also look forward to being made Pope myself. I am a tremendous optimist for someone who has grown up amidst the twilight of American competence. But now I am engaging in a bit of over-writing myself, for which I apologize to Mr. Lowry, fond admirer of little starbursts.
Now I shall retract my apology in the face of the following statement, delivered after Lowry had finally deigned to reading the silly magazine that scooped his own:
I've now read the piece which — as you might expect — is very defeatist.
One might expect that any article which puts forth the plain facts of what is happening in a war that National Review and even a great many liberal pundits declared to have ended in victory some seven years ago might appear defeatist to the very people who have since been proven not just wrong, but ludicrously and repeatedly wrong, time and time again, on this very subject. If the article sounds defeatist, perhaps this is because it describes a situation that has evolved into a slow and almost inevitable defeat even by the initial standards of the very people who demanded it.
Speaking of “defeatism” - so clearly the exclusive province of radical liberals who wish to see the U.S. fail in its failed expeditions - let us, for no particular reason, take a look back at something National Review founder William Buckley wrote a few years ago:
One can’t doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed.
Clearly this long-haired Buckley fellow is a defeatist and ought to be ignored. Perhaps he submitted the essay in question to Rolling Stone before running it in his own magazine? At any rate, this pronouncement that no one can doubt our failure in Iraq is rather strange, coming at a time when several of Buckley’s own writers remained amusingly hopeful that any real victory was still viable - as many of them still do today - but then the late fellow can be forgiven for not having at this point been in the habit of reading his own magazine. I myself am a subscriber and find myself constantly distracted by the ads, many of which are written to look like articles and which routinely conjure up non-existent global financial entities in order to convince the publication’s readers to buy coins in exchange for some unspecified number of payments in order that they might also receive a free safe. Advertisers know their audience, of course. But let me attempt to refute two more of Lowry’s commonplace brand of objections without this time stopping to insult thousands of other people in the process:
Hastings refers to "the doomed offensive in Marja," which makes it sound as though the Taliban repulsed us, when we took actually took the city (although the Taliban is still carrying out attacks).
Hastings may have chosen the term “doomed” because the offensive eventually led to a problematic which occupation which McChrystal himself terms an “ulcer” due to it not having achieved what it was meant to achieve, which is to say that it was “doomed.” Perhaps Lowry could ride his rocket-fueled rockets over to Kandahar and ask him himself. But then he is busy quoting Max Boot, the military commentator whose record in making predictions has proven to be less useful than that of a tossed coin:
Boot also notes how the experts quoted by Hastings are all critical of the war.
... except, of course, for Gen. McChrysal and his advisers, whom Hastings interviewed for a month before duly quoting them over and over again in the article...
All of which underlines the poor judgment in giving this guy such access.
Here, finally, Lowry has hit upon a valid point. McChrystal and Co. would have exhibited far better judgment had they looked into Hastings’ career and writings and come to the obvious conclusion that this sort of journalist has nothing to lose in reporting a series of demonstrable facts. Unlike many of this country’s most respected commentators, Hastings did not spend the better part of a decade repeating conventional wisdom about our allegedly unprecedented success in two wars that have already proven to be abject failures, and thus he has no reason to simply take the word of some or another confused presidential administration that everything is under control, or will be after some additional years of blood and treasure expenditures. McChrystal would have been better off talking to Thomas Friedman, who is so amusingly naive that in 2001 he declared Vladimir Putin to be a force for good for whom Americans all ought to be “rootin’,” a term he chose because it rhymes with Putin. McChrystal would have been somewhat less better-off talking to Charles Krauthammer, who has long been the most respected of conservative commentators despite the fact that he has been demonstrably wrong about every U.S. military action of the last twelve years and plenty else besides; the Washington Post columnist would have presumably returned with another round of good news and thereby jinxed the entire operation. Neither of these men are defeatists, of course; both declared victory in Afghanistan long ago. Both have won the Pulitzer Prize for commentary. Friedman himself now sits on the Pulitzer committee. And thus it is that Hastings and others like him will never win any Pulitzer Prizes for journalism or commentary no matter how much their work changes the course of history, which is just as well as they seem to be made from lead and recipients seem unable to refrain from licking them. This is only my own hypothesis, of course.
Seriously, though, look at the ads in National Review some time.
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 6:11 PM, Hogan, Michael <michael_hogan@condenast.com <http://michael_hogan@condenast.com> > wrote:
Great. I’ll shoot it over to them then. I think the obvious move would be to tone down some of the more sweeping generalizations about people being demonstrably wrong about every single thing in x years.
On 6/22/10 6:01 PM, "Barrett Brown" <barriticus@gmail.com <http://barriticus@gmail.com> <http://barriticus@gmail.com> > wrote:
I'd be happy to chance it with you as you were the first big-pub editor to run my stuff. I can also do another version while you wait to hear back from editor, tune down whatever assertions you think may be problematic. Let me know if there's anything in particular you think should probably be taken out - it's pretty long, after all, and I've gotten all my licks in by way of the upcoming book anyway, so I'm not wedded to the piece as it stands; just want to show Lowry's incompetence and contrast Hastings with Friedman and Krauthammer, both of whom we've already gone after. Anyway, feel free to give me a ring, I'm in fucking Tyler waiting for the Sarah Palin rally and OH GOD I'M SO LONELY. Word up.
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 5:53 PM, Hogan, Michael <michael_hogan@condenast.com <http://michael_hogan@condenast.com> <http://michael_hogan@condenast.com> > wrote:
Barrett, this is pretty bad-ass, and I would scarcely change it at all, but I feel obliged to run it past our research editor and, in all likelihood, our legal editor, since you make some pretty harsh claims about a number of people here. Which means we wouldn’t be able to post until tomorrow at the earliest and there would be a chance that they would bat the whole thing down entirely. So I have to leave it up to you: roll the dice with us, or post it right away in some other setting. Let me know what you decide.
Thanks,
Mike
On 6/22/10 5:26 PM, "Barrett Brown" <barriticus@gmail.com <http://barriticus@gmail.com> <http://barriticus@gmail.com> <http://barriticus@gmail.com> > wrote:
Howdy, Mike-
Michael Hastings, who wrote the McChrystal story for Rolling Stone and who is still in Afghanistan (he's only been there for two months, incidentally, though already seems to have changed the course of the war), happens to be a friend of mine, as well as a participant in Project PM (alluded to in the Charles Johnson piece I did for you); he also blurbed my upcoming book. I last heard from him a week ago, will try to call him on his cell a bit later. Would you be interested in a piece on the background to this incident, touching on the failures of the media at large to do what he's managed to do in terms of brining focus to the realities of Afghanistan? Let me know.
This e-mail, including attachments, is intended for the person(s) or company named and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. Unauthorized disclosure, copying or use of this information may be unlawful and is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message and notify the sender.
This e-mail, including attachments, is intended for the person(s) or company named and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. Unauthorized disclosure, copying or use of this information may be unlawful and is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message and notify the sender.
This e-mail, including attachments, is intended for the person(s) or company named and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. Unauthorized disclosure, copying or use of this information may be unlawful and is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message and notify the sender.
This e-mail, including attachments, is intended for the person(s) or company named and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. Unauthorized disclosure, copying or use of this information may be unlawful and is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message and notify the sender.