« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
New Afghanistan Commander Had Role In Tillman Friendly-Fire Episode
It looks Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the man taking over as the new top commander in Afghanistan, was a key player in one of the more shameful episodes of the Bush administration's war on terror -- though it's unclear exactly how much blame, if any, he himself deserves.
In 2007, the Associated Press reported that McChrystal suspected when he approved a Silver Star citation for Pat Tillman that the former NFL star killed in Afghanistan may have been felled by friendly fire. McChrystal told military investigators that that suspicion had led him to send a memo to top generals, urging them not to say publicly that Tillman was killed under "devastating enemy fire."
That seems to put McChrystal on the side of the angels. But it's a bit more complicated. McChrystal wrote that memo just one day after approving the award. Questioned about that potential discrepancy by investigators, he said he nevertheless believed Tillman deserved the award, but explained:
Because I thought it was friendly fire, I thought it was important that key attendees know that that theory could become the finding of the investigation, and if they were going to make a statement about 'killed by enemy fire,' it might not be certain.
An internal DOD report on the Tillman affair found that McChrystal should be held accountable for not notifying officials processing the Silver Star award that friendly fire was the likely cause of Tillman's death. But another army general found that McChrystal had acted reasonably in assuming that information he had received supporting the award recommendation was accurate.
Tillman, of course, was ultimately found to have been killed by friendly fire. His father has blamed high-ranking Army officers for presenting "outright lies" to the Tillman family and the public about the cause of his son's death, and has accused army brass of using the death of an all-American football star to engineer a public relations coup.
Josh
Zachary
Not much there here.
May 11, 2009 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Except of course to underline that the military has no real interest in telling the public the truth about what goes on in a war zone.
May 11, 2009 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
"...though it's unclear exactly how much blame, if any, he himself deserves."
And this is what makes this report tabloid journalism at its finest--sarcasm intended.
May 11, 2009 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly! It ticks me of when the Fox or any conservative outlet does it and it's especially irritating on TPM where I expect better.
May 11, 2009 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it lends a certain credibility to him. Tillman should not be eliminated from the award just because it was a result of friendly fire. And this general tried to do the proper thing instead of joining in a cover-up.
May 11, 2009 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's clear McChrystal had legitimate ambivalence about the award. I don't see anything nefarious in that. If anything sounds like he was trying to make sure folks did not go around spreading disinformation--turing Tillman into a hero--when it was possible that the events described were not true.
As it turns out his caution was justified even if he did not have the information necessary to disapprove the award. That sad, is it not possible that a soldier could show exceptional bravery trying to whether a friendly fire incident?
Frankly I think this is a ridiculous issue to distract us from his qualifications to lead the battle in Afghanistan. Here is a guy with a lot of experience commanding the most elite combat troops in the history of mankind. usually it's hard to stay in that kind of job if you are not also extremely competent. That's no guarantee that he can figure out how to deal with Afghanistan better than someone with more conventional experience but it may well be worth a try.
I fear we are making the same mistake, made with Gen Boykin. Boykin did create a major public relations mistake/embarrassment--his religious zeal is off-putting to many but his performance as a soldier and commander was more than extraordinary.
We seem to what to pick and choose character traits for their public relations value rather than job effectiveness. It is totally to our detriment.
May 11, 2009 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Diplomacy is part and parcel of job effectiveness - especially so in a counter-insurgency. If Boykin can not understand that declaring this a religious war with Islam playing the role of Satan than he deserves every bit of trouble that comes his way and he should hold no position of authority within the US military.
To the extent that the US military is infiltrated by a seemingly large number of individuals who are willing to put their own religious concerns over that of the mission then we are all the weaker for it.
If someone believes that their personal call to evangelize Muslims or that they must declare their faith in ways that hurt the military then they should do they same as those who feel they can not take another life in good conscience and withdraw themselves from the combat services.
May 11, 2009 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
McChrystal does not seem to be one of those who used Tillman's death to try and spin it for propaganda. Rather, if I have the story straight, he was in the chain of command processing the award and while he could not prove that someone like Lt Col Ralph Kauzlarich had helped falsify the report for propaganda purposes, he could send a signal that there was something wrong about what was happening.
Frankly, if he had come out with guns blazing without full evidence he would not be enough of a diplomat to serve in the position he now has.
Compare what he did to Gen. William G. Boykin or Kauzlarich and I think he might come off a bit better.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060728_worm_dirt/
May 11, 2009 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
McKiernan is being forced out because of the stink he made of a illegal order given by the NATO Commander, a US Gen. a month or two ago. The NATO Commander issued a "letter" that many understood to be a order making everyone and anyone connected to Opium is anyway a legal target to fire on with or without any evidence of guilt. If that was a given order as some claimed including McKiernan, then it was contrary to international rules of engagement. McKiernan ordered his men to ignore the order and had words with the NATO Commander. Der Spiegel covered the story over a period of days and they forced the order to be recinded.
May 11, 2009 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not going to matter who the commander is over there. Afghanistan is a tarpit that will trap the dinosaur formerly known as the USA.
May 11, 2009 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only thing newsworthy about this article is that the US Army is rearragning the deck chairs on the USS Tighanicstan before it hit's the iceberg called "The burial ground of empires."
May 11, 2009 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
there are some questions about McChrystal's involvement in torture;
From Wired/Danger Room:
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/
"...“one unit under his command, the now-notorious Task Force 6-26, which was assigned to find HVTs, or High Value Targets in Iraq, is credited with the ultimate death of [al Qaeda in Iraq leader Moussab al-] Zarqawi. The problem is, along the way they faced accusations of running a secret camp that tortured prisoners, and they were implicated in at least two detainee deaths during torture sessions. Their camp, called Camp Nama, became something of a lightning rod after a ‘computer malfunction’ destroyed upwards of 70% of their records and an investigation into their conduct stalled out.”
May 11, 2009 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm confused. Didn't Matthew Alexander write a book on how non-torture techniques were used to locate Zarqawi? So how does this accusation from someone who says he's a contractor with TSI Executive Consulting know more?
This nonsense comes across as high schoolish gossip and not from someone who was there in Iraq while the hunt was on.
May 11, 2009 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice Polite Republicans had a guest this afternoon (who described himself as a fellow from the Center for the Project for a New American Century of Security, if I heard him right) who in discussing McChrystal's confirmation prospects noted the Tillman history, but then also casually mentioned that McChrystal had "led a team" which conducted some of the (cough) "harsh techniques" against prisoners.
The fellow made it clear that he didn't feel running a torture squad would necessarily present an impediment to this guy becoming Supreme Commander of All Afghanistan, just that he may have to squirm a bit at some of the questions he might face during the hearings.
May 12, 2009 8:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
And the reason you apparently trust Republican information?
May 13, 2009 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
This should not happen.
Recall all the outrage on the part of Republicans that John Kerry's awards were false, that Kerry didn't really earn the awards he received.
Then consider that McChrystal, all the while suspecting that Tillman was killed by friendly fire, NOT enemy action, still signed off on the Silver Star award and forwarded it up the chain, but wanted the Bush team not to mention "enemy action" when discussing the award.
He is guilty of falsifying the issuing of one of our nations highest awards for valor. Pat Tillman was a true American hero and role model for his decision to pass up his NFL career to serve his country in a time of war. But getting shot by his fellow soldiers did not merit the awarding of the Silver Star. McChrystal's role in this sad event was unofficer like.
If he couldn't stand up and do the right thing on an issue like Pat Tillman's medal, he shouldn't be put in command of any unit, much less our forces in Afghanistan.
He has already shown he is willing to sacrifice his integrity for politcal expediency.
I say this as a retired military officer.
May 16, 2009 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink