Of all the small consolations he can take, the least one is that he's not alone. Over in New Mexico this afternoon, actor Val Kilmer will appear in front of the San Miguel County Commissioners, explaining, among other things, his controversial remarks seven years ago in Rolling Stone and again five years ago in Esquire.
Kilmer, you may recall, played Doc Holliday in "Tombstone," Gay Perry in "Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang" and Chris Shiherlis in "Heat," among many other noteworthy roles over a long career. He's also a reputed ass. Nonetheless, he charmed my former boss's wife with a kiss to the cheek back in 2003 when he had dinner with the boss and Gov. Bill Richardson in order clarify those remarks about homicidal New Mexican drunken drivers.
For the record, Kilmer says he was misquoted. Not so McChrystal, who was quoted as referring to the article as “a mistake reflecting poor judgment and should never have happened.”
The piece by freelancer Michael Hastings for RS is remarkable for a couple of reasons, one because of the unguarded access he was given, which in the aftermath cost McChrystal's press aide his job. Apparently he set no ground rules prior to the series of interviews that yielded this piece. Two, Hastings is clearly no proponent of the war in Afghanistan and makes no pretense from the opening paragraph right up to the closing how he feels. Our allies are fictional; the Afghans themselves either apathetic or hostile, never friendly; the effort itself doomed to failure.
On the first count, RS has always been the edgy journal of politics and culture and the tone set in Hastings' account is in keeping with the tradition set by Hunter Thompson and Matt Taibbi. I get that. Kudos to Hastings for counting coup. RS stands by its man, and McChrystal despite his mea culpa has yet to deny any of the statements attributed to him or his staff.
On the second count, Hastings has a noteworthy record of reporting from Iraq, so he's an experienced hand and entitled to his opinion. On the other hand, the Drover questions whether he's reported enough from Afghanistan to draw the wide conclusion he puts forward in his piece. Despite having spent months on this piece, it boils down to a day and a night in Paris and a trip to a Afghanistan, where he attended one meeting between McChrystal and the troops. It seems pretty thin ice on which to make that kind of stand, even though it serves up insight into the nature of fighting under the rules of engagement designed to minimize civilian casualties.
The Drover has a stake in the argument, of course, and does not out-of-hand dismiss contrary opinions about the war. It's a mess over there, that's a fact, and and by what terms we define victory is clouded in murk. Nonetheless, from a critical reader's point of view, Hastings delivers little more than the unguarded snark any employee engages in about their superiors. In this case that may be enough to relieve a commanding general, but so be it. Otherwise, Hastings has done little in his article to advance his own naked sentiment that the war is a waste of time, effort, blood and treasure.
The Drover turned, of course, to the one authority with which he's most familiar in this context and asked her opinion. The Captain writes:
"Haven't gotten to the part about no Afghans who like us, but that truly is not the case. Maybe the guy didn't get out of Kabul much. Out here in the hinterlands, unless they're straight-up Taliban or their associates, they tend to like us. In Gardez City, they really like us a lot. I'm sure Helmand and Kandahar provinces are a completely different story, but that's the heart of TB territory."And that's all I'll say about that.
No comments:
Post a Comment