It’s not easy to get into the Newspaper of Record. But if you’re the commander of U.S. military forces in Afghanistan and you want to send a message that those troops need to stay in the country past 2014, apparently you just tell the New York Times that you’re ready to talk.
From a report today (7/30/13) by Matthew Rosenberg, headlined “Despite Gains, Leader of U.S. Forces in Afghanistan Says Troops Must Stay”:
Afghan forces are now leading the fight here. They managed an air assault last week, for example, and they may be winning the respect of the Afghan people. But the bottom line for Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr. is simple: Afghanistan still needs the United States and will for years to come.
The problem for General Dunford, the commander of American and allied forces here, is that most Americans no longer seem to believe that the United States needs the war in Afghanistan.
In an interview on Sunday that he had requested, General Dunford, 58, sought to counter an abundance of disheartening news recently about the war and to make a case for why American troops need to stay in Afghanistan after the NATO combat mission ends next year.
It’s an unusual admission to see in the paper, and it’s especially intriguing given that the piece is so obviously built around serving the needs of Dunford. It refers to “his pitch,” quotes him extensively and with hardly a challenge, and commiserates over the difficulty of being in charge (“running the war effort in Afghanistan has always been as much a diplomatic sales job as a battlefield command”).
The Times notes that
a steady drumbeat of bad news has forced General Dunford to turn his attention to the home front in an effort to counter the spreading perception that the war is a failed enterprise. An ABC News/Washington Post poll released last week found that only 28 percent of Americans think the war is worth fighting.
His response was to call that “noise,” and the Times reports that Dunford believes “that ground realities were better than portrayed in news reports.” Lucky for him, he can call up the New York Times to tell his story–and they’ll print it.
Call it “in bedded” reporting
Mr. Hart,
Perhaps FAIR should attempt an in-depth interview with General Dunford to see if there might not be a very good reason for his stance. The US used to keep troops in countries all over the world when the original hostilities ended, with mostly good results. But when we aided in forcing the Russians out of Afghanistan and maintained no presence in that country afterward, we were rewarded with the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center. Whereas the US has made numerous allies over the years, more recently we have earned a reputation for going in, stirring things up and walking away. Isn’t there a reasonable argument for not repeating those mistakes?
Leo Toribio
Pittsburgh, PA
I don’t really see this one at all.
Would FAIR have written this piece if the Times article hadn’t included the admission that the interview had been requested by Dunford? Isn’t that just desirable disclosure?
It may be, as Peter Hart writes, “an unusual admission”, but is the fact that such an interview was instigated by the general’s PR operation surprising? Does FAIR think otherwise when it sees interviews with senior officials and there is no such disclosure? How does FAIR think those interviews often come about? So why object to Rosenberg’s being transparent about it?
And what’s the problem with printing an interview with Dunford, even if it is a “pitch”? Statements by U.S. officials shouldn’t be anybody’s primary source of information about the world, but is FAIR making the case that it is inappropriate for media like the Times to publish them? If so, it should do so more plainly. I think it’s not a simple question.
Would FAIR object to the Times printing an interview with John Kerry, or even a lower-ranked State Department person? Top military commanders like Dunford have far greater power, and control vastly more resources, than anybody at State. The Defense Department is where the U.S. actually conducts its foreign policy, unfortunately. And any formal interview with John Kerry is very likely to have been at his “request”, whether that fact is disclosed by the reporter (as here), or more typically, not.
Isn’t Rosenberg’s describing what he was getting from Dunford as “his pitch” refreshingly forthright? I wish Hart would explain why he objects to the characterization.
I think that the very choices by Rosenberg and the Times that FAIR objects to here are indications that this article isn’t, by Times standards, as “obviously built around serving the needs of Dunford” as Hart thinks it is.
Hart characterizes Rosenberg’s assertion that “running the war effort in Afghanistan has always been as much a diplomatic sales job as a battlefield command” as “commiseration”. Far from commiseration, I don’t even see it as particularly sympathetic to Dunford. The fact that the U.S. conducts its significant diplomacy via the military (again, unfortunately) may be a truism, but I doubt any top general is fond of having his duties described as a “sales job”.
The above reasons are why I believe that, within the reasonable expectations for a Times interview of a U.S. general, Hart’s claim that Rosenberg’s piece contains “hardly a challenge” is very questionable. The complaint that the interview “quotes [Dunford] extensively” seems like a particularly thin reed on which to base criticism: it’s an interview, after all.
Elsewhere in the Times article, but not noted by Hart, Rosenberg describes U.S. efforts at opening peace talks with the Taliban as having been “botched”. Is that more commiseration?
Rosenberg also says of Dunford that “as in previous interviews, his focus was narrow, on Afghan security forces. He avoided talk of the debilitating level of corruption within the government, the weakening commitment to human rights among many Afghan officials, the faltering economy and uncertainty about next year’s presidential elections.” Hart ignores this passage, which I think represents something of a “challenge” to Dunford’s narrative.
I’m not trying to make more of this interview than it merits. But in a de facto officially controlled media environment such as we have today, you have to look for glimmers of criticism in small things that slip through. I think that, far from how Hart describes it, Rosenberg’s piece rather slyly gets across that the military is stridently trying to shape the message at home to make up for poor results overseas.
@David G: I was pleased to see your well-reasoned, constructive criticism here. While I admire FAIR and its dedicated, skillful journalists, I find its media criticism hit-or-miss and am repulsed by its increasingly chaotic website with comments that nearly always begin with the supercilious drivel of Doug Latimer and often include the barely comprehensible ravings of michael e. How FAIR might improve is beyond me, but I won’t be commenting here again.
John Q
“How FAIR might improve is beyond me, but I won’t be commenting here again.”
Well, that should help …
Doug: Your comments are supercilious — he meant to write “super silly ass” which I think means not understandable by people with an IQ under 70, right?
No Difference, John will have to speak for himself regarding his intent, which apparently will not be forthcoming, given his vow of silence in relation to this site.
I actually had to look up “supercilious” to ascertain its meaning. I’m not sure why he perceives me to be “haughty – arrogant – proud – lofty – uppish – snooty” off what I’ve posted here
And I’m not terribly concerned about it.
I try not to worry about folks who engage in personal attacks. Respectful disagreement is welcome, as even in an instance in which I might find another’s reasoning faulty, I may gain insight into how they came to that conclusion, and thus how to better present my own case in light of that perspective.
Of course, even if my heart’s in the right place, so to speak, my own rationale may be askew, and I would be indebted to the person who divines that and sets me straight.
Speaking your mind
And having it open to others’
Is the essence of honest communication, don’t you think?
You are right. I essentially called the poster an idiot, and that was not in the spirit of open conversation. I apologize to anyone who was offended by my remark, and thank you for calling me out on it.
No Difference, as you say, John’s IQ is not at issue here.
His Ps and Qs are.
Why he felt a need to malign me, rather than disagree in a mature and respectful manner, is a question only he can answer.
I’m not holding my breath in anticipation of his doing so.
The larger point is that he gets on the air easily after he’s failed for 11 years to win, despite having unlimited funding and weaponry to so win. The majority of the US citizenry opposes prolongation of this war, but they never get air time in proportion to their numbers. Like the economy, it’s elitism at work.
The failure of the 14 + year US occupation of Afghanistan is plain for all the world to see. A long matter of public record. A train wreck lying there on the tracks burning. General -Dum-fords begging notwithstanding. And btw here’s a preemptive “BLOW ME” to anyone who thinks the generals begging deserves anything more than contempt – right along with HIS open contempt for the will of the people of America
Well since I have been attacked already, before I even commented- I suppose i should throw down.We went to war there because we were attacked FROM there.The attackers protected by the Afghan government.We on track so far?So we pushed them out of the country.Attacked them wherever we found them ,and killed their leaders.OBL primary among them.Now comes the “cleanup”.And hasn’t this been a bitch?And who ever expected it would not be?The facts…..We have to a degree pacified the countryside through force of arms.But in the many years we have not created a force capable of enforcing anything near the level needed, to protect our interests, or maintain a modem of Democracy in the region.And Im not sure being there for a hundred years will produce that effect.The main disgrace is that the American people are not a part of this discussion.The discussion on how to move forward.It has become a secret war.The press barley speaking of it.For that I blame the press and our government.But I am not disheartened by a general admitting that the blue ribbon conditions for disengagement have not yet arrived.I need straight talk from those enforcing the will of the president.Wether or not we should stay of course is a very complex issue.Beyond my pay grade.Beyond the generals.And sadly beyond this presidents.Now …..any ideas how to get out of this quagmire?The simplistic idea of letting these people rot may feel good.Probably not a good idea though.
John I agree with most of what you wrote.But the idea that Bush invaded before the demands of handing over OBL ever had a chance to develop is not correct.The demand to hand him over was the correct thing to do.The entire world agreed.The idea that he would of been handed over is simply not true.Can you imagine if the months would of run by with these people playing a shell game with our president.This country would of burned the white house down.And remember Even after our invasion- he was never handed over.He was hidden.Helped.And in my eyes he was hiding in plain sight under the protection of the Pakistan government.This nest of hornets may have had a few people who were unhappy with him.But hand him over?They would of signed their own death warrant.Look… still to this day we are picking off these leaders who are STILL hiding in plain sight.As far as I know they are STILL not being turned in.Did Bush act hastily.I do not think so.Later with Iraq he made demands for months.Would they have ever been met?Saddam on his death bed said he would never of capitulated to Bushes demands.Dumb move after 911.
The facts…..We have to a degree pacified the countryside through force of arms. –
Once again the Fux Snooze Sheeple Parrot bleats the nonsense of those who make up their own facts as they go along. Pacified a country that has been around for more than 3,000 years and has booted out every country that has tried to rule it from outside? Only in your foolish dreams.
Saddam on his death bed said he would never of capitulated to Bushes demands.
Because they only thing Bush demanded was they they lay down all arms and just let our Military come in and slaughter those we felt like slaughtering. I suppose you think the Polish did the right thing in caving in to Hitler? I guess maybe we the U.S. should have just listened to Japan when they told us to stay out of WWII.
You are entitled to your own opinions, your not entitled to make up your own facts any way you see fit.
Well john you are listening to a lot of junior reporters who floated these ideas with limited research.You are not listening at all to what bush has said on the record…..what his national security staff has said on the record.What his joint chiefs and CIA have said.What his secretary of state.
has said.his secretary of defense.Tony Blair and his people.Key members of the UN, and world body.Even Saddam himself.It is like studying ww2 without the input of ALL the key players.Lets simply discount the words of FDR, Churchill and all their key generals.Lets listen in those days to the so called experts.Biased investigative (and politically motivated)prowess of junior reporters.Taking it for granted that some 24 year old reporter working for the onion has the inside track over Donald Rumsfeld for instance.Look The taliban leaders who ruled Afghanistan NEVER would of turned him and his people over.On the first day we bombed 180 camps for training Run by OBL.This was not one guy with a weekend retreat there.This was an entire country doing his bidding, and creating the conditions for those camps,and the terrorism he loosed upon us.As far as saddam lets be clear.He admitted openly on his deathbed to inhibiting the inspectors.He even said why.To keep iran (who he feared) from KNOWING he did not have bio chem weapons.He also said he NEVER would of submitted to Bush or Un demands.He was the lion of Judea he said.And would of continued to arm his country in any way he saw fit.Remember he had at that time broken all 16 caveats of his surrender document.Any one of which was reason enough for an immediate resumption of the war.Even Clinton in his book said “with the breaking of all the surrender accords of gulf war one ,war was inevitable”.So what You are saying is Bush should of just let that go.Let go Saddams admitted hampering of inspectors(who by the way NEVER said they had what they needed to give a clear answer as to his wMD capability), and his eventual goal to rearm.You ask a lot.Let go for some open ended time frame the Afghan support and protection of those who launched an attack against our homeland.After 911 you asked too much.but I will say that you mirror this man we now have in office who believes in leading from behind.He has not had any success on the world stage.And six years of failure.Right or wrong he is incapable of action.If he were in charge I know Saddam would still be in power, and the Taliban camps and OBL still firmly ensconced in Afghanistan.Just look at the distain in Putins face as he sits with the amateur Obama.Bush fought these people.Bam tries to win their favor by giving ground, while waving the white flag.Now that all his foriegn policy moves lay in ruin .The worlds respect and yes fear of this country at an all time low…Do you really think anyone from the left should be lecturing anyone on how to handle insane men who live in far flung places around the world.
Michael E: There is a big difference between what the truth is and what the government tells us the truth is. Even the FBI director, when questioned by Congress in 2004, couldn’t, when pressed, make out a prima facie case against Usama. I’d rather have back my 6 Trillion or more, the lives of 8,000 US soldiers, and the productive lives of 189,000 others than to have Saddam out of power, especially so because Saddam was already weakened, blockaded, bombed, and mostly disarmed when we started the unprovoked war of March 2003.
When we limited our role to a police actions, we had worldwide support and sympathy. As victims of 9/11, we lost that moral edge when we used that atrocity as a pretext for invasions and recreating nations from the outside in, which is itself a war crime, as the Hague Convention of 1907 mandates that occupiers must respect the form of the economy.
Usma won in that he succeeded in turning the US into a fearful national security state, with the government’s continuously eating away at our privacy and basic liberties. It passed without notice in the Lame-stream Media that not a single Congressperson called for Clapper’s indictment for lying to Congress (remember North and Poindexter, Haldeman and Ehrlichmann?), while hundreds of them have called for Snowden’s head, some for the execution of Assange? The truth-tellers are the casualties, the liars rewarded and promoted when not feted as heroes. The skeptical Powell was right and outed by Bush, who kept the fawning but dead wrong Condoleeza Rice, who at first thought Al Quaeda was one of El Vira’s Arabic cousins. Well, failure she was, yet
there is a Chevron oil tanker named after her, the U.S.S. Condoleeza Rice. How ’bout that?
John your general claim that our elected officials are really the liars and not these despots around the world points correctly to your understanding of the short comings of OUR leaders.We live in a free country and you are (in a manner) aware of some of the things your country has done that has had less than positive results.But you are ridiculously naive and uneducated in your estimation of these despots that we face around the world.It is like arguing FDRs new deal was one of the worst things to ever happen(I agree)….ending with the summation that at least Mussolini and Hitler made the trains run on time.