Rachel Maddow : McChrystal Doesn’t Believe in Counter-insurgency

In Afghanistan, History, News, Opinion, Politics, TV, War on 23 June 2010 tagged 10 U.S.C. § 888, Al Qaeda, Counter-Insurgency, counterinsurgency, David Petraeus, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, General Stanley McChrystal, Helmand, IAVA, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, Kandahar, Marja, Marjah, Michael Hastings, MSNBC, NATO, pakistan, Paul Rieckhoff, Rachel Maddow, Rachel Maddow Show, Rolling Stone, Stanley McChrystal, Stars and Stripes, taliban, The Rachel Maddow Show, US Code - Section 888: Art. 88, Video with View Comments

Discussing General Stanley McChrystal’s dismissal, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow began to question General McChrystal’s focus on counter-insurgency in Afghanistan.

Unfortunately for Maddow’s partisan audience, the tone displayed in her questioning suggested a lack of understanding of the situation on the ground for the Afghans and a dismissive attitude towards a legitimate policy created to ensure that civil society is restored in Afghanistan so that it will no longer be a haven for insurgencies, militants, and terrorists.

Yes, counter-insurgency is neither easy nor cheap. Yes, counter-insurgency takes a great deal of effort and manpower, but restoring civil society in a nation that has endured 30 years of on-going war is by definition not easy – it is a nuanced and multifaceted challenge.

Maddow is correct to state that her role as a commentator and talking head who has no idea of the situation on the ground for the Afghan people does little to help the American soldiers or the Afghan civilians on the ground in Afghanistan.

Though Paul Rieckhoff of the IAVA, spoke well and addressed important issues necessary for success in Afghanistan, Maddow replicated the larger trend of talking about Afghanistan with non-Afghans that runs rampant through U.S. media outlets. Maddow kept talking about the situation on the ground, but never once questioned the experience of the Afghan people or how their lives would have been changed by a possible change in U.S. military strategy or the change in leadership.

Though Maddow may have been correct in asserting that McChrystal’s statements could be taken as a sign that the General does not believe in the important of civilian leadership, the tone of her discussion of counter-insurgency and her constant questioning about the American experience of the war in AFGHANISTAN shows that perhaps her role in the political echo chamber may in fact be completely misguided by constantly missing the real story – the lives of the Afghan people living through the war:

Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the
President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense,
the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland
Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State,
Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall
be punished as a court-martial may direct.

“The more important and more complex decision was whether or not General McChrystal‘s firing also means that what the general stood for in terms of U.S. war strategy would also be fundamentally be reconsidered…the General who personifies the strategy was fired. The strategy itself was retained.”

Related Posts

• June 22, 2010 -- Rachel Maddow and Michael Hastings on McChrystal, Quagmire, and Counter-Insurgency (0)
• February 13, 2010 -- McChrystal on Operation Moshtarak : ‘We Don’t Want Falluja’ (1)
• February 8, 2010 -- General Nicholson : ‘In Counterinsurgency, People are the Prize’ (5)